A New Blueprint for Measuring Success in Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy
A new perspective in the Annals of Oncology argues for a fundamental shift in how we assess tumor response after neoadjuvant immunotherapy. The article highlights that the traditional pathological response metrics, designed for chemotherapy, may not fully capture the unique biological effects of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB). The authors propose that optimizing these assessment criteria is crucial for accurately linking clinical outcomes to drug development. They point to landmark trials like NADINA, S1801, and KEYNOTE-522, which have demonstrated the overwhelming superiority of neoadjuvant ICB followed by surgery over the old adjuvant model, showing clear survival benefits in cancers like melanoma and breast cancer. The core message is that refining how we measure success in this curative-intent setting is essential for advancing precision oncology and validating novel therapeutic strategies.
Why it might matter to you: For professionals focused on cancer biology and precision oncology, this article directly addresses a critical translational bottleneck. It suggests that current biomarkers and response assessments may be misaligned with the mechanism of action of immuno-oncology agents, potentially affecting clinical trial interpretation and drug approval pathways. This has immediate implications for your work in targeted therapy development and the use of biomarkers like minimal residual disease, urging a re-evaluation of the endpoints that define therapeutic success in the modern oncology landscape.
Source →Stay curious. Stay informed — with Science Briefing.
Always double check the original article for accuracy.