Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Sacituzumab tirumotecan versus docetaxel for previously treated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.

Name: Kaimen Rigor review — Sacituzumab tirumotecan versus docetaxel for previously treated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.
Item: Sacituzumab tirumotecan versus docetaxel for previously treated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Alpha1

Fang W, Li X, Wang Q, Meng X, Zheng W, Sun L, Yao W, Zhuang W, Fan Y, Zhuo M, Luo Y, Zhang Z, Song X, Yang R, Yang J, Jin X, Diao Y, Ge J, Zhang L

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Kaimen Rigor review — 3.25★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 3 high issues for “Sacituzumab tirumotecan versus docetaxel for previously treated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.”

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 15, 2026

Read alongside

Sacituzumab tirumotecan versus docetaxel for previously treated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.

Fang W, Li X, Wang Q, Meng X, Zheng W, Sun L, Yao W, Zhuang W, Fan Y, Zhuo M, Luo Y, Zhang Z, Song X, Yang R, Yang J, Jin X, Diao Y, Ge J, Zhang L

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1136/bmj-2025-085680

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/8eeb793b-e0c8-4d40-a2f4-7e2ae0249124" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/8eeb793b-e0c8-4d40-a2f4-7e2ae0249124/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 3.25★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 3 high issues for “Sacituzumab tirumotecan versus docetaxel for previously treated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

fe2673de3316a0e7ee70d68e5ed828a9fa3ce5f42c183a9c666e4711fdfa7add

Verify via API

Issued Aug 15, 2026Engine 7.39.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Alpha¹ by Kaimen

Fetching the latest research

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Sacituzumab tirumotecan versus docetaxel for previously treated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.

Fang W, Li X, Wang Q, Meng X, Zheng W, Sun L, Yao W, Zhuang W, Fan Y, Zhuo M, Luo Y, Zhang Z, Song X, Yang R, Yang J, Jin X, Diao Y, Ge J, Zhang L

Paper source

Sacituzumab tirumotecan versus docetaxel for previously treated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 15, 2026

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

3.25 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
CitationsUnresolved reference−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Biggest issues

01Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary endpoint is objective response rate (ORR), a surrogate for clinical benefit. Although the trial also reports progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as secondary endpoints, the primary efficacy claim is based on ORR. The paper does not provide evidence of target engagement at the tested dose (e.g., PK/PD data) nor does it cite validated evidence linking ORR to the clinical outcome in this specific setting. The discussion acknowledges ORR as a surrogate endpoint.
“This trial used the surrogate endpoint of objective response rate as the primary endpoint.”
Find in source

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 102OverreachOverstated conclusions 103AuthenticityData authenticity concerns 04DisclosureNone found 105AvailabilityBroken references and links 06Copyedit5 minor suggestions

This Kaimen Rigor review uses Kaimen Rigor reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and transparently reported phase 2 randomised controlled trial. The paper demonstrates strong methodological rigor across all eight dimensions, with clear reporting of design, ethics, statistics, and data availability. Minor reporting gaps (e.g., explicit CONSORT checklist, outlier handling statement) and a few copyedit inconsistencies do not undermine the overall integrity.

Both reviewers independently scored all eight dimensions and agreed on 'pass' for each, with only a minor divergence on the reporting guideline sub-criterion. The study type is interventional (randomised controlled trial). Non-applicable sub-criteria (e.g., animal housing, cell line authentication) were excluded. The statistics verification recomputed only 3 tests consistently; the remaining statistics are unverified, and no claim of overall statistical correctness is made.

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Recomputed 3 tests: 3 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 3 via agent-written checks.

Overstated conclusions

1 finding · worst high

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed

5 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit.

