KOL Pulse — Trial Profile

COMMIT / NRG-GI004 / SWOG S1610 Trial

1L dMMR/MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer — NRG Oncology / SWOG (Cancer Trials Support Unit)

1L dMMR/MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancerTecentriq (± chemo + Avastin)ASCO GI 2026 (#ASCOGI26)
Visit Interactive Trial Page →

Top KOLs Discussing COMMIT / NRG-GI004 / SWOG S1610

Daisuke Kotani, MD, Ph.D 小谷 大輔
Daisuke Kotani, MD, Ph.D 小谷 大輔
@DaisukeKotani
12.4K impressions
Dr Rishabh Jain
Dr Rishabh Jain
@DrRishabhOnco
9.7K impressions
Nicholas Hornstein
Nicholas Hornstein
@GIMedOnc
9.7K impressions
Dr Amol Akhade
Dr Amol Akhade
@SuyogCancer
5.3K impressions
Jun Gong
Jun Gong
@jgong15
4.9K impressions
Mustafa Özdoğan, MD
Mustafa Özdoğan, MD
@ozdogan_md
3.8K impressions

COMMIT / NRG-GI004 / SWOG S1610 Key Slides & Visuals

Official trial slides and relevant visuals shared by KOLs at ASCO GI 2026 (#ASCOGI26). Click any image to expand.

