NEST3
Clinician commentary on NEST3 in the sources reviewed for this edition leads to one open question: What improvement in durable cure, at what immune-toxicity and surgical cost, would justify adding BOT/BAL before curative surgery? Its leading findings: (1) the threshold for practice change remains contested. (2) protecting curative surgery qualifies the enthusiasm for adding treatment. (3) durable cure matters more than pathological response alone. 6 more findings follow. 35 sources screened, 24 cited; not all HCPs or all public discussion.
- NCT07595874 ↗
- v1.0.0 · edition 1
- updated Oct 29, 2026
- Focused
9 findings, and what sits behind each
01. The threshold for practice change remains contested
16 statements · 9 passages · 8 sources · 8 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Secondary endpoints, Design and conduct, Safety and tolerability, Primary endpoint: Two-year disease-free survival rate, Population and setting, The comparison.
02. Protecting curative surgery qualifies the enthusiasm for adding treatment
17 statements · 15 passages · 11 sources · 7 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Secondary endpoints, Safety and tolerability, The comparison, Design and conduct, Primary endpoint: Two-year disease-free survival rate, Population and setting.
03. Durable cure matters more than pathological response alone
16 statements · 13 passages · 7 sources · 7 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Two-year disease-free survival rate, Secondary endpoints, Design and conduct, Population and setting, Safety and tolerability.
04. The preoperative interval is a research hypothesis, not an established optimum
10 statements · 8 passages · 3 sources · 2 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Secondary endpoints, Design and conduct, Safety and tolerability, Population and setting.
05. CT-based selection attracts confident advocacy, with a specific and limited staging task
11 statements · 6 passages · 3 sources · 2 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, Design and conduct.
06. Immune remodeling strengthens the activity rationale, but prediction remains unvalidated
21 statements · 18 passages · 13 sources · 10 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Secondary endpoints, Population and setting, Safety and tolerability, The comparison, Design and conduct, Primary endpoint: Two-year disease-free survival rate.
07. ctDNA/MRD is proposed as an early readout, with DFS still required
5 statements · 4 passages · 1 sources · 1 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Two-year disease-free survival rate, Secondary endpoints.
08. Research access depends on travel, geography and affordability
14 statements · 14 passages · 8 sources · 6 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, Design and conduct, Primary endpoint: Two-year disease-free survival rate.
09. Development speed is linked to funding and an uncertain neoadjuvant approval path
21 statements · 15 passages · 10 sources · 7 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Design and conduct, Primary endpoint: Two-year disease-free survival rate, The comparison, Safety and tolerability.
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 9
The threshold for practice change remains contested
- statements
- 16
- passages
- 9
- sources
- 8
- named voices
- 8
What the statements areViews 11Questions and uncertainty 2Clinical experience 0Comparisons 3Restated results and context 0How passages are usedSupporting a statement 17Giving context 0Recorded with the finding- Counterview: recorded
- Limitations: 3
- Feeds the Medical Affairs question
- 7 posts and articles
- 1 podcast or video
Draws on: Secondary endpoints, Design and conduct, Safety and tolerability, Primary endpoint: Two-year disease-free survival rate, Population and setting, The comparison.
In the full report: the interpretation in full, all 16 statements cited to source and date, and the 8 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 NEST3 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.
What improvement in durable cure, at what immune-toxicity and surgical cost, would justify adding BOT/BAL before curative surgery?
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- 35HCP commentary sources screened
- 24sources cited by verified HCP statements
- 21found in screened sources
- 21voices cited in the report
- 10cited voices matched to verified clinician profiles
Also in the sources: 2 organizational or shared accounts, not counted as people.
