Every year at ASCO, we see new data. New combinations. New standards of care. But what’s increasingly defining the impact of those breakthroughs is not just what’s presented from the podium - but what’s said in the moments after, on social media, in real time, by healthcare professionals around the world..

每年在ASCO会议上，我们都会看到新的数据、新的组合、新的治疗标准。但越来越能够体现这些突破影响的，不仅是讲台上展示的内容，还有在会议结束后，全球医疗专业人士通过社交媒体实时分享和讨论的内容。

Through the five days of ASCO this year, Creation listened to these conversations, tracked which trials and treatments resonated, how discussion evolved day-by-day, and, crucially, which voices HCPs trusted most. In total, HCPs authored over 29,000 posts on X (formerly Twitter), accounting for 27% of all ASCO-related social media conversations..

今年ASCO会议的五天期间，Creation倾听了许多对话，追踪了哪些试验和治疗方法引起了共鸣，讨论如何逐日演变，以及最关键的是，医疗保健专业人士（HCP）最信任哪些声音。总计下来，医疗保健专业人士在X（原推特）上发布了超过29,000条帖子，占所有与ASCO相关的社交媒体对话的27%。

HCPs were active interpreters of the research and data presented - translating results into real-world relevance, interrogating evidence, and shaping the perception and impact of data - among peers and the public and well beyond the confines of the congress itself.

医疗卫生专业人士积极解读了所呈现的研究和数据——将结果转化为现实意义，审问证据，并塑造数据的认知和影响——在同行和公众中，甚至远超大会本身的范围。

Breast cancer leads

乳腺癌导致

This year, breast cancer was the most-discussed cancer type among HCPs online, exceeding 3,000 posts by just under 600 HCPs.

今年，乳腺癌是在线医务人员讨论最多的癌症类型，近600名医务人员发布了超过3000篇帖子。

One-third of this conversation centred on the latest breast cancer trial results. Of particular focus was AstraZeneca’s SERENA-6 trial, which tested

三分之一的对话围绕最新的乳腺癌试验结果展开。特别关注的是阿斯利康的SERENA-6试验，该试验测试了

camizestrant

卡米泽司特

as a treatment for certain patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

作为治疗某些HR阳性、HER2阴性晚期乳腺癌患者的疗法。

Online reactions to the trial’s results varied. US oncologist Lubna Chaudhary, for example,

线上对试验结果的反应不一。例如，美国肿瘤学家 Lubna Chaudhary，

praised the results

赞扬了结果

as “practice-changing”, emphasising progression-free survival data. Others, like Italian radio-oncologist Icro Meattini, adopted a

作为“改变实践”的数据，强调无进展生存期数据。其他人，如意大利放射肿瘤学家伊克罗·梅阿蒂尼，则采取了

more neutral tone

更加中立的语气

- suggesting that, while the treatment has much potential, clinical utility must still be demonstrated. His post was shared by four HCP peers and drew over 425,000 impressions.

- 这表明，尽管该治疗方式潜力巨大，但其临床实用性仍有待验证。他的帖子被四位医疗保健领域的同行分享，并获得了超过425,000次的浏览量。

Elsewhere, Dr Paolo Tarantino

其他地方，保罗·塔兰蒂诺博士

reiterated a point

重申了一个观点

that questioned whether PFS2 data should include post-camizestrant treatment. In the post, shared by four other HCPs, Tarantino warned of potential imbalances in PFS comparisons between patients.

质疑是否应将卡米泽司坦治疗后的数据纳入PFS2数据中。在这篇帖子中，被其他四位医疗保健专业人士分享，塔兰蒂诺警告患者之间PFS比较可能存在潜在的不平衡。

Beyond analysing the contents of posts, ‘peer trust’ online can also be assessed; to identify the HCPs who

除了分析帖子内容外，还可以评估网上的“同行信任”；以识别出医疗保健专业人士（HCP）。

other HCPs

其他医疗保健专业人员

turn to for insights and interpretation in a certain space. Based on online interactions and mentions, often the most powerful voices in the landscape aren’t necessarily those with the most followers.

在某一领域中提供见解和解读。基于在线互动和提及，领域中最强大的声音不一定拥有最多的追随者。

In SERENA-6 online conversation, breast oncologist Stephanie Graff emerged as the most trusted voice, mentioned 24 times by peers. In one post,

在SERENA-6在线对话中，乳腺肿瘤学家斯蒂芬妮·格拉夫成为最受信任的声音，被同行提及24次。在一篇帖子中，

Graff said that

格拉夫说

the trial “creates a lot of questions”, and took a more hesitant approach to labelling the treatment as “practice-changing”. This post was shared by 10 HCPs, and drew more than 200,000 impressions.