Dr Rishabh Jain
Dr Rishabh Jain @DrRishabhOnco
COMMIT / NRG-GI004 / SWOG S1610 Data
9.7K impressions · 52 likes · Jan 7, 2026
View on X ↗
[Slide 1] ! COMMIT Trial - dMMR/MSI-H mCRC Is immunotherapy alone enough? @ DrRishabhOnco Study Design Key Results Safety Signal — PFS - Grade ≥3 AEs HR 0.44 (95% (123-0.84) ! Higher with Combination, 30.0 vs 4.3 Months as Expected with Chemo- therapy-Based Regimens - ORR - 80.6% vs 46% dMMR/MSI-H - 12-Month DCR - Metastatic Colorectal Cancer 0-0 First-Line Treatment 12 62.9% vs 32.4% mo Efficacy Toxicity Atezolizumab Monotherapy - Median Follow-Up: 3.5 Years - vs Chemo + VEGF IO VS + Expected with added chemo + VEGF blockade n = 102 (interim analysis) Phase III I NRG-GI004 / SWOG-S1610 IO Monotherapy May Not Be Sufficient for All dMMR/MSi-nCRC Adding Chemotherapy + VEGF Blockade Improves PFS and Disease Control, with Higher Toxicity
Nicholas Hornstein
Nicholas Hornstein @GIMedOnc
COMMIT / NRG-GI004 / SWOG S1610 Data
6.9K impressions · 50 likes · Jan 10, 2026
View on X ↗
[Slide 1] NRG Progression-free Survival ONCOLOGY Advancing Research Improving Lines 1.0 HR 0.439; 95% CI 0.23-0.84; P =0.0103 0.8 Median PFS (months) 0.6 Survival Probability 24.5 (95% CI, 10.1-not estimable) 0.4 5.3 (95% CI, 2.2-18.2) 0.2 0.0 Atezo 40 12 9 6 5 5 1 FFX/bev/atezo 38 24 17 13 9 6 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Months Atezo FFX/bev/atezo ASCO Gastrointestinal Jan 8-10, 2026 Cancers Symposium --- [Slide 2] 1.0 There was no difference 0.8 in os between the arms: HR of 1.04 0.6 (95% CI, 0.47-2.28, P Survival Probability = 0.90) 0.4 24-month OS: 0.2 FFX/bev/atezo: 67% Atezo: 67% 0.0 Atezo 41 29 22 18 14 11 5 FFX/bev/atezo 41 30 24 20 14 11 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Months Atezo FFX/bev/atezo
Daisuke Kotani, MD, Ph.D 小谷 大輔
COMMIT / NRG-GI004 / SWOG S1610 Data
5K impressions · 37 likes · Jan 11, 2026
View on X ↗
[Slide 1] NRG Progression-free Survival ONCOLOGY febencing Branch depending - 1.0 HR 0.439; 95% CI 0.23-0.84; P =0.0103 0.8 Median PFS (months) 0.6 Survival Probability 24.5 (95% CI, 10.1-not estimable) 0.4 5.3 (95% CI, 2.2-18.2) 0.2 0.0 Atezo 40 12 9 6 5 5 1 FFX/bev/atezo 38 24 17 13 9 6 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Months Atezo FFX/beviatezo ASCO Gastrointestinal Jan 8-10, 2026 Cancers Symposium This presentation is the intellectual property of the author Contact Dr. Rocha Lima at crochali Pwakehealth edu for permission to reprint and/or distribute --- [Slide 2] NRG Progression-free Survival ONCOLOGY febencing Branch depending - 1.0 HR 0.439; 95% CI 0.23-0.84; P =0.0103 0.8 Median PFS (months) 0.6 Survival Probability 24.5 (95% CI, 10.1-not estimable) 0.4 5.3 (95% CI, 2.2-18.2) 0.2 0.0 Atezo 40 12 9 6 5 5 1 FFX/bev/atezo 38 24 17 13 9 6 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Months Atezo FFX/beviatezo ASCO Gastrointestinal Jan 8-10, 2026 Cancers Symposium This presentation is the intellectual property of the author Contact Dr. Rocha Lima at crochali Pwakehealth edu for permission to reprint and/or distribute --- [Slide 3] NRG Overall Survival ONCOLOGY Branch depending - 1.0 There was no difference 0.8 in OS between the arms: HR of 1.04 0.6 (95% CI, 0.47-2.28, P Survival Probability = 0.90) 0.4 . 