OncologyLive® is the flagship publication of OncLive®. Each issue delivers expert insights and clinical oncology news and updates, which impact the day-to-day clinical practice of oncology professionals who work tirelessly to help improve patient outcomes.

In an era of timely technological advances, manual reviews of health records will soon be history, as large language models (LLMs)—a type of artificial intelligence program—emerge in clinical landscapes. To address this evolution, investigators utilized natural language processing (NLP) to filter through electronic medical records (EMRs) and quickly provide deeper insights into symptoms and the related burden in patients with indolent systemic mastocytosis (ISM).

“There are millions of clinical records that we have in our own institutional EMR. To manually mine those records takes a longer amount of time while trying to go beyond just using 

] codes, which can be relatively limiting, and you may lose a lot of information,” Thanai Pongdee, MD, codirector of the Population Health Research Program at Mayo Clinic Health System (MCHS) in Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview with 

 codes or more structured [information] that may be somewhat searchable, [as we] capture all of the data that are available, [we used] an NLP model to assess all of the records in an automated fashion. The model is constructed in a way to [identify] patients with ISM without having to manually [search through] thousands upon thousands of records.”

Following the 2025 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/World Allergy Organization Joint Congress, 

 spoke with Pongdee to discuss the implications of using their NLP model, its role in streamlining processes within the clinical setting, and the data from the study of the model that were presented during the meeting.

Traditional statistical methods could still be effective in collecting patient-reported data; however, the use of LLMs could replace manual efforts, notably because of their generalizability.

 The adoption of LLMs could further revolutionize telemedicine, particularly as it relates to provider workflows without missing important patient-reported data, such as symptoms.

In a matched, retrospective, cohort study, Pongdee and his coinvestigators attained deidentified data from patients with ISM between January 1, 2005, and June 30, 2023, from the Mayo Clinic EMR database from all of its sites in the US, including in Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida, and other MCHS sites in Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin.

 Patient demographics, diagnostic workup for ISM, symptoms, comorbidities, health care resource use, and medication use were assessed.

Data from 203 patients in the final ISM cohort were included, and 2030 matched control patients were also included, with a propensity score matched 10 to 1 based on characteristics including race, ethnicity, sex, age at index, Quan-Charlson Comorbidity Index score, body mass index at index, and smoking status. Furthermore, the investigators curated the structured EMR data and used the NLP to review unstructured clinical notes. 

“We looked at all records available since 2005, when the EMR [went] online throughout the Mayo Clinic, and based on codes, and using the NLP, we narrowed that funnel until we identified 931 patients with ISM,” Pongdee explained. “We wanted to capture individual patients who had been seen [recently] so we could more carefully look at the disease burden.”

Among patients from the final ISM cohort, the mean age was 51.4 years, the majority were female (66.5%), and the mean follow-up time was 4.4 years.

 Race/ethnicity included White (93%); Black, Asian, other, or unknown (7%); and Hispanic or Latino (5%). Sites of diagnosis included Minnesota (41%), Arizona (29%), Florida (12%), and other MCHS sites (6%). The index of diagnosis years included 2005-2016 (20%), 2017 (8%), 2018 (19%), 2019 (16%), 2020 (10%), 2021 (17%), and 2022 (10%). Notably, the mean number of distinct symptoms reported at baseline and follow-up was 10.6 and 13.3, respectively. The prevalence of most reported symptoms during the 6-month baseline included allergic reaction (58%), lymphadenopathy (57%), diarrhea (54%), dyspnea (53%), nausea (53%), fatigue (52%), and dermatologic symptoms (66%), including angioedema, flushing, cutaneous mastocytosis, pruritus, and urticaria. 

In patients with a real-world diagnosis of ISM, 66% received a biopsy of any type, with 40%, 41%, 50%, 5%, and 4% of patients receiving skin, bone marrow, gastrointestinal, lymph node, and liver biopsies, respectively. Of note, 68% of patients received 

 detection. The percentages of patients with 0, 1, 2 to 3, 4 to 5, and 6 to 8 additional comorbidities were 3%, 10%, 51%, 27%, and 9%, respectively. Investigators noted that although there is mixed methodology with structured EMR data and NLP, specific information regarding testing and diagnostic workup that occurred outside of the Mayo Clinic system may not be included in clinical notes.

NLP Efficiently Collects Varied Data Elements

Data from the study demonstrated that the machine learning technology efficiently collected more varied data elements compared with the traditional manual approach, as it pulled additional data and context. The use of NLP also helped create comprehensive clinical encounter notes with data labels.

