onc brain

About · curated by Nick Boehling, MD · @nb2276

2026-06-02 ASCO Annual Meeting 2026

digest generated 2026-07-19

mRCAT-III: pCR 61.0% vs 28.6% (P<0.0001) — node-sparing short-course RT + tislelizumab + CAPOX doubles pCR in pMMR LARC.
Rectal and thoracic carried the RT news, both on how RT meets IO. mRCAT-III doubles pCR (61 vs 28.6%) by node-SPARING to preserve PD-1 priming; LBA8005 shows adding concurrent thoracic RT to chemoIO does nothing in ES-SCLC (OS 10.0 vs 11.8mo). Breast: a concurrency traffic-light for RNI RT.

Breast

No new trial: a continue/caution/hold framework for timing systemic agents against breast/CW + RNI RT.

Concurrent Systemic Therapy + Radiation Timing (Speers)

TL;DRTraffic-light framework for what runs concurrent with breast/CW + RNI RT vs hold: continue endocrine + trastuzumab/pertuzumab, caution T-DXd/CDK4/6i, hold cytotoxics/PARPi.

Trials discussed

HERANCCTG N9831APHINITYKATHERINEATEMPTDESTINY-Breast05COMBARTKEYNOTE-522

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The actionable RT read: in the DESTINY-Breast05 arm, T-DXd ILD was 10.7% sequential vs 9.6% concurrent, so timing around RT did not change ILD, and concurrency is reasonable with lung-dose limits. The 'do not ignore' signal is T-DM1 plus CNS SRS radionecrosis; hold CDK4/6i for large fields.

Concurrent Systemic Therapy + Radiation Timing (Speers)
+1 more figure
Concurrent Systemic Therapy + Radiation Timing (Speers)
7 details 3 trials watching

ASCO 2026 educational review / Educational Book chapter (Wong, Speers, Schaverien, Table 5). Sorts systemic agents into a continue / caution / hold framework for concurrency with breast/chest-wall + RNI RT. Evidence base is mostly retrospective, post-hoc, or small prospective series.

Context is adjuvant breast/CW + regional nodal irradiation. Plan features that raise the concurrency stakes: large lung volumes, IMN coverage, bolus, reconstruction, and CNS SRS (T-DM1 radionecrosis, T-DXd ILD).

Endocrine therapy and trastuzumab/pertuzumab are safe concurrent; T-DXd and CDK4/6i are plan-dependent; cytotoxics, veliparib, and capecitabine sequence. Default outside protocol is PK-based washout, then RT, then resume.

Agent classWith RTNotes / evidence
Endocrine therapyContinueminimal radiosensitization
Trastuzumab ± pertuzumabContinueconcurrent standard (HERA, NCCTG N9831, APHINITY)
T-DM1Continueper KATHERINE / ATEMPT; watch dermatitis, pneumonitis, CNS SRS necrosis
T-DXdCautionILD dominant; sequence/hold for high lung-dose or active pulmonary disease
PembrolizumabContinue, monitorKEYNOTE-522 concurrent tolerated; pneumonitis vigilance
CDK4/6i (palbo/ribo/abema)Hold large fieldsmostly retrospective; concurrent only in protocol
OlaparibSequencecomplete RT 2-12 wks before; RadioPARP suggests concurrent safety
Veliparib / talazoparibAvoid concurrentveliparib severe acute/late tox (TBCRC 024)
CapecitabineHold / sequenceadjuvant paradigm sequential (CREATE-X)
Cytotoxics (anthracycline/taxane/platinum)Holdsequence, do not give concurrently
MetricValue
ILD, T-DXd 5.4 mg/kg (PI)~12%; fatal ~0.9%
DESTINY-Breast05 ILD9.6% T-DXd vs 1.6% T-DM1
RT timing (T-DXd arm)10.7% seq vs 9.6% concurrent, no effect
COMBART concurrent RT/SRT40 pts; acute tox 20%

For a HER2+ patient on adjuvant trastuzumab/pertuzumab or T-DM1 needing chest-wall + nodal RT, this supports running HER2 therapy through RT with pneumonitis and CNS-SRS vigilance; it does not extend to concurrent cytotoxics, veliparib, or CDK4/6i in large fields.

