ATALANTE
atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer
ATALANTE asks whether adding atezolizumab to platinum chemotherapy plus bevacizumab can delay progression in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. Commentary comes from X posts and video interviews on X and YouTube. Debate centers on how survival-data maturity and hierarchical testing frame contested interpretation of exploratory overall survival and its implications for routine atezolizumab use. Selection of patients for immunotherapy in this setting remains unresolved.
- NCT02891824 ↗
- v1.0.0 · edition 1
- updated Oct 31, 2026
- Focused
4 findings, and what sits behind each
01. Exploratory OS: clinical importance and implications for routine use
9 statements · 8 passages · 7 sources · 6 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Secondary endpoint: Efficacy: Overall survival (OS), Primary endpoint: Efficacy: Progression free survival, where the date of progression is based on investigator assessment using the RECIST version 1.1, Design and conduct.
02. Maturity and hierarchical testing frame the dispute over how OS should be interpreted
12 statements · 8 passages · 6 sources · 4 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Secondary endpoint: Efficacy: Overall survival (OS), Design and conduct, Primary endpoint: Efficacy: Progression free survival, where the date of progression is based on investigator assessment using the RECIST version 1.1.
03. Subgroup hints, PD-L1 findings and the search for patient selection
8 statements · 6 passages · 3 sources · 2 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting.
04. Reactions to repeated negative studies and proposed immune research directions
14 statements · 12 passages · 9 sources · 7 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Primary endpoint: Efficacy: Progression free survival, where the date of progression is based on investigator assessment using the RECIST version 1.1, Population and setting, Design and conduct.
Counts overlap, since one statement can back several findings. They show what the report kept, not how many clinicians agree. The full report includes the interpretations and source links.
Select a finding to see what the full report holds for it: how many verified HCP statements and of what kind, the passages behind them, the sources and voices, and the counterview and limits it records. Select a part of the trial to see which findings draw on it.
- Finding 1 of 4
Exploratory OS: clinical importance and implications for routine use
- statements
- 9
- passages
- 8
- sources
- 7
- named voices
- 6
What the statements areViews 7Questions and uncertainty 0Clinical experience 0Comparisons 0Restated results and context 2How passages are usedSupporting a statement 10Giving context 0Recorded with the finding- Counterview: recorded
- Limitations: 2
- Feeds the Medical Affairs question
- 3 posts and articles
- 3 podcasts and video
- 1 publication
Draws on: Secondary endpoint: Efficacy: Overall survival (OS), Primary endpoint: Efficacy: Progression free survival, where the date of progression is based on investigator assessment using the RECIST version 1.1, Design and conduct.
In the full report: the interpretation in full, all 9 statements cited to source and date, and the 7 sources linked where public.
Thicker lines mean more shared statements. A finding without a line goes beyond the registered design. Counts overlap, since one statement can back several findings, and they show what the report kept, not how many clinicians agree.
The full ATALANTE report gives each finding its interpretation, the attributed views behind it, counterviews, limits and the verified HCP statements, each linked to the original. Get a complete report free to see what you get.
How should Medical Affairs explain patient-relevant exploratory OS without implying confirmatory efficacy, routine checkpoint-inhibitor use or validated patient selection?
Raised by the leading finding. The report shows what clinicians said and the sources behind it; it does not settle the question.
By the numbers
free- 40HCP commentary sources screened
- 17sources cited by verified HCP statements
- 9named in screened sources
- 9voices cited in the report
- 5cited voices matched to verified clinician profiles
Also in the sources: 3 organizational or shared accounts, not counted as people.
- 50verified statements, each linked to its source
- 1of them from speakers with a confirmed clinical role
- 4findings
Screened sources were retrieved for this trial. Cited sources back at least one verified statement and include primary sources used for context. No count estimates how many clinicians hold a view. Size (Focused) is set by the 50 verified statements. Statements from sponsors, hosts and organisations are labelled and count apart from identified clinicians. A confirmed clinical role is one verified by the NPI registry or by the person's own institution's staff page; a role a source only states is not counted.
What's inside
free| Section | Items | Access |
|---|---|---|
| Findings with interpretation, counterviews and limits | 4 | Titles free |
| Detailed analysis | 5 sections | Paid |
| Verified statements with short source quotes and links | 50 | Paid |
| Trial aspects mapped | 13 | Free |
| Sources with links | 17 | Counts free |
| Speaker attribution for cited voices | 9 | Paid |
Trial aspects
9 discussed · 4 no commentary · 0 incomplete| Aspect | Statements | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Primary endpoint: Efficacy: Progression free survival, where the date of progression is based on investigator assessment using the RECIST version 1.1 | 7 | 7 |
| Secondary endpoint: Efficacy: Overall survival (OS) | 12 | 9 |
| Secondary endpoint: Efficacy: Time from date randomization to second subsequent therapy or date of death (TSST) whichever come firstno commentary found | 0 | 0 |
| Secondary endpoint: patient reported outcome variablesno commentary found | 0 | 0 |
| Secondary endpoint: Adverse eventsno commentary found | 0 | 0 |
| Population and setting | 6 | 3 |
| The comparison | 5 | 4 |
| Safety and tolerabilityno commentary found | 0 | 0 |
| Design and conduct | 6 | 4 |
| Clinical importance, routine-use implications and market expectations | 6 | 5 |
| Predictive markers and biopsy-led translational research | 4 | 2 |
| Combination rationale and accumulated disappointment with checkpoint inhibition | 8 | 7 |
| AGO-OVAR 2.29/ENGOT-ov34 comparison and alternative immune research approaches | 3 | 1 |
An aspect marked incomplete is a question the public commentary did not let us answer. We show it rather than hide it.
