# HARMONi-GI3: HCP commentary report

> 19 verified statements (7 from clinicians verified by NPI or staff page) from 10 commentary sources · 5 findings · updated Oct 29, 2026

## Report

- Trial: A Randomized, Active-Controlled, Double-blind, Multicenter, Phase 3 Clinical Study of Ivonescimab in Combination With FOLFOX Versus Bevacizumab in Combination With FOLFOX for the First-line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
- NCT ID: NCT07228832
- Registry: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07228832
- Sponsor: Summit Therapeutics
- Phase: Phase 3
- Status: Recruiting
- Indications: Colorectal cancer
- Version: v1.0.0, edition 1
- Accepted: 2026-10-29
- Last checked: 2026-10-29
- Release hash: 2745303c2e784efcd543b57131b9ea8b3fa3c64f434fa83926430219d0e0660e

## Counts

- HCP commentary sources screened: 28
- Sources cited by verified statements: 10
- Verified statements: 19
- From speakers with a confirmed clinical role (verified by the NPI registry or their own institution's staff page): 7
- Findings: 5
- People found in screened sources: 8
- Voices cited: 7
- Cited voices identity-verified: 3
- Organisational or shared accounts (not counted as people): 2

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

## Abstract

HARMONi-GI3 asks whether ivonescimab plus FOLFOX improves first-line metastatic colorectal cancer treatment compared with bevacizumab plus FOLFOX. Clinicians in the sources reviewed for this edition express conditional enthusiasm about early efficacy. Dual targeting attracts interest, while clinical synergy draws questions and safety interpretation needs context. Confirmation of comparative clinical benefit remains unresolved, alongside practical questions about local trial participation and patient access.

## Open Medical Affairs question

What would establish clinically meaningful added benefit over bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6, with a tolerability trade-off patients can understand?

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. Early efficacy enthusiasm remains conditional on confirmation and needs its phase II safety context
- F3. A competitive endpoint comparison raises an unresolved question about what 'having OS' means
- F4. Dual targeting and lung-cancer precedent motivate attention, while clinical synergy remains an open question
- F5. Investigator enthusiasm is connected to local trial participation, with different stated stages of access
- F6. Pipeline and valuation enthusiasm is distinct from a judgment of patient benefit

## 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 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 4 | none recorded | 4 |
| F3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | none recorded | 2 |
| F4 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | none recorded | 2 |
| F5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | none recorded | 2 |
| F6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | none recorded | 2 |

### 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 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 4 posts and articles | yes |
| F3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 post or article | yes |
| F4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 3 posts and articles | yes |
| F5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 posts and articles | yes |
| F6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 posts and articles | yes |

### Trial dimensions

- Primary endpoint: PFS by IRRC based on RECIST v1.1: F1 (3 shared claims)
- Secondary endpoint: Overall Survival (OS) in the population: F1 (1 shared claims), F3 (1 shared claims)
- Secondary endpoint: ORR: F1 (4 shared claims)
- Secondary endpoint: Adverse Events (AE): F1 (2 shared claims)
- Secondary endpoint: DoR: no finding draws on it directly
- Population and setting: F1 (6 shared claims), F4 (2 shared claims), F5 (1 shared claims), F6 (1 shared claims)
- The comparison: F1 (3 shared claims), F4 (2 shared claims), F5 (2 shared claims), F6 (1 shared claims)
- Safety and tolerability: F1 (2 shared claims)
- Design and conduct: F1 (1 shared claims), F3 (1 shared claims), F4 (1 shared claims), F5 (2 shared claims)

## Sample findings

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

### F3. A competitive endpoint comparison raises an unresolved question about what 'having OS' means

An X-thread post asks what prompted a change in overall-survival endpoint selection in a competing colorectal-cancer trial.

Source: X thread, 2026-05-06.

