Review of: "Sotorasib Treatment Could Worsen the Prognosis of Advanced KRASG12C-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer"

This commentary presents a thought-provoking and statistically oriented critique of the CodeBreaK 200 trial evaluating sotorasib in KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC, and its major strength lies in highlighting the potential discrepancy between hazard ratio (HR) interpretation and absolute risk measures, as well as raising legitimate concerns regarding informative censoring and survival analysis transparency.The manuscript demonstrates strong clinical relevance and provides detailed recalculations using alternative censoring assumptions, which stimulate critical discussion about how oncology trial outcomes are communicated to clinicians.However, the article would bene t from several re nements to improve scienti c balance and methodological rigor.The argument occasionally relies on speculative assumptions when reclassifying censored patients as events, which should be clearly framed as sensitivity hypotheses rather than alternative outcome estimates, and ideally supported by formal statistical modeling or competing-risk analyses.The commentary would also be strengthened by a more balanced discussion of established regulatory and statistical standards supporting HR-based survival endpoints, as well as inclusion of additional clinical outcomes such as response rates, quality of life, toxicity pro les, and subgroup analyses to avoid overinterpretation of selected metrics.Furthermore, the tone occasionally shifts toward strong causal or regulatory criticism, which could be moderated by emphasizing uncertainty and acknowledging the need for con rmatory trials.Structurally, clearer explanation of statistical concepts for a broader clinical readership, reduction of repetitive sections, and inclusion of a concise limitations paragraph would enhance clarity and academic credibility.Overall, the article raises important methodological concerns but would gain greater impact, objectivity, and Qeios qeios.