🇮🇳 Practice-Changing ASCO 2026 Updates in Breast Cancer
🔹 OPTIMA
• PAM50 genomics can help identify patients who may safely avoid chemotherapy
🔹 IRIS-A
• Selected Stage IA HER2+ tumors (≤0.5 cm) may not require taxane-based therapy
��� SENOMAC
• Some patients with 1–2 positive sentinel nodes can avoid completion ALND
🔹 ER-Low Analysis
• ER-low (1–10%) disease may behave differently from conventional HR-positive breast cancer
🔹 PATHWAY
• Tamoxifen remains a valid endocrine backbone with CDK4/6 inhibition
📌 Overall ASCO 2026 Message:
• Less chemotherapy
• Less surgery
• More precision
• More individualized treatment
#ASCO2026 #BreastCancer #Oncology #MedTwitter #MVOnco
🚨 Anthropic just showed a 27-minute workshop on how to actually do prompts for Claude.
Taught by the people who built it.
Free. No registration. No paywall.
I've seen $300 courses that don't cover what they teach in the first 8 minutes.
Watch it and bookmark it now.
🚨 THE 15 MOST IMPORTANT TRIALS OF #ASCO26
May 29 - June 2 | Chicago
Which trial are you watching most closely?
🌟 PLENARY GAME-CHANGERS
1️⃣ PROTEUS
Perioperative apalutamide + ADT in high-risk localized prostate cancer
2️⃣ LIBRETTO-432
Adjuvant selpercatinib in RET+ NSCLC
3️⃣ HARMONi-6
Ivonescimab + chemo vs tislelizumab + chemo in squamous NSCLC
4️⃣ RASolute 302
Daraxonrasib (RMC-6236) in metastatic pancreatic cancer
5️⃣ SARC041
Abemaciclib in dedifferentiated liposarcoma
⚡ FRONTLINE & PERIOPERATIVE SHIFTS
6️⃣ KEYNOTE-B15 / EV-304
EV + pembrolizumab vs chemo in MIBC
7️⃣ LITESPARK-022
Pembrolizumab + belzutifan in adjuvant ccRCC
8️⃣ AMBITION
Paclitaxel/bevacizumab ± atezolizumab in HR+ breast cancer
9️⃣ NeoADAURA
Neoadjuvant osimertinib in EGFR+ NSCLC
🔟 A-DREAM
ADT interruption strategies in mCSPC
🧬 PRECISION, ADCs & NEXT-GEN IMMUNOLOGY
1️⃣1️⃣ DESTINY-Breast06
T-DXd expands into HER2-ultralow disease
1️⃣2️⃣ CROWN (7-year update)
Lorlatinib durability in ALK+ NSCLC
1️⃣3️⃣ DeLLphi-312
Tarlatamab in frontline SCLC
1️⃣4️⃣ COMMIT
Atezolizumab + FOLFOX/Bev in MSI-H mCRC
1️⃣5️⃣ IMvigor011
ctDNA-guided adjuvant atezolizumab in bladder cancer
#OncoTwitter #MedTwitter #ASCO26 #CancerResearch @OncoAlert@ASCO@JCOPO_ASCO@OncBrothers
Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes (TILs) are more than just cells—they are a prognostic powerhouse in TNBC. 🧬
✅ 10% sTIL increase = ~15% lower recurrence risk.
✅ Strong predictor of pCR in neoadjuvant settings.
🔗 https://t.co/3Pt4yt5ZbG
#TNBC#BreastCancer#TILs
Survival and Recurrence With GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Breast Cancer
A provocative signal, but not yet an anticancer effect
1. Retrospective EHR-based study; association does not prove causality.
2. High risk of residual confounding despite propensity score matching.
3. Possible healthy-user effect: GLP-1 RA users may have better follow-up, access, adherence, and metabolic care.
4. Strong calendar-time bias: GLP-1 RA use increased in more recent years, when breast cancer care also improved.
5. Weak exposure definition: ≥2 prescriptions do not prove sustained treatment.
6. No time-varying exposure model; immortal-time bias may persist.
7. Landmark analyses reduce bias but do not replace proper time-varying modeling.
8. The signal weakens against the active comparator SGLT2 inhibitors.
9. Insulin/metformin is a problematic comparator because it may represent a sicker diabetes population.
10. Limited tumor biology: ER/HER2 status, grade, nodal burden, tumor size, Ki-67, and genomic risk are inadequately captured.
11. ER-positive rates appear unrealistically low, suggesting incomplete EHR capture.
12. Cancer treatment data appear incomplete; surgery and radiotherapy rates look clinically implausible.
13. RFS is code-based, not a true clinical recurrence endpoint.
14. No breast cancer–specific survival; all-cause mortality may reflect cardiometabolic benefit rather than anticancer effect.
15. No competing-risk analysis despite substantial non-cancer mortality risk.
16. No weight-loss data; the actual metabolic effect is unknown.
17. Effective follow-up is short despite reporting 10-year estimates.
18. Few patients remain at risk beyond 5 years, weakening 10-year KM estimates.
19. High administrative censoring limits late outcome interpretation.
20. Mechanism remains unclear: anticancer effect, weight loss, metabolic control, or patient selection?
https://t.co/gWWEIUTSi5
More than 430 abstracts on ADCs at #AACR26!
⬆️ Largely dominated by TOPO1i ADCs and bispecific ADCs
↗️ Dual payload ADCs are growing (36 abstracts)
↘️ Degrader Antibody Conjugates (DACs) not so much (12 abstracts)
⬇️ Limited novel ADC payload classes (<15 abstracts)
If you remember only one thing from BRCA biology, remember this👇
• BRCA1 → detects DNA damage
• BRCA2 → repairs DNA
• PARP → fixes small damage
Block PARP + lose BRCA2 → no repair left → cell dies
👉 That’s why PARP works best in BRCA2
#MVOnco#Oncology#MedOnc
90% of students “read” research papers and still can’t explain them….This is the method I use anytime I lead a Journal Club.
I can tell in 30 seconds if you actually understood a research paper….
Most people don’t….
They “read” it…
Then they can’t explain the question, the method, or the point.
Here’s the reading method researchers are trained to use:
The Three-Pass Method.
⸻
★ PASS 1 (5–10 minutes)
Get the map, not the details
Read only:
→ Title
→ Abstract + intro
→ Section headings
→ Conclusion
→ References (quick glance)
By the end, you should be able to say:
↳ What kind of paper is this
↳ What problem is it solving
↳ What are the main contributions
↳ Do the assumptions seem reasonable
↳ Is it worth your time
If the answer is “no,” stop here.
That’s not quitting. That’s focus.
⸻
★ PASS 2 (up to 1 hour)
Understand the argument
Now read with a pen.
Your job is to track:
→ What claim are they making
→ What evidence supports it
→ What figures/graphs prove it
Study the visuals like your reputation depends on it:
↳ Are axes labeled
↳ Are error bars shown
↳ Do the results actually justify the conclusion
At the end of pass 2, you should be able to explain the paper out loud to a friend.
No notes.
If you can’t, you don’t own it yet.
⸻
★ PASS 3 (the “real researcher” pass)
Rebuild the paper in your head
This is the move that separates “I read it” from “I understand it.”
Try to recreate the work mentally:
→ Why this method and not another
→ What assumptions are hiding in plain sight
→ What would break if one assumption fails
→ What would you change if you ran the study
By the end, you should be able to reconstruct the whole paper from memory, including strengths and weak spots.
⸻
💬 What trips you up the most when reading papers?
♻️ Repost if you know someone drowning in PDFs.