Investigators reconstructed individual patient data from published Kaplan-Meier curves to examine how the disease-free survival (DFS) benefit with added belzutifan to adjuvant pembrolizumab behaved after the planned treatment period. The central-review results in LITESPARK-022 showed a 24-month restricted mean survival time difference (ΔRMST) of 1.34 months in favor of the belzutifan arm (95% CI 0.73–1.95). Short-term gains were larger. The reported hazard ratio (HR) before month 12 was 0.55 (0.43–0.71), indicating a relative hazard reduction during the planned-treatment window. After month 12 the HR moved to 1.16 (0.87–1.54). That change produced a post/pre HR ratio of 2.10, according to the reconstructed data and the study team’s calculations.
The central-review cohort also showed that the belzutifan arm remained ahead after month 12 when assessed by ΔRMST increments: the authors reported a ΔRMST increment of 0.74 months per year (95% CI 0.32–1.19) beyond the planned one-year treatment period. These numerical results come directly from the reconstructed curves; the source did not report individual-level patient characteristics or time-to-event censoring beyond what was available in the published Kaplan-Meier plots.
The authors reconstructed both central-review and investigator-assessed DFS curves where available. Investigator assessment in LITESPARK-022 showed a pattern of attenuation after the planned-treatment window that the study team described as similar to central review, though absolute point estimates differed. From months 12 to 30 (a post hoc window the authors evaluated), the DFS difference changed by −3.7 percentage points with central review (95% CI −8.1 to 0.8) and by 0.6 percentage points with investigator assessment (95% CI −4.0 to 5.0). Confidence intervals crossed zero in both assessments, which the authors reported as evidence that absolute durability of the DFS advantage is uncertain and depends on the assessment method used.
These assessment-dependent differences point to an important practical issue: single, trial-level HRs that average effects across pre- and post-treatment periods can obscure time-varying patterns in benefit. The authors explicitly advised against relying on single-HR projections for long-term effect estimation when the hazard appears to change after treatment completion.
To contextualize LITESPARK-022, the investigators reconstructed data from nine other phase 3 adjuvant renal cell carcinoma trials. They reported comparable post/pre HR ratios in several trials. KEYNOTE-564 at its first interim analysis showed a post/pre HR ratio of 2.02. SORCE and PROTECT had ratios of 2.09 and 2.59, respectively. The authors noted that KEYNOTE-564’s benefit persisted beyond the planned-treatment window at the time of that interim analysis, whereas SORCE and PROTECT demonstrated attenuation or fading of benefit after treatment ended.
The team avoided making causal claims across trials because each trial had different interventions, follow-up durations, and assessment methods. The reconstructed cross-trial comparisons were presented to illustrate that a pattern—larger relative hazard reductions during planned treatment followed by attenuation afterwards—has occurred in multiple adjuvant RCC settings when reconstructed from published KM curves.
Focusing on months 12–30 as a post hoc evaluation window, the authors calculated changes in absolute DFS differences. With central review the DFS difference changed by −3.7 percentage points (95% CI −8.1 to 0.8). Using investigator assessment, the change was 0.6 percentage points (95% CI −4.0 to 5.0). Both intervals include the null, and the authors reported that these findings indicate uncertainty about the persistence of absolute benefit beyond the planned one-year treatment course.
The source did not provide additional stratified results by baseline risk groups or detailed censoring patterns for this specific post hoc window; those details were not reported in the published curves and therefore could not be reconstructed by the investigators.
The study followed a registered statistical analysis plan on the Open Science Framework (date and link reported in the source). Individual patient data were reconstructed from published Kaplan-Meier curves and numbers at risk reported in peer-reviewed publications and their supplementary appendices. The authors stated that the reconstructed individual patient data and analysis code are available from the corresponding author on request and will be deposited on the Open Science Framework at publication.
All cited numerical estimates, confidence intervals, and derived ratios reported here were calculated from those reconstructed curves. If specific trial-level covariates, dosing schedules, or patient-level demographics were absent from the published source material, the reconstruction could not supply them; the authors made that limitation explicit in their methods and in the article’s declarations.
The authors acknowledged key limitations. The main constraints were that all data were reconstructed from published KM curves rather than obtained as original individual-level datasets, and that follow-up was relatively short for assessing long-term durability beyond the planned treatment period. The source emphasized that hazard ratios were not constant over time in several trials; relative hazard reductions were larger before month 12 than afterwards in LITESPARK-022 and in several comparator trials. Because of this time dependence, the study team recommended avoiding single-HR projections when estimating long-term DFS effects.
Unanswered questions the authors listed include the longer-term absolute DFS trajectory beyond 30 months and whether the observed post-treatment attenuation represents delayed divergence, late catch-up, or random variation driven by limited follow-up. The source did not report subsequent regulatory milestones or planned additional follow-up analyses beyond those described, nor did it provide patient-level subgroup data to explain differential time-varying effects.