In a special co-branded episode between Oncology On the Go, hosted by CancerNetwork®, and the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT)’s program, ASTCT Talks, for American Pharmacists Month, a panel of oncology pharmacists discussed optimal strategies for using cellular therapies as treatment for patients with solid tumors. The panel included Brooke Adams, PharmD, BCOP, a board-certified oncology pharmacist specializing in stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy at the Orlando Health Cancer Institute in Orlando, Florida; Natalie Brumwell, PharmD, BCOP, a board-certified oncology pharmacist specializing in cellular therapy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York; and Bryant A. Clemons, PharmD, a board-certified oncology pharmacist specializing in hematology, blood and marrow transplantation, and cellular therapy at the University of Kentucky’s Markey Cancer Center in Lexington, Kentucky.

The discussion focused on the use of the first commercially available tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) for patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma, lifileucel (Amtagvi), which the FDA granted accelerated approval status to in February 2024.1 The panelists first reviewed supporting data from the phase 2 C-144-01 trial (NCT02360579), in which lifileucel demonstrated an objective response rate of 31.5% (95% CI, 21.1%-43.4%), and a median duration of response that was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 4.1 months-NR) at the time of the approval. Additionally, the group highlighted considerations for dosing interleukin-2 (IL-2), including management of toxicities and when to hold or discontinue further doses. 

Following a thorough breakdown of the proper conditions for using lifileucel in melanoma, the panelists concluded by discussing how to build upon an “exciting time for cellular therapy in solid tumors.” As part of optimizing the dosing of lifileucel and other cellular therapies in these patient populations, the experts exchanged ideas on how practices can collaborate across institutions and departments to expand access to novel treatments while helping providers develop comfort in administering these agents.

FDA grants accelerated approval to lifileucel for unresectable or metastatic melanoma. News release. FDA. February 16, 2024. Accessed September 30, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/2kweca6x

In a conversation with CancerNetwork® following the FDA approval of the gemcitabine intravesical system (Inlexzo; formerly TAR-200) for patients with high-risk, Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)–unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), Gary Steinberg, MD, discussed how this regulatory decision may impact the treatment paradigm.

Steinberg, a professor in the Department of Urology at Rush University, highlighted an unmet need for those with BCG-unresponsive, high-grade NMIBC. With a different mechanism of action compared with prior therapeutic choices in the field, he stated that the gemcitabine intravesical system may allow patients and physicians to benefit tremendously. Based on supporting data from the phase 2 SunRISe-1 trial (NCT04640623), he described how the gemcitabine intravesical system may replace prior standards such as intravesical gemcitabine plus docetaxel.

The conversation also touched upon considerations for preventing the risk of progression to metastatic disease with delayed cystectomy, as Steinberg emphasized following up with patients via cystoscopies, urinary cytologies, CT scans, or MRI imaging after treatment with the intravesical system. Steinberg also detailed strategies for mitigating urinary frequency, dysuria, and other toxicities associated with the therapy. He noted a “fine line” regarding bladder medication administration to older patient populations, as these practices may cause adverse effects such as dry mouth, constipation, and blurry vision.

Looking ahead, Steinberg illustrated a need to clarify the immunologic effects of regimens like the gemcitabine intravesical system, which can inform the use of additional therapeutic combinations down the road. He highlighted how other novel agents like cretostimogene grenadenorepvec (CG0070) may further improve outcomes in the NMIBC landscape.

“One of the key questions that we all need to ask with all our treatments is not about the patients who respond, but about the patients who do not respond,” Steingerg stated regarding the potential next steps for research. “We can begin to understand mechanisms of resistance so that we can target those mechanisms of resistance and treat them better.”

U.S. FDA approval of INLEXZO (gemcitabine intravesical system) set to transform how certain bladder cancers are treated. News release. Johnson & Johnson. September 9, 2025. Accessed September 22, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/4zjz22z7

In the recent episode of Oncology-on-the-Go, in collaboration with the American Psychosocial Oncology Society (APOS), Daniel C. McFarland, DO, welcomes William S. Breitbart, MD, to discuss how clinicians can address patients’ existential concerns. While oncologists often focus on treatment and the drive for life, the core concern for many patients remains mortality. Breitbart’s work in meaning-centered therapy provides a framework for these difficult conversations.

