Every year, hundreds of oncology studies are published and dozens of new therapies enter clinical development. Yet only a handful go on to change the standard of care. Why?
The answer isn’t simply that they are newer, more sophisticated, or based on a novel mechanism of action. Therapies that truly reshape oncology solve important clinical problems in ways that existing options don’t. They bring together compelling biology, thoughtful clinical development, meaningful patient benefit, and the ability to integrate into real-world care.
As oncology enters an era increasingly shaped by immunotherapies, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), radiopharmaceuticals, and precision medicines, the question is no longer simply, “Does this drug work?” It is also “Can it meaningfully change how patients are treated?” [1]
It Starts With an Unmet Medical Need
Practice-changing therapies begin by addressing problems that matter; demonstrating that value begins with clinical trial design.
Investigational therapies aim to extend survival where treatment options are limited, delay or prevent relapse, provide an effective option for patients with resistant disease, or reduce the burden of treatment without compromising outcomes. Therapies that deliver only incremental improvements—or enter disease settings already well served by existing treatments—face a higher bar for changing routine clinical practice.
Organizations such as ASCO have increasingly emphasized the importance of looking beyond statistical significance alone toward clinically meaningful benefit: improvements that translate into longer survival, better quality of life, more durable disease control, or other outcomes that matter to patients. [1-3]
This makes the choice of clinical trial endpoints critical. Endpoints establish the measurable benchmarks against which a therapy’s success or failure is evaluated and must therefore reflect both the outcomes that matter in a particular disease setting and the magnitude of benefit needed to be clinically meaningful within the evolving treatment landscape. These usually include overall survival (how long patients live), progression-free survival (how long patients live without their disease progressing), response rate (the proportion of patients whose tumors shrink by a predefined amount), duration of response (how long a treatment response is maintained), and patient-reported outcomes. Newer molecular measures, including minimal residual disease (MRD) in hematologic malignancies and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-based detection of MRD in solid tumors, are also being explored—and, in certain settings, accepted—as earlier indicators of treatment benefit, reflecting a broader effort to identify endpoints that can generate meaningful evidence without waiting years for survival outcomes to mature.[4]
Meeting these benchmarks, however, establishes clinical trial success, not necessarily practice-changing potential. The magnitude of benefit must remain compelling in the context of the treatment landscape at the time the evidence emerges, while the overall risk-benefit profile must support a favorable regulatory decision.
Regulatory approval then enables a therapy to enter clinical practice, but does not by itself establish it as a standard of care. Depending on the healthcare system, subsequent reimbursement and health technology assessment decisions can determine the extent to which patients can access the therapy, while factors such as administration, monitoring, infrastructure, and treatment burden influence how readily it can be integrated into routine care. Together, these successive hurdles help determine whether an approved therapy is ultimately adopted into clinical practice.
Strong Biology Drives Better Development
The path toward becoming practice-changing begins long before a therapy reaches a pivotal clinical trial. A deep understanding of biology helps determine not only whether a therapeutic approach is scientifically defensible, but how it should be developed to generate the evidence needed to establish its place in clinical practice
A compelling biological rationale connects the therapeutic target or mechanism with the disease process, the intended patient population, and the expected clinical outcome. This understanding becomes particularly important as cancer evolves under treatment pressure and resistance mechanisms emerge.
Strong translational science can help answer critical questions early in development:
• Is the therapeutic mechanism relevant to the disease?
• Which patients are most likely to benefit?
• At what stage of disease should treatment be introduced?
• Which resistance mechanisms are likely to emerge?
• Could the therapy work more effectively in combination with another treatment?
The deeper the biological understanding, the more precisely these choices can be made.[3][4] Importantly, they are not simply R&D decisions: they shape the patient population, treatment setting, clinical endpoints, and ultimately the evidence against which a therapy will be judged relative to existing care.
The Right Therapy Needs the Right Patient
One of the critical lessons of modern oncology is that the effectiveness of a therapy can depend heavily on who receives it.