Data authenticity concerns

1 finding · worst low

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Other integrity concernAssessed

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting gaps

None found

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites prior research on EGFR-mutated NSCLC, the role of trophoblast cell surface antigen 2, and previous antibody-drug conjugate trials, acknowledging their limitations. The rationale for targeting this specific population is well-argued, and the study addresses gaps in prior research by focusing on a molecularly defined subgroup. Limitations of prior studies are discussed in the comparison with other studies.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with adequate citation of prior work and a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

“However, randomised phase 3 trials of sacituzumab govitecan and datopotamab deruxtecan in biomarker unselected patients with previously treated, advanced NSCLC (regardless of actionable genomic alterations) did not reach statistical significance for overall survival improvement.”

Introduction ¶3Find in source

“Notably, EGFR -mutated NSCLC cell lines resistant to tyrosine kinase inhibitors showed an even higher uptake rate of sac-TMT than cells naive to tyrosine kinase inhibitors.”

Introduction ¶4Find in source

“Unlike the TROPION-Lung01 and EVOKE-01 studies, which evaluated trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 directed antibody-drug conjugates in NSCLC populations with or without actionable genomic alterations, the current trial specifically focused on patients with NSCLC and sensitising EGFR mutation with disease progression after EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors and platinum chemotherapy.”

DiscussionFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The introduction establishes a clear unmet need and provides a strong mechanistic and clinical rationale for the study.

Evidence

“However, the efficacy of docetaxel in this patient population remains suboptimal, and concerns about its toxicities persist.”

Introduction ¶1Find in source

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“In EGFR-mutated NSCLC, expression of trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 is notably high and may be associated with resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors.”

Introduction ¶2Find in source

Randomization method (SAS-generated, stratified block) and unit (patient) are reported. Blinding is open-label but the BIRC is masked, which is acceptable for the primary endpoint. Power analysis is provided with effect size, alpha, and power. Inclusion/exclusion criteria are described, and the analysis populations (ITT, full analysis set, safety) are defined. Outlier handling is not explicitly discussed but is covered by the pre-specified analysis populations. Controls are inherent in the comparator arm. Independent replication is not applicable for a single pivotal trial, but ongoing phase 3 trials are mentioned.

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The trial design is rigorous with adequate randomization, blinding of the independent review committee, and a pre-specified power analysis.

Evidence

“An independent statistician generated the 2:1 randomisation schedule using SAS software (version 9.4). A stratified block design was applied, with stratification by brain metastases (yes or no).”

MethodsFind in source

“The treatment assignment was not masked to investigators and participants, but the central evaluation by a blinded independent review committee (BIRC) was conducted in a masked manner.”

MethodsFind in source

“With a planned enrolment of about 126 patients, the trial had at least 85% power to detect a 25% difference (docetaxel 10%; sac-TMT 35%) in objective response rate at a one sided α of 0.025.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The trial design is rigorous with adequate randomization, blinding of the independent review committee, and a pre-specified statistical analysis plan.

Evidence

MethodsFind in source

“The treatment assignment was not masked to investigators and participants, but the central evaluation by a blinded independent review committee (BIRC) was conducted in a masked manner.”

MethodsFind in source

“With a planned enrolment of about 126 patients, the trial had at least 85% power to detect a 25% difference (docetaxel 10%; sac-TMT 35%) in objective response rate at a one sided α of 0.025.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sex is reported (44% men), age is reported (median 56 years), and demographics are detailed in Table 1. Since both sexes are enrolled, sex_justified is not applicable. Species/strain and housing conditions are not applicable for a human trial. Health status is captured via ECOG performance status and disease stage.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Demographic and clinical characteristics are well reported, including age, sex, and disease stage.

Evidence

“The median age of the study population was 56 years, 44% (60/137) were men, 98% had stage IV disease (134/137), and 20% had brain metastases (28/137).”

ResultsFind in source

“Median (range) age (years) | 57 (37-75) | 55 (34-74) | 56 (34-75)”

Table 1Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Key biological variables including sex, age, and disease characteristics are reported for the human participants.

Evidence

“The median age of the study population was 56 years, 44% (60/137) were men, 98% had stage IV disease (134/137), and 20% had brain metastases (28/137).”

ResultsFind in source

“Median (range) age (years) | 57 (37-75) | 55 (34-74) | 56 (34-75)”

Table 1Find in source

The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Centre with a protocol number, and all patients provided written informed consent. Regulatory compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and GCP is stated.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Ethical approval and informed consent are adequately reported.

