RIBOLARIS
ribociclib in clinically high-risk stage II ER+/HER2- breast cancer
RIBOLARIS asks whether response to neoadjuvant ribociclib plus endocrine therapy can guide chemotherapy omission for patients with clinically high-risk stage II HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer. A LinkedIn poster welcomes the study and keeps response-guided omission conditional. In a LinkedIn post, eligibility and historical comparisons are questioned. Long-term clinical validation remains open in the welcoming poster's assessment. The sources reviewed for this edition place RIBOLARIS's preliminary interim-analysis results at ESMO 2025.
- NCT05296746 ↗
- v1.0.0 · edition 1
- updated Oct 30, 2026
- Focused
10 findings, and what sits behind each
01. An encouraging molecular response is not yet evidence that chemotherapy can safely be omitted
12 statements · 13 passages · 13 sources · 10 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Secondary endpoints, Primary endpoint: Distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in the ROR-low cohort (responder cohort), Safety and tolerability, Design and conduct, Population and setting, The comparison.
02. Eligibility and the historical benchmark are a specific methodological challenge
10 statements · 8 passages · 5 sources · 2 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, Primary endpoint: Distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in the ROR-low cohort (responder cohort), Design and conduct, The comparison.
03. Dynamic genomic selection appeals, but assay comparability and response meaning remain open
11 statements · 10 passages · 8 sources · 8 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Secondary endpoints, Primary endpoint: Distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in the ROR-low cohort (responder cohort).
04. Earlier trials motivate chemotherapy replacement; adjuvant add-on evidence does not establish it
13 statements · 10 passages · 10 sources · 6 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Design and conduct, Primary endpoint: Distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in the ROR-low cohort (responder cohort), Secondary endpoints.
05. Interest in selective clinical use is accompanied by explicit nonstandard-care boundaries
11 statements · 12 passages · 8 sources · 7 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, Design and conduct, Secondary endpoints, The comparison, Primary endpoint: Distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in the ROR-low cohort (responder cohort).
06. Perceived tolerability advantages coexist with substantial hematologic and hepatic toxicity
12 statements · 14 passages · 9 sources · 7 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Safety and tolerability, Secondary endpoints, Population and setting.
07. Overall survival, duration, cost and cumulative treatment burden remain linked questions
7 statements · 7 passages · 1 sources · 3 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
08. ctDNA-guided de-escalation is attractive but not yet actionable; nonresponder combinations have safety constraints
7 statements · 8 passages · 2 sources · 4 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Safety and tolerability.
09. Rapid engagement is interpreted as demand for de-escalation, not measured patient preference
15 statements · 13 passages · 9 sources · 7 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Design and conduct, Primary endpoint: Distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in the ROR-low cohort (responder cohort).
10. A separate thread contains consequential but unsubstantiated allegations of harmful intent
2 statements · 2 passages · 1 sources · 2 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
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 10
An encouraging molecular response is not yet evidence that chemotherapy can safely be omitted
- statements
- 12
- passages
- 13
- sources
- 13
- named voices
- 10
What the statements areViews 8Questions and uncertainty 0Clinical experience 0Comparisons 0Restated results and context 4How passages are usedSupporting a statement 14Giving context 0Recorded with the finding- Counterview: recorded
- Limitations: 3
- Feeds the Medical Affairs question
- 12 posts and articles
- 1 podcast or video
Draws on: Secondary endpoints, Primary endpoint: Distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in the ROR-low cohort (responder cohort), Safety and tolerability, Design and conduct, Population and setting, The comparison.
In the full report: the interpretation in full, all 12 statements cited to source and date, and the 13 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 RIBOLARIS 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 long-term disease control and patient-valued trade-offs would justify chemotherapy omission in this response-defined population?
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- 45HCP commentary sources screened
- 32sources cited by verified HCP statements
- 26named in screened sources
- 25voices cited in the report
- 18cited voices matched to verified clinician profiles
Also in the sources: 1 organizational or shared account, not counted as people.
