🚨 #ESMO26 | Phase III INTerpath-001 🚨
After an early embargo breach, @myESMO brought the abstract release forward!!!!!!
And yes, it’s clearly positive:
📉 RFS HR 0.58
📉 DMFS HR 0.62
But here’s the uncomfortable part: SWOG S1801 also reported an HR 0.58…simply by moving 3 doses of pembrolizumab BEFORE surgery…
☝🏼Not the same population. Not the same endpoint. Not a cross-trial comparison.
Still, in 2026, should a personalized mRNA vaccine really be benchmarked against adjuvant pembro alone?
Before calling this a new standard, I want to see the vaccine face the NEOADJUVANT era.
Same HR. Different path. And that may be the real INTerpath question 👀
@OncoAlert @OncoReporte @myESMO @_SEOM @GrupoMelanoma
What do you think? @SuyogCancer @OncBrothers @A_May_MD @Dr_R_Kurzrock
2412 views · 18 likes · 9 reposts · 8 replies
INTerpath-001: Phase 3 study of the mRNA-based individualized neoantigen therapy (INT) intismeran autogene (intismeran) plus pembrolizumab (pembro) vs pembro alone for adjuvant treatment of resected stage IIB-IV melanoma (MEL)
https://esmocongress.esmo.orgINTerpath-001
https://esmocongress.esmo.org- Roberto C. Montoya@roverome
@MarioBalsaMD @myESMO Agree, not the new standard, like many other oncology trials, by the time the result arrives, the comparator is outdated
- Tim M@TJMeehan1
Glad to see melanoma specialists saying it. NADINA and SWOG S1801 already showed starting immunotherapy before surgery beats adjuvant-only, so an adjuvant-only control answers yesterday's question. Same pattern as Moderna's mRNA flu trial in older adults, which compared against standard-dose vaccine instead of the high-dose or adjuvanted shots CDC prefers for 65+. Before payers cover a personalized mRNA product, it should beat today's best option, not an outdated one.
- Dr. Ole Olsen@oolsen50
@MarioBalsaMD @myESMO In both trials RFS with pembro alone about 70% add vax improves to 82%, huge. The HR of 0.58 is the improvement over pembro alone when you add vax.
- Nicholas Hornstein@GIMedOnc
@MarioBalsaMD @KolPulseAI @myESMO I don’t think the neoadjuvant comparison is uncomfortable. Treatment paradigms change over time, in this setting the study crushed it.
- Mario Balsa@MarioBalsaMD
@RyanAugustinMD @myESMO Thank you Ryan! We're on the same page
- Ryan C. Augustin@RyanAugustinMD
@MarioBalsaMD @myESMO Agree, need NADINA style comparative/control, especially with opportunity for path response adaptation. But great proof of concept and AEs aren’t too concerning.
- Mario Balsa@MarioBalsaMD
@GIMedOnc @KolPulseAI @myESMO I didn’t say otherwise. Quite literally the opposite. Read the post again once, twice, or three times if needed.
- Nicholas Hornstein@GIMedOnc
@MarioBalsaMD @KolPulseAI @myESMO Disagree. Technology clearly worked. Future applications are enormous.
Source: Mario Balsa · x.com