Breitbart emphasizes that patients grappling with fear, uncertainty, and depression may not always express it directly. The goal of meaning-centered therapy is to help patients find a sense of purpose and peace, even as they face a terminal illness. This approach is not about eliminating suffering, but about helping patients find meaning in their experiences. The conversation covers the practical application of these principles, including how to bring up topics of death and dying, and the importance of validating a patient's fears without resorting to platitudes.

The discussion also touches on the concept of “existential guilt,” which Breitbart links to the human awareness of one’s own existence and mortality. He notes that many clinicians are drawn to oncology or psycho-oncology because of their own personal experiences with death and illness. Overall, the episode is a reminder for oncologists and their multidisciplinary team members to look beyond the treatment and its clinical outcomes, and engage in human conversations that can significantly improve a patient’s quality of life, emotional support, and overall well-being.

McFarland is the director of the Psycho-Oncology Program at Wilmot Cancer Center and a medical oncologist who specializes in head, neck, and lung cancer, in addition to being the psycho-oncology editorial advisory board member for the journal ONCOLOGY®; Breitbart is an attending physician and the Jimmie C. Holland Chair in Psycho-Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. 

At the Society of Hematologic Oncology 2025 Annual Meeting, CancerNetwork® spoke with a variety of experts about notable clinical developments and trial results across the hematologic oncology landscape. Throughout the meeting, clinicians and researchers discussed the latest data and initiatives in myelofibrosis, multiple myeloma, lymphoma, and other types of blood cancer.

Francesca Palandri, MD, PhD, an adjunct professor in the Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences at the University of Bologna in Bologna, Italy, shared insights from a session focused on exploring predictive markers for the efficacy of ruxolitinib (Jakafi) among patients with myelofibrosis.1 Noting variance in response rates as well as possibilities of disease progression or treatment discontinuation associated with ruxolitinib, Palandri emphasized the importance of assessing predictors of response to better orient clinical decision-making strategies regarding the agent’s use. She also highlighted how factors such as cytopenic phenotype, higher peripheral blast counts, and higher burden of disease may impact response rates and survival among patients.

Additionally, Sundar Jagannath, MD, a professor of Medicine specializing in hematology and medical oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and The Tisch Cancer Institute, spoke about his presentation on potentially defining a cure in the management of multiple myeloma.2 He described the importance of “chang[ing] the dialogue” in multiple myeloma to give hope to patients and encourage physicians to engage in patient care more optimally. By defining a cure in multiple myeloma, Jagannath stated, it may be possible to offer more finite durations of treatment and stop therapy with the confidence that patients will not relapse.

Finally, Adam J. Olszewski, MD, an associate professor of medicine at The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, discussed his work on the phase 3 SUNMO trial (NCT05171647).3 Findings from this presentation showed that mosunetuzumab-axgb (Lunsumio) plus polatuzumab vedotin-piiq (Polivy; M-Pola) reduced the risk of progression or death by 59% vs rituximab (Rituxan) with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx) in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Olszewski also outlined next steps for refining treatment strategies in this patient population.

In this episode, CancerNetwork® spoke with Joseph S. Wallins, MD, MPH, cardiology fellow at Weill Cornell Medicine, about a review of cardiotoxicities associated with breast cancer treatment he coauthored in the June 2025 issue of ONCOLOGY® titled, “Cardio-Oncology Considerations for Breast Cancer: Risk Stratification, Monitoring, and Treatment.” Therein, he touched upon data for risk stratification tools for oncologists, as well as the development of cardiovascular testing for individual treatment regimens.

