Caveats dominate
FIRESTORM
ForHigh-risk meningioma (WHO grade 2 or recurrent), post-resection (mostly subtotal
TL;DR5-yr PFS 65.8% vs 38.8%, HR 0.40 favoring dose-escalated RT in high-risk meningioma; retrospective IPD meta-analysis.
8 details 3 trials watching
- ๐ IPD meta-analysis, 7 institutions, N=248 (59 DE-RT, 189 SD-RT); DE-RT = BED โฅ79.2 Gy (โก66 Gy/33 fr)
- ๐ 75.8% WHO grade 2; 41.5% recurrent; 75.2% subtotal resection
- ๐ 5-yr PFS: DE-RT 65.8% vs SD-RT 38.8%; 3-yr PFS 86.4% vs 55.6% (log-rank P=.0022)
- ๐ MVA: HR 0.40 (95% CI 0.24-0.69), P=.001; IPTW-adjusted HR 0.45 (95% CI 0.24-0.83), P=.01
- โ ๏ธ Radionecrosis higher with DE-RT
- Any grade RN: 33.9% DE-RT vs 13.2% SD-RT, P=.001
- Grade 3+ RN: 5.1% vs 3.2% (not significant)
- โ ๏ธ Retrospective non-randomized design; selection bias in who received dose escalation not fully eliminated by IPTW
- โ ๏ธ DE-RT arm small (N=59); 3:1 imbalance limits subgroup stability
- โ ๏ธ No OS endpoint reported in source
- Does OS benefit accompany the PFS gain with dose-escalated RT?
- Does a prospective RCT confirm superiority of dose-escalated RT? n=90 ยท primary completion 2028-12 ยท prospective proton dose escalation, 5y RFS endpointrecruiting Somatostatin Receptor PET Imaging to Guide Radiotherapy Dose Escalation in High Risk Meningiomas. Phase NAn=53 ยท primary completion 2037-12 ยท prospective dose escalation guided by SSTR-PET in high-risk
- Which pts carry highest radionecrosis risk from dose escalation? recruiting Somatostatin Receptor PET Imaging to Guide Radiotherapy Dose Escalation in High Risk Meningiomas. Phase NAn=53 ยท primary completion 2037-12 ยท SSTR-PET-guided contouring to limit OAR dose escalation risk
๐ Sources ยท ๐ 1 paper
Abstract
DeLLphi-304 (tarlatamab CNS outcomes)
For2L ES-SCLC; brain mets subgroup โฅ1 BM at baseline, >70% prior CNS treatment
TL;DRCNS PFS HR 0.54 (ITT), HR 0.40 in brain mets; CNS CR 14.9% vs 5.4% with tarlatamab vs chemo 2L SCLC.
- DeLLphi-304 primary results: tarlatamab OS + PFS benefit in 2L SCLC; CNS data extends intracranial signal
| Arm | n | Median CNS PFS (mo) | HR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tarlatamab | 67 | 6.5 (4.3-13.7) | 0.40 (0.24-0.66) |
| Chemotherapy | 56 | 4.2 (2.9-5.5) | ref |
+2 more figures
| Arm | n | Median CNS PFS (mo) | HR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tarlatamab | 254 | NE (13.7, NE) | 0.54 (0.39-0.75) |
| Chemotherapy | 255 | 7.2 (5.6, NE) | ref |
| Endpoint | Tarlatamab (n=67) | Chemo (n=56) |
|---|---|---|
| CNS CR | 10 (14.9%) | 3 (5.4%) |
| Non-CR/Non-PD | 42 (62.7%) | 37 (66.1%) |
| CNS DCR | 52 (77.6%) | 40 (71.4%) |
| Median duration CNS CR (mo) | NE | 3.6 |
| Median duration CNS DC (mo) | 8.2 | 5.2 |
5 details
- ๐ Post-hoc subgroup analysis of DeLLphi-304 phase 3 RCT; ITT n=509 (254 tarlatamab / 255 chemo)
- ๐ Brain mets subgroup: n=67 (tarlatamab) vs n=56 (chemo); >70% had prior CNS treatment
- ๐ Data cutoff Jan 29 2025; median f/u 11.4 mo (tarlatamab), 11.5 mo (chemo)
- ๐ Ongoing CNS complete response at cutoff: 5 (50%) tarlatamab vs 0 chemo
- โ ๏ธ CNS outcomes not prespecified; interpretability limited without a confirmatory prospective CNS endpoint
- Does tarlatamab CNS activity change the role of PCI in ES-SCLC?