Evidence

“The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Centre on 14 October 2022 (A2022-175-01) and at each participating centre before initiation.”

EthicsFind in source

“All patients provided written informed consent before enrolment.”

MethodsFind in source

“This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, good clinical practice guidelines, and applicable laws and regulations.”

EthicsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approval from a named ethics committee and informed consent are documented.

Evidence

EthicsFind in source

“All patients provided written informed consent before enrolment.”

MethodsFind in source

“This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, good clinical practice guidelines, and applicable laws and regulations.”

EthicsFind in source

Sac-TMT is described with its mechanism and dosing, and docetaxel is named. The antibody used for immunohistochemistry is identified (EPR20043). Statistical software (SAS 9.4) is identified. No cell lines or animals are used, so those criteria are not applicable.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedADEQUATE

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The investigational product and statistical software are adequately identified.

Evidence

“Sac-TMT was administered intravenously at 5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 of each four week cycle.”

MethodsFind in source

“Trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry (monoclonal antibody: EPR20043 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/EPR20043) )”

MethodsFind in source

“All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software (version 9.4).”

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

The investigational drug and comparator are adequately identified, and the statistical software is named.

Evidence

“Sac-TMT was administered intravenously at 5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 of each four week cycle.”

MethodsFind in source

paraphrase[Methods, Interventions]

“Docetaxel was administered intravenously at a dose of 75 mg/m2 every three weeks, on day 1 of each cycle.”

“All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software (version 9.4).”

Statistical analysisFind in source

All tests are named (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel, stratified log-rank, Cox proportional hazards). Assumptions are handled by design (stratified analyses, Cox model). Exact p-values are reported (e.g., P<0.001, P=0.007). Effect sizes with 95% CIs are reported throughout. Software is identified. Data presentation includes Kaplan-Meier curves and forest plots, with per-group n. Mathematical plausibility checks were not possible for most statistics due to model-based estimates, but no inconsistencies were found.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-described, with exact p-values and effect sizes with confidence intervals.

Evidence

“Treatment groups were compared using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by the presence of brain metastases.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“BIRC assessed objective response rate was significantly higher in the sac-TMT group (45% (41/91)) v docetaxel (16% (7/45)), with a difference of 29% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 43%; one sided P<0.001).”

AbstractFind in source

“Median progression-free survival was longer with sac-TMT than with docetaxel assessed by BIRC (6.9 v 2.8 months; hazard ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.46; one sided P<0.001)”

AbstractFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-described, with exact p-values and confidence intervals reported.

Evidence

“Treatment groups were compared using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by the presence of brain metastases.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“with a difference of 29% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 43%; one sided P<0.001)”

AbstractFind in source

“Median progression-free survival was longer with sac-TMT than with docetaxel assessed by BIRC (6.9 v 2.8 months; hazard ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.46; one sided P<0.001)”

AbstractFind in source

The data availability statement provides a public Mendeley repository URL. Code is available in supplementary files. Since the data are openly available, repository deposit and accession numbers are satisfied. No bespoke code repository is needed as code is in supplementary files.

Sub-criteria

code sharingADEQUATE

accession numbersADEQUATE

repository depositADEQUATE

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Data and code availability are adequately reported with a public repository and supplementary code.

Evidence

“The data underlying the findings in this paper are openly and publicly available and can be found at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/hts8z9mx4w/1 .”

Data availabilityFind in source

“The code used to analyse the data in the paper can be found in the supplementary files.”

Data availabilityFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Data and code availability are adequately addressed with a public repository and supplementary code.

Evidence

“The data underlying the findings in this paper are openly and publicly available and can be found at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/hts8z9mx4w/1”

Data availabilityFind in source

“The code used to analyse the data in the paper can be found in the supplementary files.”

