Andrew Matthews, MD, on AML: CPX-351 vs Venetoclax/Azacitidine for Initial Therapy
2021 ASH Annual Meeting & Exposition
Andrew Matthews, MD, of the Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, discusses findings from a retrospective study at an academic institution, which showed there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between induction with CPX-351 and venetoclax/azacitidine for adults with acute myeloid leukemia. Prospective studies to confirm similar effectiveness with careful attention to side effects, quality of life, and impact on transplant outcomes may help clinicians decide between these therapies (Abstract 795).
Related Videos
The ASCO Post Staff
Alba Rodriguez-Meira, DPhil, of the University of Oxford, discusses a comprehensive analysis of the genetic, cellular, and molecular landscape of TP53-mediated transformation, providing insights into the evolution of chronic hematologic malignancies toward an aggressive acute leukemia. Because TP53 is the most commonly mutated gene in human cancer, these findings may well be of broad relevance (Abstract 3).
The ASCO Post Staff
Nikhil C. Munshi, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, discusses the findings from a large nationwide Veterans Affairs study, which showed that, for patients with multiple myeloma, the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine is reduced, likely due to patients’ immunosuppression. Dr. Munshi describes what next steps should be taken (Abstract 400).
The ASCO Post Staff
Eunice S. Wang, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, discusses phase III results showing that gilteritinib and azacitidine led to significantly higher composite complete response rates in patients with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutant acute myeloid leukemia who are ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy. Overall survival was similar to that of azacitidine alone (Abstract 700).
The ASCO Post Staff
Anil Aktas-Samur, PhD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, discusses study findings on the genomic characterization of non-progressor smoldering multiple myeloma, results that may provide a molecular definition of the disease as well as its risk-driving features. Combining this low-risk model with current high-risk models may possibly improve clinical trials for patients with this early precursor to myeloma (Abstract 545).
The ASCO Post Staff
Romanos Sklavenitis-Pistofidis, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, discusses study findings on a next generation of clinical assays to assess both tumor biology and immune state, as well as common clinical biomarkers in the marrow or blood. These biomarkers may accurately predict which patients with smoldering multiple myeloma might benefit from early treatment, monitor response to immunotherapy, and improve patient outcomes (Abstract 330).