- Confirmatory prospective CNS endpoint needed from DeLLphi-304 or successor trial
- Durability of CNS CR beyond 11mo median f/u
๐ Sources ยท ๐ฆ 1 tweet
Dr. @g_mountzios #ASCO26 presents CNS outcomes with 2L tarlatamab in DeLLphi-304. Improved time to CNS progression overall (HR 0.54). In pts with brain nets, tarlatamab vs chemo CNS CR rate 15% vs 5% with DCR 78% vs 71% and time to CBS progression 6.5m vs 4.2m, HR 0.40 pic.twitter.com/5i8jL1zlKW
— Stephen V Liu, MD (@StephenVLiu) June 1, 2026
PROTEUS
ForBiochemically recurrent prostate cancer, post-radical prostatectomy
TL;DR53.0% (APA) and 60.7% (ADT) of MFS events PSMA PET-detected; APA+ADT vs ADT benefit in BCR prostate hotly contested.
6 details
- ๐ Phase 3 RCT, APA + ADT vs ADT alone in BCR prostate cancer, post-RP setting
- ๐ Full primary endpoint data pending ASCO26 presentation; no effect size reported in source tweets
- ๐ NEJM paper: 53.0% (APA arm) and 60.7% (ADT arm) of distant mets identified by PSMA PET, not conventional imaging
- โ ๏ธ Majority of MFS events PSMA PET-only: magnitude of conventional-imaging MFS benefit unclear
- โ ๏ธ ASCO26 preview framing: 'some may call this a homerun, others may call this the largest negative'
- โ PSMA PET-detected MFS not an established OS surrogate; does EFS benefit translate to survival?
- Does PSMA PET-detected EFS/MFS benefit translate to OS?
- Magnitude of benefit by conventional imaging alone
๐ Sources ยท ๐ฆ 3 tweets
#ASCO26
— Daniel E Spratt (@DrSpratticus) May 31, 2026
The PROTEUS trial results are now online...buckle up as we wait to see the full presentation. This is going to be a trial that is likely highly controversial until the full results are published.
Some may call this a homerun, others may call this the largest negativeโฆ
Thought experiment:
— Sean McBride (@seanmmcbride) May 31, 2026
Let's take a very simple hypothetical trial involving 100 patients in the APA arm and 100 patients in the ADT alone arm. Pulling from PROTEUS EFS data, assume that, by 5 years, 60 patients in the ADT arm have had a BCR compared to 50 in the ADT+APA arm.โฆ pic.twitter.com/WJaiDlJnQs
#ASCO26
— Daniel E Spratt (@DrSpratticus) May 31, 2026
Talk about real-time updates. NEJM paper now online and my predictions and inferences appear true.
Majority of MFS events were by PET not conventional imaging. "Most distant metastases were identified by PSMA PET (53.0% of those in the apalutamide group and 60.7% in theโฆ https://t.co/Yz4myY0flq
COMPPARE
ForDe novo localized prostate cancer, excluding very high risk and metastatic
TL;DRNo sig difference (bowel urgency 5.7% vs 6%, p=0.28; 3-yr BCF 98.0% vs 97.9%) between proton and IMRT in de novo localized prostate.