Data availabilityFind in source

The trial is registered (NCT05631262). The paper follows CONSORT guidelines implicitly (trial profile, flow diagram). All pre-specified outcomes are reported, including negative results (e.g., no association of TROP2 expression with response). Limitations are discussed. Conclusions are proportional to the evidence. Funding and competing interests are declared.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The manuscript is transparent with trial registration, reporting guideline adherence, and discussion of limitations.

Evidence

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05631262 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05631262) .”

AbstractFind in source

“Although the modest sample size was appropriate for this phase 2 trial, the enrolled patients were all Chinese, which may limit the generalisability of the findings.”

LimitationsFind in source

“Funding: This study was funded by Sichuan Kelun-Biotech Biopharmaceutical and partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grants 82241232 and 82272789 awarded to LZ, grants 82173101 and 82373262 awarded to WF) and Noncommunicable Chronic Diseases-National Science and Technology Major Project (2024ZD0519700 awarded to LZ).”

FundingFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The trial is registered, methods are complete, limitations are discussed, and funding/COI are disclosed.

Evidence

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05631262”

AbstractFind in source

“Although the modest sample size was appropriate for this phase 2 trial, the enrolled patients were all Chinese, which may limit the generalisability of the findings.”

LimitationsFind in source

“Funding: This study was funded by Sichuan Kelun-Biotech Biopharmaceutical and partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China”

FundingFind in source

Registered (4 IDs: ClinicalTrials.gov). No reporting guideline cited.

Broken references and links

1 finding · worst low

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

References not resolvable to a published paperRecomputed

Checked 30 references by DOI: 29 verified — 1 DOI unresolved.

1 data/code link checked; 1 live.

Copyediting

5 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 5 minor suggestions below.

5 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, clarity, punctuation.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

The published work is robust and well-reported; an informed reader should weigh the minor reporting gaps (no explicit CONSORT checklist, no explicit outlier-handling statement) and the copyedit inconsistencies (e.g., ORR denominator 45 vs 46, 'v' vs 'vs') as low-severity issues. No erratum is warranted for scientific integrity, but the authors may consider a correction for the denominator clarification and the unresolved reference.

1.
HIGHreporting
Add an explicit statement in the Methods or a supplementary file that the trial follows the CONSORT reporting guideline, and include a completed CONSORT checklist.
Reviewer 2 flagged reporting_guideline as 'reported_but_inadequate'; an explicit checklist would strengthen transparency.
2.
HIGHreporting
Clarify in the Abstract and Results that the ORR denominator for docetaxel is 45 (not 46) because one patient lacked measurable disease at baseline, to avoid confusion.
The copyedit and integrity checks both flagged the 7/45 vs 46 discrepancy as potentially confusing to readers.
3.
HIGHreporting
Verify or correct the reference 'Kelun-Biotech’s TROP2-ADC SKB264 (sac-TMT) Third NDA for EGFR-mutant NSCLC Accepted by NMPA' (DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(21) which was not found in the registry; if it is a real publication, provide the correct DOI, otherwise remove it.
A reference that cannot be found in any registry is a potential fabrication signal and must be resolved.
4.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a sentence in the Statistical analysis section stating whether any outliers were excluded and how they were handled, even if none were excluded.
Both reviewers noted outlier handling is not explicitly described; a brief statement would close this reporting gap.
5.
MEDIUMreporting
Provide a more detailed description of the randomization implementation (e.g., block sizes) in the supplementary methods.
Both reviewers suggested this to improve reproducibility of the randomization procedure.
6.
MEDIUMreporting
Report the exact p-values for secondary endpoints that are only given as thresholds (e.g., P<0.001) in the supplementary tables.
Reviewer 1 suggested this to improve statistical transparency.
7.
MEDIUMdata code
Deposit the statistical analysis code in a public repository (e.g., GitHub or Zenodo) with a DOI, in addition to the supplementary files.
Both reviewers suggested this to improve code accessibility and long-term preservation.
8.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a discussion of the potential impact of the open-label design on investigator-assessed endpoints in the Limitations section.
Reviewer 1 suggested this to address a potential bias source.
9.
MEDIUMreporting
Clarify the handling of missing data for the primary endpoint in the statistical analysis plan.
Reviewer 2 suggested this to ensure the analysis is fully pre-specified.
10.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a statement on whether the trial was monitored by an independent data safety monitoring board.
Reviewer 1 suggested this to document oversight.
11.
MEDIUMreporting
Report the number of patients with each EGFR mutation subtype in the supplementary tables.
Reviewer 2 suggested this to provide more detailed baseline characterization.
12.
LOWcopyedit
Use 'vs' instead of 'v' consistently throughout the abstract and text.
Copyedit flagged inconsistent abbreviation usage.
13.
LOWcopyedit
Specify the numerator/denominator for febrile neutropenia (0/91 vs 9/46) in the Safety results for consistency with other safety data.
Copyedit noted the percentage is given without counts, which is inconsistent with other safety reporting.
14.
LOWcopyedit
Simplify the description of the alpha spending function in the Statistical analysis section for readability.
Copyedit flagged the sentence as long and technical.