24-month OS: 0.2 FFX/bev/atezo: 67% Atezo: 67% 0.0 Atezo 41 29 22 18 14 11 5 FFX/bev/atezo 41 30 24 20 14 11 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Months Atezo FFX/bev/atezo ASCO Gastrointestinal Jan 8-10, 2026 Cancers Symposium This presentation is the intellectual property of the author Contact Dr. Rocha Lima at trochali Pwakehealth edu for permission to reprint and/or distribute --- [Slide 4] NRG Additional Efficacy Outcomes ONCOLOGY Breanch depending - Efficacy Outcome FFX/bev/atezo Atezo Progression-free Survival 12 months 66.7% 35.1% 24 months 53.7% 31.6% Overall Response Rate 86.1% 46% Response Status CR 36.1% 18.9% PR 50% 27% SD 11.1% 21.6% PD 2.8% 32.4% Disease Control Rate 12 months 64.7% 32.4% ASCO Gastrointestinal Jan 8-10,2026 Cancers Symposium This presentation is the intellectual property of the author Contact Dr. Mocha Lima at prochale wakehealth edu for permission to reprint and/or distribute
Jun Gong
Jun Gong @jgong15
COMMIT / NRG-GI004 / SWOG S1610 Data
4.9K impressions · 13 likes · Jan 10, 2026
View on X ↗
[Slide 1] NRG Study Design ONCOLOGY Marring Improving Check FFX/Bevacizumab FFX/bevacizumab dMMR/MSI-H mCRC without prior systemic R + treatment for metastatic disease* Atezolizumab+ Randomization 1:1:1 (then 1:1) Stratified according to: Atezolizumab* BRAF mutation (V600E; non-V600E, WT, or Unknown) Metastatic disease: (liver-only; extra-hepatic) Prior adjuvant therapy for CRC * One cycle of FOLFOX or CAPOX with or without bev (or biosimilar) allowed prior to enrollment t FFX/bev/atezo: oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 IV + leucovorin 400 mg/m2 IV + bevacizumab 5 mg/kg IV+ 5-FU 400 mg/m2 IV bolus on Day 1 followed by 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 IV over 46 hours plus atezo (840mg IV q2wks) # Atezo monotherapy: 840mg IV q2wks ASCO Gastrointestinal Jan 8-10, 2026 Cancers Symposium This presentation is the intellectual property of the author. Contact Dr. Rocha Lima at crochali wakehealth edu for permission to reprint and/or distribute. --- [Slide 2] NRG Progression-free Survival ONCOLOGY belowing Frown - 1.0 HR 0.439; 95% CI 0.23-0.84; P =0.0103 0.8 Median PFS (months) 0.6 Survival Probability 24.5 (95% CI, 10.1-not estimable) 0.4 5.3 (95% CI, 2.2-18.2) 0.2 0.0 Atezo 40 12 9 6 5 5 1 FFX/bev/atezo 38 24 17 13 9 6 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Months Atezo FFX/bev/atezo ASCO Gastrointestinal Jan 8-10, 2026 Cancers Symposium This presentation is the intellectual property of the author. Contact Dr. Rocha Lima at crochali wakehealth edu for permission to reprint and/or distribute. --- [Slide 3] NRG Additional Efficacy Outcomes ONCOLOGY Branch Improving - Efficacy Outcome FFX/bev/atezo Atezo Progression-free Survival 12 months 66.7% 35.1% 24 months 53.7% 31.6% Overall Response Rate 86.1% 46% Response Status CR 36.1% 18.9% PR 50% 27% SD 11.1% 21.6% PD 2.8% 32.4% Disease Control Rate 12 months 64.7% 32.4% ASCO Gastrointestinal Jan 8-10, 2026 Cancers Symposium This presentation is the intellectual property of the author. Contact Dr. Rocha Lima at crochali wakehealth edu for permission to reprint and/or distribute. --- [Slide 4] NRG Conclusions