SKYSCRAPER-03
tiragolumab plus atezolizumab in locally advanced, unresectable stage III NSCLC
SKYSCRAPER-03 asks whether atezolizumab plus tiragolumab can delay progression more than durvalumab in unresectable stage III NSCLC following concurrent chemoradiation without progression. Commentary spans X, Bluesky and LinkedIn posts, podcasts and YouTube, including physicians with confirmed oncology roles. The discussion turns on what an unchanged durvalumab benchmark means and how safety reassurance should be weighed against treatment burden. Whether biomarker refinement can guide treatment intensification remains contested.
- NCT04513925 ↗
- v1.0.0 · edition 1
- updated Oct 31, 2026
- Focused
8 findings, and what sits behind each
01. The principal clinical reading is an unchanged durvalumab benchmark, not proof of equivalence
13 statements · 13 passages · 12 sources · 9 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Primary endpoint: Progression-free Survival (PFS), as Assessed by an Independent Review Facility (IRF) in Programmed Death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Positive Analysis Set (PPAS), Primary endpoint: PFS, as Assessed by an IRF in FAS, Population and setting.
02. Safety reassurance coexists with concern about added treatment burden
7 statements · 7 passages · 6 sources · 6 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Safety and tolerability, Primary endpoint: Progression-free Survival (PFS), as Assessed by an Independent Review Facility (IRF) in Programmed Death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Positive Analysis Set (PPAS), Secondary endpoints, The comparison.
03. Biomarker refinement is a contested development strategy, not an established solution
11 statements · 8 passages · 6 sources · 7 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Progression-free Survival (PFS), as Assessed by an Independent Review Facility (IRF) in Programmed Death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Positive Analysis Set (PPAS), Primary endpoint: PFS, as Assessed by an IRF in FAS, Secondary endpoints, Design and conduct.
04. Selection effects and inconsistent numerical reporting qualify interpretation
8 statements · 9 passages · 6 sources · 6 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, Primary endpoint: Progression-free Survival (PFS), as Assessed by an Independent Review Facility (IRF) in Programmed Death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Positive Analysis Set (PPAS), Secondary endpoints, Design and conduct.
05. Earlier biological hope and skepticism should not be flattened into retrospective certainty
11 statements · 9 passages · 6 sources · 7 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Design and conduct.
06. Competing consolidation and sequencing strategies remain evidence-dependent alternatives
17 statements · 12 passages · 8 sources · 6 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Design and conduct.
07. Radiation planning is proposed as a route to both local control and consolidation eligibility
10 statements · 9 passages · 1 sources · 5 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
08. Negative evidence is valued, but clinicians disagree about how much it sets the field back
18 statements · 19 passages · 8 sources · 8 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison.
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 8
The principal clinical reading is an unchanged durvalumab benchmark, not proof of equivalence
- statements
- 13
- passages
- 13
- sources
- 12
- named voices
- 9
What the statements areViews 8Questions and uncertainty 0Clinical experience 0Comparisons 0Restated results and context 5How passages are usedSupporting a statement 13Giving context 0Recorded with the finding- Counterview: recorded
- Limitations: 2
- Feeds the Medical Affairs question
- 8 posts and articles
- 2 podcasts and video
- 1 publication
- 1 registry
Draws on: The comparison, Primary endpoint: Progression-free Survival (PFS), as Assessed by an Independent Review Facility (IRF) in Programmed Death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Positive Analysis Set (PPAS), Primary endpoint: PFS, as Assessed by an IRF in FAS, Population and setting.
In the full report: the interpretation in full, all 13 statements cited to source and date, and the 12 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 SKYSCRAPER-03 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.
Which patients, if any, could justify further intensification, and what evidence would distinguish a genuinely different strategy from repetition of an unsuccessful one?
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- 79HCP commentary sources screened
- 43sources cited by verified HCP statements
- 40named in screened sources
- 40voices cited in the report
- 35cited voices matched to verified clinician profiles
Also in the sources: 5 organizational or shared accounts, not counted as people.