## What's inside

| Section | Items | Access |
| --- | ---: | --- |
| Findings with interpretation, counterviews and limits | 5 | Titles free |
| Detailed analysis | 7 sections | Paid |
| Verified statements with short source quotes and links | 19 | Paid |
| Trial aspects mapped | 14 | Free |
| Sources with links | 10 | Counts free |
| Speaker attribution for cited voices | 7 | Paid |

## Trial aspects

13 discussed · 1 no commentary found · 0 assessment incomplete.

| Aspect | Coverage | Statements | Sources |
| --- | --- | ---: | ---: |
| Primary endpoint: PFS by IRRC based on RECIST v1.1 | discussed | 3 | 2 |
| Secondary endpoint: Overall Survival (OS) in the population | discussed | 2 | 2 |
| Secondary endpoint: ORR | discussed | 4 | 4 |
| Secondary endpoint: Adverse Events (AE) | discussed | 2 | 2 |
| Secondary endpoint: DoR | no commentary found | 0 | 0 |
| Population and setting | discussed | 9 | 7 |
| The comparison | discussed | 7 | 7 |
| Safety and tolerability | discussed | 2 | 2 |
| Design and conduct | discussed | 4 | 4 |
| Disease control and interpretation of the precursor phase II signal | discussed | 5 | 2 |
| Dual-targeting rationale and HARMONi-6/HARMONi-2 precedent | discussed | 7 | 3 |
| Local trial access and site participation | discussed | 2 | 2 |
| Strategic, commercial and patent-related interpretations | discussed | 4 | 4 |
| Competitive endpoint-design comparisons | discussed | 1 | 1 |

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 | 23 | 8 |
| LinkedIn posts | 2 | 2 |
| Bluesky threads | 3 | 0 |

- Screened window: 2025-10-17 to 2026-10-25
- Cited window: 2025-10-20 to 2026-09-19
- Retrieved: 2026-10-29

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 Randomized, Active-Controlled, Double-blind, Multicenter, Phase 3 Clinical Study of Ivonescimab in Combination With FOLFOX Versus Bevacizumab in Combination With FOLFOX for the First-line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
- Registry: NCT07228832 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07228832)
- Study IDs: SMT112-3005
- Sponsor: Summit Therapeutics
- Design: Phase 3 · interventional, randomized, parallel, phase3
- Status: Recruiting
- Enrollment: 600 (estimated)
- Start: 2025-11-18 (actual)
- Primary completion: 2028-05-31 (estimated)
- Primary endpoint: PFS by IRRC based on RECIST v1.1 (Up to approximately 2.5 years)
- Intervention: Drug: Ivonescimab Injection (drug)
- Intervention: Drug: Bevacizumab Injection (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.
- 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.
- 11 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 public posts reviewed do not establish consensus, the prevalence of a view among HCPs or how clinicians are treating patients in routine practice.
- Some authors have confirmed physician identities, while others have unverified identities or an unresolved clinical role. An organizational relay and commercial commentary should not be counted as additional independent HCP judgments.
- Discussion using unnamed references or different wording may be absent, and some passages were not fully assessed for clinician views. An aspect with no commentary therefore describes only what was identified in the sources reviewed for this edition.
- No full protocol or results publication for the exact trial was available among the sources reviewed, and exact product-label information was unavailable. Detailed endpoint specifications, approved-use questions and comparative outcomes cannot be settled from these comments.
- The reported colorectal efficacy and safety figures are phase II evidence, not HARMONi-GI3 results. Lung-cancer studies are invoked as motivation, not as evidence of efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer.
- Post dates identify when comments were published, not when a session, readout or site activation occurred. They do not establish changes of mind or disagreement across settings.

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

## Editions and corrections

- v1.0.0, accepted 2026-10-29: current edition

Last checked for new commentary 2026-10-29. 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 (19 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 (3 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/harmoni-gi3-nct07228832
- Agents: POST https://www.erudio.com/api/orders with {"report": "harmoni-gi3-nct07228832", "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=harmoni-gi3-07228832

## Cite

Erudio Health. HARMONi-GI3 (NCT07228832): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Oct 29, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/harmoni-gi3-nct07228832

## Machine access

- JSON: https://www.erudio.com/reports/harmoni-gi3-nct07228832.json
- Markdown: https://www.erudio.com/reports/harmoni-gi3-nct07228832.md
- MCP, no sign-in: https://mcp.erudio.com/free, tool `get_report_card` with `{"slug": "harmoni-gi3-07228832"}`