Mohamad-Ali Salloum is a Pharmacist and science writer. He loves simplifying science to the general public and healthcare students through words and illustrations. When he's not working, you can usually find him in the gym, reading a book, or learning a new skill.
Dostarlimab: The new magic anti-cancer treatment that cured 100% of the trial patients.
Mohamad Ali Salloum, PharmD • June 11, 2022
Share
12 patients took the treatment with Dostarlimab and their rectal cancer vanished. Just like thatđź’«
The physicians did physical exams, digital rectal examinations, biopsies, PET scans, and MRIs and they found nothing!
Not to mention that no adverse events of grade 3 or higher have been reported!!
How was the idea of this study formulated?
Usually, oncologists will prescribe to patients with locally advanced rectal cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation (neoadjuvant treatment is the kind of treatment given before doing the surgery to help shrink the tumor size and prevent its further spread).
For the patients suffering from metastatic rectal cancer due to a deficiency in mismatch repairing, positive results were observed when PD-1 blockers were used.
Researchers hypothesized that there will be better results when this type of medication is used when the rectal cancer is still local and did not metastasize.
What is the design of the study?
So, this Phase 2, prospective study was initiated, and the participants received a dose of Dostarlimab every three weeks for six months, and the plan was to undergo standard treatments of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and then surgery following the treatment with Dostarlimab.
However, researchers found that in every case, the cancer was cleared through the experimental treatment alone.
This result is considered astonishing although it’s only in a small number of patients because it’s never happened in the history of cancer.
What is Dostarlimab-gxly?
Dostarlimab-gxly is a humanized monoclonal antibody that works as a PD-1 blocker, AKA checkpoint inhibitor. It binds to the PD-1 receptor and prevents its interaction with its ligands, PD-L1 and PD-L2.
Like Pembrolizumab, It releases the brakes on an immune cell, freeing it to recognize and attack cancer cells, according to MSK.
Its side effects include (but not limited to):
- Fatigue/asthenia,
- Nausea,
- Diarrhea,
- Anemia,
- Constipation.
For this medication to prove itself, a longer follow-up is needed to assess the duration of response (DoR).
Also, more studies should be done on a larger sample because 12 patients showing that the tumor vanished is not enough to prove that a molecule or a drug is effective 100%.
Note that this drug is being also investigated if it can beat other cancers like gastric, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
List of Services
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mohamad-Ali Salloum, PharmD
Share
Recent articles:
Discover the best ways to learn new skills
Stuck in your head? Discover why overthinking feels productive, how it sabotages your performance, and simple ways to shift into real action.
References: Wood W, Quinn JM, Kashy DA. Habits in everyday life: Thought, emotion, and action. J Pers Soc Psychol . 2002;83(6):1281–1297. Wood W, Neal DT. The habitual consumer. J Consum Psychol . 2009;19(4):579–592. Neal DT, Wood W, Labrecque JS, Lally P. How do habits guide behavior? Perceived and actual triggers of habits in daily life. J Exp Soc Psychol . 2012;48(2):492–498. Wood W, Mazar A, Neal DT. Habits and goals in human behavior: Separate but interacting systems. Perspect Psychol Sci . 2021;16(1):1–16. Graybiel AM. Habits, rituals, and the evaluative brain. Annu Rev Neurosci . 2008;31:359–387. Smith KS, Graybiel AM. Habit formation. Dialogues Clin Neurosci . 2016;18(1):33–43. Yin HH, Knowlton BJ. The role of the basal ganglia in habit formation. Nat Rev Neurosci . 2006;7(6):464–476. Graybiel AM. The basal ganglia and chunking of action repertoires. Neurobiol Learn Mem . 1998;70(1–2):119–136. Schultz W. Dopamine reward prediction error coding. Dialogues Clin Neurosci . 2016;18(1):23–32. Schultz W, Dayan P, Montague PR. A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science . 1997;275(5306):1593–1599. Nasser HM, Calu DJ, Schoenbaum G, Sharpe MJ. The dopamine prediction error: Contributions to associative models of reward learning. Front Psychol . 2017;8:244. Kahnt T, Schoenbaum G. The curious case of dopaminergic prediction errors and learning associative information beyond value. Nat Rev Neurosci . 2025;26:169–178. Lally P, van Jaarsveld CHM, Potts HWW, Wardle J. How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. Eur J Soc Psychol . 2010;40(6):998–1009. American Psychological Association. Harnessing the power of habits. Monitor Psychol . 2020;51(8):78–83.
