Oncology On The Go

In a conversation with CancerNetwork®, Michael Barish, PhD, spoke about an investigational CAR T-cell therapy that he and colleagues are developing as a treatment for patients with glioblastoma. He and his team designed the agent to harness chlorotoxin, an amino acid peptide toxin component of scorpion venom, as a vehicle for intratumoral delivery of therapy for this patient population.

Barish, a chair in the Department of Neurosciences/Developmental & Stem Cell Biology at City of Hope, discussed the background and mechanisms surrounding this novel compound, which he and colleagues evaluated as part of a phase 1 trial (NCT04214392). Early findings published in Cell Reports Medicine showed that among 4 patients with recurrent glioblastoma, 3 (75%) achieved a best response of stable disease. Additionally, the chlorotoxin-directed cellular therapy was found to be well-tolerated with no dose-limiting toxicities. Although responses were not as strong as Barish and colleagues had hoped, he described how the study nevertheless demonstrated the safety and feasibility of this CAR T-cell therapy formulation. 

After establishing the safety of the novel agent in patients with recurrent glioblastoma, Barish highlighted how next steps for research included engineering different versions of the chlorotoxin and modifying the T cells that express the chimeric receptor. He stated these reconfigurations may help yield additional power and efficacy of the cellular therapy in future studies. Overall, Barish noted how the potential therapeutic application of the neurotoxin represented a “proof of principle.”

“[V]enoms of many invertebrates are, in fact, very powerful biologically. In a sense, evolution has honed them to be relatively specific. Neurobiology is very much driven by the specificity of different toxins for different ion channels,” Barish stated. “This idea—that one could use biological products efficiently this way for something as heterogeneous as glioblastoma—might be an example of how it could be more efficacious for other solid tumors as well.”

Reference

Barish ME, Aftabizadeh M, Hibbard J, et al. Chlorotoxin-directed CAR T cell therapy for recurrent glioblastoma: interim clinical experience demonstrating feasibility and safety. Cell Rep Med. 2025;6(8):102302. doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2025.102302.

The latest episode of Oncology On the Go focused on survivorship and supportive care. Stemming from conversations with leading clinicians in the field, the compilation highlights gaps and educational insights into multiple areas. 

Covering topics like nutrition, oncodermatology, body image, sexual health, and mortality, these conversations explored how to truly optimize multidisciplinary cancer care.  

Declan Walsh, MD, chair of the Department of Supportive Oncology at Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute:

1:01-2:44: What is the importance of developing and managing supportive care at major oncology centers, and how can it be adapted across the US?

2:45-4:19: Supportive care is one piece of the multidisciplinary team. How can clinicians work with supportive care specialists to ensure that patients are receiving all the help that they need?

Denise Reynolds, RD, of Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute:

4:20-5:46: Some adverse effects (AEs) include severe nausea and vomiting. What nutritional strategies do you recommend to ensure adequate intake?

5:47-7:29: Taste and smell changes are common AEs. What advice do you give to patients to help cope and combat them?

Adam Friedman, MD, FAAD, professor and chair of dermatology, director of the Residency Program, and director of translational research at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates in Washington, DC:

7:30-9:24: Your study found that a significant proportion of respondents, including those who have been previously treated for cancer, would decline anti-cancer therapies due to dermatologic AEs like hair loss. What are some crucial communication strategies oncologists should employ to address this?

9:25-11:37: What should all oncology clinicians know about how to manage mild to moderate dermatologic AEs?

11:38-24:54: Daniel C. McFarland, DO, the director of the Psycho-Oncology Program at Wilmot Cancer Center; a medical oncologist who specializes in head, neck, and lung cancer; and the psycho-oncology editorial advisory board member for the journal ONCOLOGY®, spoke with different psycho-oncology colleagues regarding topics like body image, sexual health, and mortality.