- vs PARTIQoL RCT: also null for bowel toxicity at 2yr in randomized proton vs IMRT; COMPPARE extends to larger N but non-randomized
| Outcome | IMRT (actual) | PT (actual) | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bowel urgency (EPIC) | 6% | 5.7% | 0.28 |
| Bowel frequency (EPIC) | 4% | 3.5% | 0.43 |
| โฅG2 GI toxicity (CTCAEv5) | 5.6% | 5.2% | 0.60 |
| 3-yr freedom from progression | 97.9% | 98.0% | 0.90 |
+2 more figures
| Group | 2-yr โฅG2 GI toxicity (95% CI) |
|---|---|
| IMRT, no spacer | 7.2% (5.0-9.9%) |
| Proton, no spacer | 8.7% (5.0-14%) |
| IMRT, spacer | 4.4% (2.8-6.4%) |
| Proton, spacer | 4.7% (3.6-6.0%) |
6 details
- ๐ Prospective non-randomized comparative effectiveness study, N=2524, 51 PT + IMRT centers, Jul 2018-Oct 2022
- ๐ De novo localized prostate cancer; very high risk and metastatic excluded; proton cohort 1500, photon 1000
- ๐ All 4 primary endpoints non-significant (p range 0.28-0.90); both modalities performed substantially better than hypothesized event rates
- ๐ Rectal spacers significantly reduced 2-yr โฅG2 GI toxicity regardless of modality (p=0.009, Gray's Test); spacer benefit exceeded modality effect
- โ ๏ธ Severely underpowered: hypothesized bowel urgency 15% (IMRT) vs actual 6%; study cannot establish equivalence at these event rates
- โ ๏ธ Non-randomized design; selection into proton vs IMRT may confound any toxicity signal
- Whether underpowering masks a real late toxicity advantage for proton therapy
- Role of rectal spacers in abrogating any modality-specific GI difference
- Long-term BCR and MFS as follow-up matures
๐ Sources ยท ๐ฆ 1 tweet
#COMPPARE early results: in localized #ProstateCancer, #proton therapy vs #IMRT showed no sig difference in pt-reported bowel urgency/frequency,ย โฅG2 GI toxicity, or 3-year biochemical control. Longer follow-up needed for late toxicity/long term outcomes #ASCO2026 pic.twitter.com/yli4l8nEOY
— QianJanieQin (@QianJanieQin) May 31, 2026
ENZAMET + Decipher Biomarker Analysis
FormHSPC, ADT + enzalutamide backbone, tumor tissue available for Decipher testing
TL;DRDecipher >0.85 identifies mHSPC pts with OS benefit from docetaxel intensification; IPTW interaction p=0.04, HR 0.75 (0.43-1.33).
- Framed as Level 1B evidence; consistent with CHARTED and STAMPEDE docetaxel predictive patterns
| Analysis | Decipher | Docetaxel HR (95% CI) | p | Interaction p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unweighted | โค0.85 | 2.78 (1.49, 5.21) | 0.001 | 0.02 |
| Unweighted | >0.85 | 1.13 (0.71, 1.79) | 0.60 | โ |
| IPTW | โค0.85 | 1.94 (0.95, 3.96) | 0.07 | 0.04 |
| IPTW | >0.85 | 0.75 (0.43, 1.33) | 0.33 | โ |
+1 more figure
| Decipher | OS HR triplet vs doublet (95% CI) | p |
|---|---|---|
| โค0.85 | 3.02 (1.50-5.76) | โ |
| >0.85 | 1.08 (0.60-1.71) | 0.73 |
4 details
- ๐ Biomarker analysis within ENZAMET phase 3 RCT; ADT+enza+doce cohort N=320 with evaluable Decipher; DPMC 0.85 cutoff per statistical analysis plan
- โ ๏ธ Individual arm HRs non-significant in IPTW-MVA (Decipher >0.85: HR 0.75, p=0.33; Decipher โค0.85: HR 1.94, p=0.07); signal rests on interaction term only
- โ ๏ธ Tissue available in only ~427/3816 ENZAMET pts; representativeness of the analyzed subset uncertain
- โ ๏ธ ENZAMET predated current ARSI-doublet SOC; Decipher model trained pre-ARPI โ applicability to modern ADT+ARSI backbone unvalidated
- Prospective Decipher-guided triplet selection trial in ARPI-era mHSPC needed
- Optimal DPMC cutoff in pts receiving ADT+ARSI (not ENZA) doublets
๐ Sources ยท ๐ฆ 2 tweets
#ASCO26 GU Oncology Spotlight ๐จ
— Dra. Marรญa Natalia Gandur Quiroga (@nataliagandur) May 30, 2026
๐ฌ ENZAMET + Decipher | Part 2
Can genomics guide docetaxel intensification in mHSPC?
