# OrigAMI-2: HCP commentary report

> 163 verified statements (77 from speakers with a confirmed clinical role) from 20 commentary sources · 6 findings · updated Oct 19, 2026

## Report

- Trial: A Randomized, Open-label Phase 3 Study of Amivantamab and mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI Versus Cetuximab and mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI as First-line Treatment in Participants With KRAS/NRAS and BRAF Wild-type Unresectable or Metastatic Left-sided Colorectal Cancer
- NCT ID: NCT06662786
- Registry: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06662786
- Sponsor: Janssen Research & Development, LLC
- Phase: Phase 3
- Status: Recruiting
- Drugs: amivantamab, cetuximab, fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, irinotecan
- Version: v1.0.0, edition 1
- Accepted: 2026-10-19
- Last checked: 2026-10-19
- Release hash: 3556367d9ca67a062558a627acee83cbb74a9d3d42ccae5ba09b47f184c17e4d

## Counts

- HCP commentary sources screened: 24
- Sources cited by verified statements: 20
- Verified statements: 163
- From speakers with a confirmed clinical role: 77
- Findings: 6
- People found in screened sources: 15
- People identity-verified: 5
- Voices cited: 14

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

## Abstract

Clinician commentary on OrigAMI-2 in the sources reviewed for this edition leads to one open question: What comparative benefit would justify replacing cetuximab, and which precursor signals do clinicians regard as sufficient only to support investigation or participation? Its leading findings: (1) enthusiasm supports further testing, not a conclusion of phase 3 superiority. (2) an active anti-EGFR benchmark coexists with regional practice variation. (3) correct molecular information must arrive before the first-line decision. 3 more findings follow. 20 of 24 screened sources are cited; not all HCPs or all public discussion.

## Open Medical Affairs question

What comparative benefit would justify replacing cetuximab, and which precursor signals do clinicians regard as sufficient only to support investigation or participation?

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. Enthusiasm supports further testing, not a conclusion of phase 3 superiority
- F2. An active anti-EGFR benchmark coexists with regional practice variation
- F3. Correct molecular information must arrive before the first-line decision
- F4. Resistance biology motivates dual targeting; selection and sequencing remain questions
- F5. Tolerability is a condition of the combination strategy, not a settled advantage
- F6. Access concerns extend from ctDNA selection to trial referral and patient information

## 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 | 14 | 12 | 7 | 9 | recorded | 3 |
| F2 | 14 | 8 | 4 | 3 | none recorded | 4 |
| F3 | 16 | 9 | 3 | 4 | none recorded | 3 |
| F4 | 18 | 11 | 6 | 5 | recorded | 6 |
| F5 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 4 | none recorded | 4 |
| F6 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 4 | none 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 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 22 | 2 | 3 posts and articles, 4 podcasts and video | yes |
| F2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 21 | 4 | 4 podcasts and video | yes |
| F3 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 23 | 6 | 3 podcasts and video | yes |
| F4 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 20 | 2 | 1 post or article, 5 podcasts and video | yes |
| F5 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 11 | 1 | 1 post or article, 2 podcasts and video | yes |
| F6 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 13 | 3 | 4 posts and articles, 4 podcasts and video | yes |

### Trial dimensions

- Primary endpoint: Progression-Free Survival (PFS) as Assessed by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR): no finding draws on it directly
- Secondary endpoints: no finding draws on it directly
- Population and setting: F2 (6 shared claims), F3 (2 shared claims), F4 (1 shared claims)
- The comparison: F2 (9 shared claims), F5 (2 shared claims)
- Safety and tolerability: F2 (1 shared claims), F5 (4 shared claims)
- Design and conduct: F1 (1 shared claims), F2 (2 shared claims), F5 (1 shared claims)

## Sample findings

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

## What's inside

| Section | Items | Access |
| --- | ---: | --- |
| Findings with interpretation, counterviews and limits | 6 | Titles free |
| Detailed analysis | 7 sections | Paid |
| Verified statements with short source quotes and links | 163 | Paid |
| Trial aspects mapped | 12 | Free |
| Sources with links | 20 | Counts free |
| Speaker attribution for cited voices | 14 | Paid |

