Finding a position that is the best for you after your hematology/oncology fellowship can be daunting, but the job search and contract negotiation process can be successfully navigated with an open mind and support from mentors and colleagues, according to Matthew Hadfield, DO.

“A big branch point for your career [search] tends to be around whether or not you’re going into academics vs private practice/community hybrid practice or industry,” Hadfield, assistant professor of medicine at The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said in an interview with 

. “Academic positions tend to fall a bit later in the cycle of interviewing, closer to your time graduating from fellowship, [whereas] industry [positions] follow a typical job [search] time frame, and you can begin negotiating with a private practice a year in advance [in some cases].”

In the interview, Hadfield discussed his experience transitioning to his current position, contract negotiation advice, and tips for fellows who are about to embark on a job search.

How did you approach the job search process when you transitioned from an oncology fellow to academic faculty in July 2024?

: My experience was with academic institutions. I started interviewing at different [institutions] around August or September of my third year of fellowship. During that time frame, I picked out [institutions] that I thought were a geographically good [fit] for my family and me. In academics especially, you must be flexible in terms of what tumor types [you want to practice in] if you are geographically restricted. [Conversely], you can be more particular about what type of oncologist you want to be if you’re willing to move anywhere in the country.

I had several job offers midway through my third year of fellowship. There are aspects that you can and can’t negotiate in academics. The salary tends to be set; at academic institutions, there’s not much wiggle room. But you [often] can negotiate the number of days in clinic you have [in academics], whereas in private practice, there may be more room to negotiate salary and benefits. If you are a fellow who is [considering] different jobs, you need to ensure your contract is clear about those types of things. [For example], are you going to have research support to start any programs? Are you going to have dedicated research time? Does your contract specify that you’re going to see only one tumor type or is it going to be more of a generalist role for you in [terms of] patient time and call schedules? [These] are all important and written into your contract.

What are some of the most significant challenges of the job search process?

One of the major stressors is that you tend to focus on certain histologies during fellowship, but you often will get a job in the type of tumor that the cancer center you want to work at is hiring for. For instance, you may go through your fellowship focused on [practicing] thoracic oncology, and then you find that the only job available where you want to work is in prostate cancer. It’s stressful because it [can be] different than what you were hoping and expecting to do.

At the same time, if you’re going into academics, particularly a clinical trialist role, the tumor types are different, but the trial design, translational research, and collaboration processes are very similar. You must have an open mind and ensure that you have broad experiences during your fellowship to be able to adapt when you start looking for jobs, because what you want to do may not be available.

How did the support of mentors and colleagues help you during your job search?

It’s a huge help talking with individuals who have recently gone through the process. Generally speaking, you’re not going to be able to look up typical salaries [in different] places. You have to talk with individuals [in the field] and, most of the time, they are transparent with those types of things, especially in academics because [the salaries] tend to be set by the institutions.

In terms of mentors, having [individuals whom you trust] help review your contract is [important]. It’s a good idea to have at least a couple of mentors who are attending oncologists look over your contract and see if there are any red flags. You also want to have it reviewed by your personal lawyer. It can often [include] a lot of boilerplate language, but you want to make sure there are no surprises in there, [such as] service obligations, call schedules, or noncompete clauses.

What's something you wish you had known about contract negotiations before you started the process?

I wish that I had been advised to be more upfront in negotiating. You go through training [but] don’t negotiate a contract to become a resident. You don’t negotiate a contract as a fellow. Here, you have more options. You can choose where you work at and other [aspects]. A lot of fellows get a contract offer at a place they want to work and say, “I should just take it because this is where I want to work.” You should still negotiate; you have cards to play and just need to play them.

What is the most important piece of advice you would give an oncology fellow who's about to begin the job search process?

Be patient; things change frequently, especially in academics. A job that you want may open up while you’re going through the process. Maybe you were counting on something a year or 2 out, then things change, and you have to be flexible. You have to decide what your priorities are, whether you want to work in research and are less focused on the tumor type, or if you have to be a [certain type of oncologist] and don’t care where you go. [Oftentimes,] you’re not going to have the option. There are many investigators who are leading [voices] in their fields who went through a fellowship doing something completely different than the role they ended up getting.

Articles

Navigating the job search and contract negotiation process after a hematology/oncology fellowship requires an open mind and support from mentors. The decision between academic, private practice, or industry roles is crucial, with each having distinct timelines and negotiation aspects. Academic positions often have fixed salaries but allow negotiation on clinic days, while private practices offer more flexibility in salary and benefits. Mentorship is invaluable for understanding salary norms and contract details. Fellows should be proactive in negotiations and remain flexible, as job opportunities and priorities may evolve.