These colleagues included Michelle Fingeret, PhD, founder of Fingeret Psychology Services; Christian J. Nelson, PhD, chief of Psychiatry Service, attending psychologist, and codirector of the Psycho-Oncology of Care and Aging Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; and William S. Breitbart, MD, attending physician and the Jimmie C. Holland Chair in Psycho-Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

All psycho-oncology episodes are now available on our website. 

Reference

Menta N, Vidal SI, Whiting C, Azim SA, Desai S, Friedman A. Perceptions and knowledge of dermatologic side effects of anti-cancer therapies: a pilot survey. J Drugs Dermatol. 2025;24(8):e57-e58.

Following a fruitful European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2025 for gastrointestinal malignancies, CancerNetwork® organized an X Spaces discussion hosted by 3 experts. They were Nicholas J. Hornstein, MD, an assistant professor at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine of Hofstra University and Northwell Health; Timothy Brown, MD, an assistant professor in the Department of Internal Medicine and the associate program director of the Hematology & Oncology Fellowship at UT Southwestern Medical Center; and Udhayvir S. Grewal, MD, an assistant professor in the Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine.

Each doctor focused on a specific disease type, highlighting the most important abstracts in colorectal cancer, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), and upper gastrointestinal cancers.

The Phase 3 MATTERHORN Trial (NCT04592913)

Results from MATTERHORN demonstrated that adding durvalumab (Imfinzi) to 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin (folinic acid), oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) improved overall survival (OS) compared with FLOT plus placebo in patients with resectable gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma, regardless of pathological status.1

In the intention-to-treat population, the median OS was not reached in either arm, and the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.63-0.96; P = .021). Notably, the improvement was observed regardless of PD-L1 status; in patients with PD-L1–positive disease, the HR was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.63-0.99), and in patients with PD-L1–negative disease, the HR was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.41-1.50).

“This, I believe, will seal durvalumab plus FLOT as the standard of care for resectable [gastric/GEJ] cancers,” said Brown.

The Observational ASPEN Study (NCT03084770)

The ASPEN study showed that active surveillance was a safe approach for patients with low-grade, asymptomatic, nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) fewer than 2 centimeters in size.2

Of the 1000 patients enrolled in the trial, 20 patients died, of whom 18 underwent active surveillance and 2 underwent surgery. Nineteen of the deaths were unrelated to pancreatic NETs; 1 death in the surgery arm was related to a pancreatic NET. After surgery, 5 patients had disease relapse or progression. With a median follow-up of 42 months (IQR, 25-60), the OS analysis showed a P value of 0.530. 

“This really settles the debate on whether or not to surgically operate on patients with a [pancreatic NET] size of [fewer] than 2 centimeters and shows that active surveillance is a safe option for these patients with pancreatic NETs [fewer] than 2 centimeters in size and non-functional NETs,” said Grewal. 

Data From the Phase 2/3 FOxTROT (NCT00647530) and Phase 2 NICHE-2 (NCT03026140) Trials

Neoadjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy) achieved a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in long-term outcomes, including responses and survival, compared with chemotherapy strategies in patients with mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) locally advanced colon cancer.3

In NICHE-2, neoadjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab achieved a 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 100% compared with 80% (95% CI, 73%-85%) with all chemotherapy strategies in FOxTROT (P <.001). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab maintained a 100% DFS rate in patients with clinical stage T3 and T4 disease in NICHE-2, whereas FOxTROT achieved DFS rates of 84% (95% CI, 76%-90%) and 70% (95% CI, 58%-80%), respectively (P <.001).

Additionally, nivolumab plus ipilimumab achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR) rate of 72.3%, with a pathologic partial response (pPR) rate of 25.5% and no response in 1.1%. Chemotherapy achieved a pCR rate of 4.3%, a pathologic pPR rate of 2.6%, and a mild to no response rate of 91.4%.

“Overnight, this should change the standard of care, even if the FDA hasn’t caught on yet, at least from my perspective. If I find out about a [patient with] MSI-H disease before they go to the [operating room], I’m probably running [to give them ipilimumab plus nivolumab],” said Hornstein.