Sources
free| Channel | Screened | Cited | |
|---|---|---|---|
| X threads | 34 | 12 | |
| YouTube | 3 | 3 | |
| X videos | 1 | 1 | |
| Bluesky threads | 1 | 0 | |
| Podcasts | 1 | 0 | |
| Primary sources, cited for context, not screened | |||
| Publications | not screened | 1 | |
max 11 / quarter
- Screened window
- Sep 9, 2022 → Oct 14, 2026
- Cited window
- Sep 9, 2022 → Oct 14, 2026
- Retrieved
- Oct 30, 2026
The trial
from ClinicalTrials.gov- Title
- A Randomized, Double-blinded, Phase III Study of Atezolizumab Versus Placebo in Patients With Late Relapse of Epithelial Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, or Peritoneal Cancer Treated by Platinum-based Chemotherapy and Bevacizumab
- Also known as
- ENGOT-ov29
- Registry
- NCT02891824
- Study IDs
- GINECO-OV236b
- Sponsor
- ARCAGY/ GINECO GROUP
- Collaborators
- Hoffmann-La Roche
- Design
- Phase 3 · Interventional, randomized, parallel
- Status
- Completed
- Enrollment
- 614 actual
- Registered
- 2016-09-08
- Start
- 2016-09-22 actual
- Primary completion
- 2021-10-15 actual
- Primary endpoint
- Efficacy: Progression free survival, where the date of progression is based on investigator assessment using the RECIST version 1.1
- Interventions
- 2 registered
Scope and limits
freeThis report does not judge efficacy, estimate HCP prevalence or consensus or give treatment advice.
- Discussion that does not name the trial may be missing from this edition.
- Some passages in the sources used in this report were not fully assessed for clinician views, so a view there may be missing from this edition.
- 17 statements in the sources reviewed for this edition are about other patients or topics, or only mention the trial, and are not counted.
- Further source limits: discussion that describes the trial without naming it may be incomplete; some discussion that describes the trial without naming it may be missing; sources about other trials are not included.
- The sources include organizational accounts and relayed article or presentation wording. Repetition and reposting do not establish independent HCP agreement.
- Clinical roles are not established for every named social-media author. Account names are not treated as proof of credentials or specialty.
- The speaker of the relevant AGO229-ENGOT-ov34 interview passages cannot be named from the available speech; publisher identification alone does not establish who said those words.
- The full final-OS report was not available for assessment. Later survival findings are described through posts and interviews, while the available results publication reports earlier, immature OS.
- A separate protocol and exact regulatory labels for the studied combinations were not available in the sources reviewed. A speaker's expectation about market entry is not an established regulatory outcome.
- No HCP commentary on TSST, patient-reported outcomes, adverse-event interpretation or tolerability was identified in the assessed material. This absence does not establish an absence of clinical concern.
How reports are built and checked: Methods.
Editions and corrections
freeShow the correction
None of these corrections changed a finding.
- Oct 31, 2026Corrected to match the delivered report: per-finding counts; the sample findings; the report description. The trial's name is spelled as its investigators write it, “ATALANTE” (NCT02891824), outside quotations (was “ATALANT”, “ATALANTA”, “Atalanta”). An editorial bracket follows a transcription-garbled trial name in quotations: “Atalanta [ATALANTE]”.
Last checked for new commentary Oct 31, 2026. A new or changed finding gets a new version number; added evidence alone is a smaller update.
Cite this report
Erudio Health. ATALANTE (NCT02891824): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Oct 31, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/atalante-nct02891824
For your AI agent
Paste this into ChatGPT, Claude, Microsoft Copilot or your own agent. It previews this report through the free Erudio MCP server, tells you whether it answers your question, and orders it if you ask. Some agents ask you to confirm pasted instructions before acting; that is expected.
Help me decide whether to buy the Erudio report "ATALANTE" (NCT02891824), and buy it for me if I ask. Erudio reports cover what clinicians say in public about one clinical trial, with every verified statement linked to its source.
1. Use the free Erudio MCP server at https://mcp.erudio.com/free; it needs no sign-in. Nothing needs installing: if it is not connected in this app and you can make HTTP requests, call it directly with JSON-RPC POSTs to that URL (initialize, then tools/call), sending "Accept: application/json, text/event-stream". Call get_report_card with slug "atalante-02891824". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/atalante-nct02891824.md instead.
2. In a few lines, tell me what the report covers: its findings, its verified statements and sources, its evidence window, what it leaves out, and the price of each product (offer). Then ask what I need it for, and say plainly whether this report answers it.
3. If I want it, ask for my work email and the product: the current edition, or 3, 6 or 12 months of weekly updates. Call create_order with report "NCT02891824", that product and email, then show me the quote and the checkout_url to pay by card. If you have a payment client for HTTP 402 payments and I agree, you can pay the pay_url instead. Nothing is charged until one is paid.
4. Once it is paid, call get_order with the status_url: it returns my license key. Then use the Erudio MCP server at https://mcp.erudio.com/mcp with the header "Authorization: Bearer <key>". Call read_report with report_id erudio-nct02891824 and sections ["all"], and summarize the findings for me with their sources. The full report is large (about 500 KB): save the response to a file and work from it rather than printing it. If you cannot, read sections ["narratives"] first, the executive summary and analysis.
When you tell me what clinicians said, give each view as theirs, with its source. Counts are the sources the report kept, not the share of clinicians who agree. Reports are not medical advice.
Keep the key private to my organization.Or read the record directly: JSON, Markdown or MCP
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/atalante-nct02891824.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/atalante-nct02891824.md
# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "atalante-02891824" })release 0c28fdeb00a949052b3838d8799c0bd4a4997e624d5ac012e7b9ee6f7b534e3b