An assistant professor at The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown
University discusses offers insights on the job search process following fellowship.

Attention to Detail and Patience Are Key in the Job Search Process as Oncology Fellows

“The sun is my coffee,” she says, explaining to me that she has always been a morning person, which is perhaps why she is more alert today compared with other days I have rounded in the afternoon. Regardless, I’m surprised she can carry on a coherent conversation. She has 10 mg/hour of hydromorphone dripping into her veins. I smile at her declaration and at the same time my eyes begin to water. She is 31; so am I. She is dying of cancer, and I am her treating oncology fellow. Or at least I was until the treatments stopped working and the day I was dreading arrived, just 8 months after her diagnosis.

Until today I hadn’t been able to have a conversation with her. She has mostly been sleeping for the past week, which is why the decision to transition to hospice had to be made by her family. I spoke to her husband in English and repeated my words in Spanish to her mother. I wanted to tell her mother something meaningful about her, but my mind was jumbled by anxiety and sadness and guilt. The only word that came to my lips was “especial,” a plain and flimsy adjective to describe the girl who wore long rainbow wigs after she lost her hair.

But today she is talking. Unprompted, she tells me that she ate candy this morning and for a second I think she is hallucinating or telling me of a dream, but then I notice the blue stain on her tongue, and I realize it is true. She is not as disconnected from reality as I thought or perhaps hoped.

We talk more about food. I silently question whether it is frivolous to talk about this with someone to whom I may never speak again, but I am happy to be on a lighthearted topic and listen intently as she lists the fruity flavors in her favorite seltzer.

The ugly truth is that selfishly I was hoping she might not be able to converse with me again. I had been dreading looking her into her eyes and acknowledging my failure. I had been so sure she would live a couple of years. I wish I could say it wasn’t that bad, confirming to her that there is no more treatment, but it was, my words feeling like a serrated knife exiting my mouth.

Later that day I drive to visit my family. My 8-month-old nephew is there. His 8 months have been joyously filled with bubbles and music and giggles. Eight months of the beginning of a new life. Eight months of the end of another. Over the weekend she drifts away to who knows- where and we never talk again. But in my own world, disconnected from reality, I imagine her in a place where she gets to have a mug of bright, warm sun every morning forevermore.

Rebecca Zweifler, MD, pens a personal essay reflecting on her experience with a patient who left a lasting impact on her.

An Oncology Fellow Reflects on End-of-Life Patient Care

Lower baseline kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) levels were associated with improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs higher levels following treatment with avelumab (Bavencio) plus axitinib (Inlyta) or sunitinib (Sutent) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), according to data from a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006), highlighting the potential of the protein as a prognostic biomarker in the space.

Data from the analysis were presented by Marc Machaalani, MD, during an 

National Fellows Forum on February 11, 2025, which preceded the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium (ASCO GU) from February 13 to 15, 2025, in San Francisco, California.

“During the Fellows Forum, I presented our work on KIM-1 in the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, which was a major study of the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab in combination with the VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor axitinib vs standard-of- care sunitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic RCC,” Machaalani, a research fellow in genitourinary oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview with 

“KIM-1 is a glycoprotein expressed on the membranes of kidney cancer cells and shed into the blood. It is under investigation as a leading circulating biomarker in [patients with] kidney cancer.”

Prior data from JAVELIN Renal 101 supported the May 2019 FDA approval of
avelumab plus axitinib for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced RCC.

 The multicenter, open-label study enrolled patients with treatment-naive advanced RCC with a clear cell component, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression, and patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib.

 The primary end points were PFS per blinded independent central review (BICR) and OS in patients with PD-L1–positive tumors. Secondary end points included BICR-assessed PFS and OS in all patients; investigator-assessed PFS; objective response rate; and duration of response.

At a minimum follow-up of 68 months, data from the final analysis of JAVELIN Renal 101 demonstrated that patients with PD-L1–positive disease who received the combination (n = 270) achieved a median OS of 43.2 months (95% CI, 36.5-51.7) vs 36.2 months (95% CI, 29.8-44.2) in the sunitinib arm (n = 290; HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.701-1.057; 1-sided P = .0755). The 66-month OS rates were 34.2% (95% CI, 28.4%-40.1%) vs 29.9% (95% CI, 24.5%-35.5%), respectively. The median PFS among patients with PD-L1–positive disease in the arms was 13.9 months (95% CI, 11.0-17.8) vs 8.2 months (95% CI, 6.9-9.1), respectively (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.469-0.697; 1-sided P < .0001). The respective 66-month PFS rates were 12.9% (95% CI, 8.9%-17.6%) vs 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3%-6.1%).

