Oncology On The Go

In a conversation with CancerNetwork®, Oluwadamilola “Lola” Fayanju, MD, MA, MPHS, FACS, discussed the key findings from a study she published in JAMA Network Open, which demonstrated that most patients with inflammatory breast cancer do not receive all available types of guideline-concordant care they are eligible for. Additionally, data showed disparities regarding receipt of modality-specific therapy among patients who were Black, Asian, Hispanic, or other racial minority populations.

Based on these findings, Fayanju highlighted potential next steps for mitigating these gaps in care for certain patients with breast cancer. These strategies included revising stringent inclusion criteria for clinical trial enrollment, which may disproportionately exclude racial minority populations who have higher rates of diabetes or other medical conditions. Fayanju also emphasized educating clinicians across different oncology specialties to recognize how different populations present with inflammatory breast cancer and better understand the context in which patients receive treatment.

“I hope [the study] makes some people angry…Frustration can be a wonderful fuel,” Fayanju stated regarding her research. “[By] recognizing that there isn't as much guideline-concordant care receipt amongst all people as there should be and the hope that's provided when we achieve concordant care, we can mitigate and eliminate racial disparities. I hope [that] will motivate people to think about how we can get more guideline-concordant care to more people and how we can incorporate diverse populations in the development of guidelines for concordant care at the beginning. Then, how can we also develop treatments that achieve efficacious results across diverse populations?”

Fayanju is the Helen O. Dickens Presidential Associate Professor, chief in the Division of Breast Surgery at Penn Medicine, surgical director of Rena Rowan Breast Center, director of Health Equity Innovation at Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation (PC3I), and senior fellow at Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (LDI), Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

Reference

Tadros A, Diskin B, Sevilimedu V, et al. Trends in guideline-concordant care for inflammatory breast cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(2):e2454506. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.54506

The International Psycho-Oncology Society (IPOS) deemed April 9th, 2025, the first-ever World Psycho-Oncology Day (WPOD). This day was meant to spread awareness of the importance of prioritizing psychosocial care for patients with all types of cancer as well as to honor Jimmie C. Holland, MD.
Prior to WPOD, CancerNetwork® spoke with Cristiane Decat Bergerot, PhD, BS, MS, a psychologist and the head of supportive care at Grupo Oncoclinicas in Brazil, and a member of IPOS, about the importance of psychosocial care and the impact it has on patients with cancer.
As stated by Bergerot and listed on the official IPOS website, the primary goals of WPOD are as follows: raise awareness, honor Jimmie Holland, engage stakeholders, promote action, and support fundraising efforts.1 These goals are geared towards paying homage to the history of psycho-oncology and pushing for a more advanced future.
“We aim to empower patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals, fostering a future where psychosocial support is an integral part of oncology worldwide,” Bergerot said. 
Psycho-oncology has become more prevalent as a cancer care field since Jimmie C. Holland, MD, worked to help found it in the 1970s. Holland, a “pioneer” of psycho-oncology, was the first ever Chief of Psychiatry Services—a department that was the first of its kind anywhere in the world—at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and a founding member of IPOS. 
Bergerot stated that, in her work, she sees that patients who receive psychological support exhibit improved pain management and quality of life. Trials now focus more on end points such as quality of life and patient-reported outcomes, and guidelines have emerged to create standards of care. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology each offer guidelines that detail how to manage patient distress as they progress through cancer therapy.2,3 Distress screenings and earlier recommendations for palliative care have also become more standard in treatment. 
As for the future, Bergerot highlighted that psychosocial care needs to be more integrated into care as a necessary, rather than optional, component. New developments around the world, however, have created a landscape where telehealth and new research demonstrate the potential to help psycho-oncology grow rapidly. 

References
1.        World Psycho-Oncology Day (WPOD). IPOS. Accessed April 2, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/43c9rr2c

2.        Distress during cancer care. NCCN. 2024. Accessed April 2, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/ycxxvnmt
3.        Andersen BL, Lacchetti C, Ashing K, et al. Management of anxiety and depression in adult survivors of cancer: ASCO guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(18):3426-3453. doi:10.1200/JCO.23.00293

CancerNetwork® visited Sibley Memorial Hospital of Johns Hopkins Medicine to speak with a variety of experts about therapeutic advancements and ongoing research initiatives across several different cancer fields. As part of each discussion, clinicians highlighted how collaboration across different departments has positively impacted treatment planning, decision-making, and outcomes at their institution.