- 127verified statements, each linked to its source
- 81of them from speakers with a confirmed clinical role
- 9findings
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 127 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 | 9 | Titles free |
| Detailed analysis | 10 sections | Paid |
| Verified statements with short source quotes and links | 127 | Paid |
| Trial aspects mapped | 12 | Free |
| Sources with links | 24 | Counts free |
| Speaker attribution for cited voices | 21 | Paid |
Trial aspects
12 discussed · 0 no commentary · 0 incomplete| Aspect | Statements | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Primary endpoint: Two-year disease-free survival rate | 14 | 6 |
| Secondary endpoints | 28 | 12 |
| Population and setting | 21 | 10 |
| The comparison | 15 | 6 |
| Safety and tolerability | 13 | 9 |
| Design and conduct | 24 | 13 |
| Earlier NEST immune remodeling and NEST3 predictive-marker research | 23 | 15 |
| CT staging, central review and possible overtreatment | 11 | 3 |
| Pathological-response interpretation and CRC ctDNA/MRD surrogacy | 11 | 2 |
| Referral, research access, affordability and geographic opportunity | 13 | 8 |
| Earlier-study lineage, funding and the neoadjuvant development pathway | 26 | 12 |
| Earlier NEST reception and patient-information expectations | 21 | 10 |
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 | 27 | 17 | |
| LinkedIn posts | 7 | 5 | |
| Podcasts | 1 | 1 | |
| Primary sources, cited for context, not screened | |||
| Registry | not screened | 1 | |
max 36 / quarter
- Screened window
- Aug 26, 2026 → Oct 1, 2026
- Cited window
- Aug 26, 2026 → Oct 1, 2026
- Retrieved
- Oct 29, 2026
The trial
from ClinicalTrials.gov- Title
- A Phase II Novel Exploratory Study to Test Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy Combinations in Patients With Resectable Colon Cancer (NEST3)
- Registry
- NCT07595874
- Study IDs
- 25964 · P30CA033572 · NCI-2026-02923 (CTRP (Clinical Trial Reporting Program))
- Sponsor
- City of Hope Medical Center
- Collaborators
- National Cancer Institute (NCI)
- Design
- Phase 2 · Interventional, single group
- Status
- Recruiting
- Enrollment
- 100 estimated
- Start
- 2026-07-01 actual
- Primary completion
- 2028-12-16 estimated
- Primary endpoint
- Two-year disease-free survival rate
- Interventions
- 5 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.
- 41 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 selected public discussions, not a representative sample of HCP opinion. Reposts and relayed summaries do not constitute independent clinical observations or votes.
- Some discussions explicitly labeled NEST-1 or NEST2 were not examined, although earlier-program experience could inform the same treatment decision.
- No full NEST3 protocol, exact-trial results publication or exact product label was available among these sources. Earlier NEST activity must not be presented as NEST3 efficacy or an authorized-use determination.
- The material mixes confirmed individual identities, unverified identities and authors whose clinical roles are not established. Source descriptions of credentials are not independently confirmed credentials.
- Some episode remarks have no established speaker. They cannot be assigned to a named participant or counted as an additional person's agreement or disagreement.
- Reported response and survival figures are commentary restatements with differing patient, tumor and cohort denominators. Pathological response is not established here as a validated survival surrogate.
- Site availability, enrollment descriptions and plans reflect the time of the statements. Publication dates do not establish recording dates, study readout dates or changes of mind.
- Detailed NEST3 toxicity grades, surgical morbidity, patient-level affordability and validated predictive-marker performance are not provided; their absence from these statements is not evidence of absence.
How reports are built and checked: Methods.
Editions and corrections
freeShow the correction
None of these corrections changed a finding.
- Oct 29, 2026Corrected to match the delivered report: per-finding counts. The trial's registration date is now stated.
Last checked for new commentary Oct 29, 2026. A new or changed finding gets a new version number; added evidence alone is a smaller update.
Cite this report
Erudio Health. NEST3 (NCT07595874): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Oct 29, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/nest3-nct07595874
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 "NEST3" (NCT07595874), 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 "nest3-07595874". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/nest3-nct07595874.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 "NCT07595874", 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-nct07595874 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/nest3-nct07595874.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/nest3-nct07595874.md
# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "nest3-07595874" })release 205e3db92f95dc3477d780078199eb4f920c83997023ddf4c9d60823971c492f