- 139verified statements, each linked to its source
- 17of them from speakers with a confirmed clinical role
- 10findings
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 139 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 | 10 | Titles free |
| Detailed analysis | 11 sections | Paid |
| Verified statements with short source quotes and links | 139 | Paid |
| Trial aspects mapped | 14 | Free |
| Sources with links | 32 | Counts free |
| Speaker attribution for cited voices | 25 | Paid |
Trial aspects
14 discussed · 0 no commentary · 0 incomplete| Aspect | Statements | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Primary endpoint: Distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in the ROR-low cohort (responder cohort) | 13 | 8 |
| Secondary endpoints | 17 | 15 |
| Population and setting | 14 | 8 |
| The comparison | 8 | 6 |
| Safety and tolerability | 13 | 9 |
| Design and conduct | 22 | 11 |
| Dynamic genomic response, assay comparability and monitoring simplicity | 15 | 9 |
| Clinical readiness and selective implementation | 17 | 8 |
| Addition versus substitution and the rationale from earlier studies | 14 | 11 |
| Duration, persistence, overall survival and cumulative treatment burden | 11 | 1 |
| ctDNA-guided sparing and options for inadequate responders | 8 | 2 |
| Patient priorities, quality of life and local treatment | 7 | 2 |
| Research engagement, expansion and anticipated evidence | 14 | 10 |
| Publication-status dispute and allegations about transparency and harm | 2 | 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 | 31 | 19 | |
| LinkedIn posts | 8 | 6 | |
| Bluesky threads | 2 | 2 | |
| X videos | 2 | 2 | |
| Podcasts | 1 | 1 | |
| YouTube | 1 | 1 | |
| Primary sources, cited for context, not screened | |||
| Publications | not screened | 1 | |
max 24 / quarter
- Screened window
- Mar 25, 2022 → Aug 18, 2026
- Cited window
- Apr 22, 2022 → Aug 18, 2026
- Retrieved
- Oct 29, 2026
The trial
from ClinicalTrials.gov- Title
- Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Ribociclib and Endocrine Therapy for Clinically High-risk Estrogen Receptor-positive (ER+) and HER2-negative (HER2-) Breast Cancer
- Registry
- NCT05296746
- Study IDs
- SOLTI-1911 · BIG-21-02 (BIG)
- Sponsor
- SOLTI Breast Cancer Research Group
- Collaborators
- Novartis, UNICANCER
- Design
- Phase 2 · Interventional, non randomized, parallel
- Status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrollment
- 1,100 estimated
- Registered
- 2022-03-25
- Start
- 2022-05-03 actual
- Primary completion
- 2029-10-01 estimated
- Primary endpoint
- Distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in the ROR-low cohort (responder cohort)
- Interventions
- 3 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.
- 54 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 representative of all HCP discussion. Identifier-focused searches may miss unnamed references or wording variants, and several passages have not been fully assessed for clinician views.
- Institutional relays, reposts, repeated wording and accounts from people described as involved in RIBOLARIS do not represent independent confirmations or a count of distinct HCP opinions.
- Long-term RIBOLARIS recurrence and survival outcomes are not reported in the reviewed commentary. The available publication describes rationale and design rather than observed trial outcomes.
- Some named authors' clinical roles or identities are not independently established. Anonymous spoken commentary remains attributed to its source, not to a presumed host or presenter.
- Earlier and later accounts describe different enrollment plans and use differing eligibility or endpoint language. These dated descriptions should not be silently merged.
- No separate trial protocol or exact matching regulatory-label documents were available. Absence of those documents does not establish absence of approval.
- The harmful-intent and data-concealment accusations in one thread are not substantiated by the sources reviewed.
How reports are built and checked: Methods.
Editions and corrections
freeLast checked for new commentary Oct 30, 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. RIBOLARIS (NCT05296746): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Oct 30, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/ribolaris-nct05296746
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 "RIBOLARIS" (NCT05296746), 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 "ribolaris-05296746". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/ribolaris-nct05296746.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 "NCT05296746", 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-nct05296746 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/ribolaris-nct05296746.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/ribolaris-nct05296746.md
# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "ribolaris-05296746" })release 527664bb4f5dd36bf9186b2ff479669319dbc54ac212c18dc6cf9fcaddf73a5c