These experts included the following:

·      Rachit Kumar, MD, an assistant professor of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and a radiation oncologist specializing in genitourinary and gastrointestinal cancers at Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center for Sibley Memorial Hospital and Suburban Hospital;

·      Michael J. Pishvaian, MD, PhD, director of Gastrointestinal, Developmental Therapeutics, and Clinical Research Programs, and associate professor of Oncology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine;

·      Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, a professor of Oncology and the director of Lymphoma Drug Development at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University, director of Hematologic Malignancies National Capital Region, and co-director of Clinical Research for Hematologic Malignancies;

·      Valerie Lee, MD, an assistant professor of Oncology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a medical oncologist at Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Sibley Memorial Hospital;

·      Armine Smith, MD, the director of urologic oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Sibley Memorial Hospital, and an assistant clinical professor of Urology at the Brady Urological Institute of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine;

·      Pouneh Razavi, MD, the director for Breast Imaging in the National Capital Region and an instructor in Radiology and Radiological Science;

·      and Curtiland Deville Jr., MD, medical director of the Johns Hopkins Proton Therapy Center and clinical director of Radiation Oncology at Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Sibley Memorial Hospital.

Altogether, their insights demonstrated how multidisciplinary teamwork has improved outcomes ranging from patient survival to healthcare resource utilization across a wide range of diseases including breast cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, genitourinary cancer, hematologic malignancies, and others.

In a conversation with CancerNetwork®, Leticia Nogueira, PhD, MPH, highlighted the findings and implications of a study she published that evaluated how exposure to wildfires affected post-operative length of stay (LOS) among patients who were recovering from surgery for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data from this study showed that patients who underwent curative-intent surgery at facilities exposed to a wildfire disaster experienced a longer LOS compared with similar patients who received treatment during times when no disasters occurred.

According to data published in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the LOS was 7.45 days (SE, 0.22) for patients treated at facilities without wildfire exposure vs 9.42 days (SE, 0.25) among those who underwent surgery at facilities with exposure (P <.0001). Sensitivity analyses showed no significant difference for in-hospital mortality among patients with (10.5%) or without wildfire exposure (10.8%; P = .76).

According to Nogueira, scientific director of Health Services Research at the American Cancer Society, future research may further assess whether a longer LOS may impact survival among this patient population. Additionally, other efforts may focus on determining strategies for protecting the health and safety of patients during a climate disaster. 

Describing an “inescapability” of climate or environmental hazards across all populations, Nogueira emphasized the importance of collaboration among different medical and research institutions to improve disaster preparedness and mitigation strategies. These shared efforts may reduce the impact of wildfires and similar climate hazards across treatment facilities and patient populations.

“We know that disasters are becoming more common. We know that their frequency, their intensity, and their behavior continue to change. The only way that we can figure out what’s going to work and what’s going to improve quality of care and patient outcomes is knowledge,” Nogueira stated. “Prioritizing this type of research and understanding that all of us are a patient at some point, that we are all eventually vulnerable, [is important].”

Reference

Nogueira LM, Yabroff KR, Yates E, Shultz JM, Valdez RB, Nori-Sarma A. Facility exposure to wildfire disasters and hospital length of stay following lung cancer surgery. JNCI. Published online March 11, 2025. doi:10.1093/jnci/djaf040

In the second edition of a special podcast series, CancerNetwork® spoke with Daniel Morgensztern, MD; Mary Ellen Flanagan, NP; and Janelle Mann, PharmD, BCOP, about the best practices for incorporating recently approved bispecific antibodies into cancer care. This discussion focused on clinical trial results, administration protocols, and adverse effect (AE) management strategies related to the use of tarlatamab-dlle (Imdelltra) for patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC).

Morgensztern is a professor of Medicine and the clinical director of Thoracic Oncology in the Division of Oncology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Flanagan is a nurse practitioner in the Division of Thoracic Oncology at Washington University. Mann is a clinical oncology pharmacist at Siteman Cancer Center of Washington University School of Medicine and manager of Clinical Pharmacy Services at Barnes-Jewish Hospital.