Full text (52,039 chars)Analyzed: Aug 15, 2026

Start the discussion on JRNLClub

Community discussion on jrnlclub.com

Read alongside

Sacituzumab tirumotecan versus docetaxel for previously treated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.

Fang W, Li X, Wang Q, Meng X, Zheng W, Sun L, Yao W, Zhuang W, Fan Y, Zhuo M, Luo Y, Zhang Z, Song X, Yang R, Yang J, Jin X, Diao Y, Ge J, Zhang L

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1136/bmj-2025-085680

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/8eeb793b-e0c8-4d40-a2f4-7e2ae0249124" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/8eeb793b-e0c8-4d40-a2f4-7e2ae0249124/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 3.25★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 3 high issues for “Sacituzumab tirumotecan versus docetaxel for previously treated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

fe2673de3316a0e7ee70d68e5ed828a9fa3ce5f42c183a9c666e4711fdfa7add

Verify via API

Issued Aug 15, 2026Engine 7.39.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

3.25 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
CitationsUnresolved reference−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Biggest issues

01Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary endpoint is objective response rate (ORR), a surrogate for clinical benefit. Although the trial also reports progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as secondary endpoints, the primary efficacy claim is based on ORR. The paper does not provide evidence of target engagement at the tested dose (e.g., PK/PD data) nor does it cite validated evidence linking ORR to the clinical outcome in this specific setting. The discussion acknowledges ORR as a surrogate endpoint.
“This trial used the surrogate endpoint of objective response rate as the primary endpoint.”
Find in source

Findings by category

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Recomputed 3 tests: 3 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 3 via agent-written checks.

Overstated conclusions

1 finding · worst high

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed

5 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit.

Data authenticity concerns

1 finding · worst low

Other integrity concernAssessed

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting gaps

None found

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Eight Dimensions8 pass

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with adequate citation of prior work and a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

Introduction ¶3Find in source

“Notably, EGFR -mutated NSCLC cell lines resistant to tyrosine kinase inhibitors showed an even higher uptake rate of sac-TMT than cells naive to tyrosine kinase inhibitors.”

Introduction ¶4Find in source

DiscussionFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The introduction establishes a clear unmet need and provides a strong mechanistic and clinical rationale for the study.

Evidence

“However, the efficacy of docetaxel in this patient population remains suboptimal, and concerns about its toxicities persist.”

Introduction ¶1Find in source

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“In EGFR-mutated NSCLC, expression of trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 is notably high and may be associated with resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors.”

Introduction ¶2Find in source

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The trial design is rigorous with adequate randomization, blinding of the independent review committee, and a pre-specified power analysis.

Evidence

MethodsFind in source

“The treatment assignment was not masked to investigators and participants, but the central evaluation by a blinded independent review committee (BIRC) was conducted in a masked manner.”

MethodsFind in source

“With a planned enrolment of about 126 patients, the trial had at least 85% power to detect a 25% difference (docetaxel 10%; sac-TMT 35%) in objective response rate at a one sided α of 0.025.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The trial design is rigorous with adequate randomization, blinding of the independent review committee, and a pre-specified statistical analysis plan.

