# BEHOLD-1: HCP commentary report

> 100 verified statements (34 from clinicians verified by NPI or staff page) from 24 commentary sources · 7 findings · updated Oct 31, 2026

## Report

- Trial: A Phase 1 Clinical Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics and Clinical Activity of Mocertatug Rezetecan for Injection in Subjects With Advanced Solid Tumors
- NCT ID: NCT06431594
- Registry: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06431594
- Sponsor: GlaxoSmithKline
- Phase: Phase 1
- Status: Recruiting
- Drugs tested: mocertatug rezetecan
- Indication: advanced solid tumors
- Version: v1.0.0, edition 1
- Accepted: 2026-10-31
- Last checked: 2026-10-31
- Release hash: 503420ddbe145adcbdcc2ea334f802da2207944da9146e264d797f465a1b589f

## Counts

- HCP commentary sources screened: 36
- Sources cited by verified statements: 25
- Verified statements: 100
- From speakers with a confirmed clinical role (verified by the NPI registry or their own institution's staff page): 34
- Findings: 7
- Named people in screened sources (unnamed speakers and accounts not counted): 13
- Voices cited: 13
- Cited voices identity-verified: 6
- Organisational or shared accounts (not counted as people): 6

Counts describe the retained sources. They do not estimate how many HCPs hold a view.

## Abstract

BEHOLD-1 examines mocertatug rezetecan’s safety and activity in advanced solid cancers, including ovarian cancer resistant to platinum and endometrial cancer. Commentary spans X posts, podcasts and YouTube videos, including physicians in surgical oncology. The discussion asks whether response enthusiasm supports further development, how dose and supportive care qualify favorable safety assessments, and whether predictive biomarkers can guide selection. The sources place phase 1 results from BEHOLD-1 at the 2026 SGO Annual Meeting and its translational analysis at ESMO2026.

## Open Medical Affairs question

Which phase III and sequencing evidence will distinguish benefit by patient and antigen-expression level, and what supportive-care conditions are needed to interpret tolerability?

Raised by the leading finding. The report shows what clinicians said and the sources behind it; it does not settle the question.

## Findings (titles)

- F1. Response enthusiasm supports further development, not established comparative superiority
- F2. Favorable safety language must remain attached to dose and supportive-care conditions
- F3. Practical implementation centers on prevention, early monitoring and drug-specific counseling
- F4. Broad target expression attracts interest, but the predictive biomarker remains unsettled
- F5. ADC positioning is conditional on access, prior toxicity and missing sequencing evidence
- F6. The immune-combination argument belongs to BEHOLD-2 and remains a mechanistic hypothesis
- F7. Trial access is encouraged, but enthusiasm remains preliminary and participation is conditional

## What sits behind each finding

Counts describe what the report retained, not how many clinicians hold a view. A statement can support more than one finding.

| Finding | Statements | Passages | Sources | Named voices | Counterview | Limitations |
| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | --- | ---: |
| F1 | 25 | 25 | 15 | 14 | none recorded | 3 |
| F2 | 20 | 17 | 6 | 7 | none recorded | 3 |
| F3 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 2 | none recorded | 3 |
| F4 | 23 | 18 | 13 | 10 | recorded | 4 |
| F5 | 11 | 6 | 4 | 3 | none recorded | 4 |
| F6 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2 | none recorded | 3 |
| F7 | 22 | 18 | 8 | 8 | none recorded | 4 |

### What the statements are

| Finding | Views | Questions and uncertainty | Clinical experience | Comparisons | Restated results and context | Passages supporting | Passages giving context | Sources by kind | Feeds the Medical Affairs question |
| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | --- | --- |
| F1 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 11 | 32 | 7 | 9 posts and articles, 5 podcasts and video, 1 publication | yes |
| F2 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 25 | 10 | 4 posts and articles, 2 podcasts and video | yes |
| F3 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 2 podcasts and video | yes |
| F4 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 25 | 5 | 10 posts and articles, 3 podcasts and video | yes |
| F5 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 1 | 2 posts and articles, 2 podcasts and video | yes |
| F6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 podcasts and video | yes |
| F7 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 28 | 3 | 1 post or article, 7 podcasts and video | yes |

