# M21-404: HCP commentary report

> 70 verified statements (17 from clinicians verified by NPI or staff page) from 27 commentary sources · 7 findings · updated Oct 29, 2026

## Report

- Trial: A Phase 1 First in Human Study Evaluating Safety, Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy of ABBV-400 as Monotherapy and in Combination With Bevacizumab in Adult Subjects With Advanced Solid Tumors
- NCT ID: NCT05029882
- Registry: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05029882
- Sponsor: AbbVie
- Phase: Phase 1
- Status: Active, not recruiting
- Drugs tested: telisotuzumab adizutecan (ABBV-400); telisotuzumab adizutecan (ABBV-400) plus bevacizumab
- Indication: advanced solid tumors
- Version: v1.0.0, edition 1
- Accepted: 2026-10-29
- Last checked: 2026-10-29
- Release hash: f89b51cc96f14587c566498cdaa82af5a95ae38610ecedd2701b247c3ceaed67

## Counts

- HCP commentary sources screened: 53
- Sources cited by verified statements: 29
- Verified statements: 70
- From speakers with a confirmed clinical role (verified by the NPI registry or their own institution's staff page): 17
- Findings: 7
- Named people in screened sources (unnamed speakers and accounts not counted): 18
- Voices cited: 18
- Cited voices identity-verified: 17
- Organisational or shared accounts (not counted as people): 4

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

## Abstract

M21-404 examines activity and tolerability of a c-Met–targeted antibody–drug conjugate, alone or with bevacizumab, in previously treated advanced solid cancers. X posters welcome the colorectal combination signal, while one poster questions survival certainty. In pretreated EGFR-mutant lung cancer, one physician welcomes response activity, but two physicians question tolerability. Two physicians pose unresolved questions about payload differences and comparisons with other antibody–drug conjugates.

## Open Medical Affairs question

How should Medical Affairs explain activity, cohort-specific biomarkers and dose trade-offs without overstating tolerability, survival certainty or regulatory significance?

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. In pretreated EGFR-mutant NSCLC, activity does not settle the tolerability question
- F2. The colorectal combination signal attracts enthusiasm, with survival certainty explicitly challenged
- F3. Late-line colorectal monotherapy interest rests on dose optimization and response enrichment, not a validated selection rule
- F4. NSCLC commentary raises subgroup, payload and sequencing questions rather than proving ADC superiority
- F5. Patient-support commentary connects treatment continuation with proactive toxicity navigation
- F6. The gastroesophageal interview offers a qualified, setting-specific activity and tolerability reading
- F7. Regulatory and mechanistic enthusiasm extends beyond what the early clinical evidence establishes

## 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 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | recorded | 3 |
| F2 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 3 | recorded | 4 |
| F3 | 16 | 14 | 7 | 6 | recorded | 4 |
| F4 | 10 | 12 | 10 | 7 | none recorded | 5 |
| F5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | none recorded | 2 |
| F6 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | none recorded | 3 |
| F7 | 17 | 7 | 3 | 1 | recorded | 3 |

### 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 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 4 posts and articles, 1 podcast or video | yes |
| F2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 6 posts and articles, 1 publication | yes |
| F3 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 16 | 2 | 6 posts and articles, 1 publication | yes |
| F4 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 14 | 1 | 10 posts and articles | yes |
| F5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 post or article | yes |
| F6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 1 post or article, 1 podcast or video, 1 publication | yes |
| F7 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 1 post or article, 1 podcast or video, 1 publication | yes |

### Trial dimensions

- Primary endpoint: Objective Response Rate (ORR): F1 (1 shared claims), F2 (1 shared claims), F3 (6 shared claims), F4 (4 shared claims), F5 (1 shared claims)
- Secondary endpoint: Duration of Response (DOR) for Participants with Confirmed CR/PR per RECIST v1.1: F1 (1 shared claims), F3 (1 shared claims), F4 (2 shared claims), F6 (1 shared claims)
- Secondary endpoint: PFS per RECIST v1.1: F1 (2 shared claims), F2 (2 shared claims), F3 (3 shared claims), F4 (3 shared claims), F6 (2 shared claims)
- Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (OS): F1 (1 shared claims), F2 (4 shared claims), F3 (3 shared claims), F4 (3 shared claims)
- Secondary endpoint: Parts 1-6: ORR per Independent Central Review (ICR) in Participants with MET Amplification: no finding draws on it directly
- Population and setting: F1 (1 shared claims), F3 (3 shared claims), F4 (6 shared claims), F6 (2 shared claims), F7 (2 shared claims)
- The comparison: F2 (5 shared claims), F4 (2 shared claims), F6 (1 shared claims), F7 (1 shared claims)
- Safety and tolerability: F1 (4 shared claims), F2 (2 shared claims), F3 (4 shared claims), F4 (1 shared claims), F5 (2 shared claims), F6 (2 shared claims)
- Design and conduct: F2 (3 shared claims), F3 (1 shared claims), F6 (1 shared claims)

## Sample findings

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

### F1. In pretreated EGFR-mutant NSCLC, activity does not settle the tolerability question

A physician posting on X asks how treatment tolerability should be described for M21-404 in previously treated EGFR-mutant lung cancer.

Source: X thread, 2025-06-02.

