Practice-changing
PrTK03 (aglatimagene besadenovec + EBRT) NCT01436968
ForIntermediate/high-risk localized prostate cancer, ECOG 0β2, planning definitive
TL;DRDFS HR 0.70 (0.52β0.94), p=0.016 favoring aglatimagene + valacyclovir + EBRT vs placebo in intermediate/high-risk localized prostate cancer.
10 details
- π Phase 3 double-blind placebo-controlled, N=745, 2:1 allocation, 51 US/Puerto Rico centers
- π Intermediate or high-risk M0 localized prostate cancer; ECOG 0β2; EBRT 78 Gy/2 Gy or hypofractionated; ADT optional
- π Intraprostatic aglatimagene (CAN-2409, replication-defective adenoviral HSV-TK vector) Γ 3 courses + valacyclovir prodrug; immune bystander cytotoxicity mechanism
CONSORT flow
- π 1Β° EP: DFS HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.52β0.94), p=0.016
- π Median DFS not reached (aglatimagene) vs 86.1 months (IQR 29.7β143.0) in placebo
- π Median follow-up 50.3 months (IQR 35.2β63.3)
- β οΈ G3+ TEAEs similar between arms
- Aglatimagene: 8% (40/479); placebo: 7% (17/232)
- Most common G3+: AKI β 2% both arms
- SAEs: 6% aglatimagene vs 7% placebo; treatment-related SAEs 2% both arms
- No treatment-related deaths
- β οΈ 1Β° EP is DFS (composite: recurrence or death), not OS; OS data not reported in source
- β οΈ 50-month median f/u likely underpowers late events; prostate cancer recurrences extend 10+ years post-RT
- β οΈ Sponsor-funded (Candel Therapeutics + NIH); 79% White cohort β generalizability to diverse populations limited
- OS benefit not yet established; long-term follow-up ongoing
- Differential effect by risk category (intermediate vs high-risk)?
- Sequencing with ARPI intensification for STAMPEDE-eligible pts
π Sources Β· π 1 paper
Abstract
AREST
ForpT1-2 pN0 OSCC, intermediate-risk (DOI/PNI/LVE/poor diff), post-curative surgery
TL;DR3-yr LRFS 89.2% vs 80.9%, HR 0.52 (p=0.02) favoring adj RT in pT1-2 pN0 OSCC with intermediate-risk features; DFS/OS NS.
8 details
- π Phase III open-label RCT, N=392; 1:1 stratified by subsite, PNI/LVE, differentiation
- π Eligibility: pT1-2 pN0 OSCC, β₯1 intermediate-risk factor (DOI 5-10mm, PNI, LVE, poor diff); margins β₯5mm, β₯16 nodes dissected
- π Adj RT: 60Gy/30fr to tumor-bed + at-risk neck nodes; median f/u 47.2mo (IQR 30-59)
CONSORT flow
- π 1Β° EP LRFS ITT: 3-yr 89.2% RT vs 80.9% obs, HR 0.52 (95%CI 0.30-0.91), p=0.02
- π Competing-risk cumulative LR failure: 10.6% RT vs 18.9% obs, HR 0.52, p=0.021
- π PP analysis: HR 0.43 (0.23-0.80), p=0.01
- π Subgroup: oral tongue derives greater LRFS benefit than buccal mucosa
- β οΈ DFS and OS not significantly different; LRC benefit does not translate to survival gain at 47mo
- Does LRC benefit translate to OS with longer follow-up?
- Should adj RT selection favor oral tongue over buccal mucosa?
- Does benefit differ by number of risk factors (1 vs β₯2)?
π Sources Β· π 1 paper
Abstract
RASolute 302
ForPrev-treated metastatic PDAC, RAS G12 mutation, β₯1 prior systemic line
TL;DRDaraxonrasib vs IC chemo in 2L RAS G12 mPDAC: mOS 13.2 vs 6.6 mo, HR 0.40 (0.30-0.54), p<0.001.