Sourced from @dr_yakupergun

📚 Sources · 🐦 1 tweet

GI Lower

Node-sparing RT reframed as an immune-priming move in IO-resistant pMMR rectal cancer.

Challenges SOC

mRCAT-III NCT06507371

ForpMMR/MSS LARC, cT3-4N0/+, tumor ≤10cm from verge, no lateral node

Pathologic complete response surrogate

61.0% vs 28.6%

P<0.0001, ITT, blinded central review

TL;DRpCR 61.0% vs 28.6% (P<0.0001) with node-sparing SCRT + tislelizumab + CAPOX vs conventional SCRT + CAPOX in pMMR LARC.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The RT read is a confound, not a green light for nodal omission: the experimental arm changed two things at once, tumor-bed-only targeting AND added tislelizumab, so node-sparing's own contribution to the pCR doubling (61.0% vs 28.6%) can't be isolated. Node-sparing plausibly drove the lower severe-GI toxicity, but this doesn't yet license dropping elective nodal RT.

mRCAT-III
EndpointExperimentalControlP
pCR (ITT)61.0% (47/77)28.6% (22/77)<0.0001
MPR (TRG0+1)77.9% (60/77)50.6% (39/77)<0.0001
+1 more figure
mRCAT-III
6 details 5 trials watching

Open-label, multicenter phase 3 RCT across 17 China hospitals; randomized 1:1, 77 pts per arm, stratified by clinical N stage (cN0 vs cN+). Primary pCR read by blinded independent central review.

pMMR/MSS rectal adenocarcinoma, cT3-4N0/+M0, tumor lower edge ≤10cm from the anal verge, ECOG 0-1, age 18-75, no positive lateral pelvic node.

Both arms CAPOX (oxaliplatin 130mg/m² d1, capecitabine 1000mg/m² d1-14). Experimental adds tislelizumab 200mg d1; control is chemo + RT only.

Both arms short-course 5Gy×5. Experimental is node-sparing (tumor bed only, spares tumor-draining nodes); control is conventional elective-nodal coverage. This target-volume contrast is the RT question.

Primary: pCR (ITT). Secondary: MPR, TRG, organ-preservation rate, EFS, OS, AEs.

Primary pCR and secondary MPR both favored the experimental arm (see figure); EFS, OS, organ-preservation not reported in source.

Experimental arm reported fewer severe GI AEs (author takeaway), plausibly from the smaller node-sparing volume; numeric AE rates not in source.

Control pCR 28.6% matches short-course RT + consolidation chemo benchmarks (RAPIDO ~28%). The novelty is a PD-1 benefit in an MSS population usually IO-refractory, with nodal-RT omission as the immunologic rationale.

pMMR/MSS cT3-4 LARC with tumor ≤10cm from the anal verge and no positive lateral node
Does not represent dMMR/MSI-H disease, upper-rectal or colon primaries, or patients needing lateral pelvic nodal treatment.

Open-label; pCR is a surrogate with EFS/OS immature; the experimental arm confounds node-sparing target volume with added tislelizumab, so the RT-attributable effect can't be isolated; N=154, single country.

Divergent MSS-rectal result from a randomized P3 with blinded-review primary; kept off practice-changing because pCR is a surrogate (EFS/OS immature) and node-sparing is confounded with added tislelizumab.

In pMMR/MSS LARC (cT3-4, tumor ≤10cm from verge), this is a trial-stage signal that neoadjuvant PD-1 may help an IO-resistant group; it does not extend to dMMR disease and does not yet displace conventional elective-nodal short-course RT off-protocol.

