KOL Pulse Insights Blog

Etcamah (Camizestrant) Approval: KOLs Who Agree With ODAC | SERENA-6

Written by Brian Shields | Sep 5, 2026, 1:18:30 PM
KOL Pulse · Breast Cancer · SERENA-6 KOL Sentiment

Etcamah (Camizestrant) Is FDA Approved — and Some KOLs Still Agree With ODAC's No Vote

On September 4, 2026 the FDA granted accelerated approval to Etcamah (camizestrant, AstraZeneca) plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor for HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer on detection of an ESR1 mutation during first-line AI + CDK4/6i therapy. The FDA's Oncology Center of Excellence Director called it “the first FDA approval of a cancer therapy guided by the detection of a resistance mutation in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) before imaging tests show that the disease is progressing.” Four months earlier, the FDA's advisory committee voted 6–3 against the strategy. Several oncologists say, on the record, that they still agree with that vote. Every quote below is verbatim and linked.

What did the FDA approve on September 4, 2026?

Accelerated approval of Etcamah (camizestrant) in combination with a CDK4/6 inhibitor (abemaciclib, palbociclib, or ribociclib) for adults with HR-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer, upon detection of an ESR1 mutation during aromatase inhibitor and CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, based on an FDA-authorized test. Guardant360 CDx was authorized as the companion diagnostic. Per the FDA announcement, median PFS was 16 vs 9.2 months (camizestrant + CDK4/6i vs continued AI + CDK4/6i; primary DCO1 analysis). The label carries a boxed warning for irregular heart rhythm with certain concomitant medications. As an accelerated approval, continued approval may be contingent on confirmatory evidence; per the FDA approval notice, the approval is based on PFS measured from detection of ESR1 mutation.

Sources: the FDA press announcement, the FDA approval notice, and the complete record (same-day physician reactions, every data cut with source labels, the full regulatory timeline) on the SERENA-6 trial profile.

Watch: the 2½-minute Early Reactions briefing

Presented with an AI narrator; every quote in the briefing is verbatim from the named physicians’ public posts.

What did ODAC vote against in April, and why?

On April 30, 2026 the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 6–3 that the early-switch strategy had not demonstrated clinically meaningful benefit. The committee's concerns, per the FDA briefing document: overall survival was immature (~30% mature, HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.57–1.30; DCO3, January 2026), the PFS clock starts at mutation detection rather than progression, PFS2 was not yet interpretable, and the control arm never crossed over to camizestrant. So SERENA-6 answers "switch early vs don't switch," not "switch early vs switch later." The key secondary endpoint PFS2 was subsequently formally met: 25.7 vs 19.1 months, HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.46–0.86; p=0.00373) at DCO3 (January 2026; ASCO 2026 LBA1007; full text Turner et al., Lancet Oncol 2026;27(8):941-958). The FDA told the committee it "does not typically use PFS2 for regulatory decision making, as it does not isolate the effect of the experimental drug" (ODAC transcript, April 30, 2026), and the September 4 accelerated approval rests on PFS. The committee's acting chair, Dr. Neil Vasan, voted in favor, citing per the meeting transcript the large benefit in PFS and PFS2.

The clearest KOL summary of the FDA's position came from Dr. Rishabh Jain, whose six-problem breakdown of the briefing documents circulated widely after the vote:

Post-ODAC (Apr 2026)The FDA's 6 problems
Dr Rishabh Jain@DrRishabhOnco
 

🚨 FDA’s take on SERENA-6 is basically this: “Nice data… but are we helping patients?” Let’s break it down 👇 🧠 Problem 1: Wrong question Trial asks: 👉 Switch early vs don’t switch But real-world question is: 👉 Switch early vs switch later FDA: ❌ “You didn’t answer the real question.” ⏱️ Problem 2: The PFS illusion PFS looks great (16 vs 9.2 months) But… it starts from: 👉 ESR1 mutation detection (not progression) FDA: ❓ “What does this PFS even mean clinically?” 🧬 Problem 3: Biology mismatch We assume: ESR1 mutation = resistance FDA says: 👉 Not so fast Patients may still benefit from AI + CDK4/6i even AFTER mutation appears 👉 Early switch = stopping a working drug 🔁 Problem 4: No second chance Control arm never got camizestrant later ❌ So we don’t know: 👉 Early vs delayed use FDA: ❌ “This comparison is incomplete” 📉 Problem 5: Where is survival benefit? OS = immature Final data → years away FDA: 👉 “Without OS, paradigm shift is risky” ⚠️ Problem 6: Not risk-free QT prolongation Bradycardia Rare TdP 👉 Not a harmless switch 🎯 FDA’s real message: “Just because we can act early… doesn’t mean we should.” 🔖 Save this - this is how regulators think 📖 Full FDA briefing in comment ⬇️ #OncoTwitter #MedTwitter #BreastCancer #ESMOBreast26 @OncoAlert @myesmo @esmo_open @asco @OncBrothers

