Advertisement


Andrew Matthews, MD, on AML: CPX-351 vs Venetoclax/Azacitidine for Initial Therapy

2021 ASH Annual Meeting & Exposition

Advertisement

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

Lymphoma

Daniel A. Ermann, MD, on DLBCL: Outcomes With Consolidative Radiation Therapy

Daniel A. Ermann, MD, of the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, discusses results from the largest retrospective study on outcomes utilizing radiotherapy in early-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Adding radiation to front-line multiagent chemotherapy was associated with a survival benefit for all patients with early-stage disease. An overall survival benefit was seen with the addition of radiation to front-line multiagent chemotherapy for patients with nodal involvement and those with specific extranodal involvement in the testes, thyroid, skin and soft tissue, and head and neck (Abstract 49).

Leukemia
Genomics/Genetics

Eunice S. Wang, MD, on FLT3-Mutated AML: Gilteritinib and Azacitidine for Intensive Induction Chemotherapy–Ineligible Patients

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).

 

Leukemia

Carsten Utoft Niemann, MD, PhD, on CLL: Time-Limited Venetoclax and Ibrutinib for Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Disease

Carsten Utoft Niemann, MD, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, discusses a primary analysis of the phase II Vision HO141 trial, which showed the feasibility of stopping and restarting ibrutinib and venetoclax in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia who have undetectable measurable residual disease. A favorable benefit-risk profile was demonstrated, with no new safety signals (Abstract 69).

Leukemia

Sangeetha Venugopal, MD, on Secondary AML: Impact of Front-Line Treatment Approach

Sangeetha Venugopal, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, discusses a retrospective analysis of 562 patients with treated secondary acute myeloid leukemia and prior exposure to hypomethylating agents (HMAs). The results showed that an HMA plus venetoclax yielded significantly higher overall response rates and improved overall survival compared with intensive chemotherapy or low-intensity chemotherapy, particularly in patients 60 years or older who had a karyotype without adverse risk (Abstract 794).

Lymphoma
Immunotherapy

Michael R. Bishop, MD, on Aggressive B-Cell NHL: Tisagenlecleucel vs Standard of Care as Second-Line Therapy

Michael R. Bishop, MD, of the University of Chicago, discusses insights from findings of the phase III BELINDA study, which may inform the design of future CAR T-cell trials, as well as the use of second-line tisagenlecleucel therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (Abstract LBA-6).

Advertisement

Advertisement




Advertisement