# RMC-GI-102: HCP commentary report

> 38 verified statements (13 from clinicians verified by NPI or staff page) from 19 commentary sources · 7 findings · updated Oct 29, 2026

## Report

- Trial: A Platform Study of RAS(ON) Inhibitors in Patients With Gastrointestinal Solid Tumors
- NCT ID: NCT06445062
- Registry: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06445062
- Sponsor: Revolution Medicines, Inc.
- Phase: Phase 1/Phase 2
- Status: Recruiting
- Drugs: bevacizumab, cetuximab, gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel
- Indications: Colorectal cancer
- Version: v1.0.0, edition 1
- Accepted: 2026-10-29
- Last checked: 2026-10-29
- Release hash: 082f8ab5a9514b682c6eee6b44f96ca6b045dcff9292d86bb3e4dccdfe7be3b1

## Counts

- HCP commentary sources screened: 31
- Sources cited by verified statements: 19
- Verified statements: 38
- From speakers with a confirmed clinical role (verified by the NPI registry or their own institution's staff page): 13
- Findings: 7
- People found in screened sources: 16
- Voices cited: 15
- Cited voices identity-verified: 12
- Organisational or shared accounts (not counted as people): 4

Counts describe the retained sources. They do not estimate how many HCPs hold a view.

## Abstract

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.

## Open Medical Affairs 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?

Raised by the leading finding. The report shows what clinicians said and the sources behind it; it does not settle the question.

## Findings (titles)

- F1. No added toxicity is not the same as a low treatment burden
- F2. Daraxonrasib enthusiasm is an early-signal interpretation, not demonstrated survival superiority
- F3. Zoldonrasib response enthusiasm carries explicit design and follow-up qualifications
- F4. Response prediction and patient selection remain explicit information needs
- F5. Adding an inhibitor, using monotherapy and pursuing a chemotherapy-free doublet are different strategies
- F6. A conditional practice-change expectation is accompanied by a local access limitation
- F7. Regulatory amplification is not multiple independent clinical endorsements or first-line approval

## What sits behind each finding

Counts describe what the report retained, not how many clinicians hold a view. A statement can support more than one finding.

| Finding | Statements | Passages | Sources | Named voices | Counterview | Limitations |
| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | --- | ---: |
| F1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | none recorded | 3 |
| F2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | none recorded | 2 |
| F3 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 5 | none recorded | 3 |
| F4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | none recorded | 3 |
| F5 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 2 | none recorded | 3 |
| F6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | none recorded | 3 |
| F7 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | none recorded | 2 |

### What the statements are

| Finding | Views | Questions and uncertainty | Clinical experience | Comparisons | Restated results and context | Passages supporting | Passages giving context | Sources by kind | Feeds the Medical Affairs question |
| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | --- | --- |
| F1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 post or article, 1 podcast or video | yes |
| F2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 posts and articles | yes |
| F3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 1 | 6 posts and articles, 1 podcast or video | yes |
| F4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 posts and articles, 1 podcast or video | yes |
| F5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 5 posts and articles | yes |
| F6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 podcast or video | yes |
| F7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 3 posts and articles | yes |

### Trial dimensions

- Primary endpoint: Adverse events (Subprotocols A-F): F1 (2 shared claims)
- Primary endpoint: Dose limiting toxicities (Subprotocols A-F): no finding draws on it directly
- 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): F2 (2 shared claims), F3 (5 shared claims)
- Secondary endpoints: F2 (2 shared claims), F3 (1 shared claims)
- Population and setting: F2 (1 shared claims), F3 (2 shared claims), F4 (3 shared claims), F5 (1 shared claims)
- The comparison: F1 (1 shared claims), F2 (1 shared claims), F3 (1 shared claims), F4 (1 shared claims), F5 (2 shared claims)
- Safety and tolerability: F1 (4 shared claims), F2 (1 shared claims), F3 (1 shared claims)
- Design and conduct: F3 (3 shared claims)

## Sample findings

Paraphrased; the full report links each statement to its source.

