RADIAN
RADIAN asks whether adding niraparib and dostarlimab to definitive radiotherapy, with or without cisplatin, improves outcomes in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Whether further evaluation will support routine adoption remains open. A LinkedIn speaker, described in the source as scientific coordinator of the trial’s sponsor, welcomes further evaluation in cisplatin-fit patients. A radiation oncologist raises radiotherapy-toxicity concerns in cisplatin-unfit patients. One X account’s practice-impact rating is unexplained. The sources reviewed for this edition place the trial’s main results at ESMO 2026.
- NCT05784012 ↗
- v1.0.0 · edition 1
- updated Oct 29, 2026
- Focused
4 findings, and what sits behind each
01. A speaker's principal concern is prolonged radiotherapy toxicity in cisplatin-unfit cohort B
4 statements · 4 passages · 4 sources · 1 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, The comparison, Safety and tolerability, Primary endpoint: 1-year disease free survival, Secondary endpoints, Design and conduct.
02. A speaker's encouragement supports continued evaluation in cisplatin-fit cohort A
4 statements · 6 passages · 6 sources · 2 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 4. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, Primary endpoint: 1-year disease free survival, The comparison, Design and conduct.
03. The standard-of-care impact rating is categorical but unexplained
1 statements · 1 passages · 1 sources · 0 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 2.
04. Praise centers on academic evidence generation and the research effort
2 statements · 2 passages · 2 sources · 2 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 4.
Draws on: Population and setting.
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 4
A speaker's principal concern is prolonged radiotherapy toxicity in cisplatin-unfit cohort B
- statements
- 4
- passages
- 4
- sources
- 4
- named voices
- 1
What the statements areViews 1Questions and uncertainty 0Clinical experience 0Comparisons 0Restated results and context 3How passages are usedSupporting a statement 11Giving context 1Recorded with the finding- Counterview: none recorded
- Limitations: 3
- Feeds the Medical Affairs question
- 4 posts and articles
Draws on: Population and setting, The comparison, Safety and tolerability, Primary endpoint: 1-year disease free survival, Secondary endpoints, Design and conduct.
In the full report: the interpretation in full, all 4 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 RADIAN 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 cohort-specific evidence would distinguish continued research from a justified practice-change assessment while addressing the reported harm?
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- 29HCP commentary sources screened
- 9sources cited by verified HCP statements
- 4found in screened sources
- 4voices cited in the report
- 2cited voices matched to verified clinician profiles
Also in the sources: 1 organizational or shared account, not counted as people.
- 19verified statements, each linked to its source
- 5of them from speakers with a confirmed clinical role
- 4findings
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 19 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 | 4 | Titles free |
| Detailed analysis | 5 sections | Paid |
| Verified statements with short source quotes and links | 19 | Paid |
| Trial aspects mapped | 9 | Free |
| Sources with links | 9 | Counts free |
| Speaker attribution for cited voices | 4 | Paid |
Trial aspects
9 discussed · 0 no commentary · 0 incomplete| Aspect | Statements | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Primary endpoint: 1-year disease free survival | 4 | 5 |
| Secondary endpoints | 1 | 4 |
| Population and setting | 6 | 6 |
| The comparison | 5 | 4 |
| Safety and tolerability | 2 | 4 |
| Design and conduct | 1 | 4 |
| Perceived standard-of-care impact | 1 | 1 |
| Academic independence and cooperative-group research value | 2 | 2 |
| PRIME: separate surgery-directed experience with niraparib and dostarlimab | 7 | 1 |
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 | 15 | 6 | |
| YouTube | 6 | 1 | |
| Bluesky threads | 4 | 0 | |
| LinkedIn posts | 1 | 1 | |
| Podcasts | 2 | 0 | |
| X videos | 1 | 0 | |
| Primary sources, cited for context, not screened | |||
| Registry | not screened | 1 | |
max 11 / quarter
- Screened window
- Apr 8, 2019 → Oct 27, 2026
- Cited window
- Nov 19, 2025 → Oct 25, 2026
- Retrieved
- Oct 28, 2026
The trial
from ClinicalTrials.gov- Title
- Phase Ib/II Non-randomized Non-comparative Two-cohort Study of Niraparib and Dostarlimab Plus (Chemo)RadIotherapy in Locally-Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
- Registry
- NCT05784012
- Study IDs
- TTCC-2022-01-RADIAN · 2024-516779-33-00
- Sponsor
- Grupo Español de Tratamiento de Tumores de Cabeza y Cuello
- Collaborators
- GlaxoSmithKline, MFAR
- Design
- Phase 1/Phase 2 · Interventional, non randomized, parallel
- Status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrollment
- 34 actual
- Start
- 2023-11-13 actual
- Primary completion
- 2027-03 estimated
- Primary endpoint
- 1-year disease free survival
- 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.
- 10 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 are not a representative sample of HCP opinion. Multiple closely overlapping posts by one author do not establish consensus or independent confirmation.
- Discussion using unnamed trial references, alternative wording or transcription variants may be missing. Many sources without explicit trial naming were not read, and one additional X discussion was not fully assessed for clinician views.
- No full RADIAN protocol or exact-trial results publication was available among the sources reviewed. Historical comparability, statistical uncertainty and detailed safety cannot be independently evaluated here.
- Exact product-label documents for dostarlimab and cisplatin plus radiotherapy were unavailable; this report draws no regulatory conclusion.
- 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.
- PRIME comments concern a separate neoadjuvant, surgery-directed study. They cannot establish efficacy, safety or patient-selection rules for RADIAN's definitive-radiotherapy setting.
How reports are built and checked: Methods.
Editions and corrections
freeLast checked for new commentary Oct 29, 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. RADIAN (NCT05784012): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Oct 29, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/radian-nct05784012
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 "RADIAN" (NCT05784012), 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 "radian-05784012". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/radian-nct05784012.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 "NCT05784012", 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-nct05784012 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/radian-nct05784012.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/radian-nct05784012.md
# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "radian-05784012" })release ea40f5342ca1298a408dc1c1f7d6ade13af902ac8e1e3961957489d7ae2fe8a7