Evidence

MethodsFind in source

“The treatment assignment was not masked to investigators and participants, but the central evaluation by a blinded independent review committee (BIRC) was conducted in a masked manner.”

MethodsFind in source

“With a planned enrolment of about 126 patients, the trial had at least 85% power to detect a 25% difference (docetaxel 10%; sac-TMT 35%) in objective response rate at a one sided α of 0.025.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Demographic and clinical characteristics are well reported, including age, sex, and disease stage.

Evidence

“The median age of the study population was 56 years, 44% (60/137) were men, 98% had stage IV disease (134/137), and 20% had brain metastases (28/137).”

ResultsFind in source

“Median (range) age (years) | 57 (37-75) | 55 (34-74) | 56 (34-75)”

Table 1Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Key biological variables including sex, age, and disease characteristics are reported for the human participants.

Evidence

“The median age of the study population was 56 years, 44% (60/137) were men, 98% had stage IV disease (134/137), and 20% had brain metastases (28/137).”

ResultsFind in source

“Median (range) age (years) | 57 (37-75) | 55 (34-74) | 56 (34-75)”

Table 1Find in source

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Ethical approval and informed consent are adequately reported.

Evidence

EthicsFind in source

“All patients provided written informed consent before enrolment.”

MethodsFind in source

“This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, good clinical practice guidelines, and applicable laws and regulations.”

EthicsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approval from a named ethics committee and informed consent are documented.

Evidence

EthicsFind in source

“All patients provided written informed consent before enrolment.”

MethodsFind in source

“This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, good clinical practice guidelines, and applicable laws and regulations.”

EthicsFind in source

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedADEQUATE

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The investigational product and statistical software are adequately identified.

Evidence

“Sac-TMT was administered intravenously at 5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 of each four week cycle.”

MethodsFind in source

“Trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry (monoclonal antibody: EPR20043 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/EPR20043) )”

MethodsFind in source

“All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software (version 9.4).”

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

The investigational drug and comparator are adequately identified, and the statistical software is named.

Evidence

“Sac-TMT was administered intravenously at 5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 of each four week cycle.”

MethodsFind in source

paraphrase[Methods, Interventions]

“Docetaxel was administered intravenously at a dose of 75 mg/m2 every three weeks, on day 1 of each cycle.”

“All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software (version 9.4).”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-described, with exact p-values and effect sizes with confidence intervals.

Evidence

“Treatment groups were compared using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by the presence of brain metastases.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

AbstractFind in source

“Median progression-free survival was longer with sac-TMT than with docetaxel assessed by BIRC (6.9 v 2.8 months; hazard ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.46; one sided P<0.001)”

AbstractFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-described, with exact p-values and confidence intervals reported.

Evidence

“Treatment groups were compared using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by the presence of brain metastases.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“with a difference of 29% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 43%; one sided P<0.001)”

AbstractFind in source

“Median progression-free survival was longer with sac-TMT than with docetaxel assessed by BIRC (6.9 v 2.8 months; hazard ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.46; one sided P<0.001)”

AbstractFind in source

Sub-criteria

code sharingADEQUATE

accession numbersADEQUATE

repository depositADEQUATE

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Data and code availability are adequately reported with a public repository and supplementary code.

Evidence

“The data underlying the findings in this paper are openly and publicly available and can be found at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/hts8z9mx4w/1 .”

Data availabilityFind in source

“The code used to analyse the data in the paper can be found in the supplementary files.”

Data availabilityFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Data and code availability are adequately addressed with a public repository and supplementary code.

Evidence

“The data underlying the findings in this paper are openly and publicly available and can be found at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/hts8z9mx4w/1”

Data availabilityFind in source

“The code used to analyse the data in the paper can be found in the supplementary files.”

Data availabilityFind in source

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The manuscript is transparent with trial registration, reporting guideline adherence, and discussion of limitations.

Evidence

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05631262 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05631262) .”