Wallins discussed the basis for conducting the systemic review as well as noteworthy cardiotoxicities associated with specific classes of breast cancer therapies. Specifically, he highlighted an increase in cancer remission and survivorship for breast cancer, which has, in turn, created alternative health risks impacting survival outcomes, such as cardiovascular risks. Citing a study showing a nearly 2-fold risk in cardiovascular-related fatalities for breast cancer survivors vs the general population, he suggested that the review was warranted to identify cardiotoxicities, strategies for preventing and managing them, and tools for risk stratification and monitoring.

Wallins further outlined considerations for optimizing risk stratification and monitoring strategies in patients at risk of experiencing cardiovascular toxicities as well as treatments that may help with their prevention or mitigation. To that end, he discussed identifying patients who are at a higher risk before initiating treatment and outlined risk assessment tools that serve to do so. Furthermore, he suggested that patients who experience a greater than moderate risk for cardiovascular issues should undergo cardioprotective strategies and have in-depth conversations with providers regarding treatment risks.

He concluded by highlighting future steps to enhance cardiovascular outcomes for patients with breast cancer, among additional key takeaways. Of note, Wallins expressed that genetic testing may help elucidate cardiomyopathy-associated genes while calling for a more personalized approach to risk stratification and more sensitive and specific imaging techniques to better identify at-risk patients. Finally, he emphasized a need for upfront risk assessment to identify patients at a higher risk who could benefit from additional testing as well as more pronounced collaboration between oncologists and cardiologists.

Bradshaw PT, Stevens J, Khankari N, Teitelbaum SL, Neugut AI, Gammon MD. Cardiovascular disease mortality among breast cancer survivors. Epidemiology. 2016;27(1):6-13. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000394

In a recent episode of the Oncology-on-the-Go podcast in collaboration with the American Psychosocial Oncology Society (APOS), host Daniel C. McFarland, DO, was joined by Christian J. Nelson, PhD, to discuss the often-overlooked subject of sexual health issues for men after cancer treatment. The discussion emphasized the importance of a nuanced approach to men's health, particularly in the context of genitourinary cancers like prostate and testicular cancer.

McFarland is the director of the Psycho-Oncology Program at Wilmot Cancer Center and a medical oncologist who specializes in head, neck, and lung cancer in addition to being the psycho-oncology editorial advisory board member for the journal ONCOLOGY®. He opened the conversation by highlighting that while cancer’s physical effects are well-documented, the mental and emotional toll is equally significant and often underappreciated in male patients. He highlighted that the field of psycho-oncology, which began with breast cancer, is now expanding to address men’s specific needs. Men, he noted, are less likely to seek mental health support, yet have a higher risk of suicide, particularly at key moments in their cancer journey like diagnosis and recurrence.

Nelson, chief of Psychiatry Service, attending psychologist, and codirector of the Psycho-Oncology of Care and Aging Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, underscored that cancer treatments, especially for prostate cancer, often have profound adverse effects (AEs) that impact a man’s sense of self and masculinity. 

He detailed the effects of radical pelvic treatments and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), which can lead to urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and changes in sexual function and body image. These AEs can lead to feelings of being "broken," "inadequate," or "deflated."

The pair discussed the "double-edged sword" of normalizing cancer, where patients are told their prognosis is good but are left unprepared for the life-altering AEs. This can lead to a sense of cognitive dissonance and isolation. The conversation stressed the need for clinicians to proactively normalize discussions about sexual health, making it clear that these are standard and expected aspects of the cancer experience.

Both clinicians suggested that establishing a trusting relationship with patients is paramount and that referrals to psycho-oncology should be framed as an essential, not optional, component of treatment. They also recommend that clinicians consistently check in with their male patients about emotional and sexual well-being, even long after treatment has ended, to ensure they’re coping with the lasting impacts of their experience. 

In a conversation with CancerNetwork®, Geraldine O’Sullivan Coyne, MD, MRCPI, PhD, spoke about her new appointment as the principal investigator and director of Clinical Research at the Northwell Health unit of the Southern Texas Accelerated Research Therapeutics (START) Center for Cancer Research. Based on a strategic partnership formed between Northwell Health and START in May 2024, she will oversee early-phase clinical trial development at New York’s first START research site at the R.J. Zuckerberg Cancer Center in New Hyde Park.