## Trial aspects

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

| Aspect | Coverage | Statements | Sources |
| --- | --- | ---: | ---: |
| Primary endpoint: Progression-Free Survival (PFS) as Assessed by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) | no commentary found | 0 | 0 |
| Secondary endpoints | no commentary found | 0 | 0 |
| Population and setting | discussed | 9 | 4 |
| The comparison | discussed | 9 | 4 |
| Safety and tolerability | discussed | 4 | 3 |
| Design and conduct | discussed | 3 | 3 |
| Interpretation of precursor evidence and expectations for validation | discussed | 15 | 7 |
| Resistance rationale, molecular selection and sequencing questions | discussed | 14 | 5 |
| Pretreatment molecular work-up and exploratory refinement beyond sidedness | discussed | 20 | 5 |
| Regional practice and consequences of first-line sequencing | discussed | 5 | 4 |
| Potential ctDNA hyperselection and equitable access | discussed | 4 | 1 |
| Enrollment discussion, referral and patient information | discussed | 6 | 7 |

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 | 12 | 9 |
| YouTube | 8 | 7 |
| Bluesky threads | 2 | 2 |
| Podcasts | 2 | 2 |

- Screened window: 2022-06-06 to 2026-09-18
- Cited window: 2024-09-14 to 2026-09-18
- Retrieved: 2026-10-19

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, Open-label Phase 3 Study of Amivantamab and mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI Versus Cetuximab and mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI as First-line Treatment in Participants With KRAS/NRAS and BRAF Wild-type Unresectable or Metastatic Left-sided Colorectal Cancer
- Registry: NCT06662786 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06662786)
- Study IDs: 61186372COR3001 · 2024-513852-13-00 (EUCT number)
- Sponsor: Janssen Research & Development, LLC
- Design: Phase 3 · interventional, randomized, parallel, phase3
- Status: Recruiting
- Enrollment: 1,000 (estimated)
- Start: 2024-10-18 (actual)
- Primary completion: 2028-12-15 (estimated)
- Primary endpoint: Progression-Free Survival (PFS) as Assessed by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) (Up to 4 years and 2 months)
- Intervention: Amivantamab (biological)
- Intervention: Cetuximab (biological)
- Intervention: 5-fluorouracil (drug)
- Intervention: Leucovorin calcium/Levoleucovorin (drug)
- Intervention: Oxaliplatin (drug)
- Intervention: Irinotecan Hydrochloride (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 clinician views in the sources used in this report are not yet captured as evidence in this edition; the next refresh takes them up.
- 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.
- Out of scope: 4 passages in the reviewed sources discuss other trials or topics outside this report's scope; they are not part of this edition.
- 72 statements in the sources reviewed for this edition discuss other treatment settings or topics unrelated to this trial's question and are not included.
- 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 reviewed for this edition are not a representative sample of HCP opinion. Multiple audio and video versions repeat the same PeerView discussion.
- Some passages on molecular selection, ctDNA, access and treatment choices were not fully assessed. A complete account of rare-mutation immunotherapy selection is also unavailable.
- No protocol text or publication reporting results for NCT06662786 was available. The report therefore cannot independently appraise detailed methods or establish comparative efficacy or safety.
- Regulatory information was incomplete. Speakers' references to lung-cancer use are development context, not an assessment of a colorectal-cancer indication.
- Publication and posting dates do not necessarily identify the date of the underlying session or the first availability of its data.
- Some speakers remain unidentified, and some named social-media authors lack confirmed clinical roles. Their statements cannot be used to infer additional verified HCP agreement.
- Historical enrollment announcements do not establish current recruitment, access at a particular site or individual patient eligibility.

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

## Editions and corrections

- v1.0.0, accepted 2026-10-19: current edition

Last checked for new commentary 2026-10-19. 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: Standard (163 verified statements)
- Current edition: $1,250. A purchase starts a check for new commentary and any newer edition follows at no charge
- 3 months of weekly updates: $2,200
- 6 months of weekly updates: $3,100
- 12 months of weekly updates: $4,400
- 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 (5 now), at most $1,250; 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/origami-2-nct06662786
- Agents: POST https://www.erudio.com/api/orders with {"report": "origami-2-nct06662786", "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=origami-2-06662786

## Cite

Erudio Health. OrigAMI-2 (NCT06662786): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Oct 19, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/origami-2-nct06662786

## Machine access

- JSON: https://www.erudio.com/reports/origami-2-nct06662786.json
- Markdown: https://www.erudio.com/reports/origami-2-nct06662786.md
- MCP: https://mcp.erudio.com/mcp, tool `get_report_card` with `{"slug": "origami-2-06662786"}`