- 2L PDAC historical: IC chemo (FOLFOX, nalirinotecan-based regimens) mOS ~5-7 mo; daraxonrasib more than doubles median in RAS G12-selected pts
| Daraxonrasib | Chemotherapy | |
|---|---|---|
| RAS G12: N | 228 | 231 |
| RAS G12: mOS (95% CI) | 13.2 mo (10.0-NR) | 6.6 mo (5.4-8.2) |
| RAS G12: HR (95% CI), p | 0.40 (0.30-0.54), p<0.001 | ref |
| RAS G12: 12-mo OS | 53.3% | 8.7% |
| Overall: N | 248 | 252 |
| Overall: mOS (95% CI) | 13.2 mo (10.0-NR) | 6.7 mo (5.8-8.0) |
| Overall: HR (95% CI), p | 0.40 (0.30-0.53), p<0.001 | ref |
| Overall: 12-mo OS | 53.2% | 17.3% |
6 details
- π Phase 3 RCT; RAS G12 primary analysis N=459 (228 vs 231); overall N=500 (248 vs 252); control: investigator's choice chemotherapy
CONSORT flow
- π 1Β° EP (RAS G12 population): mOS 13.2 mo (95% CI 10.0-NR) vs 6.6 mo (5.4-8.2); HR 0.40 (0.30-0.54), p<0.001
- π 12-mo OS (RAS G12): 53.3% daraxonrasib vs 8.7% chemo
- π Consistent in overall population (all RAS mutations + no-mutation pts, N=500): HR 0.40 (0.30-0.53), p<0.001; mOS 13.2 vs 6.7 mo
- β οΈ Event maturity asymmetric at datacut: 32% events in daraxonrasib arm vs 55% chemo; upper OS CI not reached (NR); follow-up ongoing
- β οΈ G12 variant breakdown (G12D vs G12V vs G12R) not reported in source
- Activity by specific G12 variant (G12D vs G12V vs G12R)
- Durability beyond current f/u; upper OS CI not yet reached
- Optimal sequencing and potential 1L investigation
π Sources Β· π¦ 1 tweet
#ASCO26
— Nicholas Hornstein (@GIMedOnc) May 31, 2026
This one is special.
This is the hottest paper of 2026 and potentially in the history of pancreatic cancer.
Letβs dive in.
RASolute 302: Daraxonrasib vs investigatorβs choice chemotherapy in previously treated metastatic pancreatic cancer
Abstract LBA5 (soon!)β¦ pic.twitter.com/Lq7PEjOWAo
TALAPRO-3
ForHRR-deficient metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer
TL;DR3yr rPFS 77% vs 56% (HR 0.48, p<0.001) favoring talazoparib+enza+ADT in HRR-deficient mHSPC.
- vs TALAPRO-2 (talazoparib+enza, mCRPC, HRR+, HR ~0.46): class effect now established in hormone-sensitive setting
| Subgroup | n (exp/ctrl) | Median rPFS exp | Median rPFS ctrl | HR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ITT | 300/299 | NC (NC-NC) | 45.8 (37.7-NC) mo | 0.48 (0.36-0.65), p<0.001 |
| BRCA | 104/103 | NC (NC-NC) | 35.1 (18.6-NC) mo | 0.37 (0.22-0.61) |
| Non-BRCA | 196/196 | NC (NC-NC) | NC (40.5-NC) mo | 0.57 (0.39-0.82) |
3 details
- π Phase 3 RCT; N=599; HRR-deficient mHSPC; talazoparib+enza+ADT vs placebo+enza+ADT
CONSORT flow
- β οΈ Primary endpoint imaging-based rPFS, not OS; OS maturity not reported in source
- β οΈ Non-BRCA HRR effect attenuated (HR 0.57 vs BRCA HR 0.37); non-BRCA HRR subset heterogeneous
- OS benefit magnitude and maturity
- Which non-BRCA HRR alterations drive clinically meaningful rPFS benefit
- Post-progression sequencing in PARP-pretreated pts transitioning to mCRPC
π Sources Β· π¦ 1 tweet
JUST In: TALAPRO-3 published in @NEJM
— Toni Choueiri, MD (@DrChoueiri) May 30, 2026
Adding #talazoparib to enzalutamide/ADT
=>3-year rPFS: 77% vs 56% in HRR-deficient metastatic prostate cancer !
