Temab-A
Temab-A examines activity and tolerability of a c-Met–targeted antibody–drug conjugate, alone or with bevacizumab, in previously treated advanced solid cancers. X posters welcome the colorectal combination signal, while one poster questions survival certainty. In pretreated EGFR-mutant lung cancer, one physician welcomes response activity, but two physicians question tolerability. Two physicians pose unresolved questions about payload differences and comparisons with other antibody–drug conjugates.
- NCT05029882 ↗
- v1.0.0 · edition 1
- updated Oct 29, 2026
- Focused
7 findings, and what sits behind each
01. In pretreated EGFR-mutant NSCLC, activity does not settle the tolerability question
5 statements · 5 passages · 5 sources · 5 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Safety and tolerability, Secondary endpoint: PFS per RECIST v1.1, Primary endpoint: Objective Response Rate (ORR), Secondary endpoint: Duration of Response (DOR) for Participants with Confirmed CR/PR per RECIST v1.1, Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (OS), Population and setting.
02. The colorectal combination signal attracts enthusiasm, with survival certainty explicitly challenged
8 statements · 9 passages · 7 sources · 3 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 4. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: The comparison, Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (OS), Design and conduct, Secondary endpoint: PFS per RECIST v1.1, Safety and tolerability, Primary endpoint: Objective Response Rate (ORR).
03. Late-line colorectal monotherapy interest rests on dose optimization and response enrichment, not a validated selection rule
16 statements · 14 passages · 7 sources · 6 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 4. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Primary endpoint: Objective Response Rate (ORR), Safety and tolerability, Secondary endpoint: PFS per RECIST v1.1, Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (OS), Population and setting, Secondary endpoint: Duration of Response (DOR) for Participants with Confirmed CR/PR per RECIST v1.1, Design and conduct.
04. NSCLC commentary raises subgroup, payload and sequencing questions rather than proving ADC superiority
10 statements · 12 passages · 10 sources · 7 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 5. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, Primary endpoint: Objective Response Rate (ORR), Secondary endpoint: PFS per RECIST v1.1, Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (OS), Secondary endpoint: Duration of Response (DOR) for Participants with Confirmed CR/PR per RECIST v1.1, The comparison, Safety and tolerability.
05. Patient-support commentary connects treatment continuation with proactive toxicity navigation
2 statements · 1 passages · 1 sources · 0 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 2. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Safety and tolerability, Primary endpoint: Objective Response Rate (ORR).
06. The gastroesophageal interview offers a qualified, setting-specific activity and tolerability reading
6 statements · 3 passages · 3 sources · 2 named voices
Counterview: none recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Secondary endpoint: PFS per RECIST v1.1, Population and setting, Safety and tolerability, Secondary endpoint: Duration of Response (DOR) for Participants with Confirmed CR/PR per RECIST v1.1, The comparison, Design and conduct.
07. Regulatory and mechanistic enthusiasm extends beyond what the early clinical evidence establishes
17 statements · 7 passages · 3 sources · 1 named voices
Counterview: recorded · Limitations recorded: 3. Feeds the Medical Affairs question.
Draws on: Population and setting, 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 7
In pretreated EGFR-mutant NSCLC, activity does not settle the tolerability question
- statements
- 5
- passages
- 5
- sources
- 5
- named voices
- 5
What the statements areViews 2Questions and uncertainty 1Clinical experience 1Comparisons 0Restated results and context 1How passages are usedSupporting a statement 5Giving context 0Recorded with the finding- Counterview: recorded
- Limitations: 3
- Feeds the Medical Affairs question
- 4 posts and articles
- 1 podcast or video
Draws on: Safety and tolerability, Secondary endpoint: PFS per RECIST v1.1, Primary endpoint: Objective Response Rate (ORR), Secondary endpoint: Duration of Response (DOR) for Participants with Confirmed CR/PR per RECIST v1.1, Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (OS), Population and setting.
In the full report: the interpretation in full, all 5 statements cited to source and date, and the 5 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 Temab-A 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.
How should Medical Affairs explain activity, cohort-specific biomarkers and dose trade-offs without overstating tolerability, survival certainty or regulatory significance?
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- 53HCP commentary sources screened
- 29sources cited by verified HCP statements
- 18found in screened sources
- 18voices cited in the report
- 17cited voices matched to verified clinician profiles
Also in the sources: 4 organizational or shared accounts, not counted as people.
