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.
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.
The Uromigos score (0-3) provides a rapid expert consensus on new treatments. It bridges the gap between slow, formal guidelines and long, unprioritized lists of approved therapies, offering a more immediate assessment of a drug's place in the standard of care.
Actuate employed a master protocol that tested their drug alongside eight different standard-of-care chemotherapies in patients who had already failed them. This design efficiently demonstrated the drug's ability to reverse chemo-resistance across multiple histologies, informing their Phase 2 strategy.
Treating 'non-clear cell' kidney cancer as a single entity is a major research limitation. Experts argue that distinct histologies like papillary and chromophobe are different diseases. Future progress requires dedicated, international trials for each subtype rather than grouping them due to rarity.
Sepsis is not a monolithic condition. The failure of more than 100 immunomodulatory drug trials is likely because they treated all patients the same. The future of sepsis treatment mirrors oncology: subtyping patients based on their specific inflammatory profile to match them with a targeted therapy.
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.
The panel suggests AKT inhibitor trials in prostate cancer have been disappointing due to suboptimal biomarker selection (e.g., PTEN IHC). A similar drug in breast cancer showed significant survival benefit when using a more precise NGS-based strategy, indicating a potential path forward if the right patient population is identified genetically.
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.
Three 2025 trials (AMPLITUDE, PSMA-addition, CAPItello) introduced personalized therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. However, significant benefits were confined to narrow subgroups, like BRCA-mutated patients. This suggests future success depends on even more stringent patient selection, not broader application of targeted agents.
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.