ONCOLOGY Advancing boards Importing - The combination of FFX/bev/atezo demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS compared to atezo monotherapy in the first-line setting for dMMR/MSI-H mCRC HR 0.439; 95% CI 0.23-0.84, P=0.0103 FFX/bev/atezo resulted in improved complete responses and reduced progressive disease compared to atezo monotherapy Complete response: 36.1% vs 18.9% Progressive disease: 2.8% vs 32.4% Higher rates of G3-4 diarrhea, neutropenia, hypertension, and infection observed in the FFX/bev/atezo arm Future efforts are needed to characterize the subsets of dMMR/MSI-H CRC that require intensification of therapy beyond single-agent PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Ongoing correlative analyses will hopefully provide deeper mechanistic interpretation of the differential outcomes across treatment arms. ASCO Gastrointestinal Jan 8-10, 2026 Cancers Symposium This presentation is the intellectual property of the author. Contact Dr. Rocha Lima at crochali wakehealth edu for permission to reprint and/or distribute.
Mustafa Özdoğan, MD
Mustafa Özdoğan, MD @ozdogan_md
COMMIT / NRG-GI004 / SWOG S1610 Data
3.8K impressions · 54 likes · Jan 12, 2026
View on X ↗
[Slide 1] ASCO GI 2026 Abstract 14 COMMIT Trial M Triple Combo in dMMR/MSI-H Colorectal Cancer Adding Chemo + Bevacizumab to Atezolizumab dramatically improves PFS compared to Atezolizumab alone. 1 THE "MONOTHERAPY GAP" WHY THIS TRIAL? Single-agent checkpoint inhibitors (like Pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-177) are THE COMMIT STRATEGY standard but still leave room for improvement + + Atezolizumab Bevacizumab FOLFOX Superiority? Objective: Boost Efficacy with Combo 2 PHASE 3 DESIGN (TREE VIEW) Experimental ARM A Atezo + Bev FOLFOX PATIENT POPULATION Checkpoint Inhibitor Anti-VEGF Chemotherapy Previously Untreated Metastatic CRC Control ARM B dMMR MSI-H Only Atezolizumab Mono Single Agent Immunotherapy stopped early due CheckMate results arm) PROGRESSION-FREE SURVIVAL 4 RESPONSE & SAFETY 3 (PFS) HR 0.44 (Huge Benefit) OBJECTIVE RESPONSE RATE MEDIAN PFS Combo Arm $6.1% 24.5 Mo Mono Arm 46.0% SAFETY TRADE-OFF 5.3 Mo Grade 3-5 AEs (Combo) 83% Grade 3-5 AEs (Mono) 44% Combination Arm Atezolizumab Mono *More toxicity with more drugs. CLINICAL TAKEAWAY The COMMIT trial establishes FOLFOX Bevacizumab Atezolizumab as a highly active option for dMMR/MSI H mCRC, significantly outperforming single-agent Atezolizumab However, this comes at the cost of higher toxicity. SOURCE REFERENCE Rocha Lima CMSP, et al. "Combination Chemotherapy, Bevactzumab, Atezolizumab Prof. Dr. Mustafa Ozdogan Prolongs PFS... in dMMR/MSI-H mCRC". STANBUL MEMORIAL GOZTEPE CANCER CENTER Presented at: 2026 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium. Abstract 14. --- [Slide 2] NRG Progression-free Survival ONCOLOGY Advancing Amount Impouning Line 1.0 HR 0.439; 95% CI 0.23-0.84; P =0.0103 0.8 Median PFS (months) 0.6 Survival Probability 24.5 (95% CI, 10.1-not estimable) 0.4 5.3 (95% CI, 2.2-18.2) 0.2 0.0 Atezo 40 12 9 6 5 5 1 FFX/bev/atezo 38 24 17 13 9 6 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Months Atezo FFX/bev/atezo ASCO Gastrointestinal Jan 8-10, 2026 Cancers Symposium