Apr 2026View on X ↗

The thread under Hamilton's takeaway: crossover, QoL, and who designs the trials

Dr. Hamilton's post-ODAC takeaway (above) drew a conversation between oncologists and patient advocates. The exchange, verbatim:

Apr 30 · replyPatient advocate
Dr. Kelly Shanahan@stage4kelly · physician living with MBC

@ErikaHamilton9 @PTarantinoMD Do you think if crossover allowed or including QoL measures as 1° or 2° endpoint would have made a difference? I sure would have pushed for that if I, as someone #NotDeadYet w/ MBC, had been involved in early stages of trial design. Another case of #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs

Apr 30, 2026View on X ↗
Apr 30 · replyHamilton answers
Erika Hamilton, MD, FASCO@ErikaHamilton9

@stage4kelly @PTarantinoMD I mean, all speculation...but yes, if crossover had been allowed and patients did BETTER if they got cami EARLIER, 💯 we'd have an approval right now in my opinion. When this trial enrolled, patients didn't have access to subsequently get a SERD.

Apr 30, 2026View on X ↗
May 1 · replyThe trial FDA wants
Roberson Guimaraes@robersonguima · mastologist, USP

@ErikaHamilton9 FDA suggests a new clinical trial: Arm A — Early Intervention Strategy Imediate switch to: camizestrant + CDK4/6 inhibitor Arm B — Standard Strategy Continue: aromatase inhibitor (AI) + CDK4/6 inhibitor Switch to: camizestrant + CDK4/6 inhibitor upon Radiologic progression

May 1, 2026View on X ↗
Apr 30 · quote tweetPatient advocate
Janice Cowden@JaniceTNBCmets · mTNBC patient advocate

As patients, most of us want the same thing: promising science, thoughtful drug development, & clear evidence that new approaches will meaningfully help patients live better & longer. Today's FDA ODAC discussion on #SERENA6 & #camizestrant was an important reminder that encouraging data is only part of the story. What matters most is whether a treatment change will truly improve outcomes in ways that are meaningful for patients. That patient-centered focus matters. I found the @US_FDA position statements in the briefing doc very helpful (highlighted in 🌑): 📌Also - involve pt advocates in clinical trial design, from the start! 😉 #PatientCenteredMedicine #Oncology #bcsm #ODAC #Advocacy #metastaticbreastcancer

Apr 30, 2026View on X ↗

Her quote tweet was amplified by the Oncology Brothers and Dr. Carmine Valenza, author of the Lancet Oncology comment on the SERENA-6 publication.

Want to go to the source? Dr. Tatiana Prowell shared the full ODAC meeting video and transcript (AM session): "Good #MedEd for #OncTwitter."

What the ASCO 2025 plenary discussant said: DeMichele's takeaways

SERENA-6 was presented at the ASCO 2025 plenary in June 2025, ten months before the ODAC vote. The discussant, Dr. Angela DeMichele (Penn), put her conclusions on one slide: ctDNA-guided switching "prolonged 1st line PFS" with "Acceptable toxicity and improved QOL," a "Possible new regulatory approval path," and "Other tangible benefits (e.g., longer time to chemotherapy, delay to development of more aggressive metastases such as CNS involvement)." On the other side of the slide: "additional outcomes needed to determine clinical utility of the strategy," "Too early for PFS-2 and OS," "Design creates challenges to assessing clinical utility," and the "Full complement of financial, psychological and systemic costs."
Dr. Angela DeMichele's "Key Take Aways from SERENA-6" slide, ASCO 2025 plenary discussion. Photo via @PTarantinoMD; slide is property of the author and ASCO.

