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.
Related Insights
The negative ANSA-RAD trial, when contrasted with the positive STAMPEDE trial, demonstrates that patient selection is paramount in adjuvant therapy. The difference in outcomes was driven by risk definition, not the drug. This reinforces that "negative" trials are clinically vital for defining which patient populations do not benefit, preventing widespread overtreatment.
Following high response rates to systemic therapies like EV Pembro, using radiation for bladder preservation is now questioned. It may constitute overtreatment by radiating a now cancer-free organ, while providing no benefit for the systemic micrometastases that are the primary driver of mortality.
For bladder cancer patients with micrometastatic disease, the standard cystectomy requires a significant delay for the operation and recovery. This window may allow unseen metastases to progress, suggesting that upfront, effective systemic therapy is more critical for survival than immediate major surgery.
Even in healthcare systems with universal free access, like the UK's NHS, the actual uptake of immunotherapy for metastatic kidney cancer is only about 60%. This real-world gap strengthens the argument for adjuvant therapy, as it ensures high-risk patients receive potentially life-saving treatment they might otherwise miss upon relapse.
The Rampart study's main contribution wasn't its specific drug data, but that it became the second positive trial in the adjuvant kidney cancer space. This balanced the 'scorecard' against multiple negative trials, reinforcing the general principle that early immune therapy is beneficial.
A key hypothesis for why docetaxel showed better overall survival than lutetium in the PLUTO trial is that patients treated with lutetium upfront may become unfit for subsequent chemotherapy. This highlights a critical factor in trial design: the planned therapeutic sequence and a patient's ability to receive later-line treatments significantly impact survival outcomes.
In adjuvant bladder cancer trials, ctDNA status is both prognostic and predictive. Patients with positive ctDNA after surgery are at high risk of relapse but benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. Conversely, ctDNA-negative patients have a lower risk and derive no benefit, making ctDNA a critical tool to avoid unnecessary, toxic therapy.
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.
High relapse rates (~70%) in surgery-alone arms of recent trials suggest most patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) already have micrometastatic disease. This reframes the disease, prioritizing early systemic therapy over immediate surgery to achieve control and potential cure.
The failure of the Checkmate 914 adjuvant trial, which used a six-month duration of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, suggests this shorter treatment window may be inadequate. In contrast to positive trials with one year of therapy, this outcome indicates that treatment duration is a critical variable for achieving a disease-free survival benefit in the adjuvant RCC setting.