References: Baddeley A. Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annu Rev Psychol . 2012;63:1–29. Chai WJ, Abd Hamid AI, Malin Abdullah J. Working memory from the psychological and neurosciences perspectives: a review. Front Psychol . 2018;9:401. Rogers RD, Monsell S. Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. J Exp Psychol Gen . 1995;124(2):207–231. Rubinstein JS, Meyer DE, Evans JE. Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform . 2001;27(4):763–797. Garner KG, Dux PE. Knowledge generalization and the costs of multitasking. Nat Rev Neurosci . 2023;24:98–112. Zhou X, Lei X. Wandering minds with wandering brain networks. Neurosci Bull . 2018;34(6):1017–1028. Sorella S, Crescentini C, Matiz A, et al. Resting‑state default mode network variability predicts spontaneous mind‑wandering. Front Hum Neurosci . 2025;19:1515902. Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn Sci . 1988;12(2):257–285. 
Why do we procrastinate even when tasks matter most? Discover the emotional roots of procrastination and how to stop
Confidence and self-esteem are often confused but are psychologically distinct. Learn how they differ, how each develops, and why understanding both matters for real growth.
Confidence isn’t about eliminating fear—it’s about acting despite it. Discover how courage, discomfort, and psychological growth build real confidence over time.
References: McMurray JJV, Packer M, Desai AS, et al. Angiotensin–neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N Engl J Med . 2014;371(11):993–1004. Barter PJ, Caulfield M, Eriksson M, et al. Effects of torcetrapib in patients at high risk for coronary events. N Engl J Med . 2007;357:2109–2122. Kastelein JJP, Akdim F, Stroes ESG, et al. Simvastatin with or without ezetimibe in familial hypercholesterolemia. N Engl J Med . 2008;358:1431–1443. Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, et al. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med . 2008;358:2545–2559. Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB, et al. Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. N Engl J Med . 1991;324:781–788. Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J, et al. Effect of empagliflozin on cardiovascular and renal outcomes. N Engl J Med . 2020;383:1413–1424. Ioannidis JPA. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: are we being misled? BMJ . 2013;346:f314.
References: Wager TD, Atlas LY. The neuroscience of placebo effects: connecting context, learning and health. Nat Rev Neurosci . 2015;16(7):403‑18. Frisaldi E, Shaibani A, Benedetti F, Pagnini F. Placebo and nocebo effects associated with pharmacological interventions: an umbrella review. BMJ Open . 2023;13:e077243. Colloca L, Finniss D. Nocebo effects, patient‑clinician communication, and therapeutic outcomes. JAMA . 2012;307(6):567‑8. Howard JP, Wood FA, Finegold JA, et al. Side effect patterns in a blinded, randomized trial of statin, placebo, and no treatment. N Engl J Med . 2021;385(23):2180‑9. Penson PE, Mancini GBJ, Toth PP, et al. Introducing the “drucebo” effect in statin therapy. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle . 2018;9(6):1023‑33. Barnes K, Faasse K, Geers AL, et al. Can positive framing reduce nocebo side effects? Front Pharmacol . 2019;10:167. Caliskan EB, Bingel U, Kunkel A. Translating knowledge on placebo and nocebo effects into clinical practice. Pain Rep . 2024;9(2):e1142. von Wernsdorff M, Loef M, Tuschen‑Caffier B, Schmidt S. Effects of open‑label placebos in clinical trials: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. Sci Rep . 2021;11:3855.
References: Zaniletti I, Larson DR, Lewallen DG, Berry DJ, Maradit Kremers H. How to distinguish correlation from causation in orthopaedic research. J Arthroplasty. 2023;38(4):634–637. Rush J, Ajami M, Look KA, Margolis A. Statistics review part 10: causality and confounding. J Pharm Soc Wis. 2014;17(1):45–52. Koopmans E, Schiller C. Understanding causation in healthcare: an introduction to critical realism. Qual Health Res. 2022;32(8–9):1207–1214. Kahlert J, Gribsholt SB, Gammelager H, Dekkers OM, Luta G. Control of confounding in the analysis phase – an overview for clinicians. Clin Epidemiol. 2017;9:195–204. Shi AX, Zivich PN, Chu H. A comprehensive review and tutorial on confounding adjustment methods for estimating treatment effects using observational data. Appl Sci (Basel). 2024;14(9):3662. Gao Y, Xiang L, Yi H, Song J, Sun D, Xu B, et al. Confounder adjustment in observational studies investigating multiple risk factors: a methodological study. BMC Med. 2025;23:132. Ho FK, Brown J, Galwey NW. Regression adjustment for causal inference. BMJ Med. 2025;4:e000816. Correia LCL, Mascarenhas RF, Menezes FSC, Oliveira Junior JS, Vaccarino V, Ross JS, et al. Confounder selection in observational studies in high‑impact medical and epidemiological journals. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(7):e2524176.