Outstanding presentation by @ChrisSweeney1.@OncoAlert@ASCO
After Part 1, the key question was:
โก๏ธ Can a genomic classifier identify which patients withโฆ pic.twitter.com/nJYMxuXelV
#ASCO26 GU Oncology Spotlight ๐จ
— Dra. Marรญa Natalia Gandur Quiroga (@nataliagandur) May 30, 2026
๐ฌ Precision Oncology: How to Apply New Biomarkers in Clinical Practice
Excellent discussion by Joshua M. Lang, MD, MS@JoshLangMD@OncoAlert@ASCO
This session captured the real challenge of precision oncology in GU cancers:
A biomarker is onlyโฆ pic.twitter.com/ubfk49XPiM
SPIN Score (Celiac Plexus SRS) NCT03323489
ForPancreatic cancer, intractable retroperitoneal pain, planned celiac plexus SRS
TL;DR89% pain response in SPIN-2 pts (baseline pain >6 + no prior neurotoxic chemo) vs 32% SPIN-0 after celiac SRS.
| SPIN score | Response rate | n |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 32% | 31 |
| 1 | 53% | 40 |
| 2 | 89% | 19 |
8 details
- ๐ Post-hoc analysis of 90 evaluable pts from pivotal ph2 (NCT03323489; Lancet Oncol 2024:25:1070-79)
- ๐ Pain response by SPIN score
- ๐ Pivotal ph2 overall response: 53% (95% CI 42-64%)
- ๐ Multivariate predictors: no prior neurotoxic chemo (OR 5.1, p=0.009); baseline pain >6 (OR 1.8, p=0.003)
- ๐ Optimism-corrected AUC 0.714 (bootstrap 500 iterations)
- ๐ Pain threshold dose-response: >6 optimal (65.8%); >7 (83.3%); >8 (85.7%)
- โ ๏ธ Post-hoc design; internal validation only; external validation required before clinical use
- โ ๏ธ SPIN-2 subgroup N=19; response estimate imprecise
- External validation before clinical implementation
- Applicability to non-pancreatic retroperitoneal malignancies
- How early before neurotoxic chemo should SRS be offered?
๐ Sources ยท ๐ฆ 1 tweet
Celiac SRS = convenient, effective tx for intractable pain, but who benefits most?
— Dr. Nina Niu Sanford (@NiuSanford) May 30, 2026
Post-hoc Ph2 analysis identified 2 response predictors (SPIN score): severe baseline pain & no prior neurotoxic chemo.
Supports earlier use before potential chemo neuropathy. #ASCO26 @OncoAlert pic.twitter.com/3qFYU6N1iD
SWOG S1007 RNI analysis
ForHR+/HER2-, Oncotype DX โค25, N1 (1-3 nodes) breast cancer, adjuvant
TL;DR5-yr LRR <1% with or without RNI in HR+/HER2-, Oncotype โค25, N1 breast; IDFS not associated with RNI receipt.