In the overall population, the median OS in the combination arm (n = 442) was 44.8 months (95% CI, 39.7-51.1) vs 38.9 months (95% CI, 31.4-45.2) in the sunitinib arm (n = 444; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.749-1.039; 1-sided P = .0669). The median PFS was 13.9 months (95% CI, 11.1-16.6) vs 8.5 months (95% CI, 8.2-9.7), respectively (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.566-0.769; 1-sided P < .0001).

KIM-1 Shows Utility as Prognostic Biomarker in RCC

To conduct their post hoc analysis, Machaalani and coauthors performed a KIM-1 plasma analysis of evaluable patients in the combination (n = 323) and sunitinib (n = 289) arms of JAVELIN Renal 101.1 KIM-1 levels were measured via the Luminex microbead-based assay and a Meso Scale Discovery electrochemiluminescence-based assay. “We measured KIM-1 at baseline before the start of therapy and then 12 weeks later at [day 1] of cycle 3 of systemic therapy,” Machaalani noted.

In the overall post hoc cohort (n = 612), the median age at therapy initiation was 61 years (IQR, 55-67). Most patients were male (74.5%) and had an ECOG performance status of 0 (55.6%). Patients had International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) favorable- (22.4%), intermediate- (61.6%), or poor-risk (15.4%) disease; 0.6% were not evaluable for IMDC risk status.

Findings from the post hoc analysis showed that in the overall population, patients with low (< median) baseline KIM-1 levels (n = 306) experienced a significant OS benefit compared with those with high (> median) baseline levels (n = 306; P < .0001). A benefit in favor of patients with low baseline KIM-1 was also observed in terms of PFS (P = .0011).

Moreover, patients in the combination arm with low baseline KIM-1 levels (n = 170) experienced a PFS benefit compared with those with high baseline KIM-1 (n = 153; P = .015). This trend was also observed among patients with low (n = 145) and high (n = 144) baseline KIM-1 levels in the sunitinib arm (P = .013).

“KIM-1 [level] at baseline was prognostic for outcomes; higher KIM-1 levels predicted shorter PFS and OS,” Machaalani said. “Excitingly, [we observed that] the change in KIM-1 from baseline to the third cycle of therapy was also predictive of a better response to therapy. [We found that] patients who had a decrease in KIM-1 from baseline to 12 weeks [also] had a better PFS and OS.”

In the overall population, patients with a decrease in KIM-1 from baseline to day 1 of cycle 3 (n = 444) experienced a significant OS benefit compared with those who experienced a KIM-1 increase during the same time frame (n = 168; P = .00058). A benefit in terms of PFS was also observed over the same period in favor of patients whose KIM-1 levels decreased during treatment (P < .0001).

In the combination arm, patients with a decrease in KIM-1 from baseline to day 1 of cycle 3 (n = 257) experienced a significant PFS benefit compared with those whose KIM-1 levels increased (n = 66; P = .00084). A benefit in favor of those with decreased KIM-1 levels (n = 187) vs those with increased levels (n = 102) was also observed in the sunitinib arm (P = .0064).

“Our [data] support earlier findings from previous studies that have shown that there is value for KIM-1 as a prognostic biomarker in metastatic RCC; [however], before any implementation of KIM-1 in the clinical setting, there needs to be prospective validation of our findings,” Machaalani said. “[Additionally], work needs to be done to standardize KIM-1 assays because different studies have used different assays [with some being] microbead-based and others being electroluminescence-based. We need to unify the assays and use one standardized cutoff to better [analyze the] results.”

Machaalani M, Saliby RM, Zhong C, et al. KIM-1 as a circulating biomarker in metastatic RCC: post-hoc analysis of JAVELIN Renal 101. Presented at: OncLive American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium Fellows Forum; February 11, 2025; San Francisco, CA.