## What's inside

| 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 found · 0 assessment incomplete.

| Aspect | Coverage | Statements | Sources |
| --- | --- | ---: | ---: |
| Primary endpoint: Adverse events (Subprotocols A-F) | discussed | 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) | discussed | 10 | 10 |
| Secondary endpoints | discussed | 5 | 5 |
| Population and setting | discussed | 8 | 7 |
| The comparison | discussed | 8 | 8 |
| Safety and tolerability | discussed | 10 | 8 |
| Design and conduct | discussed | 3 | 3 |
| Chemotherapy scheduling and dose delivery | discussed | 3 | 2 |
| Response prediction, patient selection and residual unmet need | discussed | 3 | 3 |
| Confirmatory trials and chemotherapy-sparing strategies | discussed | 11 | 9 |
| Geographic trial access and referral implications | discussed | 1 | 1 |
| Regulatory communication and authored reactions | discussed | 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

| Channel | Screened | Cited |
| --- | ---: | ---: |
| X threads | 28 | 17 |
| YouTube | 2 | 2 |
| Bluesky threads | 1 | 0 |

- Screened window: 2024-06-10 to 2026-09-18
- Cited window: 2024-12-18 to 2026-09-18
- Retrieved: 2026-10-29

Screened sources were retrieved for this trial. Cited sources back at least one verified statement and include primary sources used for context.

## The trial

From ClinicalTrials.gov.

- Title: A Platform Study of RAS(ON) Inhibitors in Patients With Gastrointestinal Solid Tumors
- Registry: NCT06445062 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06445062)
- Study IDs: RMC-GI-102
- Sponsor: Revolution Medicines, Inc.
- Design: Phase 1/Phase 2 · interventional, non randomized, parallel, phase1, phase2
- Status: Recruiting
- Enrollment: 1,130 (estimated)
- Start: 2024-05-24 (actual)
- Primary completion: 2028-09-30 (estimated)
- Primary endpoint: Adverse events (Subprotocols A-F) (Up to 3 years)
- Primary endpoint: Dose limiting toxicities (Subprotocols A-F) (28 days)
- 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) (Up to 3 years)
- Intervention: RMC-6236 (drug)
- Intervention: mFOLFOX6 regimen (drug)
- Intervention: bevacizumab (drug)
- Intervention: mFOLFIRINOX regimen (drug)
- Intervention: cetuximab (drug)
- Intervention: gemcitabine (drug)
- Intervention: nab-paclitaxel (drug)
- Intervention: RMC-9805 (drug)
- Intervention: FOLFIRI regimen (drug)

## 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.
- 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: https://www.erudio.com/methods

## Editions and corrections

- v1.0.0, accepted 2026-10-29: current edition, corrected 2026-10-29
  - Correction 2026-10-29: Corrected to match the delivered report: the limitations. The trial's registration date is now stated.

Last checked for new commentary 2026-10-29. Versions follow semver: a new or changed finding is a minor version, more evidence without a material change is a patch.

## Offer

- Size: Focused (38 verified statements)
- Current edition: $750. A purchase starts a check for new commentary and any newer edition follows at no charge
- 3 months of weekly updates: $1,300
- 6 months of weekly updates: $1,900
- 12 months of weekly updates: $2,600
- Optional identity linkages (12-month updates only, product updates-12-identities; speakers are named and described in every report): NPI and other verified IDs at $15 per identity-verified person in the edition at purchase (12 now), at most $750; people verified later in the term at no charge
- Pricing: https://www.erudio.com/pricing
- Buy now (card, through Stripe): https://www.erudio.com/reports/rmc-gi-102-nct06445062
- Agents: POST https://www.erudio.com/api/orders with {"report": "rmc-gi-102-nct06445062", "product": "edition" | "updates-3" | "updates-6" | "updates-12" | "updates-12-identities", "buyer_email": "...", "licence_key": "<your key, if you hold one>"}; it returns a payment link for your user (and a pay_url your own MPP or x402 payment client can pay over HTTP 402, when offered), and once paid the status_url returns your license key. Send the same key with every later order so all reports sit on one key. The buyer gets their account key by email, which reads every report bought with their address; recover_key (POST https://www.erudio.com/api/keys/recover) sends it again
- Talk to Audun Utengen and Tom Lee (invoice, PO, questions): https://www.erudio.com/contact?report=rmc-gi-102-06445062

## Cite

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

## Machine access

- JSON: https://www.erudio.com/reports/rmc-gi-102-nct06445062.json
- Markdown: https://www.erudio.com/reports/rmc-gi-102-nct06445062.md
- MCP, no sign-in: https://mcp.erudio.com/free, tool `get_report_card` with `{"slug": "rmc-gi-102-06445062"}`