OnCo
ideasIdea

Combination baskets defined by resistance mechanism rather than by cancer type

Group patients by why their last drug stopped working, then test the combination designed to fix that specific failure, whatever the cancer.

Progression biopsies and ctDNA now reveal resistance mechanisms (SLFN11 loss for topoisomerase-1 payloads, MET amplification for EGFR inhibitors, RB loss for CDK4/6 inhibitors). A basket trial enrolling by mechanism would test the matched rescue combination (for example ATR inhibitor plus the same ADC for SLFN11-low tumours) across histologies, converting a resistance hypothesis into a trial in months.

Hypothesis
Mechanism-defined baskets will achieve objective response rates at least twice those of unselected post-progression combination cohorts of the same agents.
Rationale
Histology-agnostic approvals (NTRK, MSI-high) proved that biology can define a population; resistance mechanisms are the same idea applied after progression.
What would test it
A three-cohort basket: SLFN11-low after a TOP1 ADC, MET-amplified after EGFR TKI, and RB1-loss after CDK4/6 inhibitor, each with a pre-specified rescue combination and a Simon two-stage design.
Maturity
preclinical evidence
Who has to act
research
Cost to try
Medium ($1M to $50M)
Years to first evidence
4
Bottlenecks it attacks

Connected

8top

Pages like this

not linked directly; found by shared links