Sonesitatug Vedotin: CLARITY-Gastric 01 Trial Results
In this article
On 25 October 2026, at Presidential Symposium II of ESMO 2026 in Madrid (LBA7), the results of the phase 3 CLARITY-Gastric 01 trial were presented. The trial tested sonesitatug vedotin against investigator's choice of treatment in previously treated, CLDN18.2-positive advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. In third-line and later treatment (355 patients), median overall survival was 10.0 months versus 5.0 months (HR 0.47); in the whole second-line and later population (532 patients) it was 10.6 months versus 6.4 months (HR 0.58). Progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.77; p=0.053). The overall survival signal is strong; but the trial was open-label, follow-up is short, no advantage was shown in the second-line subgroup, and the drug is not yet approved in any country.
Who is this article for? People diagnosed with advanced gastric, gastroesophageal junction or esophageal adenocarcinoma and their relatives, health professionals who follow this disease, and anyone interested in how to read a clinical trial. This article is not medical advice; no treatment decision should be made on the basis of this text.
This story arrived in two stages. On 27 July 2026, AstraZeneca announced that the trial had met its primary endpoint of overall survival in third-line and later treatment and its key secondary endpoint of overall survival in second-line and later treatment, and that PFS by blinded independent central review showed a trend toward improvement but did not reach significance; no numbers were shared. The numbers were first presented on 25 October.
Whose words are "potential new standard", "first" and "reshape"? In stories like this, strong claims spread quickly; it helps to separate who said what.
- "A potential new standard of care in the second- or later-line setting" is attributed in OncLive and CancerNetwork to the presenter and trial principal investigator, Prof. Rui-Hua Xu (Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou). This is not a regulatory decision; sonesitatug vedotin is not approved in any country.
- "The first CLDN18.2-targeted antibody–drug conjugate to show an overall survival benefit in this setting" is the description of Xu and of AstraZeneca's press release; CancerNetwork relays Xu as calling it the "first global phase 3 trial to show a statistically significant overall survival benefit with a manageable safety profile". We could not verify this claim independently.
- "The potential to reshape the treatment of gastric cancer" belongs to Susan Galbraith, AstraZeneca's executive vice president for oncology R&D; it is company language, not an independent assessment.
- Sponsor and data: the drug was developed by AstraZeneca under a global exclusive license agreement signed with KYM Biosciences in March 2023; the trial's announcements come from AstraZeneca. We could not verify Xu's disclosures.
Background: CLDN18.2-positive advanced gastric cancer
Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) is one of the tight-junction proteins of the stomach lining and is present on the cell surface in a portion of gastric and GEJ tumors. According to AstraZeneca, about 60% of gastric/GEJ cancers show CLDN18.2 expression in at least 25% of tumor cells. This protein is the drug's target; the share of patients who had received zolbetuximab, another drug that targets CLDN18.2, before entering the trial was very low (3.7% and 2.6% in the two arms). Options in the second line and beyond in advanced disease are limited: AstraZeneca reports a median survival of 5–9 months in these lines. The control arm of this trial contains exactly these options: in the second line, ramucirumab + paclitaxel, paclitaxel or docetaxel; in third-line and later treatment, irinotecan, trifluridine/tipiracil or apatinib (China only).
What is sonesitatug vedotin?
Sonesitatug vedotin (Sone-Ve, AZD0901) is an antibody–drug conjugate (ADC) in which a monoclonal antibody that binds CLDN18.2 is attached, through a protease-cleavable linker, to a payload called MMAE (monomethyl auristatin E) that disrupts cell division. The idea is to deliver a chemotherapy-like payload directly to tumor cells that carry CLDN18.2. It is given into a vein every three weeks; the 2.2 mg/kg dose was used in the phase 3. It is not approved in any country; according to AstraZeneca, the US FDA and the European Commission granted it orphan drug designation for gastric and GEJ cancers, and China granted it breakthrough therapy designation for second-line gastric cancer.
