PACE-LUNG
PACE-LUNG asks whether adding chemotherapy when tumor DNA persists in blood during first-line osimertinib improves outcomes in advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Clinicians in the sources reviewed for this edition express interest in selective escalation while leaving comparative benefit unsettled. Feasibility attracts interest, while assessment timing and molecular characterization draw scrutiny. Patient selection remains open. These sources place the trial’s main results at ESMO 2026.
- NCT05281406 ↗
- v1.0.0 · edition 1
- updated Oct 28, 2026
- Focused
8 findings, and what sits behind each
01. Prognostic information is not automatically a treatment-selection rule
6 statements · 4 passages · 4 sources · 3 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison.
02. Chemotherapy sparing remains a question, with stronger and more cautious interpretations reported
4 statements · 5 passages · 5 sources · 2 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison.
03. Feasibility and favorable historical comparisons attracted interest, without settling comparative benefit
7 statements · 7 passages · 7 sources · 5 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Progression Free Survival (PFS1), Design and conduct, The comparison, Secondary endpoints.
04. The three-week trigger and molecular characterization are specific unresolved selection questions
10 statements · 8 passages · 8 sources · 5 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 4. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Design and conduct, The comparison, Primary endpoint: Progression Free Survival (PFS1), Population and setting.
05. An individual early decline supported continuing Tagrisso without chemotherapy, with explicitly tentative expectations
9 statements · 9 passages · 1 sources · 0 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 4. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
06. Incidental BRCA2 prompted treatment questions, but not an immediate PARP-inhibitor addition
11 statements · 9 passages · 1 sources · 0 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Safety and tolerability.
07. Blood-based testing was valued for access and reduced procedure burden, conditional on adequacy and reliability
17 statements · 15 passages · 1 sources · 0 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, Design and conduct.
08. Favorable tolerability coexisted with monitoring anxiety, imaging uncertainty and an unproven adjunct rationale
12 statements · 11 passages · 1 sources · 0 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: 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 8
Prognostic information is not automatically a treatment-selection rule
- statements
- 6
- passages
- 4
- sources
- 4
- named voices
- 3
What the statements areViews 6Questions and uncertainty 0Clinical experience 0Comparisons 0Restated results and context 0How passages are usedSupporting a statement 9Giving context 7Recorded with the finding- Counterview: none recorded
- Limitations: 3
- Feeds the Medical Affairs question
- 4 posts and articles
Draws on: The comparison.
In the full report: the interpretation in full, all 6 statements cited to source and date, and the 4 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 PACE-LUNG 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 evidence would justify delaying or omitting upfront combination treatment, and which ctDNA time point and subgroup would support that choice?
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- 30HCP commentary sources screened
- 17sources cited by verified HCP statements
- 11found in screened sources
- 11voices cited in the report
- 10cited voices matched to verified clinician profiles
- 76verified statements, each linked to its source
- 14of them from speakers with a confirmed clinical role
- 8findings
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 76 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 | 8 | Titles free |
| Detailed analysis | 9 sections | Paid |
| Verified statements with short source quotes and links | 76 | Paid |
| Trial aspects mapped | 13 | Free |
| Sources with links | 17 | Counts free |
| Speaker attribution for cited voices | 11 | Paid |
Trial aspects
13 discussed · 0 no commentary · 0 incomplete| Aspect | Statements | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Primary endpoint: Progression Free Survival (PFS1) | 5 | 6 |
| Secondary endpoints | 2 | 3 |
| Population and setting | 4 | 2 |
| The comparison | 11 | 9 |
| Safety and tolerability | 4 | 1 |
| Design and conduct | 10 | 7 |
| Prognostic versus predictive value and chemotherapy sparing | 11 | 7 |
| Assessment timing, later clearance and co-mutations | 5 | 5 |
| Individual no-chemotherapy pathway and expectations of durability | 9 | 1 |
| Incidental BRCA2, add-on treatment ideas and genetics referral | 11 | 1 |
| Baseline assay detectability and conditional preference for noninvasive sampling | 12 | 1 |
| Monitoring burden, pleurodesis-related imaging uncertainty and adjunct use | 9 | 1 |
| Research interest and molecular-subtype reassurance | 6 | 3 |
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 | 13 | |
| YouTube | 2 | 2 | |
| Podcasts | 1 | 1 | |
| Primary sources, cited for context, not screened | |||
| Registry | not screened | 1 | |
max 22 / quarter
- Screened window
- Mar 16, 2022 → Oct 28, 2026
- Cited window
- May 29, 2023 → Oct 28, 2026
- Retrieved
- Oct 28, 2026
The trial
from ClinicalTrials.gov- Title
- Additional Chemotherapy for EGFRm Patients with the Continued Presence of Plasma CtDNA EGFRm At Week 3 After Start of Osimertinib 1st-line Treatment (PACE-LUNG)
- Registry
- NCT05281406
- Study IDs
- PACE LUNG
- Sponsor
- Goethe University
- Design
- Phase 2 · Interventional, single group
- Status
- Recruiting
- Enrollment
- 50 estimated
- Start
- 2021-11-12 actual
- Primary completion
- 2025-11 estimated
- Primary endpoint
- Progression Free Survival (PFS1)
- Interventions
- 4 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.
- 45 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 sources reviewed for this edition are not a representative survey of HCPs. Repeated posts and relays of the same discussion cannot be counted as independent agreement.
- No full protocol or exact-trial results publication was available. Registry statements describe methods and hypotheses; reported outcomes come from commentary about presentations.
- Discussions that do not name PACE-LUNG, or use different spellings, may be absent. Some relevant passages were not fully assessed, so the report is not a complete account of public discussion.
- The podcast and preview speech cannot be assigned to named individuals. The podcast does not establish that its personal treatment accounts are HCP recommendations.
- 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.
- Reported PFS and OS estimates have different or incompletely specified time origins. Historical comparisons and presentation relays cannot establish comparative treatment benefit.
- Baseline-undetectable patients and patients achieving clearance after starting treatment are different groups; favorable prognosis does not by itself establish that chemotherapy can safely be omitted.
- Personal accounts do not provide aggregate adverse-event, comparative safety or trial quality-of-life results. The hyperthermia rationale is not demonstrated clinical benefit.
How reports are built and checked: Methods.
Editions and corrections
freeLast checked for new commentary Oct 28, 2026. A new or changed finding gets a new version number; added evidence alone is a smaller update. No corrections.
Cite this report
Erudio Health. PACE-LUNG (NCT05281406): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Oct 28, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/pace-lung-nct05281406
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 "PACE-LUNG" (NCT05281406), 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 "pace-lung-05281406". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/pace-lung-nct05281406.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 "NCT05281406", 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-nct05281406 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/pace-lung-nct05281406.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/pace-lung-nct05281406.md
# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "pace-lung-05281406" })release 2337dba15a23cd206a1fd5268da634be1b10806155936482a141e7bb0ce01dc8