Coyne began by sharing her excitement to put all her efforts into making the unit a “good opportunity” to consider patients who reside in community settings for enrollment in new clinical trials. Although large academic centers may offer possibilities for enrolling in trials, Coyne highlighted how many patients may need to travel or leave their social networks behind as they undergo treatment, thus illustrating a need for expanded options in the community setting.

“Having the privilege to be able to bring trial opportunities into the community—into the heart of the community—is what we are aiming to do,” Coyne stated about her new role. “We do believe that this will [allow] patients to access novel and powerful therapies that are now increasingly part of a personalized treatment paradigm for patients with advanced malignancies.”

Emphasizing the pursuit of early-phase clinical investigations, Coyne described how the new unit may leverage START’s expertise to advance novel molecules across all stages of the drug development pipeline up to regulatory approval. She noted that being able to safely create and refine new therapeutic approaches in the community setting lies at the heart of a successful collaboration between Northwell Health and START.

“A lot of the excitement surrounding the START unit and Northwell Health collaboration with them is exploring these novel molecules that will hopefully continue to build on the pursuit in oncology drug development, which has been finding better and more targeted therapies for patients in their treatment journey,” Coyne said.

Olt B. Northwell names Geraldine O’Sullivan Coyne, MD, PhD, to lead clinical trials at new START center. News release. Northwell Health. July 22, 2025. Accessed August 12, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/bdcua8ck

In the inaugural podcast episode created in collaboration with the American Psychosocial Oncology Society (APOS), Daniel C. McFarland, DO, and Michelle Fingeret, PhD, explored the critical, yet often overlooked, issue of body image in patients with cancer. McFarland opened the discussion by acknowledging the significant psychosocial challenges clinicians face and highlighted the therapeutic power of the patient-oncologist relationship, which extends beyond medical treatments.

Fingeret defined body image as a person’s total relationship with their body, encompassing not only appearance but also function and sensory experiences. She emphasized that body image changes are universal experiences for patients with cancer that affect all aspects of their lives. Despite their prevalence, Fingeret suggested that many clinicians feel ill-equipped to address these issues, and that patients are often reluctant to raise the topic due to feelings of shame or a desire not to "burden" their health care providers.

The discussion delved into the spectrum of body image concerns, ranging from mild distress to severe functional impairment. Fingeret distinguished between clinical body dysmorphic disorder and other changes patients experience, stressing that their distress is a valid reaction to actual bodily alterations. She provided a framework for clinicians to assess a patient's concerns, urging them to listen carefully to the language patients use. Patients may describe their bodies with inflammatory words like "deformed" or use avoidance strategies, such as refusing to look in a mirror. Fingeret noted how these are important cues that signal a need for a deeper conversation.

Practical advice was also offered on how to initiate these conversations. Instead of normalizing a patient’s concerns with platitudes like "Your hair will grow back," clinicians should validate their feelings by creating a safe space for them to talk openly. Simple, curious questions—such as "How does that make you feel?" or "Have you looked at yourself in the mirror?"—can open the door to a more meaningful dialogue. The goal of intervention, Fingeret explained, is not to force the patient to love their body, but to help them achieve a greater level of body image acceptance.

The conversation concluded with a focus on redefining success. McFarland noted that patients often hope to "go back to where they were before," an unrealistic goal. Fingeret reinforced this point, stating that a key part of the work is helping patients develop flexible, realistic expectations. Success is often found in incremental progress, such as reducing avoidance behaviors or finding more fulfillment in social relationships, rather than in the complete elimination of body image distress.

McFarland is the director of the Psycho-Oncology Program at Wilmot Cancer Center and a medical oncologist who specializes in head and neck and lung cancer. He is also the psycho-oncology editorial advisory board member for the journal ONCOLOGY. Fingeret is the founder of Fingeret Psychology Services and specializes in body image and cancer. 

