Nobody is talking about IBRX’s new ASCO lung cancer abstract — but ANKTIVA just showed a massive PFS/OS signal in an interim analysis of a randomized Phase 3 first-line non-small cell lung cancer trial
TL;DR: ImmunityBio’s new ASCO abstract reports interim randomized phase 3 data from QUILT-2.023, described in the abstract as an ongoing registrational-intent study in first-line advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.
In Cohort A, among PD-L1 ≥50% patients, adding ANKTIVA to checkpoint inhibitor therapy — pembrolizumab/Keytruda per protocol — showed median PFS 7.0 vs 2.2 months, HR 0.40.
In the pooled Cohort B+C ( with any PD-L1 TPS) analysis — squamous and nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer— adding ANKTIVA to checkpoint inhibitor + chemotherapy showed median PFS 18.9 vs 10.6 months, HR 0.48, and median OS 34.7 vs 20.2 months, HR 0.38. Small and interim — but the signal looks incredible.
Hello everyone, I’ve been following ImmunityBio for quite some time and have been very interested in the science behind ANKTIVA and Patrick Soon-Shiong’s broader immunotherapy thesis. This is the first time I’m posting longer-form content here, because I think something important may have slipped under the radar.
Unlike the earlier ANKTIVA lung cancer updates, this is not mainly an ALC biomarker/correlation story — this abstract reports randomized first-line clinical outcomes, including PFS and OS signals.
QUILT-2.023 is described in the ASCO abstract as an ongoing randomized multicohort phase 3, registrational-intent study in untreated first-line advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.
The study tested whether adding ANKTIVA to first-line standard therapy could preserve immune competence, increase absolute lymphocyte counts, and improve clinical outcomes.
The abstract reports an interim exploratory analysis from 98 enrolled subjects.
Cohort A: PD-L1 TPS ≥1%
ANKTIVA + checkpoint inhibitor, pembrolizumab/Keytruda per protocol, vs checkpoint inhibitor alone.
In the PD-L1 TPS ≥50% subgroup (N=45)
• Median PFS: 7.0 vs 2.2 months
• HR: 0.40
• 95% CI: 0.17–0.94
• p = 0.0298
• Severe checkpoint inhibitor–related adverse events: 16% in both arms
Cohort B: squamous non-small cell lung cancer
ANKTIVA + checkpoint inhibitor (pembrolizumab/Keytruda) + chemotherapy vs checkpoint inhibitor (pembrolizumab/Keytruda) + chemotherapy.
Cohort C: nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer
ANKTIVA + checkpoint inhibitor (pembrolizumab/Keytruda) + chemotherapy vs checkpoint inhibitor (pembrolizumab/Keytruda) + chemotherapy.
In the pooled Cohort B+C (N=36) analysis:
• Response rate: 56% vs 33%
• Disease control rate: 83% vs 78%
• Median PFS: 18.9 vs 10.6 months
• PFS HR: 0.48
• p = 0.1192
• Median OS: 34.7 vs 20.2 months
• OS HR: 0.38
• p = 0.0394
That is a huge signal if it holds up.
The previous lung cancer data for ANKTIVA came mainly from QUILT-3.055, a single-arm study in later-line non-small cell lung cancer after checkpoint inhibitor failure. Those data were encouraging, especially around lymphocyte recovery and survival, but they were not randomized.
This ASCO abstract is different: randomized first-line phase 3 data, with PFS and OS signals.
To sum it up: ANKTIVA showed PFS 7.0 vs 2.2 months, HR 0.40, in the PD-L1 ≥50% Cohort A population, and OS 34.7 vs 20.2 months, HR 0.38, in the pooled Cohort B+C population — squamous and nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer, any PD-L1 TPS — treated with checkpoint inhibitor + chemotherapy ± ANKTIVA. These are interim data from a randomized phase 3, registrational-intent study in first-line non-small cell lung cancer, using a Keytruda-based treatment backbone.
Of course, the sample size is not very big, but still to me, this looks incredibly good, and I’m surprised it has not received more attention yet.
One reason this may still be under the radar: the broader market may not really notice it until the full ASCO presentation on May 31, 2026, and possibly a company PR around or after that presentation date.
This is my interpretation of the data from the abstract. Comments, corrections, and discussion are very welcome; maybe there is something that I am missing, and if you see it, please share your thoughts so we can stress-test the interpretation together.
Source: ASCO abstract #266023. https://www.asco.org/abstracts-presentations/266023
Disclosure: I have a position in IBRX. This is my interpretation of a public ASCO abstract, not financial advice. Please do your own DD. NFA.