CLARITY-Gastric 01 at a glance
| Trial | CLARITY-Gastric 01 (NCT06346392) — randomized, open-label, sponsor-blinded, multicenter global phase 3; 175 centers in 19 countries (according to AstraZeneca) |
| Presentation | Xu RH, Janjigian Y, Chen MH et al. ESMO 2026, LBA7, Presidential Symposium II, 25 October 2026. We could not find any information on publication of the full paper |
| Patients | Locally advanced or metastatic gastric, GEJ or esophageal adenocarcinoma; progressed after at least one previous line of treatment; membranous CLDN18.2 staining of any intensity in at least 25% of tumor cells. In total 594 patients were randomized; the analysis set comparing the 2.2 mg/kg arm with control is 532 patients |
| Arms | Sonesitatug vedotin 2.2 mg/kg every 3 weeks (n=267) vs investigator's choice of treatment (n=265). At the start there was also a 1.8 mg/kg arm with 1:1:1 randomization (n=62); this arm was closed when 2.2 mg/kg was chosen in January 2025 |
| Control options | Second line: ramucirumab + paclitaxel, paclitaxel or docetaxel. Third line and later: irinotecan, trifluridine/tipiracil (not used in China) or apatinib (China only) |
| Dual primary endpoints | Overall survival in third-line and later treatment; PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR) in the whole analysis set (second line and later) |
| Key secondary | Overall survival in the whole analysis set (second line and later) |
| Stratification | Region, prior gastrectomy and line of treatment |
| Analysis | Data cutoff 31 May 2026 and median follow-up 8.6 months (reported only by OncoDaily) |
| Baseline characteristics | Median age 57 in both arms (24–82). Peritoneal metastases 61.0% vs 55.8%; prior zolbetuximab 3.7% vs 2.6%. About two-thirds of patients were in third-line and later treatment |
The third-line and later set is 355 patients (178 vs 177), and the second-line subset is 177 patients (89 vs 88). Event counts and details of the multiple-testing hierarchy are not in the summaries available to us.
Results
Median durations (months)
Colored bar is sonesitatug vedotin, gray bar is investigator's choice of treatment.
Open-label trial; median follow-up 8.6 months (single source). Bar lengths are drawn relative to the longest median (10.6 months).
| Endpoint | Sonesitatug vedotin | Investigator's choice | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall survival, 3rd line+ (primary; 178 vs 177) | 10.0 months (7.2–11.4) | 5.0 months (4.2–6.4) | HR 0.47 (0.36–0.62); p<0.000001 |
| 12-month overall survival rate, 3rd line+ | 38.1% | 18.1% | — |
| Overall survival, 2nd line+ (key secondary; 267 vs 265) | 10.6 months (9.1–12.0) | 6.4 months (5.8–7.6) | HR 0.58 (0.47–0.73); p=0.000004 |
| 12-month overall survival rate, 2nd line+ | 42.6% | 27.8% | — |
| BICR PFS, 2nd line+ (primary) | 4.2 months (3.5–5.3) | 3.8 months (3.0–4.2) | HR 0.77 (0.62–0.96); p=0.053193 |
| BICR PFS, 3rd line+ (not formally tested) | 4.1 months (3.0–5.3) | 2.7 months (2.4–3.0) | HR 0.56 (0.43–0.74) |
| Investigator-assessed PFS, 2nd line+ (exploratory) | 4.4 months (3.8–5.7) | 3.0 months (2.7–4.1) | HR 0.59 (0.48–0.73) |
| Confirmed objective response rate (189 vs 189) | 23.3% | 13.8% | Risk difference 10.2 points (95% CI 2.68–17.83) |
| Complete response rate | 3.7% | 0.5% | — |
| Disease control rate | 70.4% | 55.6% | — |
| Median duration of response | 8.5 months (5.8–NC) | 6.8 months (2.9–NC) | NC: not calculable |
Reading guide: in medians, the absolute difference is +5.0 months in third-line and later treatment and +4.2 months in the whole set; for BICR PFS it is only +0.4 months. In relative terms, the risk of loss of life is 53% lower in third-line and later treatment and 42% lower in the whole set; the risk of progression or loss of life for PFS is 23% lower, but not significant. When explaining this to a patient, absolute months should come before relative percentages. The 12-month survival rates are 38.1% versus 18.1% (a 20.0-point difference) and 42.6% versus 27.8% (a 14.8-point difference). One detail stands out: for PFS the HR confidence interval (0.62–0.96) does not include 1, yet the reported p value is 0.053; this mismatch is not explained in the sources. It could come from different tests or from a hierarchical alpha allocation (this observation and possibility are ours); it should be checked in the primary source.