### F4. NSCLC commentary raises subgroup, payload and sequencing questions rather than proving ADC superiority

Two physicians in an X exchange ask whether payload changes affect outcomes and how M21-404 compares with Teliso-V in nonsquamous lung cancer.

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 | 70 | Paid |
| Trial aspects mapped | 14 | Free |
| Sources with links | 29 | Counts free |
| Speaker attribution for cited voices | 18 | Paid |

## Trial aspects

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

| Aspect | Coverage | Statements | Sources |
| --- | --- | ---: | ---: |
| Primary endpoint: Objective Response Rate (ORR) | discussed | 13 | 15 |
| Secondary endpoint: Duration of Response (DOR) for Participants with Confirmed CR/PR per RECIST v1.1 | discussed | 3 | 3 |
| Secondary endpoint: PFS per RECIST v1.1 | discussed | 9 | 10 |
| Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (OS) | discussed | 10 | 11 |
| Secondary endpoint: Parts 1-6: ORR per Independent Central Review (ICR) in Participants with MET Amplification | no commentary found | 0 | 0 |
| Population and setting | discussed | 13 | 14 |
| The comparison | discussed | 9 | 10 |
| Safety and tolerability | discussed | 11 | 11 |
| Design and conduct | discussed | 5 | 6 |
| Dose optimization versus maximum tolerated dose | discussed | 1 | 1 |
| c-Met protein expression and exploratory patient selection | discussed | 9 | 11 |
| Patient navigation and toxicity-support implications | discussed | 2 | 1 |
| Regulatory significance, unmet need and development expectations | discussed | 12 | 2 |
| Payload rationale and unanswered ADC or chemotherapy comparisons | discussed | 8 | 5 |

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 | 48 | 24 |
| Bluesky threads | 3 | 1 |
| YouTube | 2 | 2 |
| Publications (primary source, cited for context) | not screened | 2 |

- Screened window: 2024-06-03 to 2026-10-26
- Cited window: 2024-06-03 to 2026-10-26
- Retrieved: 2026-10-28

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 First in Human Study Evaluating Safety, Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy of ABBV-400 as Monotherapy and in Combination With Bevacizumab in Adult Subjects With Advanced Solid Tumors
- Also known as: Temab-A
- Registry: NCT05029882 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05029882)
- Study IDs: M21-404 · 2023-509335-60-00 (EU CT)
- Sponsor: AbbVie
- Design: Phase 1 · interventional, non randomized, sequential, phase1
- Status: Active, not recruiting
- Enrollment: 520 (actual)
- Start: 2021-10-13 (actual)
- Primary completion: 2027-11 (estimated)
- Primary endpoint: Objective Response Rate (ORR) (Up to 48 Months)
- Intervention: ABBV-400 (drug)
- Intervention: Trifluridine/Tipiracil (drug)
- Intervention: Bevacizumab (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.
- 33 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.
- The sources reviewed for this edition are not a representative survey of HCPs. Repeated posts, presentation relays, organizational voices and authors without established clinical roles cannot be counted as independent clinician endorsements.
- Fifty-nine potentially relevant sources that did not name the trial were not read, and several passages were not fully assessed. Additional views on the same clinical decisions may therefore be absent.
- Different tumor types, molecular subgroups, doses, regimens and reporting times are represented. Their results and tolerability judgments cannot be pooled or used to infer a change of mind.
- The NSCLC discontinuation figures have different descriptions, and a speaker’s quoted drug naming remains inconsistent. The report does not resolve those differences.
- The sources use both AndroMETa-560 and AndroMETa-CRC; no equivalence between those names is assumed.
- A full protocol and exact regulatory labels for ABBV-400 and trifluridine/tipiracil were not available. Regulatory designations and investigational status are reported as attributed in the sources, not as an independently assessed approval determination.
- Retrospective biomarker analyses, mixed tissue timing, small comparison groups and wide survival intervals limit conclusions about selection, superiority and future treatment positioning.

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

## Editions and corrections

- v1.0.0, accepted 2026-10-29: current edition, corrected 2026-10-29
  - Correction 2026-10-29: Corrected to match the delivered report: the sample findings; source quotations and links in the paid report. An editorial bracket follows a transcription-garbled trial name in quotations: “Tenmab [Temab]”. The trial's registration date is now stated.
  - Correction 2026-10-29: The trial is named M21-404, as its sources and the report name it (was Temab-A)
  - Correction 2026-10-29: Corrected to match the delivered report: the size label, now the price list's alone; source quotations and links in the paid report.

Last checked for new commentary 2026-10-29. Versions follow semver: a new or changed finding is a minor version, more evidence without a material change is a patch.

## Offer

- Size: Focused (70 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 (17 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/m21-404-nct05029882
- Agents: POST https://www.erudio.com/api/orders with {"report": "m21-404-nct05029882", "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=m21-404-05029882

## Cite

Erudio Health. M21-404 (NCT05029882): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Oct 29, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/m21-404-nct05029882

## Machine access

- JSON: https://www.erudio.com/reports/m21-404-nct05029882.json
- Markdown: https://www.erudio.com/reports/m21-404-nct05029882.md
- MCP, no sign-in: https://mcp.erudio.com/free, tool `get_report_card` with `{"slug": "m21-404-05029882"}`