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.

The effectiveness of radioligand therapy is counterintuitive: as tumors shrink and PSMA binding sites decrease, less radiation is delivered to the cancer. The VISION trial showed the first two doses delivered more radiation to the tumor than the subsequent four, questioning the value of a fixed, prolonged treatment schedule.

The failure of an adjuvant trial for the TKI pazopanib was likely caused by a protocol change that reduced the dose to manage transaminitis. While well-intentioned to improve tolerability and adherence, the lower dose was sub-therapeutic. This serves as a critical lesson that managing side effects by compromising dose can nullify a drug's potential efficacy.

An expert argues the path to curing metastatic cancer may mirror pediatric ALL's history: combining all highly active drugs upfront. Instead of sequencing treatments after failure, the focus should be on powerful initial regimens that eradicate cancer, even if it means higher initial toxicity.

In the absence of direct evidence for adjuvant therapy in high-risk, non-clear cell kidney cancers, clinicians may justify off-label treatment by extrapolating from the drug's known efficacy in the metastatic setting for that specific histology. This highlights the difficult risk-benefit calculations made daily in data-poor clinical scenarios.

Initial studies combining menin inhibitors with venetoclax/azacitidine showed high remission rates but also high mortality. Using each agent at its full, 28-day dose caused severe, fatal myelosuppression, forcing protocol amendments to shorten drug exposure to manage toxicity.

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.

The TRILINX trial revealed Xevinapant's toxicity was so high that it forced reductions in standard, effective treatments like cisplatin and radiation. This compromised the foundational therapy, leading to worse patient outcomes and demonstrating a key risk in adding novel agents to established regimens.

A sobering finding from the LAURA trial was its control arm. EGFR-mutant patients receiving standard "curative-intent" chemoradiation alone had extremely high and rapid relapse rates (PFS ~6 months), highlighting the inadequacy of this standard and underscoring the necessity of adding consolidation osimertinib.