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).
Lena E. Winestone, MD, MSHP, of the University of California, San Francisco and Benioff Children’s Hospital, reviews different aspects of bias in treatment delivery, including patient selection for clinical trials; racial and ethnic disparities in survival for indolent non-Hodgkin diffuse large B-cell lymphomas; and end-of-life hospitalization of patients with multiple myeloma, as well as outcome disparities (Abstracts 207-212).
Tycel J. Phillips, MD, of the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, discusses phase II data from the CITADEL-204 study, showing that patients with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma who were not previously treated with a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor achieved rapid and durable responses with single-agent parsaclisib. Comparable results were also observed in patients with nodal, extranodal, or splenic disease (Abstract 338).
Curtis Lachowiez, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, discusses an interim analysis of a phase Ib/II study showing that venetoclax plus chemotherapy represents an effective regimen, particularly in patients with newly diagnosed and relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. The regimen appears to be an effective bridge to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (Abstract 332).
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]).
Hassan Awada, MD, of the Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, discusses the use of newer machine-learning techniques to help decipher a set of prognostic subgroups that could predict survival, thus potentially improving on traditional methods and moving acute myeloid leukemia into the era of personalized medicine (Abstract 34).
