I think there’s two messages. The first we gathered this study and also the previously we presented the IAM BRAVE 050 study. Probably the immune checkpoint inhibitors are not working really well in terms of adjuvant setting for SCC. Another observation we can observe from these two studies is that the so-called high-risk population is actually not that high-risk...
I think there’s two messages. The first we gathered this study and also the previously we presented the IAM BRAVE 050 study. Probably the immune checkpoint inhibitors are not working really well in terms of adjuvant setting for SCC. Another observation we can observe from these two studies is that the so-called high-risk population is actually not that high-risk. For example, in the Keynote039 study, we can see that at the 48-month time, around 80% of patients either in the control arm, placebo, or the adjuvant pembrolizumab arm still survive, so which means that maybe the criteria to define this high risk are not adequate to really reflect the high risk phenotype or actually nowadays the subsequent treatment, the salvage treatment, like surgery, local regional therapy, or even systemic therapy, can kind of salvage many recurrences afterwards. So this actually will help guide us in the future design and development strategy for the adjuvant study. But I think overall in the future the field is more moving towards the neoadjuvant or the perioperative approach.
This transcript is AI-generated. While we strive for accuracy, please verify this copy with the video.