试验“引发了很多问题”，并且在将这种治疗标记为“改变实践”时采取了更加犹豫的态度。这篇帖子被10名医疗保健专业人员分享，并获得了超过20万次的浏览量。

Other frequently mentioned trials were Pfizer and Arvinas’ VERITAC-C (190 mentions), Gilead’s ASCENT-04 (179), and Roche’s INAVO120 (177).

其他经常提到的试验包括辉瑞和Arvinas的VERITAC-C（190次提及）、吉利德的ASCENT-04（179次）以及罗氏的INAVO120（177次）。

Lung cancer

肺癌

Lung cancer proved the second-most discussed cancer type during ASCO 2025, totalling 2,995 mentions by more than 530 HCPs. As with breast cancer, clinical trial data drove much of the conversation - particularly on 2nd June. That day, two trials stood out.

在2025年ASCO会议上，肺癌被证明是第二大讨论最多的癌症类型，超过530名医疗保健专业人士总计提及2995次。与乳腺癌一样，临床试验数据推动了大部分讨论，尤其是在6月2日那天。当天，有两项试验尤为突出。

First, Amgen’s DELLphi-304 trial, which tested tarlatamab in patients with small-cell lung cancer, was widely praised. Thoracic oncologist Misty Shields

首先，安进公司的DELLphi-304试验测试了tarlatamab在小细胞肺癌患者中的效果，获得了广泛赞誉。胸腔肿瘤科医生米斯蒂·希尔兹

commended the trial’s execution and results

称赞了审判的执行和结果

, while Mexico-based oncologist David

，而总部位于墨西哥的肿瘤学家大卫

Heredia wrote that

赫雷迪亚写道

the data “confirms tarlatamab’s superiority over chemo” as a new second-line standard of care.

数据“证实了塔拉他单抗相较于化疗的优越性”，可作为新的二线护理标准。

It was

它是

Hidehito Horinouchi

Hidehito Horinouchi

, however, an oncologist based in Japan, who proved the top ranked HCP for peer trust in discussions related to the trial. In total, he was mentioned 126 times by HCP colleagues, and his posts sharing trial data were reposted by 22. His

然而，一位在日本的肿瘤学家在与试验相关的讨论中被证明是最受同行信任的顶级医疗保健专业人士（HCP）。总计他被HCP同事提及126次，并且他分享试验数据的帖子被转发了22次。他的

most-shared post

最分享帖子

drew 18 HCP reposts and 114,200 impressions.

获得了18个HCP转发和114,200次曝光。

The second trial was IMforte, which assessed lurbinectedin plus atezolizumab as a treatment for patients with ES-SCLC. It was responsible for causing the largest

第二次试验是IMforte，评估了lurbinectedin联合atezolizumab作为ES-SCLC患者的治疗方法。它导致了最大的

spike

尖峰

in online conversations among HCPs.

在医疗保健专业人员之间的在线对话中。

HCPs broadly welcomed the treatment as a new option for patients with the disease. Sanjay Popat, a UK-based oncologist,

医疗保健专业人士普遍欢迎这种治疗作为该疾病患者的新选择。英国肿瘤学家桑杰·波帕特，

praised the trial

赞扬了审判

for developing a “new standard of care”, a sentiment

用于开发“新的护理标准”，一种情感

echoed by

由...附和

Australian radiation oncologist Shankar Siva.

澳大利亚放射肿瘤学家希瓦·辛卡尔。

The HCP judged to have the highest peer trust in conversations around IMforte was Stephen V Liu, a thoracic oncologist based in the United States. In total, Liu was mentioned 27 times, and reposted 17 times by other HCPs. His

在围绕IMforte的对话中，被同行信任度最高的HCP是美国的胸腔肿瘤学家Stephen V Liu。总计Liu被提及27次，并被其他HCP转发17次。他的

most popular post

最受欢迎的帖子

regarding IMforte drew 17 HCP reposts - and 87,160 views.

关于IMforte，获得了17个HCP回复和87,160次浏览。

GI cancer

胃肠道癌症

Interestingly, the cancer type that attracted the largest number of unique HCP contributors, totalling over 800, was gastrointestinal.

有趣的是，吸引最多独特医疗专业人员（HCP）贡献者参与的癌症类型是胃肠道癌，总人数超过800。

Again, clinical trials galvanised conversation. The most significant of these was the CHALLENGE trial, which, interestingly, assessed the impact of a

再次，临床试验引发了讨论。其中最重要的是CHALLENGE试验，有趣的是，该试验评估了

structured exercise programme

结构化运动计划

on disease-free survival in stage 3 or high-risk stage 2 colon cancer. It found that exercise after treatment cut the risk of bowel cancer returning.

