# SKYSCRAPER-03: HCP commentary report

> 122 verified statements (69 from clinicians verified by NPI or staff page) from 39 commentary sources · 8 findings · updated Oct 31, 2026

## Report

- Trial: 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
- NCT ID: NCT04513925
- Registry: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04513925
- Sponsor: Hoffmann-La Roche
- Phase: Phase 3
- Status: Completed
- Drugs tested: tiragolumab plus atezolizumab
- Indication: locally advanced, unresectable stage III NSCLC
- Version: v1.0.0, edition 1
- Accepted: 2026-10-31
- Last checked: 2026-10-31
- Release hash: 3c813f180d343cb43d898d33397c249f0128664c85c45f29da75861aa7b96b2f

## Counts

- HCP commentary sources screened: 79
- Sources cited by verified statements: 43
- Verified statements: 122
- From speakers with a confirmed clinical role (verified by the NPI registry or their own institution's staff page): 69
- Findings: 8
- Named people in screened sources (unnamed speakers and accounts not counted): 40
- Voices cited: 40
- Cited voices identity-verified: 35
- Organisational or shared accounts (not counted as people): 5

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

## Abstract

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.

## Open Medical Affairs question

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.

## Findings (titles)

- F1. The principal clinical reading is an unchanged durvalumab benchmark, not proof of equivalence
- F2. Safety reassurance coexists with concern about added treatment burden
- F3. Biomarker refinement is a contested development strategy, not an established solution
- F4. Selection effects and inconsistent numerical reporting qualify interpretation
- F5. Earlier biological hope and skepticism should not be flattened into retrospective certainty
- F6. Competing consolidation and sequencing strategies remain evidence-dependent alternatives
- F7. Radiation planning is proposed as a route to both local control and consolidation eligibility
- F8. Negative evidence is valued, but clinicians disagree about how much it sets the field back

## 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 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 9 | recorded | 2 |
| F2 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | recorded | 2 |
| F3 | 11 | 8 | 6 | 7 | recorded | 3 |
| F4 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 6 | none recorded | 3 |
| F5 | 11 | 9 | 6 | 7 | recorded | 2 |
| F6 | 17 | 12 | 8 | 6 | recorded | 3 |
| F7 | 10 | 9 | 1 | 5 | recorded | 3 |
| F8 | 18 | 19 | 8 | 8 | recorded | 3 |

### 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 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 13 | 0 | 8 posts and articles, 2 podcasts and video, 1 publication, 1 registry | yes |
| F2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 6 posts and articles | yes |
| F3 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 4 posts and articles, 2 podcasts and video | yes |
| F4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 9 | 0 | 5 posts and articles, 1 publication | yes |
| F5 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 3 | 5 posts and articles, 1 podcast or video | yes |
| F6 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 17 | 1 | 7 posts and articles, 1 podcast or video | yes |
| F7 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 1 post or article | yes |
| F8 | 13 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 19 | 3 | 6 posts and articles, 2 podcasts and video | yes |

### Trial dimensions

- 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): F1 (1 shared claims), F2 (1 shared claims), F3 (2 shared claims), F4 (2 shared claims)
- Primary endpoint: PFS, as Assessed by an IRF in FAS: F1 (1 shared claims), F3 (2 shared claims)
- Secondary endpoints: F2 (1 shared claims), F3 (2 shared claims), F4 (2 shared claims)
- Population and setting: F1 (1 shared claims), F4 (4 shared claims)
- The comparison: F1 (8 shared claims), F2 (1 shared claims), F8 (3 shared claims)
- Safety and tolerability: F2 (7 shared claims)
- Design and conduct: F3 (1 shared claims), F4 (2 shared claims), F5 (2 shared claims), F6 (1 shared claims)

## Sample findings

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

### F3. Biomarker refinement is a contested development strategy, not an established solution

An X post addressed how to identify patients who might benefit from intensification after chemoradiation in the SKYSCRAPER-03 setting.

Source: X thread, 2026-08-23.

### F4. Selection effects and inconsistent numerical reporting qualify interpretation

An X post addressed methodological questions about statistical testing and the histologic composition of the SKYSCRAPER-03 population.

Source: X thread, 2025-10-18.

## What's inside

| 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 found · 0 assessment incomplete.

| Aspect | Coverage | 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) | discussed | 11 | 11 |
| Primary endpoint: PFS, as Assessed by an IRF in FAS | discussed | 7 | 7 |
| Secondary endpoints | discussed | 10 | 9 |
| Population and setting | discussed | 6 | 4 |
| The comparison | discussed | 20 | 14 |
| Safety and tolerability | discussed | 7 | 6 |
| Design and conduct | discussed | 6 | 6 |
| Biomarker strategy, sample access and continued development | discussed | 9 | 6 |
| Pre-result expectations and limits of anti-TIGIT extrapolation | discussed | 13 | 9 |
| Consolidation alternatives and treatment sequencing | discussed | 22 | 8 |
| Radiation planning, local control and consolidation eligibility | discussed | 11 | 1 |
| Scientific value of negative trials and expectations for progress | discussed | 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

| Channel | Screened | Cited |
| --- | ---: | ---: |
| X threads | 66 | 29 |
| Bluesky threads | 6 | 3 |
| LinkedIn posts | 3 | 3 |
| Podcasts | 3 | 3 |
| YouTube | 1 | 1 |
| Registry (primary source, cited for context) | not screened | 3 |
| Publications (primary source, cited for context) | not screened | 1 |

- Screened window: 2022-01-10 to 2026-09-11
- Cited window: 2022-01-10 to 2026-08-23
- Retrieved: 2026-10-31

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 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 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04513925)
- Study IDs: GO41854 · 2019-004773-29
- Sponsor: Hoffmann-La Roche
- Design: Phase 3 · interventional, randomized, parallel, phase3
- Status: Completed
- Enrollment: 829 (actual)
- 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) (From randomization to first occurrence of PD or death from any cause, whichever occurred first (up to approximately 57 months))
- Primary endpoint: PFS, as Assessed by an IRF in FAS (From randomization to first occurrence of PD or death from any cause, whichever occurred first (up to approximately 57 months))
- Intervention: Atezolizumab (drug)
- Intervention: Tiragolumab (drug)
- Intervention: Durvalumab (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.
- 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: https://www.erudio.com/methods

## Editions and corrections

- v1.0.0, accepted 2026-10-31: current edition

Last checked for new commentary 2026-10-31. No corrections. Versions follow semver: a new or changed finding is a minor version, more evidence without a material change is a patch.

## Offer

- Size: Focused (122 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 (35 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/skyscraper-03-nct04513925
- Agents: POST https://www.erudio.com/api/orders with {"report": "skyscraper-03-nct04513925", "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=skyscraper-03-04513925

## Cite

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

## Machine access

- JSON: https://www.erudio.com/reports/skyscraper-03-nct04513925.json
- Markdown: https://www.erudio.com/reports/skyscraper-03-nct04513925.md
- MCP, no sign-in: https://mcp.erudio.com/free, tool `get_report_card` with `{"slug": "skyscraper-03-04513925"}`