Looking forward to full presentation by @neerajaiims who keeps changing SOC, one trial at a time. @ASCO #ASCO26 @OncoAlert pic.twitter.com/nXiPk4DIXg
ROADS
ForResected brain mets >2cm
TL;DRSurg bed recurrence 1% (GT) vs 12% (SRS); 2yr OS 62% vs 36% favoring GammaTile in resected brain mets >2cm.
- vs Alliance N107C: established SRS as post-resection standard; ROADS directly randomizes vs GammaTile for the first time
| Endpoint | GammaTile | SRS |
|---|---|---|
| Time to surg bed recurrence | NR | 17 mo |
| Surg bed recurrence-FS | NR | 11 mo |
| 2-yr OS | 62% | 36% |
6 details
- π Randomized, N=230, resected brain mets >2cm; GammaTile brachytherapy vs post-op SRS
- π Surg bed recurrence 1% GammaTile vs 12% SRS β primary EP
- π Radiation necrosis similar: 8% GammaTile vs 7% SRS
- β οΈ LMD 10% GammaTile vs 3% SRS β leptomeningeal spread higher with brachytherapy
- β οΈ OS 62% vs 36% is a secondary endpoint; trial powered for cavity control, not OS confirmation
- β οΈ Trial phase not stated in source; primary EPs both NR suggests follow-up still maturing for OS
- Does LMD increase with GammaTile translate to OS detriment at longer follow-up?
- Benefit extend to resected mets <2cm?
- Optimal GammaTile activity prescription for cavity control
π Sources Β· π¦ 1 tweet
π¨π¨ ASCO 2026 Final Results Randomized trial resected brain met Brachytherapy vs Post-Op SRSπ¨
— PDBrown (@PDBrownOnc) May 30, 2026
- Incredible Surg Bed Control with Brachy (ββOS as well)
- Surg bed recurrence 12% SRS vs 1% GammaTile pic.twitter.com/PCTsCluyUd
NRG/RTOG 1005 NCT01349322
ForPost-lumpectomy high-risk early breast: grade 3, ER-neg, LVI, or close margins
TL;DR7-yr IBR 2.6% vs 2.2%, HR 1.31 (90% CI 0.84-2.04); concurrent boost noninferior, reducing treatment to 15 fractions.
- vs EORTC 22881-10882 (Bartelink): addresses delivery timing, not boost vs no boost; landmark context only
9 details
- π Phase III unblinded RCT, N=2,255 analyzed; 278 sites, North America + 6 countries; median f/u 7.3 yr
- π High-risk post-lumpectomy: grade 3 (52.7%), ER-neg (29.6%), LVI (16.7%), close margins (16.7%), chemo (61.8%)
- π Concurrent arm: WBI 40 Gy/15F + simultaneous boost 0.53 Gy/fx (15 total fractions)
- π Sequential arm: WBI 50 Gy/25F or 42.7 Gy/16F + boost 12-14 Gy/6-7F after (22-32 total fractions)
- π 1Β° EP (IBR noninferiority): HR 1.31 (90% CI 0.84-2.04), p=0.037; upper bound 2.04 < NI margin 2.12
- π 7-yr IBR: 2.6% concurrent vs 2.2% sequential; 5-yr: 1.9% vs 2.1%; 56 total events
- π No significant differences in DFS, DDFS, OS, or RNR between arms; 7-yr RNR 1.2% overall
- π Cosmesis at 3yr: NI met by both measures
- Physician-rated excellent/good: 82.4% concurrent vs 85.9% sequential, p=0.34
- Central digital photo review excellent/good: 72.0% vs 64.2%, p=0.11
- BCTOS mean change from baseline: 0.18 concurrent vs 0.16 sequential (NI met)
- β οΈ G3-4 AEs similar between arms (p=0.81); radiation dermatitis, fatigue, breast pain most prevalent
- Long-term cosmesis and fibrosis beyond 3-yr QoL endpoint
- Applicability to pts on hormonal therapy without chemo (lower baseline risk)
- Integration with APBI or partial-breast techniques