Extrapolating from the metastatic setting, clinicians should anticipate that most patients on the 9-cycle perioperative EV-pembrolizumab regimen will require dose reductions or holds. Cumulative peripheral neuropathy is the primary driver, suggesting a need for proactive, individualized dose management rather than strict adherence to the trial's protocol.

The anticipated approval of the highly effective EV-Pembro combination in the perioperative setting will create a new clinical challenge. When these patients eventually relapse years later, clinicians will face a dilemma: re-challenge with the same potent regimen that worked before or switch to older, likely less effective chemotherapies.

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.

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.

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.

Perioperative enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab (EV-Pembro) is surprisingly well-tolerated on a per-cycle basis compared to the traditional GEMSYS chemotherapy regimen. This challenges preconceived notions about the toxicity of this powerful combination, though cumulative toxicity over longer durations remains a key factor.

The KIDO 905 trial revealed high rates of adverse events even in the control arm receiving only surgery. This suggests the invasive procedure itself is a major source of patient harm, paving the way for future surgery-free regimens if systemic treatments like EVP prove sufficiently effective.

A key lesson in bladder cancer is that patient attrition is rapid between lines of therapy; many who relapse from localized disease never receive effective later-line treatments. This reality provides a strong rationale for moving the most effective therapies, like EV-pembrolizumab, to earlier settings to maximize the number of patients who can benefit.

For N2+ EGFR-mutant NSCLC, clinicians now face a choice. Combining neoadjuvant osimertinib with chemotherapy is potent and gets treatment done upfront, but osimertinib monotherapy is better tolerated, reducing the risk of toxicity that could prevent a patient from reaching their planned surgery.