COMMIT / NRG-GI004 / SWOG S1610 Top Tweets

Top tweets by impressions — click to view on X

Dr Rishabh Jain
Dr Rishabh Jain@DrRishabhOnco

🚨 Practice-changing signal in dMMR/MSI-H metastatic CRC

COMMIT trial (NRG-GI004 / SWOG-S1610) at #GI26

Question: Is PD-L1 monotherapy enough for all dMMR mCRC patients?
Answer from COMMIT: Not…

👁 9.7K ♡ 52 ↻ 24 Jan 7, 2026
Daisuke Kotani, MD, Ph.D 小谷 大輔
Daisuke Kotani, MD, Ph.D 小谷 大輔@DaisukeKotani

ASCO-GI 2026, abstr 14
🔷COMMIT: Ph3 1L FOLFOX + bev + atezo (n = 41) vs atezo (n = 41) in dMMR/MSI-H mCRC
◾️PFS: 30.0 vs 4.3 m, HR 0.439, p = 0.0103 (<0.0152)
◾️ORR: 80.6 vs 46%
◾️DCR at 12 m:…

👁 7.4K ♡ 30 ↻ 7 Jan 5, 2026
Nicholas Hornstein
Nicholas Hornstein@GIMedOnc

#GI26
COMMIT, now with the full presentation data, deserves a serious re-examination.

Dr. Rocha Lima presents COMMIT
1L dMMR/MSI-H mCRC
Atezolizumab alone vs FOLFOX + bevacizumab + atezolizumab

Key…

👁 6.9K ♡ 50 ↻ 20 Jan 10, 2026
Daisuke Kotani, MD, Ph.D 小谷 大輔
Daisuke Kotani, MD, Ph.D 小谷 大輔@DaisukeKotani

COMMIT: Positive results, yet interpret with caution #GI26
Why did Atezo (control arm) perform poorly compared to Pembro (KN177) or Nivo (CM8HW)?
1⃣Difference in PD-1 vs PD-L1 for MSI-H/dMMR…

👁 5K ♡ 37 ↻ 14 Jan 11, 2026
Jun Gong
Jun Gong@jgong15

Dr. Max rand PhIII COMMIT @NRGonc of #1L #atezo +/- FOLFOX in #MSI-H #mCRC ➡️ improved PFS median 24.5 vs 5.3 mos, immature OS, ORR 36.1 vs 18.9% FOLFOX-atezo vs atezo, respectively. Note, study…

👁 4.9K ♡ 13 ↻ 8 Jan 10, 2026
Mustafa Özdoğan, MD
Mustafa Özdoğan, MD@ozdogan_md

Immunotherapy alone works in dMMR/MSI-H mCRC.
But is it enough?

