Developers often test novel agents in late-line settings because the control arm is weaker, increasing the statistical chance of success. However, this strategy may doom effective immunotherapies by testing them in biologically hostile, resistant tumors, masking their true potential.
Related Insights
For antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) to make a meaningful impact in prostate cancer, the clinical development bar is exceptionally high. Merely showing activity in late-line settings is insufficient; the true measure of success is demonstrating superiority over the established chemotherapy standard, docetaxel.
By first targeting T-cell lymphoma, Corvus gathers crucial safety and biologic effect data in humans. This knowledge about the drug's impact on T-cells directly informs and de-risks subsequent trials in autoimmune diseases like atopic dermatitis, creating a capital-efficient development path.
The common practice of switching from one ARPI to another upon disease progression is now considered ineffective for most patients. With the advent of proven alternatives like chemotherapy and lutetium, using an "ARPI switch" as the sole control arm in clinical trials is no longer ethically or scientifically sound.
An overall survival (OS) benefit in an adjuvant trial may not be meaningful for patients in systems (e.g., the U.S.) with guaranteed access to the same effective immunotherapy upon recurrence. The crucial, unanswered question is whether treating micrometastatic disease is inherently superior to treating macroscopic disease later, a distinction current trial data doesn't clarify.
To demonstrate its drug could overcome resistance, Actuate designed a trial where patients who had already failed a specific chemotherapy were given the exact same regimen again, but this time with Actuate's drug added. The resulting increased efficacy across eight different cancers provided powerful, direct proof of the drug's mechanism.
A significant criticism of the pivotal KEYNOTE-564 trial is that only half the patients in the control arm received standard-of-care immunotherapy upon relapse. This lack of subsequent optimal treatment complicates the interpretation of the overall survival benefit, raising questions about its true magnitude.
The FDA's current leadership appears to be raising the bar for approvals based on single-arm studies. Especially in slowly progressing diseases with variable endpoints, the agency now requires an effect so dramatic it's akin to a parachute's benefit—unmistakable and not subject to interpretation against historical data.
Even when testing drugs in heavily pre-treated patients, clinical trials incorporate subtle biological selection criteria. For instance, the COMPASS trial excludes patients with visceral metastases, a tactic to enrich for a population more likely to respond and avoid the most aggressive disease subtypes.
Immunotherapies can be effective even without causing significant tumor shrinkage. Immunocore's drug KimTrack had a low 5-7% objective response rate (ORR) but demonstrated a massive overall survival (OS) benefit, challenging the reliance on traditional chemotherapy metrics for evaluating modern cancer treatments.
Bi-specific T-cell engagers (BiTEs) are highly immunogenic because the mechanism activating T-cells to kill cancer also primes them to mount an immune response against the drug itself. This 'collateral effect' is an inherent design challenge for this drug class.