- vs MA.20/EORTC 22922 (RNI benefit in N+ disease broadly): S1007 population (Oncotype โค25) is a biologically favorable subgroup potentially below the threshold for RNI benefit
7 details
- ๐ Secondary analysis of S1007 phase 3 RCT (chemo vs ET); N=4871 with prospective RT data; median f/u 6.1 yrs
- ๐ RT practice patterns
- 81% received any RT
- 59% of RT recipients received RNI (supraclavicular region minimum)
- Practice divided on RNI use in this biologically favorable N1 setting
- ๐ Low LRR also observed in pts randomized to ET alone without chemo
- ๐ 5-yr cumulative LRR by locoregional treatment
Treatment 5-yr LRR BCS + RT + RNI 0.85% BCS + RT, no RNI 0.55% Mastectomy + PMRT 0.11% Mastectomy, no RT 1.7% - ๐ IDFS by RNI receipt (observational; RNI not randomized)
Menopausal status HR (95% CI) p Premenopausal 1.03 (0.74-1.43) 0.87 Postmenopausal 0.85 (0.68-1.07) 0.16
- โ ๏ธ RNI not randomized: confounding by indication likely (lower-risk pts selected for omission by treating physicians)
- โ ๏ธ Survival analyses landmarked at 1 yr; RT data recorded only in first year post-randomization
- Dedicated RCT of RNI omission in Oncotype โค25 N1 disease needed to confirm safety
- Does chemo vs ET assignment (original randomization) modify RNI benefit?
- Durability of low LRR beyond 6 yrs in this favorable-biology population?
๐ Sources ยท ๐ 1 paper
Abstract
Proton vs Photon PMRT Capsular Contracture (Zerey et al.)
ForPost-mastectomy breast cancer, subpectoral TE/I or DTI reconstruction, PMRT cand
TL;DRMVA HR 1.76 (P=0.083) proton vs photon CC, non-significant; proton+DTI 2yr CC 50% vs photon+DTI 35%.
- Proton PMRT improves cardiac/pulmonary dosimetry vs photon; this CC signal is the risk to weigh in reconstruction planning
8 details
- ๐ Retrospective, 2 centers/single institution, N=175 (89 proton, 86 photon), Jan 2017-Dec 2023; median f/u 42 vs 47 mo
- ๐ 2-year CC rates by modality and reconstruction type
Reconstruction Proton Photon DTI 50% 35% TE/I 23% 12% - ๐ MVA HR 1.76 (95% CI 0.93-3.32), P=0.083 for proton vs photon
- ๐ Univariate HR 2.3 (95% CI 1.26-4.30), P=0.007 for proton vs photon
- ๐ DTI vs TE/I in MVA: HR 3.0 (95% CI 1.7-5.5), P<.001
- โ ๏ธ Groups unbalanced for reconstruction type (TE/I vs DTI, P<.001); this is the dominant confounder and MVA adjustment may be insufficient
- โ ๏ธ Groups also unbalanced for tumor laterality (P<.001); uncontrolled institutional practice patterns, not randomization
- โ ๏ธ MVA primary result is P=0.083, below conventional significance; framed as a trend, not a confirmed signal
- Does proton-CC signal replicate in a prospective matched or randomized cohort?
- Optimal reconstruction type (TE/I vs DTI) when proton PMRT is indicated for cardiac/pulmonary dosimetry reasons?
๐ Sources ยท ๐ 2 papers
Abstract
OPERA Trial (5-year, rectal preservation)
ForLocally advanced rectal cancer, post-neoadjuvant therapy
TL;DR76% good response at W14 by clinical exam; 5yr OP 81% cCR vs 77% nCR; W14 assessment safely identifies W&W candidates.