At #ASCOGI26, the COMMIT trial shows that adding FOLFOX + Bevacizumab to Atezolizumab dramatically improves outcomes.

But efficacy…

👁 3.8K ♡ 54 ↻ 19 Jan 12, 2026
Daneng Li
Daneng Li@DanengLi

Agree with @jgong15. Good to see studies and investigators doing the right thing and reevaluating continuation of studies when new data becomes available and standards of care changes. Putting…

👁 3.6K ♡ 11 ↻ 4 Jan 10, 2026
Dr Amol Akhade
Dr Amol Akhade@SuyogCancer

COMMIT (NRG-GI004 / SWOG-S1610), 1L dMMR/MSI-H mCRC — interim data with key limitations from #ASCOGI2026
• Design: Phase III, heavily amended; final comparison atezo vs mFOLFOX6 + bev + atezo
• N…

👁 3.6K ♡ 18 ↻ 3 Jan 7, 2026
Luciano J Costa
Luciano J Costa@End_myeloma

I am delighted to serving as coMMit group chair for 2025-2027, alongside Vice-chair Natalie Callander. Thanks @bhemato @DholariaMD @IMFjimMYELOMA and scientific steering committee. Together we will…

👁 2.8K ♡ 53 ↻ 8 Mar 8, 2025
Nicholas Hornstein
Nicholas Hornstein@GIMedOnc

@pashtoonkasi @OncoAlert @NRGonc Why are so few people discussing the underperformance! Is this going to impact adjuvant MSI strategies?? Would love to see some post-approval data here.

👁 2.8K ♡ 9 ↻ 3 Jan 10, 2026

About the COMMIT / NRG-GI004 / SWOG S1610 Trial

Addresses the ~40% primary resistance to PD-1 monotherapy seen in KEYNOTE-177. Triplet improves PFS and ORR significantly vs. atezolizumab monotherapy — but without head-to-head data vs. pembrolizumab monotherapy. Potential option for fit dMMR/MSI-H patients prioritizing deeper responses and reduced early-progression risk. Does not supplant KEYNOTE-177 as the label-approved standard.

Trial Methodology & Results

Progression-Free Survival (PFS) — Primary Endpoint

Median PFS was 24.5 months with atezolizumab + mFOLFOX6 + bevacizumab vs. 5.3 months with atezolizumab monotherapy (HR 0.439, 95% CI 0.23-0.84, P=0.0103). ORR: 80.6% vs. 46%. Early progression: 2.8% vs. 32.4% — triplet eliminates the ~30% primary resistance seen with atezolizumab alone. Study closed early after meeting primary endpoint.

✓ mPFS 24.5 vs. 5.3 mo (HR 0.439)

📄 Source: KOL commentary on X →

Overall Survival (OS)

Overall survival data immature at interim analysis; not a primary endpoint. Trial closed early after primary PFS endpoint met; OS follow-up ongoing.


📄 Source →

Safety & Tolerability

Higher Grade ≥3 AEs with the triplet driven by chemotherapy backbone (neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy). Atezolizumab monotherapy had lower toxicity but a much higher early progression rate (32.4% vs. 2.8%).

Higher chemo-related AEs offset by dramatic drop in early progression

📄 Source →

Clinical Implications

⚠️ Does not supplant KEYNOTE-177 but addresses primary resistance. Addresses the ~40% primary resistance to PD-1 monotherapy seen in KEYNOTE-177. Triplet improves PFS and ORR significantly vs. atezolizumab monotherapy — but without head-to-head data vs. pembrolizumab monotherapy. Potential option for fit dMMR/MSI-H patients prioritizing deeper responses and reduced early-progression risk. Does not supplant KEYNOTE-177 as the label-approved standard.