Subgroups: what was said and what was not?
| Subgroup | Number of patients | Overall survival HR (95% CI) | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLDN18.2 ≥75% (whole set) | 183 vs 194 | 0.59 (0.45–0.78) | Median 10.6 vs 6.4 months |
| CLDN18.2 25% to <75% (whole set) | 83 vs 71 | 0.63 (0.42–0.94) | Median 10.5 vs 6.2 months |
| Second line (within the whole set) | 89 vs 88 | 0.88 (0.60–1.30) | Confidence interval includes 1 |
| GEJ or esophageal adenocarcinoma (whole set) | 54 vs 71 | 1.08 (0.68–1.71) | Confidence interval includes 1 |
These subgroup numbers must be read with caution. The overall survival advantage looks to point in the same direction at both high and intermediate CLDN18.2 levels; that is encouraging, but subgroup confidence intervals were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the analyses are exploratory. More important, in the second-line subgroup (177 patients) the overall survival HR is 0.88 and the confidence interval includes 1; that is, no advantage was shown in this group. The whole-set result (HR 0.58) may be shaped by third-line and later treatment, which makes up about two-thirds of patients (this interpretation is ours). In the GEJ or esophageal adenocarcinoma subgroup the HR is also above 1 and the confidence interval is wide. For the other prespecified third-line subgroups it was reported that the point estimates favored sonesitatug vedotin, but no numbers were given.
Safety: more gastrointestinal and fewer hematologic adverse events
| Adverse event | Sonesitatug vedotin | Investigator's choice |
|---|---|---|
| Any adverse event | 97.3% | 94.0% |
| Treatment-related adverse event (any grade) | 85.8% | 81.3% |
| Grade ≥3 adverse event (regardless of cause) | 52.9% | 61.1% |
| Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse event | 36.4% | 44.8% |
| Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events | 5.0% | 4.4% |
| Dose reduction | 21.1% | 23.0% |
| Nausea (any grade / grade ≥3) | 54.4% / 6.9% | 26.6% / 2.8% |
| Decreased appetite (any grade / grade ≥3) | 43.3% / 9.6% | 24.2% / 1.6% |
| Vomiting (any grade) | 41.0% | 24.6% |
| Weight decreased (any grade) | 28.0% | 11.9% |
| Grade ≥3 gastrointestinal toxicity | 11.1% | 6.3% |
| Anemia (any grade / grade ≥3) | 29.9% / 8.4% | 40.9% / 11.1% |
| Neutropenia (any grade / grade ≥3) | 23.8% / 10.3% | 39.7% / 25.4% |
| Grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity | 7.7% | 15.9% |
| Peripheral neuropathy (any grade / grade ≥3) | 21.5% / 0.8% | 14.3% / 0.4% |
| Ocular (eye) adverse events | Not reported | Not reported |
| Median treatment exposure | 3.9 months (0.2–24.7) | 2.1 months (0.2–22.0) |
The picture is mixed. Overall, grade ≥3 events are less frequent in the sonesitatug vedotin arm (52.9% vs 61.1%; 36.4% vs 44.8% for treatment-related ones), and this is despite that arm being treated for longer (median 3.9 vs 2.1 months). Discontinuation rates are similar and low; treatment-related events leading to loss of life are also similar (3 vs 2 patients). But the adverse-event profile is different: nausea, decreased appetite, vomiting and weight loss are clearly more frequent in the drug arm (nausea 54.4% vs 26.6%; decreased appetite 43.3% vs 24.2%; vomiting 41.0% vs 24.6%), and grade ≥3 gastrointestinal toxicity is higher too (11.1% vs 6.3%). In return, events affecting blood cells are fewer: grade ≥3 neutropenia 10.3% vs 25.4%. Peripheral neuropathy is more frequent in the drug arm (21.5% vs 14.3%) but mostly low grade (grade ≥3 0.8%). The presenter and the company stated that there was no new safety signal and that the profile was "manageable".
When reading the balance. Eye adverse events were not reported in any summary; since eye toxicity is generally a type of event watched for with this kind of drug (general knowledge), this gap matters. We also did not see data on interstitial lung disease (ILD). Because the trial is open-label, adverse events that rely on patient and physician reporting (such as nausea and appetite) may carry bias (this assessment is ours). Also, since the two arms' drugs have different types of toxicity, reading the total grade ≥3 rates directly as "safer" can be misleading. Exposure-adjusted rates and detailed toxicity analyses have not yet appeared.
