Jorge E. Cortes, MD, on CML: Expert Perspective on Key ASH Abstracts
2020 ASH Annual Meeting & Exposition
Jorge E. Cortes, MD, of the Georgia Cancer Center at Augusta University, reviews four important studies of treatment advances in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML): nilotinib vs dasatinib in newly diagnosed disease; final 5-year results from the BFORE trial on bosutinib vs imatinib for chronic phase (CP) CML; data from the OPTIC trial on ponatinib for CP-CML; and a novel class of mutated cancer-related genes associated with the Philadelphia translocation (Abstracts 45, 46, 48, 49).
Meletios A. Dimopoulos, MD, of the University of Athens, discusses data from the phase III APOLLO study, which evaluated the use of subcutaneous daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone, vs pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone, in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (Abstract 412).
Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld, MD, of The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, discusses SEER data showing that patients with acute myeloid leukemia who are Black and younger than age 60 may have poor survival outcomes, a disparity that should be addressed and further studied to establish molecular risk profiles (Abstract 6).
Farhad Ravandi, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, offers his expert perspective on key treatment studies in acute myeloid leukemia on the use of gilteritinib, consolidation chemotherapy, venetoclax, cladribine, azacitidine, quizartinib, decitabine, and CPX-351 (Session 616 [Abstracts 24- 29]).
Christian Marinaccio, PhD Candidate, of Northwestern University, describes research he is conducting in the laboratory of John D. Crispino, PhD, which shows the loss of the tumor suppressor gene LKB1/STK11 facilitates progression of myeloproliferative neoplasms to acute myeloid leukemia (Abstract 1).
Ari M. Melnick, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, discusses the BCL10 mutation in patients with activated B-cell–like diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and his study results which showed that the mutation should be considered as a biomarker for ibrutinib resistance so that alternative targeted treatments can be prioritized (Abstract 3).