Precision oncology has demonstrated the value of matching treatments to molecular alterations, immune characteristics, or other features of tumor biology. Biomarker-driven patient selection can identify populations more likely to respond while helping spare others from treatments less likely to benefit them.
This has important implications not only for patient care, but for whether a therapy can demonstrate the magnitude of benefit needed to change practice. A therapy tested across a broad, biologically heterogeneous population may show only modest activity; in a well-defined population with the relevant disease biology, its effect may be substantially more pronounced.
Gefitinib, an oral targeted therapy, provides a landmark example: early studies in unselected patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) produced response rates of approximately 12-18%, while subsequent trials identified activating EGFR mutations as a stronger predictor of benefit. In the landmark IPASS study, the objective response rate among patients with EGFR-mutated tumors reached 71.2%, compared with just 1.1% among patients without an EGFR mutation. [5]
The difference illustrates how identifying the right patient population can transform the apparent clinical value of a therapy, and, in turn, its potential to change practice.[7]
Safety and Patient Experience Matter
Demonstrating meaningful efficacy in the right patient population is only part of the equation. For a therapy to change practice, the benefit it delivers must also justify the risks and practical demands associated with achieving it.
Evidently, safety is central to this assessment; the nature, severity, frequency, and reversibility of adverse events—as well as their impact on quality of life, treatment discontinuation, or the need for additional medical intervention—altogether influence the overall-risk benefit profile of a therapy. Importantly, what is considered acceptable depends on the clinical context: greater toxicity may be justified in an aggressive cancer with few effective options, while tolerance for the same risks may be considerably lower where effective and well-tolerated alternatives already exist.
For instance, despite their potentially life-threatening toxicities (including cytokine release syndrome and neurologic events), CAR-T therapies are reshaping the treatment of several hematologic malignancies, demonstrating how the acceptability of treatment related risk depends on the magnitude of clinical benefit, the disease setting, and the ability to manage those risk. Notably, in 2025, the FDA removed Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) requirements for six approved CAR-T therapies after concluding that the measures were no longer necessary to ensure their benefits outweighed their risks, illustrating how accumulating evidence and real-world clinical experience can change the benefit-risk assessment of a therapy and, in turn, its potential for broader clinical adoption.[6]
However, treatment burden extends beyond toxicity. Route and frequency of administration, time spent receiving treatment, monitoring requirements, hospital visits, and the need for specialist infrastructure all contribute to what receiving a therapy requires of patients and healthcare systems.[4][5] These considerations can extend beyond convenience: health technology assessments may explicitly account for administration costs, healthcare resource use, and the impact of treatment delivery on quality of life when evaluating a therapy’s overall value. Where these additional burdens materially affect cost-effectiveness relative to available alternatives, they can influence reimbursement decisions, the conditions under which a therapy is recommended, and ultimately how readily it is adopted into clinical practice.
Combinations Can Change What Existing Therapies Can Achieve
Practice-changing innovation does not always require replacing an established therapy. Increasingly, advances in oncology come from combining treatments in ways that extend what existing or emerging standards of care can achieve.
The biological rationale is compelling: cancer rarely depends on a single pathway, and tumors can adapt under therapeutic pressure. Rational combinations can target complementary mechanisms, overcome or delay resistance, deepen or prolong responses, or alter the tumor environment in ways that make an existing therapy more effective. In some cases, the interaction may be synergistic, meaning that the combined effect is greater than would be expected from the effects of the individual therapies alone.
A biologically compelling rationale, however, must translate into meaningful clinical benefit over the relevant treatment benchmark. Adding another agent can also add toxicity, treatment burden, complexity, and cost. To change practice, the combination must therefore demonstrate that the incremental benefit of adding the new therapy is sufficient to justify those additional demands.
