KRAS G12D Clinical Trials: Selected Registry Landscape
Explore six selected ClinicalTrials.gov records involving KRAS G12D-directed interventions. The workspace starts from a real public-record capture retrieved on 16 October 2026. It supports record inspection and descriptive comparisons within this selection; it does not claim to enumerate every programme, infer efficacy or predict approval.
Retained studies are NCT05533463, NCT06500676, NCT05737706, NCT05382559, NCT06040541 and NCT07020221. The public capture includes HRS-4642, GFH375, MRTX1133, setidegrasib/ASP3082, RMC-9805 and VS-7375 study contexts. Combination partners and aliases remain in their source records. Terminated and active records are both retained; this is a selection, not a complete target census.
Start with the identity of each study
KRAS G12D is a target context, while an NCT identifier names a particular registered study. Keep those levels separate when reading the table. The retained source fields include intervention names, sponsor, phase and status, and the linked full record supplies additional context. A combination partner is not automatically a KRAS G12D-directed drug simply because it appears in the same intervention list.
The selected studies deliberately show different programmes and operational states. MRTX1133, for example, remains visible as a retained study even when its source status is terminated. Removing every inactive record would answer a different question and could conceal how a development landscape changed. The page makes no claim that its chosen six records are statistically representative of all target activity.
Interpret the capture as a dated evidence set
The article and initial workspace refer to a pinned capture. Opening a linked registry record later may reveal an updated enrolment estimate, status, intervention alias or completion date. That difference should be documented rather than silently used to reinterpret a historical chart. Preserve the retrieval time and NCT identifiers when exporting or discussing a selection.
Phase labels describe study design and registration categories. They do not form a quantitative efficacy scale, and a Phase 1/2 record should not be arbitrarily split into two independent studies. Descriptive aggregation is useful for navigating the evidence set, but clinical interpretation requires the protocol, population, endpoints and reported results. A record with no posted results provides no numerical result to invent.
Build a broader review with explicit inclusion rules
A fuller target review would state which molecular mechanisms, tumour settings, regions, registry sources and dates are included. It would also reconcile agent aliases and distinguish studies from assets. Those choices change the denominator and should precede any claim about competition or coverage. This workspace supplies a transparent starting set for record inspection rather than an unsupported ranking of treatments.
Keep a separate record of why a study was added or excluded. The distinction between a direct inhibitor, a degrader, a combination partner and a biomarker-defined cohort can matter to the research question. Source evidence should support each assignment; the presence of a keyword alone is not sufficient to establish mechanism.
Equations and variables
Share within the selected records
pgroup = ngroup / Nselected
- ngroup
- Selected study records assigned to the stated category
- Nselected
- Number of retained study records; not the number of assets or the complete market
- pgroup
- Descriptive proportion within this selection
Study duration where recorded
Δt = primary completion date − start date
- Δt
- Calendar interval between the two recorded dates
- primary completion date
- Registry value, retaining whether actual or estimated
- start date
- Registry value, retaining whether actual or estimated
Scope and limitations
- One trial is not one drug asset. A programme can have several studies, and one study can include multiple agents or combination arms.
- Registry phase and recruitment status are sponsor-submitted fields at the capture date. They are not assessments of clinical benefit, programme value or probability of approval.
- Six manually selected studies are not an exhaustive KRAS G12D landscape. Counts and chart shares use this selection as their denominator; missing programmes must not be interpreted as absent from development.
Sources and provenance
- ClinicalTrials.gov study records and APIClinicalTrials.gov terms; no new licence classification
Registry records are sponsor-submitted. Capture dates, search scope and NCT identifiers must accompany reuse.
- ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05533463ClinicalTrials.gov terms and attribution
Snapshot retrieved 16 October 2026; the linked registry may subsequently change.
- ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06500676ClinicalTrials.gov terms and attribution
Snapshot retrieved 16 October 2026; the linked registry may subsequently change.
- ClinicalTrials.gov NCT07020221ClinicalTrials.gov terms and attribution
Snapshot retrieved 16 October 2026; the linked registry may subsequently change.
- ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05737706ClinicalTrials.gov terms and attribution
Snapshot retrieved 16 October 2026; the linked registry may subsequently change.
- ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06040541ClinicalTrials.gov terms and attribution
Snapshot retrieved 16 October 2026; the linked registry may subsequently change.
- ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05382559ClinicalTrials.gov terms and attribution
Snapshot retrieved 16 October 2026; the linked registry may subsequently change.
Technical questions
Does the landscape include every KRAS G12D programme?
No. It contains six explicitly selected registry records with documented target and intervention context. The stable selection makes the example inspectable, but its counts are not a market census. Use a documented, reproducible search and additional sources before making a completeness claim.
Does a terminated study prove that an intervention failed scientifically?
No. Registry status records an operational state, and a termination reason may need careful reading in the full record. Safety, efficacy, recruitment, strategy and other factors can differ between studies. The interface does not infer the reason or a programme-wide outcome from the status label.
Can I compare phase counts as numbers of competing drugs?
Not directly. The unit here is a study record. Multiple studies can belong to the same programme, and combination trials contain several interventions. Asset-level analysis requires explicit identity resolution and a documented rule for assigning development stage.
Connected workflows
- HER2 and TROP2 ADC trial-record exploration
Compare selection and counting rules in an ADC study set.
- EGFR sequence and structure inspection
Connect a target name to explicit protein sequence identity.
- US incretin listed-patent inspection
Keep clinical development records distinct from US listed protection.
- FDA Complete Response Letters (CRL) and Approval Precedent
Open the FDA precedent view: US approvals and the complete response letters FDA has published that predate them, shown for rheumatoid arthritis.