Sourced from @NiuSanford

📚 Sources · 🐦 1 tweet

Thoracic / Lung

Challenges SOC

LBA8005: Concurrent Thoracic RT + Chemoimmunotherapy in ES-SCLC

ForTreatment-naïve ES-SCLC, stage IV or III ineligible for curative chemoRT

Overall survival

HR 1.14

10.0 vs 11.8 mo, 95% CI 0.84-1.56, p=0.40; OS not met

TL;DROS 10.0 vs 11.8 mo, HR 1.14 (0.84-1.56), p=0.40: concurrent thoracic RT added no benefit to durvalumab-based chemoIO in ES-SCLC.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The tested RT is concurrent (30 Gy/10 fx, day 21-28 with chemoIO), not CREST's consolidative post-chemo RT in responders, so the consolidative question stays open. Even the low-burden subgroup without brain or liver metastases was null (HR 1.10). Adding concurrent thoracic RT to chemoIO carries no OS benefit.

LBA8005: Concurrent Thoracic RT + Chemoimmunotherapy in ES-SCLC
ArmMedian OSHR (95% CI)p
ChemoIO + TRT10.0 mo1.14 (0.84-1.56)0.40
ChemoIO11.8 mon/an/a
+2 more figures
LBA8005: Concurrent Thoracic RT + Chemoimmunotherapy in ES-SCLC
SubgroupChemoIO+TRTChemoIOHR (95% CI)p
Completed 4 chemoIO courses11.9 mo12.1 mo1.02 (0.72-1.44)0.92
No brain/liver mets11.9 mo13.2 mo1.10 (0.65-1.87)0.72
LBA8005: Concurrent Thoracic RT + Chemoimmunotherapy in ES-SCLC
ArmMedian PFSHR (95% CI)p
ChemoIO + TRT5.1 mo1.10 (0.84-1.45)0.49
ChemoIO5.0 mon/an/a
7 details 5 trials watching

Randomized phase III, 1:1 (chemoIO+TRT n=115, chemoIO n=113). Stratified by liver and brain metastases. Primary: overall survival; secondary ORR, PFS, toxicity.

Treatment-naïve ES-SCLC, stage IV or stage III ineligible for curative chemoRT, ECOG 0-1, ≥1 measurable thoracic lesion. Asymptomatic or stable brain metastases allowed.

Four cycles durvalumab 1500 mg + carboplatin AUC 5 + etoposide (100 mg/m² IV days 1-3, or 200 mg/m² PO days 2-4) Q3W, then durvalumab 1500 mg Q4W maintenance.

Concurrent thoracic RT 30 Gy in 10 fractions, starting day 21-28. PCI 25-30 Gy offered to responders in both arms; WBRT 20-30 Gy for brain metastases per routine.

Primary OS not met and numerically favored chemoIO alone; PFS and both prespecified subgroups (course completers, no brain/liver metastases) were also null. Effect sizes in figures.

CREST (Slotman, Lancet 2015) used the same 30 Gy/10 fx but as consolidative RT after chemotherapy in responders, before immunotherapy, and suggested a survival benefit. Adding RT concurrently to chemoIO shows none.

treatment-naïve ES-SCLC receiving durvalumab-based chemoIO, considered for concurrent thoracic RT
Does not represent consolidative thoracic RT after chemotherapy in responders, or limited-stage SCLC.

Open-label (RT cannot be blinded). Tests only the concurrent schedule, not the consolidative timing prior data supported. No toxicity or RT-delivery data in source to explain the numerically inferior OS.

Randomised phase III, prespecified OS primary, null; contests the CREST-era expectation that thoracic RT benefits ES-SCLC, now tested concurrently with chemoIO.

In treatment-naïve ES-SCLC beginning durvalumab plus platinum/etoposide, this questions adding concurrent thoracic RT (no OS benefit); it does not extend to consolidative thoracic RT given after chemotherapy in responders.

Sourced from @M_Torasawa

📚 Sources · 🐦 1 tweet