FDA approves avelumab plus axitinib for renal cell carcinoma. FDA. Updated May 15, 2019. Accessed May 5, 2025. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-avelumab-plus-axitinib-renal-cell-carcinoma

Choueiri TK, Penkov K, Uemura H, et al. Avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: final analysis of the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial. Ann Oncol. 2025;36(4):387-392. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2024.12.008

Lower baseline levels of kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) correlate with improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients treated with avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib. The JAVELIN Renal 101 trial's post hoc analysis suggests KIM-1's potential as a prognostic biomarker. Patients with decreased KIM-1 levels during treatment showed better outcomes. However, prospective validation and assay standardization are necessary before clinical implementation. The study underscores the importance of KIM-1 in predicting treatment response in metastatic RCC.

A research fellow from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute shares post hoc findings from the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial.

Low KIM-1 Levels Are Associated With Improved Clinical Outcomes in Advanced RCC

During the 2025 American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting, investigators gathered in Chicago, Illinois, to share their most recent findings, which included data from patients with lung and head and neck cancers, as well as novel combination regimens in breast cancer and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). 

“There’s a lot going on. AACR is comprehensive, and we’re talking about not just the basic science or clinical research, but also a lot of other aspects of oncology care,” Herbert H. F. Loong, MBBS, PDipMDPath, MRCP, FRCP Edin, FHKCP, FHKAM (Medicine), FASCO, of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, said in an interview with 

“What I like about going to AACR is getting to hear things that I wouldn’t think about normally, as well as learning from experts about things that are immediately relevant to my work,” Erica Maria Pimenta, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, added in an interview with 

In this article, we recap the most exciting data from the meeting that oncology fellows should know and their potential effect on clinical practice. Our coverage also features commentary from on-site interviews with the expert investigators who participated in the studies, as well as quotes from the data presentations. 

Emerging TKIs Make a Splash in Lung Cancer 

During the AACR Annual Meeting, investigators presented data from multiple notable studies exploring the use of oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the phase 3 ARTS trial (NCT04687241), the third-generation EGFR TKI aumolertinib (Ameile) was compared with placebo as adjuvant treatment following complete tumor resection in patients with stage II to IIIB NSCLC with 

 exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations.

 The primary end point of the study was disease-free survival (DFS) per blinded independent central review (BICR). 

At a median follow-up of 27.6 months, patients who received aumolertinib (n = 106) achieved a median DFS that was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 29.1-not applicable) vs 19.4 months (95% CI, 11.2-26.2) among patients who received placebo (n = 104; HR, 0.166; 95% CI, 0.094-0.294; P < .0001). The 24-month DFS rates were 88.2% and 40.6%, respectively.

 “Aumolertinib was tolerable, suggesting this strategy is suitable for long-term administration as adjuvant therapy,” lead study author Ying Cheng, MD, director of the Jilin Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Centre in Changchun, China, said during a presentation of the data. “[Aumolertinib] offers a practicechanging option for this defined population.” 

The phase 1b Beamion LUNG-1 trial (NCT04886804) evaluated the HER2-selective TKI zongertinib (BI 1810631) in patients with HER2-altered solid tumors, including NSCLC.

 The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1 criteria. Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control rate (DCR). 

“To date, we haven’t been able to [develop] a successful HER2-targeted oral TKI for patients [with NSCLC],” John V. Heymach, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology in the Division of Cancer Medicine at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said in an interview with 

. “Right now, the only option is fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki [T-DXd; Enhertu], which is a HER2[-targeted] antibody- drug conjugate [ADC]. Having an oral option that’s hopefully more effective would be a huge advance for these patients.” 

Findings presented by Heymach during the meeting demonstrated that patients with pretreated NSCLC with tyrosine kinase domain (TKD) mutations in 

 (n = 75) achieved an ORR of 71% (95% CI, 60%-80%), including a complete response (CR) rate of 7%. The DCR was 96%. The median DOR was 14.1 months (95% CI, 6.9-not evaluable [NE]), and the median PFS was 12.4 months (95% CI, 8.2-NE). 

-mutated NSCLC (n = 20), the ORR was 30% (95% CI, 15%-52%) and the DCR was 65% (95% CI, 43%-82%). These respective rates were 48% (95% CI, 32%-65%), with a 3% CR rate, and 97% (95% CI, 84%-99%), respectively, among patients with NSCLC with HER2 TKD mutations who previously received a HER2-directed ADC (n = 31). 

“[Zongertinib] is under priority review for potential FDA approval, and we’ll hear [the result] of that [in the third quarter of 2025] based on the Prescription Drug User Fee Act action date,” Heymach said. “Moving forward, the randomized phase 3 Beamion LUNG-2 trial [NCT06151574] is examining the agent in the first-line setting to see if it can [outperform] chemotherapy, which is still the standard first-line treatment. If so, this would become the [standard] first-line agent for this space.” 

