RMC-GI-102
Clinician commentary on RMC-GI-102 in the sources reviewed for this edition leads to one open question: Are response-prediction biomarkers being analyzed, which patient-selection criteria clarify who benefits, and what comparative benefit–toxicity evidence would justify changing first-line care? Its leading findings: (1) no added toxicity is not the same as a low treatment burden. (2) daraxonrasib enthusiasm is an early-signal interpretation, not demonstrated survival superiority. (3) zoldonrasib response enthusiasm carries explicit design and follow-up qualifications. 4 more findings follow. 31 sources screened, 19 cited; not all HCPs or all public discussion.
- NCT06445062 ↗
- v1.0.0 · edition 1
- updated Oct 29, 2026
- Focused
7 findings, and what sits behind each
01. No added toxicity is not the same as a low treatment burden
4 statements · 4 passages · 2 sources · 2 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Safety and tolerability, Primary endpoint: Adverse events (Subprotocols A-F), The comparison.
02. Daraxonrasib enthusiasm is an early-signal interpretation, not demonstrated survival superiority
4 statements · 4 passages · 4 sources · 4 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Objective Response Rate (ORR) Per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) as assessed by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR)(Subprotocol G), Secondary endpoints, Population and setting, The comparison, Safety and tolerability.
03. Zoldonrasib response enthusiasm carries explicit design and follow-up qualifications
8 statements · 7 passages · 7 sources · 5 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Objective Response Rate (ORR) Per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) as assessed by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR)(Subprotocol G), Design and conduct, Population and setting, Secondary endpoints, The comparison, Safety and tolerability.
04. Response prediction and patient selection remain explicit information needs
4 statements · 3 passages · 3 sources · 2 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, The comparison.
05. Adding an inhibitor, using monotherapy and pursuing a chemotherapy-free doublet are different strategies
5 statements · 7 passages · 5 sources · 2 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Population and setting.
06. A conditional practice-change expectation is accompanied by a local access limitation
2 statements · 1 passages · 1 sources · 0 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
07. Regulatory amplification is not multiple independent clinical endorsements or first-line approval
4 statements · 4 passages · 3 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 7
No added toxicity is not the same as a low treatment burden
- statements
- 4
- passages
- 4
- sources
- 2
- named voices
- 2
What the statements areViews 2Questions and uncertainty 0Clinical experience 1Comparisons 1Restated results and context 0How passages are usedSupporting a statement 4Giving context 0Recorded with the finding- Counterview: none recorded
- Limitations: 3
- Feeds the Medical Affairs question
- 1 post or article
- 1 podcast or video
Draws on: Safety and tolerability, Primary endpoint: Adverse events (Subprotocols A-F), The comparison.
In the full report: the interpretation in full, all 4 statements cited to source and date, and the 2 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 RMC-GI-102 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.
Are response-prediction biomarkers being analyzed, which patient-selection criteria clarify who benefits, and what comparative benefit–toxicity evidence would justify changing first-line care?
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- 31HCP commentary sources screened
- 19sources cited by verified HCP statements
- 16found in screened sources
- 15voices cited in the report
- 12cited voices matched to verified clinician profiles
Also in the sources: 4 organizational or shared accounts, not counted as people.
- 38verified statements, each linked to its source
- 13of them from speakers with a confirmed clinical role
- 7findings
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 38 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 | 7 | Titles free |
| Detailed analysis | 8 sections | Paid |
| Verified statements with short source quotes and links | 38 | Paid |
| Trial aspects mapped | 13 | Free |
| Sources with links | 19 | Counts free |
| Speaker attribution for cited voices | 15 | Paid |
Trial aspects
12 discussed · 1 no commentary · 0 incomplete| Aspect | Statements | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Primary endpoint: Adverse events (Subprotocols A-F) | 4 | 4 |
| Primary endpoint: Dose limiting toxicities (Subprotocols A-F)no commentary found | 0 | 0 |
| Primary endpoint: Objective Response Rate (ORR) Per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) as assessed by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR)(Subprotocol G) | 10 | 10 |
| Secondary endpoints | 5 | 5 |
| Population and setting | 8 | 7 |
| The comparison | 8 | 8 |
| Safety and tolerability | 10 | 8 |
| Design and conduct | 3 | 3 |
| Chemotherapy scheduling and dose delivery | 3 | 2 |
| Response prediction, patient selection and residual unmet need | 3 | 3 |
| Confirmatory trials and chemotherapy-sparing strategies | 11 | 9 |
| Geographic trial access and referral implications | 1 | 1 |
| Regulatory communication and authored reactions | 5 | 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 | 28 | 17 | |
| YouTube | 2 | 2 | |
| Bluesky threads | 1 | 0 |
max 18 / quarter
- Screened window
- Jun 10, 2024 → Sep 18, 2026
- Cited window
- Dec 18, 2024 → Sep 18, 2026
- Retrieved
- Oct 29, 2026
The trial
from ClinicalTrials.gov- Title
- A Platform Study of RAS(ON) Inhibitors in Patients With Gastrointestinal Solid Tumors
- Registry
- NCT06445062
- Study IDs
- RMC-GI-102
- Sponsor
- Revolution Medicines, Inc.
- Design
- Phase 1/Phase 2 · Interventional, non randomized, parallel
- Status
- Recruiting
- Enrollment
- 1,130 estimated
- Start
- 2024-05-24 actual
- Primary completion
- 2028-09-30 estimated
- Primary endpoint
- Adverse events (Subprotocols A-F)
- Interventions
- 9 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 clinician views in the sources used in this report are not yet captured as evidence in 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.
- 17 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 do not represent all HCPs or all public discussion. Unnamed references and different spellings may be missing.
- One first-line daraxonrasib-monotherapy passage was not fully assessed, so additional views on that alternative may be absent.
- Not every author's identity or clinical role is confirmed. Source-described credentials do not establish a verified clinical role, and channel ownership does not identify an anonymous speaker.
- No protocol document or complete results publication is included. Detailed methods, endpoint ascertainment and mature comparative outcomes cannot be established from the commentary alone.
- Regulatory coverage is incomplete, and exact labels for RMC-6236 and the mFOLFOX6 regimen are not included. Approval descriptions remain attributed to the announcements.
- Most substantive discussion concerns PDAC. The platform's CRC cohorts and several registry-listed endpoints receive little or no specific commentary.
- Not yet captured in this edition: a view on first-line RAS(ON) inhibitor monotherapy as an alternative treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer.
- Not yet captured in this edition: a view on first-line daraxonrasib monotherapy as an alternative treatment.
How reports are built and checked: Methods.
Editions and corrections
freeShow the correction
None of these corrections changed a finding.
- Oct 29, 2026Corrected to match the delivered report: the limitations. The trial's registration date is now stated.
Last checked for new commentary Oct 29, 2026. A new or changed finding gets a new version number; added evidence alone is a smaller update.
Cite this report
Erudio Health. RMC-GI-102 (NCT06445062): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Oct 29, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/rmc-gi-102-nct06445062
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 "RMC-GI-102" (NCT06445062), 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 "rmc-gi-102-06445062". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/rmc-gi-102-nct06445062.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 "NCT06445062", 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-nct06445062 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/rmc-gi-102-nct06445062.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/rmc-gi-102-nct06445062.md
# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "rmc-gi-102-06445062" })release 082f8ab5a9514b682c6eee6b44f96ca6b045dcff9292d86bb3e4dccdfe7be3b1