The conversation opened with Morgensztern highlighting tarlatamab’s mechanism of action as an agent that targets DLL3. He then reviewed prior efficacy data that the therapy demonstrated in the phase 1 DeLLphi-300 trial (NCT03319940) and the phase 2 DeLLphi-301 trial (NCT05060016). Of note, the FDA approved tarlatamab as the first available T-cell engager immunotherapy for patients with extensive-stage SCLC who have progressed on prior platinum-containing chemotherapy in May 2024 based on data from the DeLLphi-301 trial.

Additionally, Flanagan detailed strategies for monitoring and mitigating the most common AEs associated with tarlatamab in this patient population, which include cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Mann then outlined considerations for properly dosing and administering the agent, highlighting factors that clinicians should keep in mind when continuing treatment in an inpatient or outpatient setting.

The group also spoke about clinical decision-making related to patients who have brain metastases, which included processes for adjusting the dose of tarlatamab and sequencing the bispecific agent with radiotherapy.

Reference

FDA grants accelerated approval to tarlatamab-dlle for extensive stage small cell lung cancer. News release. FDA. May 16, 2024. Accessed March 14, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/48k34rw5

Molecular differences in the profiles of low grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC) and high-grade SOC substantiate the need to find unique, differentiated treatment options for each epithelial ovarian cancer subtype, according to Kathleen N. Moore, MD, MS.

CancerNetwork® spoke with Moore, Virginia Kerley Cade Endowed Chair of Cancer Development, associate director of Clinical Research at the Stephenson Cancer Center, director of the Oklahoma TSET Phase I Program and professor in the Section of Gynecologic Oncology the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, about distinguishing low grade serous ovarian cancer from other types of ovarian cancer, current treatment options and clinical trials evaluating new regimens, as well as managing treatment in younger patients with or those seeking to preserve fertility.

Moore began by differentiating LGSOC from high grade SOC, stating that this disease typically occurred in younger patients and was primarily characterized by MAP kinase alterations, specifically KRAS and BRAF mutations. She then discussed the emergence of endocrine therapies in this indication owing to the presence of estrogen receptors.

Additionally, first line treatment was discussed, with the standard of care defined by primary cytoreduction followed by paclitaxel and carboplatin. She then highlighted multiple clinical trials assessing alternative treatment in this indication, particularly involving the use of letrozole (Femara).

Other clinical trials evaluated the use of CDK4/6 inhibition plus fulvestrant or BRAF and MEK inhibition with letrozole, with Moore emphasizing the potential for these studies to shift the treatment paradigm in the frontline setting. Furthermore, she suggested that CDK4/6 inhibition may help enhance responses in patients with recurrent LGSOC.

Moore then highlighted treatment concerns for younger patients and those seeking to preserve fertility, while expressing the importance of understanding a patient’s goals, which may help optimize outcomes. She concluded by reiterating the importance of designing trials and tailoring treatment considering the molecular profile of LGSOC.

In a recent episode of Oncology on the Go, several oncologists discussed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncology care, 5 years later. Each doctor discussed a different aspect of multidisciplinary care, including medical oncology, radiation oncology, and epidemiology.

CancerNetwork® spoke with leading clinicians including: 

·      Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, FSCO, professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, and director of Translational Research Integration at the University of California Los Angeles Health Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center;

·      Ritu Salani, MD, director of Gynecologic Oncology at the University of California Los Angeles, and ONCOLOGY® editorial advisory board member;

·      Scarlett Lin Gomez, PhD, MPH, a professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), and co-leader of the Cancer Control Program at UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center

·      Marwan F. Fakih, MD, professor in the Department of Medical Oncology & Therapeutics Research, associate director for Clinical Sciences, medical director of the Briskin Center for Clinical Research, division chief of GI Medical Oncology, and co-director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Program at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center;

·      Elizabeth Zhang-Velten, MD, a radiation oncologist at Keck Medicine of University of Southern California; 

·      Frances Elain Chow, MD, neuro-oncologist at the University of Southern California (USC) Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center

·      James Yu, MD, MHS, FASTRO, assistant professor adjunct, Department of Radiation Oncology, Smilow Cancer Hospital at Saint Francis Hospital, and ONCOLOGY® editorial advisory board member. 