COMMIT / NRG-GI004 / SWOG S1610 in the News

Key KOL Sentiments — COMMIT / NRG-GI004 / SWOG S1610

DoctorSentimentComment
Daneng Li ● POSITIVE Agree with @jgong15. Good to see studies and investigators doing the right thing and reevaluating continuation of studies when new data becomes available and standards of care changes. Putting patients first is key. @ASCO #GI26 https://t.co/LYoWqqsKrR
Luciano J Costa ● POSITIVE I am delighted to serving as coMMit group chair for 2025-2027, alongside Vice-chair Natalie Callander. Thanks @bhemato @DholariaMD @IMFjimMYELOMA and scientific steering committee. Together we will continue the growth, improve patients' lives and foster new investigators. https://t.co/cLmI8s44Hd
Axel Grothey ● POSITIVE @GIMedOnc @pashtoonkasi @OncoAlert @NRGonc Agreed! NICHE it is :)
Dr Rishabh Jain ● NEUTRAL 🚨 Practice-changing signal in dMMR/MSI-H metastatic CRC COMMIT trial (NRG-GI004 / SWOG-S1610) at #GI26 Question: Is PD-L1 monotherapy enough for all dMMR mCRC patients? Answer from COMMIT: Not anymore. 🧪 Study design First-line dMMR/MSI-H mCRC Atezolizumab alone 🆚 mFOLFOX6 https://t.co/qr5DuvChN7 https://t.co/agOMHzsjKq
Daisuke Kotani, MD, Ph.D 小谷 大輔 ● NEUTRAL ASCO-GI 2026, abstr 14 🔷COMMIT: Ph3 1L FOLFOX + bev + atezo (n = 41) vs atezo (n = 41) in dMMR/MSI-H mCRC ◾️PFS: 30.0 vs 4.3 m, HR 0.439, p = 0.0103 (<0.0152) ◾️ORR: 80.6 vs 46% ◾️DCR at 12 m: 62.9 vs 32.4% 👉Outcomes in the atezo arm appear inferior to pembro (KN177) or nivo
Nicholas Hornstein ● NEUTRAL #GI26 COMMIT, now with the full presentation data, deserves a serious re-examination. Dr. Rocha Lima presents COMMIT 1L dMMR/MSI-H mCRC Atezolizumab alone vs FOLFOX + bevacizumab + atezolizumab Key results that stand out: 1️⃣ PFS separation is striking mPFS 24.5 vs 5.3 months https://t.co/J11MXrkWTa
Daisuke Kotani, MD, Ph.D 小谷 大輔 ● NEUTRAL COMMIT: Positive results, yet interpret with caution #GI26 Why did Atezo (control arm) perform poorly compared to Pembro (KN177) or Nivo (CM8HW)? 1⃣Difference in PD-1 vs PD-L1 for MSI-H/dMMR mCRC? 2⃣Difference in patient characteristics? 3⃣Small sample size? 👉My opinion: Atezo https://t.co/k5OXoiyUPa https://t.co/9TdAZUxE5n
Jun Gong ● NEUTRAL Dr. Max rand PhIII COMMIT @NRGonc of #1L #atezo +/- FOLFOX in #MSI-H #mCRC ➡️ improved PFS median 24.5 vs 5.3 mos, immature OS, ORR 36.1 vs 18.9% FOLFOX-atezo vs atezo, respectively. Note, study closed after CM-8HW after 102 pts accrued (right thing to do) @OncoAlert #GI26 https://t.co/xn6SGBDSxf
Mustafa Özdoğan, MD ● NEUTRAL Immunotherapy alone works in dMMR/MSI-H mCRC. But is it enough? At #ASCOGI26, the COMMIT trial shows that adding FOLFOX + Bevacizumab to Atezolizumab dramatically improves outcomes. But efficacy comes at a cost: Grade 3–5 toxicity: 83% vs 44%. This isn’t a new standard for https://t.co/COUhnzGx8q
Dr Amol Akhade ● NEUTRAL COMMIT (NRG-GI004 / SWOG-S1610), 1L dMMR/MSI-H mCRC — interim data with key limitations from #ASCOGI2026 • Design: Phase III, heavily amended; final comparison atezo vs mFOLFOX6 + bev + atezo • N analyzed: 102 (≈40/arm) → small numbers • Analysis: Interim (~65% information https://t.co/58Mq86plYB
Nicholas Hornstein ● NEUTRAL @pashtoonkasi @OncoAlert @NRGonc Why are so few people discussing the underperformance! Is this going to impact adjuvant MSI strategies?? Would love to see some post-approval data here.
Pashtoon Kasi MD, MS ● NEUTRAL #GI26 The long awaited COMMIT trial. Immunotherapy PDL1⛔️ monotherapy 🆚 FOLFOX➕VEGF⛔️➕PDL1⛔️ 5.3 🆚 24.5 months⁉️ Important insights. While I understand synergy, monotherapy with Atezo is way underperforming compared to prior IO data.📊 @OncoAlert thoughts 💭❓ @NRGonc https://t.co/04KVeVdqj6
Arndt Vogel ● NEUTRAL COMMIT phase III: atezo vs mFOLFOX6/beva/ atezo in the 1LMSI-H mCRC NRG-GI004/SWOG-S1610. #ASCOGI26 👉 CR: 36 vs 18% 👉 mPFS: 24,5 vs 5,4 mo 👉2-yr OR: 67 vs 67% 🧐 FFX/bev/atezo outperforms atezo in PFS, but no OS benefit, OS for Nivo/Ipi? @myesmo @ASCO https://t.co/pQFl34BuR8
Nieves Martinez Lago MD PhD ● NEUTRAL #GI26 🧬 COMMIT trial | 1L dMMR/MSI-H mCRC Atezolizumab + mFOLFOX6/bev vs atezo alone 📉 mPFS 30.0 vs 4.3 mo (HR 0.44) 📈 ORR 80.6% vs 46% 📊 DCR 12 mo 63% vs 32% ⚠️ ↑ G≥3 AEs with chemo backbone ➡️ VEGF + PD-L1 blockade clearly outperforms IO monotherapy @OncoAlert @Larvol https://t.co/StGW99tCgt
