Steven M. Horwitz, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, discusses phase II data from the Primo trial, which support continued evaluation of duvelisib as a treatment option for relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma due to consistent response rates (Abstract 44).
Paul G. Richardson, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, gives his expert perspective on three important studies in multiple myeloma: long-term results from the IFM 2009 trial on early vs late autologous stem cell transplant in patients with newly diagnosed disease; the effect of high-dose melphalan on mutational burden in relapsed disease; and daratumumab plus lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed disease (Abstracts 143, 61, and 549).
Andrew D. Zelenetz, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, discusses phase II results from a single-center study that explored a novel approach for high-risk patients with mantle cell lymphoma. Among patients with TP53 wild-type disease, the data suggested this treatment was effective (Abstract 119).
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).
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).
