REZILIENT1: what clinicians are saying
zipalertinib in previously treated EGFR exon 20 insertion-positive metastatic NSCLC · NCT04036682 ↗ · Phase 1/Phase 2 · Cullinan Therapeutics Inc.
A medical oncologist described in the sources as presenting REZILIENT1 sees zipalertinib as a possible further treatment line because activity was observed after amivantamab, but notes lower response rates after amivantamab plus another exon20-targeting drug. Another speaker thinks one targeted therapy is probably enough. Comparative benefit remains unproven, and responses in patients with brain metastases do not establish CNS-specific benefit.
Created with AI · how we check it
- edition 1
- commentary checked Nov 10, 2026
- 129 verified statements
This edition $750, with MCP access for your AI agent. Get this report
8 findings, and what sits behind each
01. Speakers see a post-amivantamab sequencing opportunity; one account questions successive targeted therapies
4 of 21 cited clinicians · 19 statements from 7 speakers in 10 sources, 3 of them podcasts or videos · 11 passages
Limitations recorded: 4.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Module B and C: Confirmed overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) by independent review committee (IRC), Population and setting, Design and conduct, Secondary endpoints, Primary endpoint: Phase 2 Dose Expansion Cohorts: Overall response rate (ORR), The comparison, Safety and tolerability.
02. One interview stresses that noncomparative activity cannot establish the better treatment
No named clinician · accounts and unnamed speakers · 6 statements in 3 sources, 1 of them a podcast or video · 4 passages
Limitations recorded: 3.
Draws on: The comparison, Design and conduct, Primary endpoint: Phase 2 Dose Expansion Cohorts: Overall response rate (ORR), Population and setting, Safety and tolerability.
03. Speakers differ on zipalertinib response after pretreatment, discussing durability and safety; one cites CNS activity, another notes absent intracranial-response data and immature overall-survival data
8 of 21 cited clinicians · 21 statements from 8 speakers in 17 sources, 2 of them podcasts or videos · 18 passages
Limitations recorded: 3.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Phase 2 Dose Expansion Cohorts: Overall response rate (ORR), Primary endpoint: Module B and C: Confirmed overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) by independent review committee (IRC), Secondary endpoints, Population and setting, Safety and tolerability.
04. Speakers welcome possible CNS activity while emphasizing unresolved CNS-specific evidence
7 of 21 cited clinicians · 16 statements from 6 speakers in 15 sources, 1 of them a podcast or video · 17 passages
Limitations recorded: 4.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Phase 2 Dose Expansion Cohorts: Overall response rate (ORR), Secondary endpoints, Primary endpoint: Module B and C: Confirmed overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) by independent review committee (IRC), Population and setting, Safety and tolerability.
05. Speakers favor the safety profile; one interview challenges what “manageable” means
7 of 21 cited clinicians · 26 statements from 5 speakers in 21 sources, 2 of them podcasts or videos · 25 passages
Limitations recorded: 4.
Draws on: Safety and tolerability, Primary endpoint: All Cohorts: The rate and severity of treatment emergent AEs., Primary endpoint: Phase 2 Dose Expansion Cohorts: Overall response rate (ORR), Primary endpoint: Module B and C: Confirmed overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) by independent review committee (IRC), The comparison, Design and conduct.
06. Speakers want more oral options; one interview emphasizes time, cost and quality of life
4 of 21 cited clinicians · 12 statements from 2 speakers in 7 sources, 2 of them podcasts or videos · 9 passages
Limitations recorded: 3.
Draws on: Population and setting, Safety and tolerability, Primary endpoint: Module B and C: Confirmed overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) by independent review committee (IRC).
07. One case discussion makes access and biomarker status decisive for the next line
2 of 21 cited clinicians · 7 statements from 2 speakers in 1 source · 7 passages
Limitations recorded: 3.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Module B and C: Confirmed overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) by independent review committee (IRC).
08. One clinician asks about approval; nonclinical accounts describe a conditional regulatory path
1 of 21 cited clinicians · 10 statements from 1 speaker in 9 sources, 1 of them a podcast or video · 9 passages
Limitations recorded: 4.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Module B and C: Confirmed overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) by independent review committee (IRC).
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. Select a part of the trial to see which findings draw on it.
- Finding 1 of 8
4 of 21 cited clinicians
Speakers see a post-amivantamab sequencing opportunity; one account questions successive targeted therapies
19 statements from 7 speakers in 10 sources, 3 of them podcasts or videos
- 19
- statements
- 11
- passages
- 10
- sources
- 7
- speakers
What the statements areViews 12Questions and uncertainty 3Clinical experience 0Comparisons 0Restated results and context 4Statement-to-passage links (a passage can back several statements)Supporting a statement 19Giving context 3Recorded with the findingLimitations: 4
6 posts and articles · 3 podcasts and video · 1 publication
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Module B and C: Confirmed overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) by independent review committee (IRC), Population and setting, Design and conduct, Secondary endpoints, Primary endpoint: Phase 2 Dose Expansion Cohorts: Overall response rate (ORR), The comparison, Safety and tolerability.