Her discussion also covered serial-testing logistics: 3,256 patients screened serially, 548 (17%) with ESR1 mutations, 315 (57%) agreeing to be randomized, 52 (9%) with concurrent anatomic progression at detection. She asked whether "test-xiety" joins "scan-xiety" in the surveillance experience. Plenary-day reactions:

ASCO 2025 plenaryOn DeMichele's discussion
Paolo Tarantino@PTarantinoMD
 

Tremendous discussion of the SERENA-6 trial by @AngieDemichele. Outstanding results, though not ready for clinical practice (yet). Important to take into account financial, psychological & systemic costs of the strategy. Make sure to review this presentation if you missed it.

Jun 1, 2025View on X ↗
ASCO 2025 plenaryOn DeMichele's discussion
Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, FASCO@oncology_bg
 

I am loving Dr. DeMichele’s comments, including her insistence on longer survival and discussion of crossover issues. #ASCO25 #plenary #serena-6 Also loving audience questions. They are asking hard questions on the utility of PFS. I feel happy that the education is spreading and audience are asking the questions that people didn’t use to ask a few years ago. The status quo does seem to be changing. That makes me happy. Also, for a full discussion of all issues that are being discussed, read CSO checklist paper

Jun 1, 2025View on X ↗
ASCO 2025 plenaryNot practice changing
Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, FASCO@oncology_bg
 

This discussion of SERENA-6 trial was excellent. #ASCO25 This doesn’t feel practice changing to me.

Jun 1, 2025View on X ↗
ASCO 2025 plenaryOn DeMichele's discussion
Ryan Huey, MD, MS@ryanhuey
 

Dr. DeMichele highlights the importance of clinical utility. - PFS2 did not reach the high bar for statistical significance. But should it have been defined with different parameters? - No crossover is a limitation, and serial ctDNA is burdensome and costly. #ASCO25

Jun 1, 2025View on X ↗

Which KOLs side with the ODAC majority now that Etcamah is approved?

Dr. Tatiana Prowell, writing the day after the approval: "TLDR: I agree w/ ODAC." Her stated reasons: higher cost, safety issues, and no survival benefit at this point. Medical oncologist Dr. Jose Fernando Moura (MD, PhD) asks whether acting on molecular progression changes the disease course or only the treatment calendar.

The counter-argument: what the approval's supporters say

Dr. Sherene Loi's post-ODAC argument: the FDA accepts PFS without OS for other SERDs at radiographic progression, so the objection here is the earlier PFS start point, and demanding a definitive strategy trial before approving an active drug "sets a precedent that will harm precision oncology." Approval-day support came from Drs. Mouabbi, Hamilton (a design skeptic in April, "paradigm shifting" on approval day), Sammons, Rugo, and Dr. Neil Vasan, the ODAC acting chair, who voted in favor and whose JAMA Oncology Viewpoint, "Redefining Progression in a Rapidly Evolving Therapeutic Landscape," opens with oncology's new reality of detecting therapy failure "before it is visible on a scan."
Day 1The paradigm case
Jason A. Mouabbi MD@JAMouabbi
 

Fantastic news to end the week! 🎉 FDA accelerated approval: camizestrant + CDK4/6i at ESR1 emergence on 1L AI + CDK4/6i (SERENA-6). mPFS 16.0 vs 9.2 mo, HR 0.44. First approval ever driven by ctDNA, not imaging. Molecular progression is now actionable in the US. So happy for our patients who want to stay a step ahead of their cancer.

Sep 4, 2026View on X ↗
Day 1Paradigm shifting
Erika Hamilton, MD, FASCO@ErikaHamilton9
 

#camizestrant approval for 1.5L ER+ #bcsm w/ the emergence of ESR1m in the absence of progression 1st line. Camizestrant is a drug we have loved using across all settings but this particular study is a paradigm shifting study w/ its molecular trigger!

Sep 4, 2026View on X ↗
Day 1ODAC acting chair - voted yes
Neil Vasan@NeilVasan
 

@FDA granted accelerated approval for camizestrant today based on SERENA-6: switching therapy when an ESR1 mutation appears in ctDNA, before scans show progression. This is resistance defined, drugged, and tracked at the bedside. I served as Chair of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) on this trial. My recent @JAMAOnc piece discussed the vote and regulatory issues around detecting cancer before it is seen: jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2852935

