Trodelvy showed a highly significant improvement in PFS in patients who are not eligible for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. How does this result compare to historical outcomes with chemotherapy alone in this difficult-to-treat population?

With both ASCENT-03 and ASCENT-04 reporting success in complementary patient subsets, what does this dual validation mean for Trodelvy’s potential to become a backbone therapy across all first-line mTNBC patients?

Nearly 50% of mTNBC patients don’t receive second-line therapy. How might Trodelvy’s first-line efficacy reshape clinical decision-making and improve real-world patient outcomes?

Given the challenging toxicity profile of many ADCs, what does the ASCENT-03 safety data suggest about Trodelvy’s manageability in a first-line setting—particularly in regard to neutropenia and diarrhea?

Patients in the chemotherapy arm were allowed to cross over to Trodelvy. How does this influence interpretation of survival data, and what ethical or practical advantages does this design offer in modern oncology trials?

Trodelvy is a Trop-2-directed ADC with activity across HER2-low and TNBC tumors. How might these ASCENT-03 results support expanded Trop-2 testing or companion diagnostics for earlier treatment stratification?

Given the robust PFS improvement in a high-risk group, what are the key regulatory considerations that could expedite Trodelvy’s approval in this indication, and are there signs of fast-track or breakthrough designation?

With other ADCs and immuno-oncology agents also being tested in mTNBC, how do you see Trodelvy’s monotherapy data stacking up in terms of durability, accessibility, and sequencing flexibility?