Dr Amol Akhade ● NEUTRAL When you see this curve for MSI high pts , u know that problem is with the drug - atezolizumab. It underperformed In MSI high pts in COMMIT trial . Why to use it in adjuvant setting? May be other IO Drugs will perform better in Adjuvant MSI CRC setting ? https://t.co/8XCv1HDWyy https://t.co/afqalQxImY
Aparna Raj Parikh ● NEUTRAL Started last day of #Gi26 with 12 beautiful miles & now ✈️. one other lingering question re COMMIT, why did atezo perform so poorly? K177 didn’t have central testing either. ATOMIC implications? PDL1 effect? COMMIT & ATOMIC I worked on when I was at Genentech 10+ yrs ago! https://t.co/UejISLIpIm
Sharlene Gill, MD, MPH, MBA, FASCO ● NEUTRAL #GI26 @ASCO COMMIT NRG/SWOG ph 3 atezo +/- FOLFOX/bev Suspended accrual d/t 8HW…n=41 in each arm @ 1st IA 📌 23% BRAFm ➡️ ORR 81% v 46% ➡️ PD rate reduced 32% v 2% ⭐️ ➡️ PFS HR 0.439, p=0.0103 No diff in OS observed 📌 potential option in bulky, high risk disease? @OncoAlert https://t.co/QSNFzlO3Bp
Oncology Brothers ● NEUTRAL 5. COMMIT: PhIII, Atezolizumab + Chemo + Bev vs. Atezo in 1L dMMR mCRC: - ORR 86.1% vs. 46% - mPFS 24.5mos vs. 5.3mos (HR 0.44) - For dMMR, Rx Options: Ipi/Nivo, Chemo + IO, Nivo, or Pembro 6/7 https://t.co/NoyMMerEJ4
Bassam Sonbol ● NEUTRAL #GI26: COMMIT (NRG-GI004) in 1L dMMR/MSI-H mCRC: atezo + FOLFOX + bev → mPFS 24.5 mo vs atezo alone 5.3 mo (HR 0.44, P=0.01). Triplet wins… but context matters. 🧵 https://t.co/WzhbolKMGo
LARVOL ● NEUTRAL 🔄 Refreshed data for COMMIT trial from @ASCO #GI26 in dMMR/MSI-H mCRC landscape from Devang Namjoshi, et al. Original publication: https://t.co/4EVvVG64KM Updated Landscape ⬇️ Explore more insights and data from #ASCOGI26 👉 https://t.co/r4GAbJxEVU #LARVOL #Oncology https://t.co/Rcfs5QWyym
AACR ● NEUTRAL We congratulate those AACR members who have been inducted in the 50-Year Member Class of 2026. These members will be honored for their dedication to cancer research and commitment to the AACR during the Annual Business Meeting of Members (Monday, April 20) at #AACR26. https://t.co/B2L0VTb8kf
The ASCO Post ● NEUTRAL 🔬COMMIT trial shows triplet therapy (FOLFOX + bevacizumab + atezolizumab) significantly improved PFS vs atezolizumab alone in 1L dMMR/MSI-H mCRC (HR = 0.43) #colorectalcancer • 12-mo PFS: 67% vs 35% 👨🏻‍⚕️ @CaioRLOnc | #ASCOGI26 🔗 https://t.co/F5tjYLpchn https://t.co/WaNjthTh0z
Luciano J Costa ● NEUTRAL @bdermanmd @rajshekharucms @RahulBanerjeeMD @smith__giri Correct. Trying to learn as much as we can from an imperfect design + institutional database. Subsequent COMMIT trials leverage S-MRD<10-5.
Manju George MVSc PhD ● NEUTRAL #GI26 #Voices Please hear from Dr @GillSharlene about what she was looking forward to at #GI26.. Unfortunately #COMMIT results weren’t the best.. #CRCSM https://t.co/yfhkolKR6p
ドンナ@消化器外科医 ● NEUTRAL ASCO GI 2026の大腸癌領域をAIでまとめた 参考にしてみて 📢 #ASCOGI2026 大腸癌(CRC)5ポイントまとめ ① dMMR/MSI-H転移性CRCで FOLFOX+Bev+Atezolizumab(COMMIT試験) が免疫単剤よりPFSを大幅延長 ② COMMIT試験:中央値PFS 約24–30か月 vs 約5か月(免疫単剤) ③
S. Daniel Haldar, MD ● NEUTRAL COMMIT: Surprising data with underperformance of the atezo arm raises many questions #GI26 -Are PD-L1 inhibitors inferior to PD-1 inhibitors in dMMR/MSI-H CRC ? -Did lack of central confirmation of dMMR/MSI-H status contribute to these findings? -Implications for use of atezo in https://t.co/zjCAcZuieB
Manju George MVSc PhD ● NEUTRAL @ozdogan_md The COMMIT results have made the field unnecessarily complicated Can we pl stick to MSI-H patients getting Pembro monotherapy or Ipi+Nivo combination? Why use chemo in 2026, in a subset which has great results with proven immunotherapy in trials like 8HW and KN 177? #GI26 #CRCSM
OncUpdates ● NEUTRAL 💥#ASCOGI26 #GI26 Abstract Highlights #COMMIT: PhIII, Atezolizumab + Chemo + Bev vs. Atezo in 1L dMMR mCRC: 👉 CR: 36 vs 18% 👉2-yr OR: 67 vs 67% ✅ORR 86.1% vs. 46% ⬆️mPFS 24.5mos vs. 5.3mos ⚠️⬆️ rates G3-G4 toxicities #MedTwitter #MedX #OncTwitter #gism #HemOnc #Oncology https://t.co/gfBLyE0Dg8
Santhosh Ambika ● NEGATIVE @DaisukeKotani Atezo is a slightly inferior drug across various cancers, plus risk of Ab formation ..
Santhosh Ambika ● NEGATIVE @OncBrothers Shockingly bad performance by Atezo, just stick with Ipi/Nivo, much less failure rate than single agent Pembro or Nivo ..