Thicker lines mean more shared statements. A finding without a line goes beyond the registered design. Counts overlap: one statement can back several findings.
The full report also has 2 findings about other patients, lines of treatment or settings, after these trial findings under “Beyond the trial population”. They are not counted or listed on this page.
Abbreviations (12)
AE, adverse event; CNS, central nervous system; DLT, dose-limiting toxicity; DOR, duration of response; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; HCP, healthcare professional; IRC, independent review committee; MCP, Model Context Protocol, how AI agents read the report; NPI, National Provider Identifier, the US registry number for clinicians; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; ORR, objective response rate; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.
The full REZILIENT1 report gives each finding its interpretation, the attributed views behind it, counterviews, limits and the verified statements, each linked to the original. One report in the catalog, IDeate-Lung01, is free in full, so you can see what a paid report holds before you buy: read the free IDeate-Lung01 report.
What evidence on overall survival and cross-resistance do clinicians say is needed to define zipalertinib’s place after amivantamab in previously treated EGFR exon 20 insertion-positive metastatic NSCLC, with or without prior exon 20–targeting TKI exposure?
From finding F1 (19 statements from 7 speakers in 10 sources). The report shows what clinicians said and the sources behind it; it does not settle the question.
By the numbers
- 153commentary sources screened
- 58sources cited by verified statements
- 31named in screened sources
- 31speakers cited in the report
- 26cited speakers with a verified identity
21 cited clinicians, speakers with a confirmed clinical role, of them 21 physicians. By role and specialty:
- 15 physician, Medical oncology
- 5 physician, specialty not confirmed
- 1 physician, Hematology and oncology
Also in the sources: 13 organizational or shared accounts, not counted as people.
- 129verified statements, each linked to its source
- 58of them from speakers with a confirmed clinical role
- 8findings
Built by AI from public clinician commentary, checked by automated review; every statement links to its source.
A cited clinician is a cited speaker whose clinical role the NPI registry or their own institution's staff page confirms; a role a source only states is not counted. A verified identity says who a speaker is, with or without such a role. Physicians are clinicians whose confirmed role is a physician's.
Counts show what the report kept, not how many clinicians hold a view. Size is set by the verified statements; Standard and Deep need 5 or more cited clinicians. Statements from sponsors, hosts and organisations are labelled and count apart.
What's inside
| Section | Items | Access |
|---|---|---|
| Findings with interpretation, counterviews and limits | 8 | Titles free |
| Detailed analysis | 12 sections | Paid |
| Verified statements with short source quotes and links | 129 | Paid |
| Who said each statement: the cited speakers | 31 | Every edition |
| Speakers with a clinical role confirmed by the NPI registry or a staff page | 21 | Every edition |
| Speakers with verified IDs as data (NPI, ORCID, staff page) | 26 | Every edition |
| CMS-reported financial relationships (Open Payments, by company) for NPI-linked speakers | Included | Every edition |
| Trial aspects mapped | 20 | Free |
| Sources with links | 58 | Counts free |
| MCP access for your AI agent, same license key | Included | Every edition |
Every edition names who said each statement, with MCP access for your AI agent. Each verified speaker comes with their verified IDs (NPI, ORCID, staff page) so your team can check each attribution. Allowed: advisory boards, scientific exchange and finding investigators, under your own compliance process. Not allowed: sales or marketing to clinicians.
Trial aspects
17 discussed · 3 no commentary found · 0 assessment incomplete| Aspect | Statements | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Primary endpoint: All Cohorts: The rate and severity of treatment emergent AEs. | 9 | 8 |
| Primary endpoint: All Cohorts: The rate and severity of DLTs.no commentary found | 0 | 0 |
| Primary endpoint: Phase 2 Dose Expansion Cohorts: Overall response rate (ORR) | 18 | 15 |
| Primary endpoint: Module A: Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameterno commentary found | 0 | 0 |
| Primary endpoint: Module A: Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameterno commentary found | 0 | 0 |
| Primary endpoint: Module B and C: Confirmed overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) by independent review committee (IRC) | 21 | 18 |
| Secondary endpoints | 12 | 11 |
| Population and setting | 18 | 13 |
| The comparisonThe registered arms and what clinicians said about how they compare. | 6 | 4 |
| Safety and tolerability | 24 | 20 |
| Design and conduct | 10 | 7 |
| Post-amivantamab sequencing, cross-resistance and repeated targeted therapy | 19 | 14 |
| CNS activity, endpoint wording and applicability | 14 | 14 |
| Oral treatment, patient priorities and clinic burden | 11 | 6 |
| Post-amivantamab alternatives, access constraints and case burden | 7 | 1 |
| First-line combination versus later-line placement | 9 | 8 |
| Regulatory interest, submission milestones and possible label scope | 10 | 9 |
| Mechanistic explanations, selectivity and resistance questions | 6 | 5 |
| Perceived treatment progress and the distinction between clinical and organizational reactions | 17 | 14 |
| Earlier CLN-081 phase 1/2a evidence and dose interpretation | 23 | 8 |
Discussed means at least one verified statement addresses the aspect, not that every question in it is covered: gaps inside a discussed aspect are listed under Scope and limits, and the full report gives each aspect its own limitations. No commentary found means none in the sources read. Assessment incomplete marks an aspect with no statement found while known source limits apply.