References

1. Tabernero J, Al-Batran S-E, Wainberg ZA, et al. Final overall survival (OS) and the association of pathological outcomes with event-free survival (EFS) in MATTERHORN: a randomised, phase III study of durvalumab (D) plus 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin and docetaxel (FLOT) in resectable gastric / gastroesophageal junction (G / GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Presented at: ESMO 2025 Congress; October 17–21, 2025; Berlin, Germany. Abstract LBA81.

2.        Partelli S, Andreasi V, Zerbi A, et al. Management of asymptomatic sporadic nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms ≤2 cm: a prospective international observational multicentric cohort study ASPEN study. Presented at: ESMO 2025 Congress; October 17–21, 2025; Berlin, Germany. Abstract LBA36.

3.        Seligmann J, van den Dungen LDW, Balduzzi S, et al. Comparison of outcomes in clinical trials of locally advanced dMMR colon cancer: data from the FOxTROT and NICHE-2 trials. Presented at: ESMO 2025 Congress; October 17–21, 2025; Berlin, Germany. Abstract 7240.

As part of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2025, CancerNetwork® spoke with a variety of experts about key takeaways from different late-breaking abstracts, oral presentations, and other sessions focused on potential advancements across cancer care. Presenting investigators highlighted updated results from clinical trials evaluating novel therapeutic strategies across different cancer populations, including breast cancer and lung cancer. 

Phase 3 VIKTORIA-1 Trial

Sara A. Hurvitz, MD, FACP, the Smith Family Endowed Chair in Women’s Health and senior vice president and director of the Clinical Research Division at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center, and tumor chair in breast oncology for the ONCOLOGY® editorial advisory board, first discussed findings from the phase 3 VIKTORIA-1 trial (NCT05501886). Her presentation highlighted how VIKTORIA-1 was “the first study to demonstrate a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival [PFS] with PAM inhibition” for patients with PIK3CA wild-type advanced breast cancer.

Data from the trial showed that gedatolisib plus fulvestrant (Faslodex) and palbociclib (Ibrance) produced a median PFS of 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.2-16.6) vs 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.8-2.3) with fulvestrant alone (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.17-0.35; P <.0001). Additionally, gedatolisib plus fulvestrant yielded a median PFS of 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.5-9.9), reducing the risk of progression or death by 67% vs fulvestrant monotherapy (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.24-0.48; P <.0001).

Phase 1/2 SOHO-01 Trial

Next, Xiuning Le, MD, PhD, spoke about her presentation on data from the phase 1/2 SOHO-01 trial (NCT05099172). In her presentation, Le, an associate professor in the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology of the Division of Internal Medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, described sevabertinib as a “potential new targeted therapy for patients with HER2-mutant non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC].”

Among 81 patients with previously treated HER2-mutated advanced NSCLC who received sevabertinib in cohort D, the study treatment produced an overall response rate (ORR) of 64% (95% CI, 53%-75%) and a median duration of response (DOR) of 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.3-13.5). Among 55 patients who received prior HER2 antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) in cohort E, the ORR was 38% (95% CI, 25%-52%), and the median DOR was 8.5 months (95% CI, 5.6-16.4). Moreover, regarding 73 patients with treatment-naive disease in cohort F, these respective values were 71% (95% CI, 59%-81%) and 11.0 months (95% CI, 8.1-not evaluable).

Phase 3 evERA Trial

Finally, Erica Mayer, MD, MPH, director of breast cancer research at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and associate professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, detailed results from the phase 3 evERA trial (NCT05306340). In her presentation, Mayer stated that giredestrant plus everolimus (Afinitor) may “represent a new, effective, all-oral treatment option in the post-CDK 4/6 inhibitor setting” for those with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Across the intent-to-treat population, data revealed a median PFS of 8.77 months (95% CI, 6.60-9.59) with giredestrant plus everolimus vs 5.49 months (95% CI, 4.01-5.59) with standard endocrine therapy plus everolimus (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44-0.71; P <.0001). Among patients with ESR1-mutated disease, the median PFS was 9.99 months (95% CI, 8.08-12.94) vs 5.45 months (95% CI, 3.75-5.62) in each respective arm (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.27-0.54; P <.0001).