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted routine cancer care in a number of ways. Many patients were unable to receive timely screening, diagnosis, and treatment, Fakih noted. Additionally, Bardia stated that the pandemic led to a decrease in the number of patients participating in clinical trials.

One of the most significant changes in oncology care, according to Salani, has been the increased use of telehealth. Telehealth has allowed patients to receive care from the comfort of their own homes, which has been especially beneficial for patients who live in rural areas or who have difficulty traveling. Telehealth has also made it easier for patients to connect with their doctors and to receive support from other members of their care team. 

For Gomez, the COVID-19 pandemic also highlighted the importance of addressing the structural and social drivers of health. These are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age that can affect their health. For example, people who live in poverty or who lack access to healthy food are more likely to develop cancer. The pandemic has led to a renewed focus on addressing these disparities.

Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on oncology care. However, it has also led to a number of positive changes, such as the increased use of telehealth and the focus on addressing the structural and social drivers of health. In the years to come, it will be important to continue to build on these changes in order to improve the lives of patients with cancer.

CancerNetwork®, in collaboration with The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT), organized an X Space hosted by Rahul Banerjee, MD, FACP, an assistant Professor in the Clinical Research Division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington, and Shernan Holtan, MD, the chief of Blood and Marrow Transplantation and professor of Medicine at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. 
The conversation took place during the 2025 Tandem Meeting and highlighted many significant presentations and posters on CAR T-cell therapies and transplantation, Banerjee’s and Holtan’s respective areas of expertise.
The following trials were discussed:
LBA1 - Phase II Multicenter Trial of Idecabtagene Vicleucel (Ide-cel) Followed By Lenalidomide Maintenance for Multiple Myeloma Patients with Sub-Optimal Response after an Upfront Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: Top Line Results from the BMT CTN 1902 Clinical Trial1

“This [study] is nice because it merges 2 worlds. It's like a tandem—but not really a tandem—because you're not doing 2 transplants back-to-back. You're doing a transplant followed by CAR T-cell therapy,” said Banerjee.
Abstract 50 - CAR T Cell Therapy in Early Relapsed/Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Real World Analysis from the Cell Therapy Consortium2

“In a relatively small cohort, [investigators] found no difference in 9-month survival whether someone got their [CAR T cells] in second-line therapy vs third-line therapy from a statistical perspective. If you look at the curves, it looks like there is a potential benefit to second-line therapy, but there was not enough statistical power to determine a difference,” said Holtan.
Poster 340 - CD83 Expression By Human Breast Cancer Mediates Effective Killing By CAR T3

“If there's a way to do [the therapy] armored and have a paracrine delivered in real time—and not given to the whole body—[so] the patient [would] have all the adverse effects and cytokine release syndrome release on their own…that would be awesome,” stated Banerjee. 
Poster 317 - Risk Factors for Immune Effector Cell-Associated Enterocolitis (IEC-colitis) in Patients with Relapsed Myeloma Treated with Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel (cilta-cel)4

“From the best that we can tell, ironically, corticosteroids aren't the fix that we want them to be [for immune effector cell-associated colitis]…We were like ‘Diarrhea, whatever. Let's give some steroids and treat it like gut graft-versus-host-disease,’ but these patients [didn’t] respond as well [to that],” said Banerjee.
Poster 572 - Post-CAR-T Driving Restrictions Appear Unnecessary after Week 4: Data from the US Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium5

“Patients and their caregivers [who have] put their life aside for 4 weeks just to get through CAR T-cell therapy and the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies requirements are now being told ‘You're free to go, but you can't drive for 4 weeks, which means you can't get your own groceries or…go to doctor's appointments by yourself.’ Basically, we argue…that this [requirement] is not evidence-based,” stated Banerjee. 