How robust is this result?
Seven points to remember while reading:
- Open-label design. Patients and physicians knew which treatment was given (sponsor-blinded). Hard endpoints such as overall survival are less affected by this; PFS and adverse-event reporting may be affected more.
- The PFS primary endpoint is not significant. One of the dual primary endpoints, BICR PFS in the whole set, did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.77; p=0.053; absolute difference +0.4 months). The PFS result in third-line and later treatment (HR 0.56) was not formally tested.
- No advantage shown in the second line. In the second-line subgroup the overall survival HR is 0.88 (0.60–1.30). The "second line and later" heading may be carrying a signal that comes mainly from third-line and later treatment.
- Short follow-up and fine print. Median follow-up is 8.6 months (single source) and event counts were not reported. Control-arm options are heterogeneous; apatinib was used only in China and trifluridine/tipiracil outside China; different control treatments by region may have influenced the result.
- Exploratory subgroups. Subgroup confidence intervals by CLDN18.2 level, line and tumor site were not adjusted for multiple comparisons. In GEJ or esophageal adenocarcinoma the HR is 1.08.
- Safety balance. Gastrointestinal toxicity and neuropathy are more frequent, hematologic toxicity is less; eye adverse events were not reported. Whether the survival gained is worth this profile is a matter to be weighed patient by patient.
- Secondary sources. We could not access the full text or the ESMO presentation; the numbers were collected from the OncLive, CancerNetwork, OncoDaily and AstraZeneca statements. The main numbers agree; small differences (the different way p values are written, the mismatch between the PFS confidence interval and the p value, the labeling of the dose-delay/reduction rates) are noted below.
What happens next?
AstraZeneca and KYM Biosciences signed a global exclusive license agreement to develop and commercialize sonesitatug vedotin.
In the first stage of the phase 3, the 2.2 mg/kg dose was chosen as optimal; the 1.8 mg/kg arm was closed and the trial continued with 1:1 randomization.
AstraZeneca announced, without numbers, that the overall survival goals were met and that BICR PFS did not reach significance.
The results were presented at ESMO 2026 (LBA7).
AstraZeneca said it will share the results with regulatory authorities; no filing date was given. In addition, the phase 3 CLARITY-Gastric02 trial (NCT07431281) is testing sonesitatug vedotin with capecitabine, with or without rilvegostomig, in the first line.
The situation in Türkiye. Sonesitatug vedotin is not approved in any country; we could not find information that it is licensed or accessible in Türkiye, and we could not verify whether the trial included a center from Türkiye. Access to CLDN18.2 testing, and the licensing and reimbursement status in Türkiye of the second- and third-line standard drugs (ramucirumab, trifluridine/tipiracil and so on) could not be verified (we could not access the TİTCK and SGK databases); we have drawn no assumptions. FDA approval, a TİTCK license and SGK reimbursement are three separate processes; we explained them in FDA-approved new cancer drugs and the access map in Türkiye and unlicensed cancer drugs (both in Turkish). Taking part in clinical trials (in Turkish) can be one way to reach new drugs.
DROZDOGAN Academy Commentary
This result is a strong signal that a CLDN18.2-directed ADC can extend overall survival in later lines, especially in third-line and later treatment. But the PFS goal was missed and no benefit was shown in the second line; it is too early to say "new standard".
⚡ Why it matters
In advanced gastric cancer, options in the second line and beyond are limited and median survival is measured in months. Against a chemotherapy-based control arm, CLARITY-Gastric 01 doubled median overall survival in third-line and later treatment (10.0 vs 5.0 months) — although "potential new standard" is the researcher's interpretation, and the "first" description belongs to the sponsor and the researcher.
✅ What is strong
A randomized phase 3 with 532 patients. Overall survival (HR 0.47 and 0.58), 12-month survival rates and response rate all point the same way; the HR is around 0.6 at both CLDN18.2 levels. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events are less frequent (36.4% vs 44.8%), and discontinuation rates are low and similar.
⚠️ What is weak
Open-label design; the BICR PFS primary endpoint is not significant; no overall survival advantage was shown in the second-line subgroup; short follow-up; exploratory subgroups; no eye or ILD data; gastrointestinal adverse events and neuropathy are more frequent. There is no full paper and no independent re-analysis.