Perioperative Pembrolizumab Bests SOC in Head and Neck Cancers 

In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-689 study (NCT03765918), perioperative treatment with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) plus standard-of-care (SOC) therapy was compared with SOC adjuvant radiotherapy with or without cisplatin in patients with stage III or IVA, locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

 The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS) per RECIST 1.1 criteria per BICR. Secondary end points included major pathological response (mPR), overall survival (OS), and safety. 

“[KEYNOTE-689] employed a novel clinical trial design looking at patients who received immunotherapy before and after surgery,” Ravindra Uppaluri, MD, PhD, the first author of the study, said in an interview with 

. “The premise is that there is a priming of the immune system with all the tumor and lymph nodes intact before surgery, which activates the immune system. Then, giving additional immunotherapy afterward maintains that and helps mop up any minimal residual disease in the adjuvant setting.” 

Uppaluri is the director of head and neck surgical oncology at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, as well as an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts. 

At the July 25, 2024, data cutoff, findings from the first interim analysis of KEYNOTE-689 demonstrated that patients in the pembrolizumab arm (n = 363) achieved a median EFS of 51.8 months (95% CI, 37.5-NR) compared with 30.4 months (95% CI, 21.8-50.1) in the SOC arm (n = 351; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.92; P = .0041). The EFS benefi t with perioperative pembrolizumab was also observed among patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of at least 10; the median EFS was 59.7 months (95% CI, 41.1-NR) vs 26.9 months (95% CI, 18.3-51.5) in the investigational (n = 234) and SOC (n = 231) arms, respectively (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.88; P = .0022). Patients with a PD-L1 CPS of at least 1 in the pembrolizumab (n = 347) and SOC (n = 335) arms achieved a median EFS of 59.7 months (95% CI, 37.9-NR) vs 29.6 (95% CI, 19.5-41.9), respectively (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55- 0.89; P = .0014).

Additional data showed that the median OS among patients with a PD-L1 CPS of at least 10 was NR (95% CI, NR-NR) vs 61.8 months (95% CI, 49.2-NR) in the investigational and SOC arms, respectively (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52- 0.98; P = .02). The mPR rates in the overall population were 9.4% (95% CI, 6.6%-12.8%) and 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0%-1.0%), respectively, for an estimated difference of 9.3% (95% CI, 6.7%-12.8%; P < .00001). 

“The OS data are not statistically significant at this first interim analysis. Additional follow-up is ongoing, [and] we expect that to change [because] the curves are already separating,” Uppaluri said. “The main conclusion is that we believe neoadjuvant pembrolizumab followed by surgery and adjuvant pembrolizumab concurrent with and after postoperative chemoradiation represents a new SOC in the treatment of patients with resectable [HNSCC].” 

Relatlimab Plus Nivolumab and Azacitidine ± Venetoclax Displays Early Efficacy in Frontline AML 

The phase 2 AARON trial (NCT04913922) examined the LAG-3 inhibitor relatlimab in combination with nivolumab (Opdualag) and azacitidine with or without venetoclax (Venclexta) in patients with adverse-risk AML who were not fit for intensive chemotherapy.

Findings from an interim analysis of AARON showed that evaluable patients who received the combination (n = 10) achieved a complete remission rate of 80%, including 1 patient with a blast response; no patients with relapsed/refractory disease (n = 12) achieved a response. The median time to progression in patients with relapsed/refractory AML was 2.3 months and was NR among patients who were treated in the first line. At a median follow-up of 6.8 months, the median OS was 3.5 months and 8.3 months, respectively. 

“Despite sufficient safety of the treatment, [the] enrollment of [patients with] relapsed/refractory AML has been stopped due to moderate activity in that cohort,” study authors wrote in a poster presentation of the data. “[However, azacitidine/venetoclax] plus LAG-3/PD-1 inhibition was safe in [patients with] adverse-risk frontline AML [who were] not fit for intensive chemotherapy and showed promising [early] efficacy.” 

Runimotamab Shows Potential as a Combination Component in HER2+ Breast Cancer 

Runimotamab, a T-cell–engaging bispecific antibody, was evaluated in combination with trastuzumab (Herceptin) in patients with HER2- expressing breast cancer in a phase 1 study (NCT03448042).

 The trial included patients with breast cancer who experienced disease progression following standard treatments with an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. 