### Trial dimensions

- Primary endpoint: Part 1: Number of participants with dose limiting toxicity (DLT): no finding draws on it directly
- Primary endpoint: Part 2-Confirmed Objective Response Rate (ORR) assessed by investigator: F1 (15 shared claims), F2 (3 shared claims), F4 (2 shared claims)
- Secondary endpoints: no finding draws on it directly
- Population and setting: F1 (2 shared claims), F7 (4 shared claims)
- The comparison: F1 (3 shared claims), F2 (2 shared claims), F7 (1 shared claims)
- Safety and tolerability: F2 (14 shared claims), F3 (8 shared claims), F7 (2 shared claims)
- Design and conduct: F2 (2 shared claims), F4 (3 shared claims), F5 (2 shared claims), F7 (1 shared claims)

## Sample findings

Paraphrased; the full report links each statement to its source.

### F2. Favorable safety language must remain attached to dose and supportive-care conditions

A podcast discussion asks which mocertatug rezetecan dose will advance to later-phase studies.

The sources reviewed for this edition do not establish the speaker’s individual clinical identity or role.

Source: podcast, 2026-06-02.

### F4. Broad target expression attracts interest, but the predictive biomarker remains unsettled

An X post addresses the methodological question of which cathepsin markers to assess in an exploratory analysis of mocertatug rezetecan response.

The poster’s clinical role is not established in the sources reviewed for this edition.

Source: X thread, 2026-10-24.

## What's inside

| Section | Items | Access |
| --- | ---: | --- |
| Findings with interpretation, counterviews and limits | 7 | Titles free |
| Detailed analysis | 8 sections | Paid |
| Verified statements with short source quotes and links | 100 | Paid |
| Trial aspects mapped | 12 | Free |
| Sources with links | 25 | Counts free |
| Speaker attribution for cited voices | 13 | Paid |

## Trial aspects

10 discussed · 2 no commentary found · 0 assessment incomplete.

| Aspect | Coverage | Statements | Sources |
| --- | --- | ---: | ---: |
| Primary endpoint: Part 1: Number of participants with dose limiting toxicity (DLT) | no commentary found | 0 | 0 |
| Primary endpoint: Part 2-Confirmed Objective Response Rate (ORR) assessed by investigator | discussed | 16 | 12 |
| Secondary endpoints | no commentary found | 0 | 0 |
| Population and setting | discussed | 6 | 3 |
| The comparison | discussed | 5 | 4 |
| Safety and tolerability | discussed | 21 | 8 |
| Design and conduct | discussed | 6 | 3 |
| Durability beyond response rate | discussed | 6 | 3 |
| B7-H4 target breadth and exploratory response biomarkers | discussed | 23 | 13 |
| ADC sequencing and individualized treatment niches | discussed | 12 | 4 |
| BEHOLD-2 immune-combination rationale | discussed | 5 | 2 |
| Future development, trial access and patient participation | discussed | 18 | 9 |

An aspect marked incomplete is a question the public commentary did not let us answer. We show it rather than hide it.

## Sources

| Channel | Screened | Cited |
| --- | ---: | ---: |
| X threads | 29 | 17 |
| Podcasts | 4 | 4 |
| YouTube | 3 | 3 |
| Publications (primary source, cited for context) | not screened | 1 |

- Screened window: 2026-03-19 to 2026-10-29
- Cited window: 2026-03-19 to 2026-10-29
- Retrieved: 2026-10-31

Screened sources were retrieved for this trial. Cited sources back at least one verified statement and include primary sources used for context.

## The trial

From ClinicalTrials.gov.

- Title: A Phase 1 Clinical Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics and Clinical Activity of Mocertatug Rezetecan for Injection in Subjects With Advanced Solid Tumors
- Registry: NCT06431594 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06431594)
- Study IDs: 222730 · 2024-513860-25 (CTIS)
- Sponsor: GlaxoSmithKline
- Design: Phase 1 · interventional, randomized, sequential, phase1
- Status: Recruiting
- Enrollment: 675 (estimated)
- Start: 2024-07-02 (actual)
- Primary completion: 2027-09-22 (estimated)
- Primary endpoint: Part 1: Number of participants with dose limiting toxicity (DLT) (Up to 21 days)
- Primary endpoint: Part 2-Confirmed Objective Response Rate (ORR) assessed by investigator (Up to approximately 28 months)
- Intervention: Mocertatug rezetecan (drug)