Presentation 58 - Physical Function Measures Identify Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients at High Risk of Immune Effector Cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (ICANS) and 1-Year Mortality after Chimeric Antigen Receptor T (CAR-T) Cell Therapy6

“This [presentation] highlights that even within a high [CAR-HEMATOTOX group], those patients were at extraordinarily high risk of not benefitting from CAR T-cell therapy, and these tests are so simple to do. It’s going to be interesting to see if others can reproduce this,” said Holtan.
Poster 618 - Comparison of Outcomes after Hematopoietic STEM Cell Transplantation (HCT) for Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) Patients Older or Younger THAN 65 YEARS Old. a Retrospective Analysis of the Latin America Registry7

“My personal hope for this space is that our field can come up with more novel conditioning regimens such that we can ablate the marrow without causing those gastrointestinal toxicities or other organ toxicities [while] doing that so effectively that we don't even need maintenance therapies for a lot of conditions,” stated Holtan.
Presentation 39 - Determinants of Immune Suppression Discontinuation in the Modern Era: A CIBMTR Analysis of 18,642 Subjects8

“I’m going to make a provocative prediction for the next paper [approximately 10 years from now]. I predict that steroids won’t be the first-line therapy for acute or chronic graft-versus-host-disease,” Holtan said.
Poster 516 - Patient Experiences with Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease and Its Treatment in the United States: A Retrospective Social Media Listening Study9

“We can still work together to make life as good as we possibly can [for patients], to improve physical function, to take away some of this mental distress, and then work together for advocacy too. [We can] help with peer support, help with resources, and help relieve some of that misunderstanding in the community,” stated Holtan.

References
1.        Garfall AL, Pasquini MC, Bai L, et al. Phase II multicenter trial of idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) followed by lenalidomide maintenance for multiple myeloma patients with sub-optimal response after an upfront autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation: top line results from the BMT CTN 1902 clinical trial. Presented at: 2025 Transplant and Cellular Therapy Meetings; February 12-15, 2025; Honolulu, HI. Abstract LBA-1.
2.        Rojek AE, Ahmed N, Gomez-Llobell M, et al. CAR T cell therapy in early relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma: real world analysis from the cell therapy consortium. Presented at: 2025 Transplant and Cellular Therapy Meetings; February 12-15, 2025; Honolulu, HI. Abstract 50.
3.        Betts BC, Davilla ML, Linden AM, et al. CD83 expression by human breast cancer mediates effective killing by CAR T. Presented at: 2025 Transplant and Cellular Therapy Meetings; February 12-15, 2025; Honolulu, HI. Poster ID 340.
4.        Chang Lim KJ, Chhabra S, Corraes ADMS, et al. Risk factors for immune effector cell-associated enterocolitis (IEC-colitis) in patients with relapsed myeloma treated with ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel). Presented at: 2025 Transplant and Cellular Therapy Meetings; February 12-15, 2025; Honolulu, HI. Poster ID 317.
5.        Banerjee R, Richards A, Khouri J, et al. Post-CAR-T driving restrictions appear unnecessary after week 4: data from the US multiple myeloma immunotherapy consortium. Presented at: 2025 Transplant and Cellular Therapy Meetings; February 12-15, 2025; Honolulu, HI. Poster ID 572.
6.        Herr M, McCarthy P, Jacobsen H, et al. Physical function measures identify non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients at high risk of immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) and 1-year mortality after chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy. Presented at: 2025 Transplant and Cellular Therapy Meetings; February 12-15, 2025; Honolulu, HI. Presentation ID 58.
7.        Duarte FB, Garcia YDO, Funke VAM, et al. Comparison of outcomes after hematopoietic STEM cell transplantation (HCT) for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients older or younger THAN 65 YEARS Old. A retrospective analysis of the Latin America registry. Presented at: 2025 Transplant and Cellular Therapy Meetings; February 12-15, 2025; Honolulu, HI. Poster ID 618.
8.        Pidala J, DeFlilipp Z, DeVos J, et al. Determinants of immune suppression discontinuation in the modern era: a CIBMTR analysis of 18,642 subjects. Presented at: 2025 Transplant and Cellular Therapy Meetings; February 12-15, 2025; Honolulu, HI. Presentation ID 39.
9.        Cowden M, Derrien-Connors C, Holtan S, et al. Patient experiences with chronic graft-versus-host disease and its treatment in the United States: A retrospective social media listening study. Presented at: 2025 Transplant and Cellular Therapy Meetings; February 12-15, 2025; Honolulu, HI. Poster ID 516.

In a conversation with CancerNetwork®, Marwan G. Fakih, MD, spoke about the FDA approval of sotorasib (Lumakras) plus panitumumab (Vectibix), and how it may affect the treatment paradigm for patients with KRAS G12C-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC).

