The former high-risk group (Stage 3b) was traditionally excluded from major clinical trials. The new staging system demonstrates that these patients have better-than-expected outcomes with modern therapy and should be included in future studies. It simultaneously identifies a new ultra-high-risk group (Stage 3c) that requires entirely different trial designs.
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.
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.
The effectiveness of modern daratumab-based therapies has significantly improved patient outcomes. This positive development paradoxically made previous staging systems, founded in eras with less effective treatments, unable to accurately identify the highest-risk patients, necessitating the creation of a new prognostic model for the current era.
Voyager CEO Al Sandrock suggests the 30% average efficacy of new Alzheimer's drugs isn't uniform. Instead, some patients may see a complete halt in progression while others see no benefit. He argues the next critical step is predicting these responders, which will determine whether future therapies like anti-tau agents should be added on or used as a replacement.
The Rampart study's use of the Leibovic score for risk stratification is a key strength. Unlike traditional TNM staging, this score more heavily weights tumor grade, which clinicians find to be a more granular and clinically relevant predictor of recurrence risk than just tumor size.
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.
For the newly defined ultra-high-risk Stage 3c patients, early death is primarily caused by severe organ dysfunction, not the underlying plasma cell malignancy. This indicates a strategic shift is needed for this population, requiring trials that focus on therapies like antifibril antibodies which directly clear amyloid deposits from organs to improve function.
Recent non-inferiority trials affirm that fixed-duration combination therapies are viable alternatives to continuous BTK inhibitors. However, clinicians must look beyond the headline conclusion, as numerical data can show slightly worse progression-free survival for high-risk subgroups within the acceptable non-inferiority margin, complicating treatment decisions.
TP53-mutated AML carries an extremely poor prognosis, significantly worse than other adverse-risk subtypes. When TP53 patients are excluded from analyses, the survival gap between the remaining adverse-risk and intermediate-risk patients narrows considerably, clarifying risk stratification.
The successful KEYNOTE-564 trial intentionally used a pragmatic patient selection model based on universally available pathology data like TNM stage and grade. This approach avoids complex, inconsistently applied nomograms, ensuring broader real-world applicability and potentially smoother trial execution compared to studies relying on more niche scoring systems.