在三期或高危二期结肠癌的无病生存期方面。研究发现，治疗后的运动可以降低肠癌复发的风险。

The results were widely welcomed. Turkish oncologist Mustafa Ozdogan

结果广受好评。土耳其肿瘤学家穆斯塔法·奥兹多安

described the findings

描述了研究结果

as proof that structured exercise is “not just a lifestyle - it’s life-saving.” The same sentiment was

作为结构化运动“不仅是一种生活方式——它是救命的”的证据。”同样的观点也适用于

echoed by US oncologists

美国肿瘤学家的回应

Ishwaria Subbiah and Hagen Kennecke, the

艾什瓦里亚·苏比亚和哈根·肯内克，这两位

latter posting

后者发布

: “When patients ask us “what else can I do?”, we can confidently say - please EXERCISE!'

：“当病人问我们‘我还能做些什么？’时，我们可以自信地说——请运动！”

Excitement was partially tempered by other HCPs, however, who scrutinised the findings and execution of the trial. Electrophysiologist John Mandrola, for example,

然而，其他医疗保健专业人士在审视了试验结果及其执行情况后，部分平息了这种兴奋情绪。例如，电生理学家约翰·曼德罗拉（John Mandrola），

shared a link

分享了一个链接

to his Substack blog, where he offered a “critical appraisal” of the trial. Elsewhere, oncologist Timothée Olivier

在他的Substack博客上，他提供了对审判的“批判性评估”。在其他地方，肿瘤学家蒂莫西·奥利维尔

shared an article

分享了一篇文章

he wrote related to the trial - expressing methodological concerns about censoring patterns.

他写了一些与审判相关的内容——表达了对审查模式的方法论担忧。

The top ranked HCP for peer trust discussing the CHALLENGE trial, nonetheless, encouraged prescribing exercise to patients in the same way that one would prescribe adjuvant therapy. This was

在讨论“挑战”试验时，最受同行信任的高影响力医疗专业人士 (HCP) 仍然鼓励以类似于开具辅助治疗处方的方式为患者开具运动处方。这是

Amol Akhade

阿莫尔·阿赫德

, an oncologist based in India. He was mentioned a significant 120 times by peers, and reposted 70 times.

，一位印度的肿瘤学家。他被同行们提及了120次，并被转发了70次。

Polycythaemia vera

真性红细胞增多症

Beyond the most common cancers, we also uncovered a portion of conversation related to polycythaemia vera - a rare type of blood cancer. Takeda’s VERIFY, which evaluated

除了最常见的癌症外，我们还发现了一部分与真性红细胞增多症相关的对话——这是一种罕见的血癌。Takeda的VERIFY评估了

rusfertide

鲁斯费尔蒂德

as a potential treatment option to improve quality of life, drew particular attention.

作为一种改善生活质量的潜在治疗选择，特别引起了关注。

Spanish haematologist Dr Valentin Garcia, a trial co-author,

西班牙血液学家瓦伦丁·加西亚博士，试验的共同作者，

called the findings

称为调查结果

a “major advance.” US-based Dr Ruben A. Mesa also praised the data, drawing more than 180,000 impressions and 7 HCP shares with a

“重大进展。” 总部位于美国的鲁本·A·梅萨博士也对该数据表示赞赏，获得了超过18万次展示和7次医疗保健专业人士分享。

post celebrating

庆祝帖子

the presenting team’s “amazing job.”

表现团队的“出色工作”。

The top-ranked HCP for peer trust discussing VERIFY was

在同行信任方面，排名最高的HCP讨论VERIFY的是

Andrew Kuykendall

安德鲁·库肯多尔

, the US-based haematologist who presented the trial. Kuykendall was mentioned 41 times by peers in the context of VERIFY.

，主持该试验的美国血液学家。在VERIFY的背景下，库肯德尔被同行提到了41次。

Why this matters

为什么这很重要

Clinical data presented at ASCO doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s interpreted, filtered, and often redefined by the clinicians who engage with it. Online conversations among HCP peers influence which results resonate, and which raise doubts - both of which can have implications for clinical adoption.

在ASCO上展示的临床数据并非孤立存在。它会被接触数据的临床医生解读、筛选，并经常重新定义。医疗保健专业人士（HCP）同行之间的在线讨论会影响哪些结果引起共鸣，哪些引发疑问——这两者都可能对临床应用产生影响。

These insights offer a real-time lens into what excites, divides, or convinces the clinical community. They also offer a reminder that influence isn’t always about audience size or post volume - it’s about trust. While trials provide the evidence, it’s the conversation that brings the data to life.

这些见解为临床界提供了实时的视角，揭示了什么令他们兴奋、分歧或信服。同时，它们也提醒我们，影响力并不总是取决于受众规模或发文数量，而是关乎信任。虽然试验提供了证据，但正是对话让数据变得生动起来。

About the author

关于作者

Daniel Ghinn is the founder and CEO of Creation Healthcare, which provides insights and consulting to inform health strategy, communications, and policymaking among global healthcare companies, government organisations, and NGOs.

丹尼尔·吉恩是Creation Healthcare的创始人兼首席执行官，该公司为全球医疗公司、政府组织和非政府组织提供有关健康战略、传播和政策制定的洞察与咨询服务。