🩺 What it means in practice for patients and physicians
As of today there is no practical change: sonesitatug vedotin is not approved in any country, and no treatment decision can be made on these data. Still, talking with the oncologist about whether the tumor's CLDN18.2 status has been studied in advanced gastric or GEJ cancer, which later-line options are possible, and which clinical trials are open is the concrete expression of this data.
❓ Open questions
Will the overall survival difference hold as follow-up continues? Is there really no benefit in the second line, or is the subgroup simply small? Why did PFS not reach significance in the whole set? What about eye and lung toxicity? And the most practical question: when will the full paper be published, and where and when will regulatory filings be made?
Bottom line: In CLDN18.2-positive advanced gastric/GEJ cancer, sonesitatug vedotin improved median overall survival compared with investigator's choice of treatment, to 10.0 versus 5.0 months in third-line and later treatment and 10.6 versus 6.4 months in the whole second-line and later set; the price is more frequent gastrointestinal adverse events and neuropathy. BICR PFS is not significant, no advantage was shown in the second-line subgroup, the trial is open-label and follow-up is short. "Potential new standard" is currently the researcher's interpretation, not a regulatory decision.
Frequently asked questions
- What did the CLARITY-Gastric 01 trial show?
- In previously treated, CLDN18.2-positive advanced gastric/GEJ cancer, sonesitatug vedotin improved median overall survival compared with investigator's choice of treatment, to 10.0 versus 5.0 months in third-line and later treatment (HR 0.47) and 10.6 versus 6.4 months in the whole second-line and later set (HR 0.58). PFS by blinded independent central review did not reach significance (HR 0.77; p=0.053).
- What is sonesitatug vedotin?
- An antibody–drug conjugate, given into a vein every three weeks, in which an antibody that binds CLDN18.2 is attached to the cell-division-disrupting payload MMAE. It is not approved in any country.
- Why was PFS not considered significant?
- For PFS by blinded independent central review, the median difference in the whole set was only 0.4 months (4.2 vs 3.8) and the p value was 0.053; the prespecified significance threshold was not crossed. The mismatch between the HR confidence interval (0.62–0.96) not including 1 and the p value is not explained in the sources.
- Is there a benefit in the second line too?
- Overall survival was better in the whole second-line and later set, but in the second-line subgroup alone the HR was 0.88 (0.60–1.30) and the confidence interval includes 1; no advantage was shown in this group. Subgroup analyses are exploratory.
- Can this treatment be used in Türkiye?
- We could not find information that sonesitatug vedotin is licensed or accessible in Türkiye; it is not approved in any country either. Only the treating oncologist can assess clinical-trial or special-access options.
- What are its adverse events?
- Nausea (54.4% vs 26.6%), decreased appetite (43.3% vs 24.2%), vomiting (41.0% vs 24.6%), weight loss and peripheral neuropathy (21.5% vs 14.3%) were more frequent. Events affecting blood cells were fewer: grade ≥3 neutropenia 10.3% vs 25.4%. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were 36.4% vs 44.8%. Eye adverse events were not reported.
- Does the CLDN18.2 level matter?
- The trial enrolled patients with CLDN18.2 in at least 25% of tumor cells. In the exploratory analysis the overall survival advantage pointed the same way at ≥75% (HR 0.59) and 25% to 75% (HR 0.63); these analyses were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.
Glossary
- CLDN18.2 (claudin 18.2)
- A protein found in the stomach lining and present on the cell surface in a portion of gastric/GEJ tumors; it is the drug's target. Its level is measured by staining tumor tissue.
- Antibody–drug conjugate (ADC)
- A type of drug in which an antibody is attached through a linker to a chemotherapy-like payload; it aims to carry the payload to the target cell.
- MMAE
- Monomethyl auristatin E; a payload used in ADCs that disrupts cell division.
- Overall survival (OS)
- The time until loss of life from any cause; the gold-standard endpoint in oncology.
- PFS (progression-free survival)
- The time from the start of treatment until the disease progresses or loss of life occurs.
- BICR
- Blinded independent central review: independent experts who do not know the patients or the treatment assess PFS from the images.
- HR (hazard ratio)
- The ratio of the rate at which an event occurs in two groups. Below 1 favors the experimental arm; if the confidence interval includes 1, the difference is not statistically certain.