Sources
129 verified statements from 58 cited sources. A video or podcast is one source but often carries many statements, so the table counts statements, not just posts.
| Channel | Statements | Cited | Screened | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Video & audio · 28 statements · 22%from 4 videos · about 7 per source | ||||
| YouTube | 28 | 4 | 4 | |
| Posts · 94 statements · 73%from 52 posts · about 2 per source | ||||
| X threads | 91 | 50 | 130 | |
| LinkedIn posts | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| Bluesky threads | 1 | 1 | 18 | |
| Primary sources · 7 statements · 5%cited for context, not screened · from 2 sources · about 4 per source | ||||
| Publications | 7 | 2 | — | |
Screened: found and read for this trial. Cited: backs at least one statement. Bar = statements; a statement drawn from two sources counts half to each. How we sourced and checked this
max 67 / quarter
- Screened window
- Jun 8, 2021 → Oct 17, 2026
- Cited window
- May 26, 2022 → Oct 17, 2026
- Retrieved
- Nov 10, 2026
The trial
from ClinicalTrials.gov- Title
- A Phase 1/2, Open-Label, Multi-Center Trial to Assess Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Efficacy of CLN-081 in Patients With Locally-Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Harboring EGFR Exon 20 Insertion Mutations Who Have Previously Received Platinum-Based Systemic Chemotherapy
- Registry
- NCT04036682
- Study IDs
- CLN-081-001
- Sponsor
- Cullinan Therapeutics Inc.
- Collaborators
- Taiho Oncology, Inc.
- Design
- Phase 1/Phase 2 · Interventional, non randomized, sequential
- Status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrollment
- 284 estimated
- Registered
- 2019-07-30
- Start
- 2019-10-31 actual
- Primary completion
- 2025-10-13 actual
- Primary endpoints
- All Cohorts: The rate and severity of treatment emergent AEs.
- All Cohorts: The rate and severity of DLTs.
- Phase 2 Dose Expansion Cohorts: Overall response rate (ORR)
- Module A: Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameter
- Module A: Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameter
- Module B and C: Confirmed overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) by independent review committee (IRC)
- Interventions
- 1 registered
More on: Non-small cell lung cancer
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.
- 1 matching source (1 X thread) could not be read and is not included.
- 193 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: 31 sources about other trials or topics are not included.
- The sources reviewed for this edition do not represent all HCPs or all public discussion. Unnamed trial references and alternative wording may be missing, and one identified X discussion was unavailable.
Show all 15 known gaps +Fewer −
- Social posts, presentation relays, reposts, organizational coverage and investment-focused commentary are not independent HCP observations or a basis for measuring consensus.
- Some interview speech remains unidentified. Guest descriptions, author lists and professional profiles do not establish who spoke those passages.
- Clinical-role information is unavailable for several named authors. Identity or research associations do not increase the evidentiary weight of a view.
- 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.
- The early phase 1/2a data, early post-amivantamab Module C analysis and later publication use different populations and follow-up. Their estimates cannot be combined into a single result or trend.
- Some accounts contain unresolved endpoint labels, subgroup misassignments or internally inconsistent summaries. These remain attributed statements rather than corrected facts.
- Overall response among patients with brain metastases, intracranial response, CNS penetration and activity in unstable or symptomatic CNS disease are different questions.
- All-grade, high-grade, treatment-related and unspecified adverse-event percentages are not interchangeable. Subjective comparisons do not establish comparative safety.
- No exact regulatory label or standalone protocol document was available. Submission plans, NDA acceptance and target action dates do not establish approval or label breadth.
- No commentary specifically addressing Module A pharmacokinetic parameters or reported dose-limiting-toxicity rates was identified in the reviewed material.
How reports are built and checked: Methods.
Editions and corrections
Routine maintenance: 1 fix (names, counts)
None of these changed a statement, finding or source.
- Nov 11, 2026 UTCThe count of statements from confirmed clinicians now follows the people cards.
Last checked for new commentary Nov 10, 2026 UTC. No changes. Follow new editions and changes in this report's change feed (JSON Feed), or the catalog's. How versions and corrections work.
Cite this report
Erudio Health. REZILIENT1 (NCT04036682): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Nov 10, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/rezilient1-nct04036682
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 "REZILIENT1" (NCT04036682), 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 "rezilient1-nct04036682". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/rezilient1-nct04036682.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 updates. Call create_order with report "NCT04036682", 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 NCT04036682 and sections ["all"], and summarize the findings for me with their sources. The full report can be long: 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/rezilient1-nct04036682.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/rezilient1-nct04036682.md
# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "rezilient1-nct04036682" })release 772652623cff9443f83f7573b5933272615e5fe53e06e4dbe267264335d139ba