References

In a discussion with CancerNetwork®, Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, spoke about the current treatment landscape for those with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) as well as next steps for elevating the quality of care among patients. She began by outlining the evolution of therapeutic standards in the field, with atezolizumab (Tecentriq)- and durvalumab (Imfinzi)-based regimens emerging as key frontline strategies and lurbinectedin (Zepzelca) and tarlatamab-dlle (Imdelltra) demonstrating utility as second-line therapies. 

Regarding novel treatments that may hold promise in the SCLC field, Chiang, an associate professor of medicine in the Section of Medical Oncology at Yale School of Medicine, highlighted her work on the phase 2 SWOG S2409 PRISM trial (NCT06769126). Here, Chiang and colleagues plan to collect tissue from more than 800 patients undergoing frontline induction therapy with chemoimmunotherapy to inform subsequent biomarker-directed treatment, which may help elucidate factors of disease heterogeneity in the process.

The conversation also focused on considerations for improving the care of those with lung cancer in community-based settings, as Chiang emphasized spreading knowledge of therapeutic advances to a broader patient population. She noted that there is “still a bit of nihilism about the prognosis” of patients with SCLC, describing a need to further leverage the field’s understanding of biology to impart the benefits of immunotherapy to more patients. Chiang also detailed the importance of employing patient-reported outcomes to hear directly from the patient, which may ensure their inclusion in the shared decision-making process and optimize strategies for mitigating potential adverse effects during treatment.

“Understanding and leveraging the biology is important. We are going to need to understand how to sequence therapies, and that involves understanding which patients are at higher risk,” Chiang stated regarding future initiatives in the field. “We need to look at high-risk populations—for example, patients with brain metastases—and understand which therapies are especially useful for them.”

In a conversation with CancerNetwork®, Jorge Cortes, MD, explored the evolution of the chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) landscape. Specifically, he highlighted how the development of ibrutinib (Gleevec) paved the way for other tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and described where research must go next in terms of implementing fixed-duration therapy and targeting genetic abnormalities.

Cortes, the director, and Cecil F. Whitaker Jr., GRA Eminent Scholar Chair in Cancer at the Georgia Cancer Center, began by detailing the standards of care that existed before the development of imatinib. He noted that many patients did “not have great options,” as neither interferon nor transplant was associated with “good” outcomes. 

Following its approval for patients with CML in 2001, imatinib became what Cortes described as a “groundbreaker” in the field. He explained how imatinib’s newfound status as a standard of care in CML would signal the advancement of a second generation of TKIs, which included agents like dasatinib (Sprycel), nilotinib (Tasigna), and bosutinib (Bosulif). Even with the subsequent development of third-generation TKIs, Cortes stated that researchers are continuing to improve and innovate to help provide patients with enhanced quality of life.

Looking towards the future, Cortes observed 2 major goals to achieve in CML research. The first objective is to stop therapy more effectively and give a greater portion of patients a more precisely defined duration of treatment. He noted that approximately 25% to 30% of patients today can effectively discontinue therapy without having to resume treatment, which wasn’t even considered a possibility in the field 20 years ago. Moreover, he emphasized that finding the therapeutic options that work best in a subset of patients with recently discovered genetic abnormalities may yield a breakthrough.

“In terms of whether we are getting closer to a cure, I think we are. We can stop therapy effectively in some patients, which is equivalent to a cure,” Cortes said. “If [a patient has] done well, and you can stop therapy and the disease doesn't come back, that's essentially what we think about as a cure. We are there, just not on as many patients as we want.”

Reference

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research: Application Number: NDA 21-335. FDA. May 10, 2001. Accessed October 6, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/44xh2u9j

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.

Reference

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.”

Reference

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.

References