- Third line and later / second line and later
- States how many lines of treatment were received before. "Second line and later" covers all later-line patients (including third line and later).
- Open-label trial
- A trial in which patients and physicians know which treatment is given; it carries a risk of bias in PFS and adverse-event reporting.
- TRAE
- Treatment-related adverse event; an adverse event the investigator judged to be linked to the drug.
Transparency note. Verified: the trial's NCT number, design, arms, control options, patient numbers, and the main part of the overall survival, PFS, response and safety numbers (consistent across the OncLive, CancerNetwork and OncoDaily summaries); presentation information; AstraZeneca's press release of 27 July 2026 (design, number of centers and countries, regulatory designations, quotes). Based on a single source: data cutoff date and median follow-up (OncoDaily); disease control rate, neuropathy, weight loss and anemia/neutropenia rates (CancerNetwork); grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events 36.4%/44.8%, grade ≥3 gastrointestinal and hematologic toxicity (OncoDaily); duration of response and complete response (OncLive/CancerNetwork). Not verified, and therefore not written in: the full text in a journal and the ESMO presentation (we could not access them; the numbers are from secondary sources); event counts; details of the multiple-testing hierarchy; eye (ocular) adverse events and ILD; HRs of the other prespecified third-line subgroups (numbers were not given); Xu's disclosures; access to CLDN18.2 testing in Türkiye and the licensing/reimbursement status there of sonesitatug vedotin and of the later-line standard drugs; whether the trial had a center in Türkiye; the current content of the ClinicalTrials.gov record. Small inconsistencies: in one source the p values appear as "p<0.000001" and "p=0.000004" in the results but as "p<0.001" in the conclusions; the PFS HR confidence interval (0.62–0.96) does not include 1 although p=0.053193 was reported; the 36.4% given in OncLive for dose delay/reduction is identical to the grade ≥3 TRAE rate in OncoDaily, so, because of possible confusion, we used only the dose reduction rates (21.1% and 23.0%); the subgroup numbers (CLDN18.2 ≥75% and 25% to <75%: 183+83) do not add up exactly to 267; medians in the second-line subset were not reported; OncLive describes the key secondary endpoint as whole-set overall survival, while some summaries describe it as dual primary. Our source infographic said "ORR, discontinuation, ocular and neuropathy events are not in the release"; ORR, discontinuation and neuropathy were found in secondary summaries, ocular events were not. Source note: "potential new standard" belongs to Xu, "first CLDN18.2 ADC" to Xu and AstraZeneca, and "reshape" to Galbraith; the text says so. Assessments and commentary belong to this article. This article is not medical advice; no treatment decision should be made on the basis of this text.
References
- Xu RH, Janjigian Y, Chen MH, et al. Sonesitatug vedotin versus investigator's choice in previously treated CLDN18.2-positive advanced gastric/GEJ cancer: CLARITY-Gastric 01. ESMO 2026, LBA7, Presidential Symposium II. 25 October 2026. (Publication of the full text could not be verified.)
- OncLive. CLARITY-Gastric01 Shows OS Benefit With Sonesitatug Vedotin in Pretreated CLDN18.2+ Gastroesophageal Carcinoma. 25 October 2026. onclive.com
- CancerNetwork. Sonesitatug Vedotin Improves OS in Pretreated CLDN18.2+ Gastroesophageal Cancer. 2026. cancernetwork.com
- OncoDaily. CLARITY-Gastric 01 at ESMO 2026: Sonesitatug Vedotin in CLDN18.2-Positive Gastroesophageal Cancer. 25 October 2026. oncodaily.com
- AstraZeneca. Sonesitatug vedotin demonstrated a statistically significant and highly clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival in 2nd and later-line CLDN18.2-positive advanced gastric/GEJ cancers. 27 July 2026. astrazeneca.com
- OncLive. Sonesitatug Vedotin Improves Overall Survival in Second- and Later-Line CLDN18.2-Positive Gastric/GEJ Cancer. 27 July 2026. onclive.com
- CURE. Sonesitatug Vedotin Extends Survival in Advanced Gastric Cancer. 2026. curetoday.com
- ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT06346392 (CLARITY-Gastric 01); NCT07431281 (CLARITY-Gastric02).
Was this article helpful?
Your feedback helps us improve our content.