AbstractFind in source

“Although the modest sample size was appropriate for this phase 2 trial, the enrolled patients were all Chinese, which may limit the generalisability of the findings.”

LimitationsFind in source

FundingFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The trial is registered, methods are complete, limitations are discussed, and funding/COI are disclosed.

Evidence

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05631262”

AbstractFind in source

“Although the modest sample size was appropriate for this phase 2 trial, the enrolled patients were all Chinese, which may limit the generalisability of the findings.”

LimitationsFind in source

“Funding: This study was funded by Sichuan Kelun-Biotech Biopharmaceutical and partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China”

FundingFind in source

Registered (4 IDs: ClinicalTrials.gov). No reporting guideline cited.

Broken references and links

1 finding · worst low

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

References not resolvable to a published paperRecomputed

Checked 30 references by DOI: 29 verified — 1 DOI unresolved.

1 data/code link checked; 1 live.

Copyediting

5 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 5 minor suggestions below.

5 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, clarity, punctuation.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

1.
HIGHreporting
Add an explicit statement in the Methods or a supplementary file that the trial follows the CONSORT reporting guideline, and include a completed CONSORT checklist.
Reviewer 2 flagged reporting_guideline as 'reported_but_inadequate'; an explicit checklist would strengthen transparency.
2.
HIGHreporting
Clarify in the Abstract and Results that the ORR denominator for docetaxel is 45 (not 46) because one patient lacked measurable disease at baseline, to avoid confusion.
The copyedit and integrity checks both flagged the 7/45 vs 46 discrepancy as potentially confusing to readers.
3.
HIGHreporting
Verify or correct the reference 'Kelun-Biotech’s TROP2-ADC SKB264 (sac-TMT) Third NDA for EGFR-mutant NSCLC Accepted by NMPA' (DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(21) which was not found in the registry; if it is a real publication, provide the correct DOI, otherwise remove it.
A reference that cannot be found in any registry is a potential fabrication signal and must be resolved.
4.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a sentence in the Statistical analysis section stating whether any outliers were excluded and how they were handled, even if none were excluded.
Both reviewers noted outlier handling is not explicitly described; a brief statement would close this reporting gap.
5.
MEDIUMreporting
Provide a more detailed description of the randomization implementation (e.g., block sizes) in the supplementary methods.
Both reviewers suggested this to improve reproducibility of the randomization procedure.
6.
MEDIUMreporting
Report the exact p-values for secondary endpoints that are only given as thresholds (e.g., P<0.001) in the supplementary tables.
Reviewer 1 suggested this to improve statistical transparency.
7.
MEDIUMdata code
Deposit the statistical analysis code in a public repository (e.g., GitHub or Zenodo) with a DOI, in addition to the supplementary files.
Both reviewers suggested this to improve code accessibility and long-term preservation.
8.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a discussion of the potential impact of the open-label design on investigator-assessed endpoints in the Limitations section.
Reviewer 1 suggested this to address a potential bias source.
9.
MEDIUMreporting
Clarify the handling of missing data for the primary endpoint in the statistical analysis plan.
Reviewer 2 suggested this to ensure the analysis is fully pre-specified.
10.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a statement on whether the trial was monitored by an independent data safety monitoring board.
Reviewer 1 suggested this to document oversight.
11.
MEDIUMreporting
Report the number of patients with each EGFR mutation subtype in the supplementary tables.
Reviewer 2 suggested this to provide more detailed baseline characterization.
12.
LOWcopyedit
Use 'vs' instead of 'v' consistently throughout the abstract and text.
Copyedit flagged inconsistent abbreviation usage.
13.
LOWcopyedit
Specify the numerator/denominator for febrile neutropenia (0/91 vs 9/46) in the Safety results for consistency with other safety data.
Copyedit noted the percentage is given without counts, which is inconsistent with other safety reporting.
14.
LOWcopyedit
Simplify the description of the alpha spending function in the Statistical analysis section for readability.
Copyedit flagged the sentence as long and technical.

Full text (52,039 chars)Analyzed: Aug 15, 2026