This is why the most consequential combinations are not simply additive. Each component has a defined biological role, and the combination creates a clinically meaningful advantage over the established treatment backbone. When that happens, an investigational therapy does not need to displace the standard of care to change practice; it can change what the standard of care is capable of achieving.[8][9]
The Future Belongs to Thoughtful Innovation
As oncology expands into ADCs, radiopharmaceuticals, next-generation immunotherapies, cell therapies, and increasingly sophisticated combination approaches, scientific novelty alone will not determine which therapies ultimately reshape patient care.
Becoming practice-changing requires alignment across the development pathway: an important clinical problem, biology that supports the therapeutic approach, the right patient population and treatment setting, endpoints capable of demonstrating meaningful benefit, and a risk-benefit profile that remains compelling against an evolving standard of care. Beyond approval, access, treatment burden, and the practical realities of delivering therapy can further determine whether this potential translates into widespread clinical adoption.
Importantly, this assessment is not static and there is no universal threshold for what constitutes practice-changing benefit across oncology. Treatment landscapes evolve, new evidence emerges, and greater clinical experience can change how the benefits, risks, and practical value of a therapy are understood. A therapy may change practice by replacing an existing treatment, addressing a need for which no effective option exists, or making an established standard of care work better.
Ultimately, the most consequential innovation in oncology is not defined by novelty alone, but by the ability to translate scientific insight into a meaningful clinical benefit and, in doing so, change the standard of care.[11][12]
Bibliography
1. Gutierrez ME, Kummar S, Giaccone G. Next generation oncology drug development: opportunities and challenges. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009;6(5):259-265. doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.38
2. Rubin EH, Gilliland DG. Drug development and clinical trials–the path to an approved cancer drug. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012;9(4):215-222. doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2012.22
3. Dou YN, Grimstein C, Mascaro J, Wang J. Biomarkers for precision patient selection in cancer therapy approvals in the US, from 2011 to 2023. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2024;116(2):304-314. doi:10.1002/cpt.3306
4. Fda.gov. Accessed August 11, 2026. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/fda-eliminates-risk-evaluation-and-mitigation-strategies-rems-autologous-chimeric-antigen-receptor
5. Sun JM, Won YW, Kim ST, et al. The different efficacy of gefitinib or erlotinib according to epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 and exon 21 mutations in Korean non-small cell lung cancer patients. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2011;137(4):687-694. doi:10.1007/s00432-010-0928-2
6. Fda.gov. Accessed August 11, 2026. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/minimal-residual-disease-and-complete-response-multiple-myeloma-use-endpoints-support-accelerated
7. Moon DH, Chen RC. Defining a clinically meaningful benefit in cancer clinical trials: From the perspectives of the clinical trialist, patient, and society. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2018;2(4):ky039. doi:10.1093/jncics/pky039
8. Real-world quantitative insights of cancer patient experience with subcutaneous (SC) vs intravenous (IV) drug delivery. ISPOR | International Society For Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Accessed July 19, 2026. https://www.ispor.org/conferences-education/conferences/past-conferences/ispor-europe-2024/program/program/session/euro2024-4018/143383
9. de Miguel-Luken MJ, Mansinho A, Boni V, Calvo E. Immunotherapy-based combinations: current status and perspectives: Current status and perspectives. Curr Opin Oncol. 2017;29(5):382-394. doi:10.1097/CCO.0000000000000391
10. All-comers vs. Biomarker based patient selection for biotherapies in oncology- impact on drug development and market access. ISPOR | International Society For Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Accessed July 19, 2026. https://www.ispor.org/heor-resources/presentations-database/presentation/ispor-europe-2018/all-comers-vs-biomarker-based-patient-selection-for-biotherapies-in-oncology-impact-on-drug-development-and-market-access
11. Mahmood I. Clinical pharmacology of antibody-drug conjugates. Antibodies (Basel). 2021;10(2):20. doi:10.3390/antib10020020
12. Riccardi F, Dal Bo M, Macor P, Toffoli G. A comprehensive overview on antibody-drug conjugates: from the conceptualization to cancer therapy. Front Pharmacol. 2023;14:1274088. doi:10.3389/fphar.2023.1274088