Clinical trials use arbitrary, time-based definitions (e.g., relapse within 2 years) for endocrine resistance. This isn't a perfect biological classification but a practical necessity to create homogeneous patient groups for testing, which may not fully reflect the diverse patient population in clinical practice.
Related Insights
The emergence of positive data from trials like PATINA creates a dilemma for oncologists treating patients who are already stable on an older maintenance therapy. The consensus suggests not altering a successful regimen to avoid disrupting patient stability, revealing a cautious approach to integrating new evidence into established care.
The CREST trial showed benefit driven by patients with carcinoma in situ (CIS), while the Potomac trial showed a lack of benefit in the same subgroup. This stark inconsistency demonstrates that subgroup analyses, even for stratified factors, can be unreliable and are a weak basis for regulatory decisions or label restrictions.
Despite compelling data from trials like PATINA, some patients with ER+/HER2+ breast cancer refuse maintenance endocrine therapy due to side effects. This highlights a real-world gap between clinical trial evidence and patient adherence, forcing oncologists to navigate patient preferences against optimal treatment protocols.
Experts caution that the new consensus definition of cCR, combining imaging and cystoscopy, is for clinical trials only. Applying it prematurely in routine practice could harm patients, as its correlation with true pathologic response is still being validated with modern therapies.
The traditional drug-centric trial model is failing. The next evolution is trials designed to validate the *decision-making process* itself, using platforms to assign the best therapy to heterogeneous patient groups, rather than testing one drug on a narrow population.
The term "hormone resistance" was misleading. Researchers discovered that even in a castrate state, prostate cancer tumors produce their own testosterone locally. This maintained androgen receptor signaling, proving the disease was still "androgen addicted" and opening the door for new targeted therapies.
When a highly effective therapy like EV Pembro was approved for 'cisplatin ineligible' patients, the definition of 'ineligible' became very elastic in practice. This demonstrates that when a new treatment is seen as transformative, clinicians find ways to qualify patients, putting pressure on established guidelines.
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.
Experts believe the stark difference in complete response rates (5% vs 30%) between two major ADC trials is likely due to "noise"—variations in patient populations (e.g., more upper tract disease) and stricter central review criteria, rather than a fundamental difference in the therapies' effectiveness.
The PSMA edition trial's fixed six-cycle Lutetium regimen, designed nearly a decade ago, is now seen as suboptimal. This illustrates how the long duration of clinical trials means their design may not reflect the latest scientific understanding (e.g., adaptive dosing) by the time results are published and debated.