“Runimotamab monotherapy was limited by its tolerability and we saw no antitumor activity,” Shanu Modi, MD, attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, said during a presentation of the data. “[However], when combined with trastuzumab, we observed improved tolerability, decreased frequency of cytokine release syndrome [CRS], and a manageable safety profile.” 

The study included patients who were heavily pretreated; the median number of prior lines of therapy in phase 1a was 7, and it was 8 in phase 1b. Despite this, the confirmed ORR across all doses of runimotamab plus trastuzumab was 19% (n = 10/53). Additionally, patients treated with runimotamab at the 20-mg and 60-mg dose level in combination with trastuzumab (n = 23) achieved a confirmed ORR of 30%. 

In terms of safety, 2 dose-limiting toxicities occurred with the combination: one instance each of grade 3 rash and pneumonitis. CRS or infusion-related reactions occurred in 31% of patients. Investigators selected 20 mg/60 mg as the recommended dose of runimotamab for expansion. 

“As we look to future combination strategies, adding a checkpoint inhibitor or a co-stimulatory agent may further enhance the potential antitumor activity of runimotamab and trastuzumab,” Modi concluded.

Cheng Y, Zhang X, Wu L, et al. Aumolertinib as adjuvant therapy in patients with stage II-IIIB EGFR-mutated NSCLC after complete tumor resection: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (ARTS). 

. 2025;85(suppl 2):CT126. doi:10.1158/1538-7445. AM2025-CT126 

Heymach JV, Ruiter G, Ahn MJ, et al. Zongertinib in patients with pretreated HER2-mutant advanced NSCLC: Beamion LUNG-1. Presented at: 2025 American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting; April 25-30, 2025; Chicago, IL. Abstract CT050. 

Uppaluri R, Haddad RI, Tao Y, et al. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab plus standard of care in resectable locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: phase 3 KEYNOTE-689 study. Presented at: 2025 American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting; April 25-30, 2025; Chicago, IL. Abstract CT001. 

Buecklein V, Magno G, Rausch C, et al. AARON: an ongoing open-label phase I/II study of relatlimab (anti-LAG-3) with nivolumab (anti-PD-1) in combination with azacitidine ± venetoclax for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory and non-fit patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia - interim analysis. 

. 2025;85(suppl 2):CT225. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2025-CT225 

Modi S, Yap TA, Tan TJ, et al. Phase 1a/b study of runimotamab, a HER2 x CD3 T cell-engaging bispecific antibody, administered as a single agent and in combination with trastuzumab in patients with HER2- expressing breast cancer (BC). 

. 2025;85(suppl 2):CT204. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2025-CT204

The 2025 AACR Annual Meeting in Chicago showcased significant advancements in oncology, including novel treatments for lung, head and neck, and breast cancers, as well as acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Key findings included the efficacy of aumolertinib as adjuvant therapy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, promising results for zongertinib in HER2-mutant NSCLC, and the potential of perioperative pembrolizumab in head and neck cancers. Additionally, the combination of relatlimab, nivolumab, and azacitidine showed early efficacy in frontline AML, while runimotamab combined with trastuzumab demonstrated potential in HER2+ breast cancer.

Experts in the fields of lung, head and neck, HER2+ breast, and hematologic cancers discuss notable updates for fellows from the 2025 AACR Annual Meeting.

Expert Investigators Highlight Cross-Cancer Updates for Fellows From the 2025 AACR Annual Meeting

Although gender equity issues in oncology education and patient care remain pervasive, fellows are often undereducated in terms of the frequency of these issues and how to address them, according to Ana Velázquez Mañana, MD, MSc. 

Velázquez Mañana coauthored a survey, the results of which were published in the 

. Velázquez Mañana and her coauthors sent an online survey to 171 hematology/oncology fellowship program directors across the US. Survey respondents (n = 56) indicated that they felt training in gender equity issues was somewhat to very important to patient care, at a rate of 69.6%. Notably, they also indicated that this type of training was somewhat to very important to the physician workforce at a high rate (80.4%). 

Despite these responses, the directors mostly indicated that their programs do not provide gender equity training in terms of patient care (83.9%) or the physician workforce (78.6%). The most common reason for not offering these educational programs for oncology fellows was a lack of resources. Respondents were interested in resources for patient (93.9%) and physician (88.6%) gender equity education and were often open to sharing training materials on the subject with physicians (66.7%). 