| Arm A | Arm B | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| W14 good response (cCR+nCR) | 65% | 88% | 0.004 |
| 5yr OP | 75% | 83% | 0.24 |
+1 more figure
7 details
- ๐ OPERA primary: tumor response assessed at W24 via DRE + rectoscopy + MRI triad
- ๐ Post-hoc tests W14 CTRE (DRE + rectoscopy) as earlier OP decision gate, ~1mo after NAT end
- ๐ nCR reflects RT-induced tissue change, not incomplete clearance; should not trigger radical surgery
- ๐ W14 CTRE in 122/141 pts (87%): 76% good response (cCR+nCR), 24% PR
- ๐ MRI concordance at W14: TRG1-2 in 98% (80/82) of CR pts
- ๐ 5yr OP by response depth: cCR 81% vs nCR 77%
- โ ๏ธ Post-hoc analysis of OPERA RCT; W14 timing not pre-specified as the primary assessment endpoint
- Can W14 assessment replace W24, or is it additive?
- Management of nCR pts at W14 who may convert to cCR by W24?
- MRI TRG added value vs clinical exam alone at W14?
๐ Sources ยท ๐ฆ 1 tweet
Day FOUR of #ESTRO26 Coverage by OncoAlert ๐จ
— OncoAlert (@OncoAlert) May 18, 2026
Five-year Results of the OPERA Trial: When and How to Assess Tumor Response to Guide Rectal Preservation Presented by Syrine Ben Dhia ๐ซ๐ท #RadOnc โข๏ธ
This post-hoc analysis of the OPERA trial evaluated early tumor responseโฆ pic.twitter.com/KUanFTxeFh
RADIOSA
ForOligorecurrent prostate cancer, SBRT candidates, median f/u ~4yr
TL;DRPost-hoc: SBRT + 6mo ADT vs SBRT alone in oligorecurrent prostate; median MFS 16.6mo vs NR, HR 0.39, p=0.0012.
| Endpoint | Arm A (SBRT) | Arm B (SBRT+ADT) |
|---|---|---|
| Metastatic progression | 32/51 (62.7%) | 19/51 (37.3%) |
| Median MFS | 16.6mo (95% CI 12.83-NA) | Not reached |
| HR (95% CI) | 0.3894 (0.2201-0.6888) | โ |
| p (Cox) | 0.00119 | โ |
| p (log-rank) | 0.00079 | โ |
8 details
- ๐ Phase II RCT, N=102, 1:1; Arm A: SBRT alone vs Arm B: SBRT + 6mo ADT; oligorecurrent prostate cancer
- ๐ 49/51 Arm B pts achieved testosterone recovery within follow-up; benefit persisted after castration resolved
CONSORT flow
- ๐ Median follow-up 49.23mo (95% CI 42.47-54.8) by reverse KM
- ๐ Metastatic progression: 32/51 (62.7%) Arm A vs 19/51 (37.3%) Arm B
- ๐ Median MFS 16.6mo (95% CI 12.83-NR) Arm A vs not reached Arm B; HR 0.3894 (0.2201-0.6888), p=0.00119
- ๐ Eugonadal MFS (post-testosterone recovery) significantly longer in Arm B (p<0.05)
- โ ๏ธ Post-hoc analysis of MFS and eugonadal MFS; neither was a prespecified primary endpoint of the parent RADIOSA trial
- โ ๏ธ Small N (51/arm); post-hoc design; MFS not powered; results hypothesis-generating only
- OS benefit of adding short-term ADT to SBRT in oligorecurrent disease?
- Which pts benefit most: PSA kinetics, lesion count, PSMA avidity?
- Optimal ADT duration (6mo vs longer) for oligorecurrent SBRT candidates?
๐ Sources ยท ๐ฆ 1 tweet
Day TWO of #ESTRO26 Coverage by OncoAlert ๐จ
— OncoAlert (@OncoAlert) May 16, 2026
Post-hoc analysis of metastasis-free survival (MFS) and Eugonadal MFS in the RADIOSA phase II randomized trial Presented by Giulia Marvaso ๐ฎ๐น #RadOnc โข๏ธ @giuliamarvaso84
Post-hoc analysis of RADIOSA shows SBRT plus short-term ADTโฆ pic.twitter.com/1zpiChkUgA