Eric Jonasch, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, discusses phase II study findings on the oral HIF-2α inhibitor known as MK-6482, which showed efficacy and tolerability in patients with Von Hippel-Lindau (VHL)–associated clear cell renal cell carcinoma as well as responses in other VHL-related lesions (Abstract 5003).
David R. Wise, MD, PhD, of New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, summarizes three important studies in prostate cancer: circulating tumor cell count as a prognostic marker of PSA response and progression in metastatic castration-sensitive disease; new phenotypic subtypes; and how circulating tumor DNA dynamics associate with treatment response and radiologic progression-free survival (Abstracts 5506, 5507, and 5508).
Douglas B. Johnson, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, discusses three important melanoma abstracts: the need for more than two doses of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in combination immunotherapy; antitumor activity for low-dose ipilimumab with pembrolizumab after disease progression on PD-1 antibodies; and ipilimumab alone or in combination with anti–PD-1 therapy for metastatic disease resistant to PD-1 monotherapy (Abstracts 10003, 10004, and 10005).
Farhad Ravandi-Kashani, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, discusses updates from a phase I dose-escalation study of AMG 330, a bispecific T-cell engager molecule. It showed early evidence of an acceptable safety profile, drug tolerability, and antileukemic activity, supporting further dose escalation in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (Abstract 7508).
Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, discusses results from the CALGB/SWOG 80702 trial of celecoxib plus standard adjuvant therapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX). Adding celecoxib to standard chemotherapy did not significantly improve disease-free or overall survival (Abstract 4003).
Seema A. Khan, MD, MPH, of the Lynn Sage Comprehensive Breast Center, discusses phase III trial results showing that in newly diagnosed metastatic stage IV breast cancer, locoregional treatment of the primary tumor did not offer a greater survival benefit than systemic therapy (Abstract LBA2).