In a conversation with CancerNetwork® at the 2025 National Immune Cell Effector Therapy (ICE-T) Conference, Tiba Al Sagheer, PharmD, BCOP, BCACP; Rebecca Gonzalez, PharmD, BCOP, FASTCT; and Syeda Saba Kareem PharmD, BCOP, spoke about their presentations on managing adverse effects (AEs) across different hematologic malignancy populations. At the meeting, Al Sagheer, Gonzalez, and Kareem presented their ideas for treating patients with lymphoma, leukemia, and multiple myeloma, respectively.

Al Sagheer is a Pharmacy Quality Improvement Coordinator and Transplant/Cellular Therapy and Hematology Clinical Pharmacy Specialist at Miami Cancer Institute of Baptist Health South Florida. Gonzalez is a clinical pharmacy specialist in Blood and Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Immunotherapy at Moffitt Cancer Center. Kareem is a clinical pharmacy supervisor in Malignant Hematology at Moffitt Cancer Center.

Across different disease states, the presenters outlined the most common toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies, and other novel immunotherapies. Additionally, they described strategies for reducing the severity of AEs such as cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome as well as other oral, dermatological, and nail toxicities. Other key considerations for preserving quality of life among those receiving cellular therapy included risk stratifying patients based on tumor burden and inflammatory markers at baseline to inform prophylactic measures.

Each presenter shared key takeaways for treating patients who experience treatment-related AEs based on their individual presentations. Al Sagheer emphasized that it is not “one size fits all” when it comes to therapy, as providers must tailor their use of specific drugs, prophylactic measures, and anti-infective medication to each individual patient. Kareem noted that cellular therapy represents an evolving field, as toxicity mitigation strategies will continue to change over time as new data emerge. Finally, Gonzalez underscored the intimate nature of the cellular therapy field, which presents opportunities to collaborate with other institutions and receive guidance on managing complex cases. 

In a discussion with CancerNetwork®, Jacob Sands, MD, assistant professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, thoracic oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and investigator of the phase 2 TROPION-Lung05 trial (NCT04484142) and phase 3 TROPION-Lung01 trial (NCT04656652), which supported the accelerated approval of datopotamab deruxtecan-dlnk (dato-DXd; Datroway) in pretreated EGFR-mutant metastatic NSCLC in June 2025, discussed safety and efficacy considerations for the agent’s use.1-3

He began by outlining a combined cohort of the TROPION-Lung05 and TROPION-Lung01 trials, which collectively showed an efficacy benefit with dato-DXd in patients with EGFR-mutant disease vs docetaxel. In the combined cohort, the median progression-free survival with dato-DXd reached 5.8 months, and the median overall survival was 15.6 months. Additional efficacy data revealed an objective response rate of 45% (95% CI, 35%-54%) and a median duration of response of 6.5 months (95% CI, 4.2-8.4). 

Furthermore, Sands highlighted the most common toxicities observed with dato-DXd in this population, which included stomatitis, interstitial lung disease (ILD), and ocular toxicities. He also reviewed management strategies to mitigate their incidence and severity. Specifically, remedies include prophylaxis, oral hygiene, and dose reductions for stomatitis; using preservative-free eye drops and ophthalmology visits for ocular toxicity management and prevention; and monitoring for any incidence of high-grade ILD.

He then touched upon next steps for research in this disease state, including the phase 2 ORCHARD trial (NCT03944772) evaluating dato-DXd with osimertinib (Tagrisso) in the second-line setting after progression on osimertinib and the phase 3 TROPION-Lung15 trial (NCT06417814), which is evaluating chemotherapy vs dato-DXd alone or with osimertinib.4,5

Sands concluded by discussing the implications for toxicity management in patients who experience responses that exceed median outcomes, suggesting that the toxicity profile may be more severe for this group. Emphasizing the broadness of outcomes with any drug, he expressed that patients with experiences that deviate from the observed median outcome are an important consideration for clinical practice.