Over the years, our research group has written a lot on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer, in part because of the excitement over durable responses in certain tumor types.
The disconect between trial excitement and actual long-term data is such an important point. I hadn't realized so many approvals had follow-up under 3 years, that's concerning when we're making major treatment decisoins. The finding that long-term response relates to tumor biology rather than just the ICI itself is fascinating. Does this suggest we should be more cautious about extrapolating results from melanoma studies to other tumor types? The real-world vs clinical trial patient difference you mention makes this even more critical for practicing oncologists to understand.
Great points
The disconect between trial excitement and actual long-term data is such an important point. I hadn't realized so many approvals had follow-up under 3 years, that's concerning when we're making major treatment decisoins. The finding that long-term response relates to tumor biology rather than just the ICI itself is fascinating. Does this suggest we should be more cautious about extrapolating results from melanoma studies to other tumor types? The real-world vs clinical trial patient difference you mention makes this even more critical for practicing oncologists to understand.
this is great... adds so much to the discussion