- 70verified statements, each linked to its source
- 17of 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 70 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 | 70 | Paid |
| Trial aspects mapped | 14 | Free |
| Sources with links | 29 | Counts free |
| Speaker attribution for cited voices | 18 | Paid |
Trial aspects
13 discussed · 1 no commentary · 0 incomplete| Aspect | Statements | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Primary endpoint: Objective Response Rate (ORR) | 13 | 15 |
| Secondary endpoint: Duration of Response (DOR) for Participants with Confirmed CR/PR per RECIST v1.1 | 3 | 3 |
| Secondary endpoint: PFS per RECIST v1.1 | 9 | 10 |
| Secondary endpoint: Overall survival (OS) | 10 | 11 |
| Secondary endpoint: Parts 1-6: ORR per Independent Central Review (ICR) in Participants with MET Amplificationno commentary found | 0 | 0 |
| Population and setting | 13 | 14 |
| The comparison | 9 | 10 |
| Safety and tolerability | 11 | 11 |
| Design and conduct | 5 | 6 |
| Dose optimization versus maximum tolerated dose | 1 | 1 |
| c-Met protein expression and exploratory patient selection | 9 | 11 |
| Patient navigation and toxicity-support implications | 2 | 1 |
| Regulatory significance, unmet need and development expectations | 12 | 2 |
| Payload rationale and unanswered ADC or chemotherapy comparisons | 8 | 5 |
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 | 48 | 24 | |
| Bluesky threads | 3 | 1 | |
| YouTube | 2 | 2 | |
| Primary sources, cited for context, not screened | |||
| Publications | not screened | 2 | |
max 23 / quarter
- Screened window
- Jun 3, 2024 → Oct 26, 2026
- Cited window
- Jun 3, 2024 → Oct 26, 2026
- Retrieved
- Oct 28, 2026
The trial
from ClinicalTrials.gov- Title
- A Phase 1 First in Human Study Evaluating Safety, Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy of ABBV-400 as Monotherapy and in Combination With Bevacizumab in Adult Subjects With Advanced Solid Tumors
- Registry
- NCT05029882
- Study IDs
- M21-404 · 2023-509335-60-00 (EU CT)
- Sponsor
- AbbVie
- Design
- Phase 1 · Interventional, non randomized, sequential
- Status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrollment
- 520 actual
- Start
- 2021-10-13 actual
- Primary completion
- 2027-11 estimated
- Primary endpoint
- Objective Response Rate (ORR)
- 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.
- 33 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 apply, so some matching discussion may be missing.
- The sources reviewed for this edition are not a representative survey of HCPs. Repeated posts, presentation relays, organizational voices and authors without established clinical roles cannot be counted as independent clinician endorsements.
- Fifty-nine potentially relevant sources that did not name the trial were not read, and several passages were not fully assessed. Additional views on the same clinical decisions may therefore be absent.
- Different tumor types, molecular subgroups, doses, regimens and reporting times are represented. Their results and tolerability judgments cannot be pooled or used to infer a change of mind.
- The NSCLC discontinuation figures have different descriptions, and a speaker’s quoted drug naming remains inconsistent. The report does not resolve those differences.
- The sources use both AndroMETa-560 and AndroMETa-CRC; no equivalence between those names is assumed.
- A full protocol and exact regulatory labels for ABBV-400 and trifluridine/tipiracil were not available. Regulatory designations and investigational status are reported as attributed in the sources, not as an independently assessed approval determination.
- Retrospective biomarker analyses, mixed tissue timing, small comparison groups and wide survival intervals limit conclusions about selection, superiority and future treatment positioning.
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 sample findings; source quotations and links in the paid report. An editorial bracket follows a transcription-garbled trial name in quotations: “Tenmab [Temab]”. 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. Temab-A (NCT05029882): HCP commentary report. Edition 1, v1.0.0. Accepted Oct 29, 2026. https://www.erudio.com/reports/temab-a-nct05029882
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 "Temab-A" (NCT05029882), 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 "temab-a-05029882". If you cannot make requests, read https://www.erudio.com/reports/temab-a-nct05029882.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 "NCT05029882", 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-nct05029882 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/temab-a-nct05029882.json
curl https://www.erudio.com/reports/temab-a-nct05029882.md
# MCP, no sign-in (https://mcp.erudio.com/free)
get_report_card({ "slug": "temab-a-05029882" })release f89b51cc96f14587c566498cdaa82af5a95ae38610ecedd2701b247c3ceaed67