While neoadjuvant immunotherapy shows astounding success in MSI-high rectal cancer, the primary difficulty for clinicians lies in accurately assessing complete response via endoscopy and MRI, and managing unique complications like mucin pools or stenosis, rather than simply administering the treatment.

Unlike rectal cancer where MRI aids response assessment, MSI-high colon cancer lacks a reliable imaging modality to confirm a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant immunotherapy. This makes a "watch and wait" approach far more challenging and not currently recommended outside of a clinical trial.

Data from the Checkmate 743 trial shows that patients who stopped dual immunotherapy (Nivo/Ipi) due to toxicity can still achieve long-term benefits. A third of these patients had an ongoing response at three years, despite stopping treatment after only four months on average, providing confidence in the regimen.

While neoadjuvant-only immunotherapy has a strong rationale, a patient-level cross-trial comparison of CheckMate 816 (neoadjuvant) and 770T (perioperative) suggests the addition of adjuvant therapy improves event-free survival, favoring a full perioperative approach.

In the HORIZON-BTC-01 trial, early response to zanidatumab is a powerful prognostic indicator. A landmark analysis showed that patients who responded by week nine had a median overall survival of 25 months, highlighting the importance of early tumor assessment in predicting long-term outcomes.

In neoadjuvant therapy, a patient's long-term outcome is better predicted by stopping tumor DNA shedding (ctDNA clearance) than by achieving pathologic complete response (pCR), the traditional gold standard. This redefines what constitutes a successful treatment response before surgery.

Dr. Carbone argues that traditional metrics like median survival or response rate are less relevant for immunotherapies. The true measure of success is the percentage of patients alive at five or six years—the "tail of the curve"—as this indicates a durable, potentially curative, response.

Unlike immunotherapy, neoadjuvant osimertinib yields poor pathologic complete response (pCR) rates. However, it significantly improves major pathologic response (MPR) and survival, suggesting pCR may be the wrong efficacy endpoint for cytostatic EGFR TKIs, which have a different mechanism of action than immunotherapy.

While depth of response strongly predicts survival for an individual patient, the FDA analysis concludes it cannot yet be used as a surrogate endpoint to replace overall survival in pivotal clinical trials. It serves as a measure of drug activity, similar to response rate, but is not sufficient for drug approval on its own.