## Scope and limits

This 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.
- 2 cited commentary passages leave a source question open, such as who was speaking. The report attributes no further than the source shows.
- Not yet captured in this edition: a question about safety concerns when choosing an alternative antibody–drug conjugate for advanced endometrial cancer.
- Not yet captured in this edition: a question about ADC payload selection and community management of payload-related toxicities.
- Not yet captured in this edition: a view on prior toxicity-management experience and the lack of focused mitigation strategies in gynecologic oncology.
- Not yet captured in this edition: a view on choosing immunotherapy versus an antibody–drug conjugate according to performance status, response urgency and symptomatic disease burden.
- Not yet captured in this edition: a view on the tentative comparative positioning of antibody–drug conjugates and their sequencing in advanced gynecologic cancers.
- 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.
- 70 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 apply, so some matching discussion may be missing.
- This is a selective account of the sources reviewed for this edition, not a representative sample of HCP opinion or evidence of consensus.
- The search emphasized BEHOLD-1 and listed drug names. Unnamed references, different transcriptions and discussions that could not be read or fully evaluated may be missing.
- Some potentially relevant treatment-selection and counseling passages are not represented in the verified statements available here. A complete account of alternative-ADC counseling or conditional decisions to defer treatment cannot be inferred.
- The publication provided is a methods and endpoints description, not a results publication independently validating the response, durability or safety figures discussed. A full protocol and an exact product label were unavailable.
- Several results are relayed from presentations or sponsor announcements. Their ownership remains with the attributed party; favorable reporting is not an independent clinical endorsement.
- Some speakers' identities or clinical roles are not established in the sources used in this report; each statement is attributed only as far as its source shows.
- A speaker is described in the source as presenting BEHOLD-1. That involvement is source-described and should accompany interpretation of the interview, rather than being treated as an external independent assessment.
- Some passages cannot be reliably assigned a speaker name and may be by named participants in the same source. Repeated videos, reposts and organizational relays do not establish additional independent HCP views.
- Dose-specific, disease-specific and supportive-care-qualified accounts should not be pooled. Publication or post dates alone do not establish a change of mind, a changed dose decision or improved safety.

How reports are built and checked: https://www.erudio.com/methods

## Editions and corrections

- v1.0.0, accepted 2026-10-31: current edition

Last checked for new commentary 2026-10-31. No corrections. Versions follow semver: a new or changed finding is a minor version, more evidence without a material change is a patch.

## Offer

- Size: Focused (100 verified statements)
- Current edition: $750. A purchase starts a check for new commentary and any newer edition follows at no charge
- 3 months of weekly updates: $1,300
- 6 months of weekly updates: $1,900
- 12 months of weekly updates: $2,600
- Optional identity linkages (12-month updates only, product updates-12-identities; speakers are named and described in every report): NPI and other verified IDs at $15 per identity-verified person in the edition at purchase (6 now), at most $750; people verified later in the term at no charge
- Pricing: https://www.erudio.com/pricing
- Buy now (card, through Stripe): https://www.erudio.com/reports/behold-1-nct06431594
- Agents: POST https://www.erudio.com/api/orders with {"report": "behold-1-nct06431594", "product": "edition" | "updates-3" | "updates-6" | "updates-12" | "updates-12-identities", "buyer_email": "...", "licence_key": "<your key, if you hold one>"}; it returns a payment link for your user (and a pay_url your own MPP or x402 payment client can pay over HTTP 402, when offered), and once paid the status_url returns your license key. Send the same key with every later order so all reports sit on one key. The buyer gets their account key by email, which reads every report bought with their address; recover_key (POST https://www.erudio.com/api/keys/recover) sends it again
- Talk to Audun Utengen and Tom Lee (invoice, PO, questions): https://www.erudio.com/contact?report=behold-1-06431594

## Cite

Erudio Health. BEHOLD-1 (NCT06431594): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Oct 31, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/behold-1-nct06431594

## Machine access

- JSON: https://www.erudio.com/reports/behold-1-nct06431594.json
- Markdown: https://www.erudio.com/reports/behold-1-nct06431594.md
- MCP, no sign-in: https://mcp.erudio.com/free, tool `get_report_card` with `{"slug": "behold-1-06431594"}`