Fakih is a professor in the Department of Medical Oncology & Therapeutics Research, associate director for Clinical Sciences, medical director of the Briskin Center for Clinical Research, division chief of GI Medical Oncology, and co-director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Program at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, California.

According to Fakih, the approval of this combination regimen is a “welcome step” for those with metastatic CRC harboring KRAS G12C mutations. Based on supporting data from the phase 3 CodeBreaK 300 trial (NCT05198934), sotorasib/panitumumab may prolong progression-free survival (PFS) and reduce disease burden in patients while offering improvements in other outcomes vs prior standards of care (SOC) like trifluridine/tipiracil (Lonsurf) and regorafenib (Stivarga).

Topline data at the time of the approval showed a median PFS of 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.2-6.3) with sotorasib at 960 mg plus panitumumab vs 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.9-3.9) in the SOC arm, in which patients were assigned to receive trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.78; P = .005). Additionally, the overall response rate was 26% (95% CI, 15%-40%) vs 0% (95% CI, 0%-7%) in each respective arm.

Looking ahead, Fakih highlighted the potential next steps for research associated with the sotorasib combination as well as other novel therapeutic strategies in the gastrointestinal cancer space. For example, he described the phase 3 CodeBreaK 301 study (NCT06252649), which will evaluate sotorasib/panitumumab as frontline therapy when administered in combination with folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) vs FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (Avastin) in metastatic KRAS G12C-mutant CRC. Other novel agents under development in the space include RAS inhibitors and immunotherapy regimens combining CTLA-4 inhibitors with anti–PD-L1 agents.

References

1. FDA approves sotorasib with panitumumab for KRAS G12C-mutated colorectal cancer. News release. FDA. January 16, 2025. Accessed February 12, 2025. https://shorturl.at/1WviB

2. Kim TW, Price T, Grasselli J, et al. A phase 3 study of first-line sotorasib, panitumumab, and FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab-awwb for patients with KRAS G12C–mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (CodeBreaK 301). J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 4):TPS326. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.4_suppl.TPS326

Following the 2024 Marginal Zone Lymphoma (MZL) Workshop, CancerNetwork® spoke with multiple attending clinicians about insights they shared regarding the disease state, covering the significance of the workshop and its contribution to advancing research in areas such as prognostic factors and managing adverse events (AEs) related to the disease.

Thomas Habermann, MD, professor of Medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, member of the Lymphoma Research Foundation’s Scientific Advisory Board, and MZL Workshop co-chair, spoke about the significance of the MZL Workshop. He highlighted the complexity of these types of diseases, which he believed warranted the establishment of the group.

According to Habermann, MZL is a “heterogenous group of disorders” that most contemporaries in the field “don’t quite appreciate.”

Next, Julie M. Vose, MD, MBA, George and Peggy Payne chair in oncology and chief of Hematology and Oncology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and co-editor-in-chief of ONCOLOGY®, spoke about how the MZL Workshop contributes to advancing research and improving outcomes for patients with MZL. She emphasized a need to be more inclusive when enrolling patients with MZL in clinical trials.

Then, James R. Cerhan, MD, PhD, professor of Epidemiology at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, and Ralph S. and Beverly Caulkins Professor of Cancer Research, spoke about addressing research questions in MZL epidemiology to further disease understanding. He emphasized a need to further study newly identified risk factors of the disease, as well as identifying new treatment targets for patients with MZL.

Additionally, Alexandar Tzankov, MD, surgical pathologist and head of the Department of Histopathology and Autopsy at the Institute of Medical Genetics and Pathology at University Hospital Basel, and chair for the European Bone Marrow Working Group, discussed how prognostic factors for MZL may influence treatment. He described how the limited number of studies done with relatively small subsets of patients makes prognoses challenging, as prognostic factors have not been sufficiently explored.

Finally, Andrew D. Zelenetz, MD, PhD, medical director of Quality Informatics at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, outlined challenges related to AE management of treatments for MZL. He emphasized that safety management practices for MZL are comparable with other B-cell lymphomas, suggesting that use of bridging therapy for CAR T cells and step-up dosing for bispecific antibodies may help with mitigating AEs.