“Our goal was to understand if there were any types of specific training related to gender differences in patient care and the oncology workforce that were currently being offered to trainees,” Velázquez Mañana said in an interview with 

. “If those were nonexistent, [we wanted to know] if program directors were open to implementing them into the regular training of fellows. [We also wanted to identify] opportunities for synergy and development.” 

Velázquez Mañana is the assistant director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility for Trainees at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, as well as an assistant clinical professor of medicine at UCSF. In the interview, Velázquez Mañana discussed the far-reaching effects of gender equity issues in cancer care, the significance of the findings of the survey she coauthored, and how the field can move forward in a more equitable direction for all individuals regardless of gender. 

How does a lack of gender equity affect cancer care from a patient and provider perspective? 

: Gender equity affects multiple aspects of oncology, one being patient care, [which includes] the experiences of our female patients getting access to care, their needs that may be different from their male counterparts, and the potential toxicities they may experience when receiving cancer care. Research is another aspect that is affected. For example, fertility preservation for younger [female] patients and the toxicities of some of our newer drugs, such as immunotherapies and targeted therapies, are often understudied [in women]. Women are also more likely to not enroll in clinical studies for reasons that are unclear. 

In terms of the workforce in oncology, there’s been an increasing trend of representation of women, [but] we’re still not at parity. There have [also] been increasing trends of inclusion of women in medical schools [as well as in] different medical subspecialties, [but] oncology is not one in which there are many women compared with some of the others. Across academic medicine in general, women tend to [experience] disparities in salaries, promotions, and leadership positions. 

Are there any ongoing efforts to address these gender equity issues in oncology? 

At the medical society level, the American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO] has the Women’s Networking Center, which usually takes place during the ASCO Annual Meeting, and has a group of women leaders who organize fundraising through the Conquer Cancer foundation to develop investigators who are women. Those efforts are important for us to advance the education and growth of female investigators. But [efforts such as these] can always be expanded to focus not only on early career [investigators] but also on those who are arriving at their faculty positions. How do we ensure that women are able to continue their research goals through their mid-career stages and achieve professional and leadership positions so they can keep mentoring younger women? 

On the fellowship level, there are fewer national programs. The American Society of Hematology had a mentorship program for women [that it] piloted [in 2021] called the Blood Sisters Project. But [overall], there is less of a nationwide proposition of trying to integrate the career development of women, besides [through] young investigator awards. 

In my institution, we’ve had a Women in Hematology/Oncology group over the years and there’s been women’s leadership development across all graduate medical education that focuses on trainees to provide them with leadership, development, and negotiation skills. [These initiatives help with] finding a job and how to process [events such as] having a family during training.

There [are still] a lot of areas where we can build more resources in those aspects. [For example], in my institution, there are certain resources [available] and at another there may be different ones. Usually, the ability for institutions to create these kinds of programs will depend on their size and whether they have faculty who are invested. If there are opportunities [available] for creating networks or partnerships, that may lead to more individuals approaching them [to access these resources]. 

What were the key findings of your survey? 

[Our findings] were based on the self-reported experiences of the program directors who are leading the education and training of fellows. We found that there were very few institutions that had anything currently implemented [in terms of] gender equity [training], even though they thought that it was important, particularly [since] it affects how trainees [provide] good care for patients. [These data] help us to know that there is a need and an appetite for developing more resources for the career development and education of fellows, as well as the potential for partnerships with groups that are focused on medical education in gender equity. 

How can these findings be used to inform future efforts to implement gender equity training programs into oncology fellowships?

The most important part is [that these findings] will hopefully lead to the development of partnerships across medical educators and institutions so that we can develop and test the use of some gender equity–focused curricula. 

There are other investigators, including Ariela L. Marshall, MD, who is the senior author of the article [in the 

], who are very invested in medical education in gender equity and are looking to continue to build these efforts and curricula. 

At my institution, we have performed studies, surveys, and interviews with women at the faculty level to try to understand their experiences and [identify] areas where we can create support. We have been piloting programs that [include] one-on-one coaching to ensure that [female investigators] have the tools they need to continue to grow during their [career] transition. I believe there is a lot of room to create similar programs for the transition from fellowship training to faculty, as many trainees do not necessarily have the tools for negotiation or the ability to identify their goals. Piloting some of those [programs] and developing toolkits that can be easily adopted across different programs are interesting next steps [for gender equity training]. 

Hum CE, Velazquez AI, Marshall AL. Gender equity education in oncology: a survey study of hematology-oncology fellowship program directors. 