Sep 4, 2026View on X ↗
Day 1The pro/con read
Dr Sarah Sammons@drsarahsam
 

FDA grants accelerated approval to Etcamah (camizestrant) + CDK4/6i (abemaciclib, palbociclib, ribociclib) for HR+/HER2- advanced BC upon ESR1 mutation detected during AI + CDK4/6i therapy, by FDA-authorized test. Pro: mPFS 16 vs 9.2 mo per label. In SERENA-6, final PFS2 25.7 vs 19.1 mo (HR 0.63) and 46% lower risk of deterioration in global health status/QOL. Con: Accelerated approval, OS immature, confirmatory trials required. Boxed warning for irregular heart rhythm with certain concomitant meds, plus bradycardia. First trial to intervene on molecular resistance in breast cancer before clinical PD. #bcsm

Sep 4, 2026View on X ↗
Day 1Supportive
Hope Rugo@hoperugo
 

Camizestrant approved in patients with emerging mESR1 by ctDNA in the absence of PD. @OncoAlert @OncBrothers

Sep 4, 2026View on X ↗
Post-ODAC (Apr 2026)Disagrees with ODAC
Sherene Loi, MD@LoiSher
 

➡️As a biomarker advocate, this decision needs commenting. #SERENA6 proves #camizestrant has strong drug activity in emerging ESR1m disease, stronger than approved SERDs post-progression. FDA accepts PFS without OS for other SERDs at radiographic progression; the higher bar here is apparently the earlier PFS start point. But the 9.2m control PFS does not mean "no need to act" it is a window where ESR1 subclones can be intercepted before broader and tougher to treat resistance biology beyond ESR1m emerges and dominates. Two separate questions: drug efficacy evidence (clearly established) vs strategy evidence (needs further study). Demanding a definitive strategy trial before approving a drug with this activity sets a precedent that, IMO, will harm precision oncology. Such a trial needs years more time, money, patients & impossible in a changing 2L landscape. @oncoalert @FDAOncology #bcsm

Apr 2026View on X ↗

More reactions, verbatim and sourced, including Drs. Sahin, Kurian and Choueiri and the institutional statements: the SERENA-6 trial profile. Patient-reported outcomes are published in Mayer et al., Annals of Oncology.

Listen: the Breast Friends episode Tarantino described on approval day

On approval day, Dr. Tarantino highlighted "our podcast episode dissecting the SERENA6 strategy with the one and only @hoperugo": Episode 5 of the Breast Friends Podcast, "Dr. Hope Rugo: The Evolution of Breast Oncology" (May 2026), hosted by Drs. Tarantino and Mouabbi:

What would settle the debate?

The open items both sides cite: mature overall survival (the final OS analysis, DCO4, is pending) and the confirmatory evidence the accelerated approval requires; the early-versus-delayed-switch question the trial design cannot answer; real-world QT/arrhythmia and bradycardia safety under the boxed warning; serial-ctDNA testing burden; and cost. Reading the newly published curves in July, Dr. Yakup Ergün saw no clear separation yet (below).
Day 1The OS question
Yakup Ergün@dr_yakupergun
 

It took a while, but camizestrant has finally been approved based on SERENA-6. This is also an important milestone in recognizing molecular progression as a clinically actionable event. The next question is even more relevant: Is there a survival benefit to switching to an oral SERD at molecular progression, rather than continuing current therapy and switching to an oral SERD only after radiologic progression?

Sep 4, 2026View on X ↗
Post-ODAC (Apr 2026)The crossover nuance
Hope Rugo@hoperugo
 

Altho we all want cami approval it is important to note the novel & futuristic trial design. Changing Rx for resistance markers vs PD. Lack of crossover an issue in determining LT benefit. Low return of QOL docs. We need to be smarter in trial design. And it’s not over for S6!

Apr 2026View on X ↗
Jul 2026The OS curves today
Yakup Ergün@dr_yakupergun
 

The SERENA-6 PFS2 results were presented at #ASCO26 . The full-text is now published, but the OS data remain immature. The current curves do not show a clear separation. Whether an OS benefit will emerge with longer F/U remains an open question.

Jul 2026View on X ↗
Post-ODAC (Apr 2026)The honest frame
Erika Hamilton, MD, FASCO@ErikaHamilton9
 

There will be people who agree & disagree with @US_FDA decision on #SERENA6 #cami, but fantastic document by FDA 👏 educating & clearly outlining reasons for the decision and how PFS2 will be interpreted. A must read for drug developers and pharma.

