Hannah L. Kenny, MD, and Joseph M. Curry, MD, both of Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, discuss results of a phase II trial of neoadjuvant cemiplimab-rwlc in patients with hedgehog inhibitor–naive basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the head and neck (Abstract 9515).
Thomas A. Jandl, MD, PhD, of Stony Brook University Hospital, discusses data from part 1B of the OLYMPIA-3 trial, which showed that among patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), the safety profile of the first-line combination of odronextamab and CHOP chemotherapy was generally manageable and preliminary efficacy was encouraging, with no meaningful differences between regimens. Additionally, combination with odronextamab did not impact the delivery of CHOP (Abstract 7009).
Jamie E. Chaft, MD, FASCO, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, discusses findings from ECOG-ACRIN EA5142/ALCHEMIST, a phase III randomized trial that evaluated the efficacy of adjuvant nivolumab after standard-of-care adjuvant therapy in patients with resected lung adenocarcinoma without sensitizing EGFR and ALK alterations and squamous cell carcinoma (Abstract 8000).
Shilpa Gupta, MD, of Taussig Cancer Institute, discusses findings from the phase III MAIN-CAV study (Alliance A032001) of maintenance cabozantinib and avelumab vs avelumab after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer (Abstract 4514).
Dai Chihara, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, reviews results from an open-label, single-arm, phase II trial that investigated the combination of epcoritamab with R-miniCVP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone) in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) classified as unfit or frail per geriatric assessment or not eligible for anthracycline chemotherapy due to reduced ejection function or prior exposure (Abstract 7002).
Walter Weber, MD, of University Hospital Basel, presents data from the international randomized phase III PREPEC trial (OPBC-02), which found prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) significantly and relevantly improved long-term quality of life—at the cost of a higher risk of loss or replacement of expander or implant—compared to subpectoral IBBR (Abstract 504).