. Published online February 18, 2025. doi:10.1007/s13187-025-02591-5 

Ana Velázquez Mañana, MD, MSc, discusses survey findings that revealed gender equity training for oncology fellows is often lacking.

Oncology Fellowship Often Fails to Include Training in Gender Equity Issues

I do and do not envy today’s learner. As I was completing my quarterly questions for the American Board of Internal Medicine’s Maintaining Certification program, I was struck by how much has changed since I finished my fellowship in 2001. At that time, paclitaxel was the big discovery, and non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment was anchored in how best to rearrange the traditional chemotherapy deck chairs. To be fair, that was an important and groundbreaking study that set the standard for how we treated NSCLC at that time. But the field has rapidly progressed. Now, we have immunotherapy and molecularly targeted agents (and further sub-targeted therapy), among others. And don’t even get me started on the hematologic malignancies. I trained in the days of melphalan and prednisone for multiple myeloma. Look how far we have come! 

These discoveries are tremendous news for our patients. However, as a learner and the steward of such advances, the oncologist is responsible for knowing and applying the data. I envy the ability to offer treatments that were not available before, to provide greater hope based on data. To stay afloat, I had to figure out what my learning style is as an adult learner. Unless you went to an educationally progressive kindergarten through 12th grade and college programs, the approach to learning is generally one-size- fits-all. Maybe that worked when the volume of new information was limited. But the amount of hematology/oncology-related data we encounter and the speed at which we encounter them is truly unprecedented. Moreover, the ability to assimilate and apply the huge amount of data in real time remains paramount as lives are dependent on our ability to be educationally facile.

Adult learning theory is a framework that explains how adults learn differently from children.

 It emphasizes self-directed learning, experience-based instruction, and the intrinsic motivation that drives adults to learn. It recognizes that adults bring a wealth of experience to the learning process and are motivated by practical, problem-solving needs. 

Key Principles of Adult Learning Theory: 

Adults prefer to take ownership of their learning, setting their own goals and identifying their learning needs. 

Adults learn best when they can relate new information to their previous experiences and apply it to real-world situations. 

Adults are motivated by learning things that are directly relevant to their lives and work, and they prefer to learn skills they can immediately use.

Adults are more likely to engage in learning when they are internally motivated to do so, such as by a genuine need to know or a desire for personal or professional growth. 

Adults are motivated to learn when they perceive a need for new information or skills directly relevant to their current life circumstances or goals. 

Adults tend to be task-oriented or problem-centered in their approach to learning, focusing on applying knowledge to real-world situations. 

Here is how adult learning plays out in my life. 

1. I do not learn from lecture-style presentations. Throughout my life, learning occurred from the experience of taking notes or using a highlighter to underline key items in textbooks. I am a visual learner and linking a highlighted color or my notes’ handwriting allows me to visualize the material in a way that is different from how it is presented. I am not a podcast or audiobook person. My attention span is too short, and audio is clearly not visual. 

2. I remember the learning associated with cases. When I am in the clinic and need to look something up, I will use a web-based review platform. This is fast and provides the data, but it also provides key references. To link the new data with the clinical scenario, I will read the key paper from the references section on my own time. Then, the new knowledge is linked to a case, and I will remember this for the next patient I see. 

3. My intrinsic motivation remains at the forefront of my learning. When I am burned out, I have to remember why I do this. My motivation is to improve the survival and quality of life for patients with cancer. Lifelong learning is a pact with our patients. How do you learn? Although a hematology/oncology fellowship program teaches a particular method, adult learning means you can adapt the current format to your learning style. Use insights and reflection to identify what types of tools have helped you over your lifetime of learning. 

1. O’Neill E. What is adult learning theory? LearnUpon Blog. Accessed May 6, 2025. bit.ly/4jL9NXw

Jill Gilbert, MD, discusses how principles of adult learning theory can be applied to hematology/oncology fellowship.

Vol. 17/No. 2 | Oncology Fellows

Attention to Detail and Patience Are Key in the Job Search Process as Oncology Fellows

An Oncology Fellow Reflects on End-of-Life Patient Care

Low KIM-1 Levels Are Associated With Improved Clinical Outcomes in Advanced RCC

Expert Investigators Highlight Cross-Cancer Updates for Fellows From the 2025 AACR Annual Meeting

Oncology Fellowship Often Fails to Include Training in Gender Equity Issues

Using Self-Directed Learning to Combat Information Overload in Oncology Fellowship