Apr 2026View on X ↗

Frequently asked questions

Is Etcamah (camizestrant) FDA approved?

Yes. On September 4, 2026 the FDA granted accelerated approval to Etcamah (camizestrant) in combination with a CDK4/6 inhibitor (abemaciclib, palbociclib, or ribociclib) for HR-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer, upon detection of an ESR1 mutation during aromatase inhibitor and CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, based on an FDA-authorized test. Guardant360 CDx was authorized as the companion diagnostic. As an accelerated approval, continued approval may be contingent on confirmatory evidence.

What did ODAC vote on SERENA-6, and why did some members vote no?

On April 30, 2026 the FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted 6-3 that switching to camizestrant on ESR1 emergence ahead of radiographic progression had not demonstrated clinically meaningful benefit. Concerns included immature overall survival, the novel PFS start point (mutation detection rather than progression), whether PFS2 was interpretable at the time, and that the control arm never crossed over to camizestrant later - so the trial compares early switch versus no switch, not early versus delayed.

Which KOLs agree with the ODAC no vote?

Tatiana Prowell wrote after the approval: "TLDR: I agree w/ ODAC" - current SERENA-6 results do not persuade her that switching on ESR1 emergence without radiographic progression benefits patients, citing cost, safety and no survival benefit at this point. Jose Fernando Moura asked whether the strategy truly changes the disease course or simply changes when the next treatment starts. At the ASCO 2025 plenary itself, discussant Angela DeMichele concluded additional outcomes were needed to determine the clinical utility of the strategy.

What did Angela DeMichele say about SERENA-6 at the ASCO plenary?

As the ASCO 2025 plenary discussant, DeMichele's key-takeaways slide read: ctDNA-guided switching prolonged first-line PFS with acceptable toxicity and improved QOL and a possible new regulatory approval path - but additional outcomes are needed to determine the clinical utility of the strategy, it was too early for PFS2 and OS, the design creates challenges to assessing clinical utility, and the full complement of financial, psychological and systemic costs must be counted.

What data would settle the SERENA-6 debate?

Mature overall survival is the central ask - as of the DCO3 data cut (January 2026, the analysis both ODAC and ASCO 2026 LBA1007 discussed), OS was about 30% mature (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.57-1.30), too early to interpret; the final OS analysis (DCO4) is pending. The FDA's accelerated approval notes continued approval may require confirmatory evidence. Skeptics also want the early-versus-delayed-switch question answered, and real-world data on QT/arrhythmia safety, serial ctDNA testing burden, and cost.

The bottom line

The record, in order: the plenary discussant called clinical utility unproven in June 2025. ODAC voted 6–3 no in April 2026. The FDA approved on September 4, on PFS, with its Oncology Center of Excellence Director attaching the caveat that "additional evidence is needed to confirm clinical benefit." Credible KOLs still hold the ODAC position after approval day. Which voices move, and what data moves them, is what the SERENA-6 trial profile tracks.

Free Access · KOL Pulse Intelligence

Track oncology’s top KOLs in your specialty

Create a free account, pick the tumor types you cover, and go beyond the tweet — the intelligence pharma teams use to map influence and prepare for engagement:

  • Enhanced KOL profiles
  • Pharma influence & potential advisory-board patterns
  • 2025 Open Payments financial analysis
  • Social-media sentiment & trend signals
Get free access — pick your specialty
Choose the tumor types you follow. No cost, unsubscribe anytime.
Free access — track oncology’s top KOLs in your specialty: profiles, pharma influence, ad-board patterns & 2025 Open Payments analysis. Get free access

KOL Pulse tracks what verified oncology and hematology physicians are actually discussing on X — not press releases, the real clinical debate. Every KOL tweet quoted here is verbatim and links to its source post; congress remarks are quoted from the presented slides. Featured voices: Drs. Tatiana Prowell, Angela DeMichele (via her ASCO discussion slides), Paolo Tarantino, Bishal Gyawali, Ryan Huey, Rishabh Jain, Ali Aytaç, Jose Fernando Moura, Yakup Ergün, Sherene Loi, Erika Hamilton, Hope Rugo, Sarah Sammons, Jason Mouabbi, and Neil Vasan.

Clinical figures verified against the FDA approval announcement, the ODAC meeting transcript, and the sourced record on the KOL Pulse SERENA-6 trial profile. Editorial/educational content; not medical advice. © 2026 KOL Pulse.