- 122verified statements, each linked to its source
- 69of them from speakers with a confirmed clinical role
- 8findings
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 122 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 | 8 | Titles free |
| Detailed analysis | 9 sections | Paid |
| Verified statements with short source quotes and links | 122 | Paid |
| Trial aspects mapped | 12 | Free |
| Sources with links | 43 | Counts free |
| Speaker attribution for cited voices | 40 | Paid |
Trial aspects
12 discussed · 0 no commentary · 0 incomplete| Aspect | Statements | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Primary endpoint: Progression-free Survival (PFS), as Assessed by an Independent Review Facility (IRF) in Programmed Death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Positive Analysis Set (PPAS) | 11 | 11 |
| Primary endpoint: PFS, as Assessed by an IRF in FAS | 7 | 7 |
| Secondary endpoints | 10 | 9 |
| Population and setting | 6 | 4 |
| The comparison | 20 | 14 |
| Safety and tolerability | 7 | 6 |
| Design and conduct | 6 | 6 |
| Biomarker strategy, sample access and continued development | 9 | 6 |
| Pre-result expectations and limits of anti-TIGIT extrapolation | 13 | 9 |
| Consolidation alternatives and treatment sequencing | 22 | 8 |
| Radiation planning, local control and consolidation eligibility | 11 | 1 |
| Scientific value of negative trials and expectations for progress | 20 | 8 |
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 | 66 | 29 | |
| Bluesky threads | 6 | 3 | |
| LinkedIn posts | 3 | 3 | |
| Podcasts | 3 | 3 | |
| YouTube | 1 | 1 | |
| Primary sources, cited for context, not screened | |||
| Registry | not screened | 3 | |
| Publications | not screened | 1 | |
max 32 / quarter
- Screened window
- Jan 10, 2022 → Sep 11, 2026
- Cited window
- Jan 10, 2022 → Aug 23, 2026
- Retrieved
- Oct 31, 2026
The trial
from ClinicalTrials.gov- Title
- A Phase III, Open-Label, Randomized Study of Atezolizumab and Tiragolumab Compared With Durvalumab in Patients With Locally Advanced, Unresectable Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Who Have Not Progressed After Concurrent Platinum-Based Chemoradiation
- Registry
- NCT04513925
- Study IDs
- GO41854 · 2019-004773-29
- Sponsor
- Hoffmann-La Roche
- Design
- Phase 3 · Interventional, randomized, parallel
- Status
- Completed
- Enrollment
- 829 actual
- Registered
- 2020-08-14
- Start
- 2020-08-24 actual
- Primary completion
- 2025-05-27 actual
- Primary endpoint
- Progression-free Survival (PFS), as Assessed by an Independent Review Facility (IRF) in Programmed Death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Positive Analysis Set (PPAS)
- 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.
- Not yet captured in this edition: a view on radiotherapy’s immune effects and alternative ways to combine immunotherapy with radiotherapy.
- 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.
- 67 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; frequencies and consensus cannot be estimated.
- Some additional passages were not fully assessed, and discussion using unnamed references or different spellings may be missing.
- Organizational accounts, relayed publications or presentations, repeated posts and multiple versions of one episode do not establish additional independent HCP views.
- A remark about continued tiragolumab development cannot be assigned reliably to a speaker across the podcast and video versions of the same episode; it is not included as an attributed position or counted as separate views.
- 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.
- PD-L1-positive PFS hazard ratios and p-values differ between some social accounts and the publication; the sources do not explain why.
- Comments about PACIFIC-2, PACIFIC 6, DATE, COAST, CODE, I-SABR and other approaches retain their own population, timing and evidentiary limits and are not SKYSCRAPER-03 results.
- No exact product-label source is available for atezolizumab or tiragolumab; no approval or label conclusion is drawn.
How reports are built and checked: Methods.
Editions and corrections
freeLast checked for new commentary Oct 31, 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. SKYSCRAPER-03 (NCT04513925): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Oct 31, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/skyscraper-03-nct04513925
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 "SKYSCRAPER-03" (NCT04513925), 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 "skyscraper-03-04513925". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/skyscraper-03-nct04513925.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 "NCT04513925", 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-nct04513925 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/skyscraper-03-nct04513925.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/skyscraper-03-nct04513925.md
# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "skyscraper-03-04513925" })release 3c813f180d343cb43d898d33397c249f0128664c85c45f29da75861aa7b96b2f