Data associated with specified comorbid conditions in patients from the ISM and control cohorts—determined with the help of NLP—revealed 9 common conditions, including osteoporosis/osteopenia (ISM, 67%; control, 34%), diabetes (50%; 36%), obesity (50%; 38%), irritable bowel syndrome (32%; 12%), high cholesterol (24%; 12%), cutaneous mastocytosis (24%; 2%), high blood pressure (23%; 13%), heart attack (17%; 8%), and coronary artery disease (6%; 3%). The proportion of patients from both cohorts with specified allergies included food (24%; 7%), environmental (9%; 5%), drug allergies (8%; 4%), stinging insect (7%; 1%), latex (7%; 3%), radiocontrast (5%; 1%), dander/ pets (3%; 1%), and venom (< 1%; < 1%). Investigators noted that patients with ISM are more likely to have food and stinging insect allergies.

Regarding health care resources and medication use, investigators found that patients with ISM had significantly higher rates of both health care resource and medication use compared with those in the control cohort. Specifically, the use of health care resources, measured by the mean number of visits to a health care center per year, included outpatient (ISM, 7.5; control, 2.1), emergency department (1.0; 0.5), inpatient (2.5; 1.3), and critical care (0.8; 0.5). Moreover, all-time medication use in the respective cohorts included H1 antihistamines (96%; 57%), corticosteroids (89%; 61%), H2 antihistamines (83%; 26%), epinephrine (78%; 19%), leukotriene modulators (70%; 10%), aspirin (66%; 41%), proton pump inhibitors (63%; 42%), anticoagulants (56%; 39%), and cromolyn (45%; 0%). 

“The model performed quite well. It was much more time efficient to query all of the symptoms that it could see. It took a global view and evaluated all the symptoms that were reported in the EMR, and was able to compile that [information] well,” Pongdee said. “Going through that individually would have taken quite some time, along with looking at lab results, procedures, several outpatient visits, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and comorbid factors. It did this in an automated fashion and was a powerful way to look at the health records.”

Pongdee T, Powell D, Weis T, et al. Assessing real-world natural history of indolent systemic mastocytosis: retrospective matched cohort study from Mayo Clinic Electronic Health Records. 

. 2025;155(suppl 2):AB312. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2024.12.960

Clay B, Bergman HI, Salim S, Pergola G, Shalhoub J, Davies AH. Natural language processing techniques applied to the electronic health record in clinical research and practice – an introduction to methodologies. Comput Biol Med. 2025:188:109808. doi:10.1016/j. compbiomed.2025.109808

Articles

The integration of large language models (LLMs) and natural language processing (NLP) in clinical settings is transforming the analysis of electronic medical records (EMRs), particularly for conditions like indolent systemic mastocytosis (ISM). By automating data extraction, NLP models provide comprehensive insights into patient symptoms and disease burden, surpassing traditional manual methods. A study at Mayo Clinic demonstrated the efficacy of NLP in identifying ISM patients and analyzing their health data, revealing significant differences in comorbidities, healthcare resource utilization, and medication use compared to control groups.

Oncology Business Management 

Natural language processing models could help streamline processes within clinical settings. 

Natural Language Processing Streamlines Clinical Encounter Note Collection in Indolent Systemic Mastocytosis

Due to its amplification in approximately 12% to 15% of patients with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer and ability to repress ER gene transcription, thereby overcoming 

-mediated resistance to endocrine therapy, KAT6 had garnered attention as a therapeutic target of interest in the space.

“KAT6 is a histone [lysine] acetyltransferase complex,” Sarah Naomi Olsen, PhD, an instructor in pediatrics at Boston Children’s Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Massachusetts, said in an interview with 

. “There is KAT6A as well as its paralog KAT6B. In [patients with] breast cancer, KAT6A is a part of a recurrent chromosomal amplification in chromosome 8. It is amplified in 10% to 15% of patients with ER-positive breast cancer. Due to [this prevalence], there has been a lot of therapeutic develop- ment around targeting KAT6.”

KAT6-Directed Agent Development Is Underway in ER+/HER2– Breast Cancer 

The KAT6-targeted agent furthest along in clinical development is PF-07248144. PF-07248144 is a first-in-class, potent, selective inhibitor of KAT6A and KAT6B that has displayed the ability to suppress ER expression in preclinical study.

 The agent also demonstrated potent antitumor activity in ER-positive, HER2-negative patient-derived xenograft models pretreated with palbociclib (Ibrance) and letrozole (Femara).

PF-07248144 was examined as monotherapy in patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast, castration-resistant prostate, or non–small cell lung cancer in part 1A of a phase 1 study (NCT04606446). Data from part 1A led investigators to select 5 mg once daily as the recommended expansion dose of PF-07248144.

Part 1B of the dose escalation portion of the trial enrolled patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who experienced disease progression following treatment with at least 1 CDK4/6 inhibitor and 1 endocrine therapy.

 Eligible patients also needed to be at least aged 18 years and have an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 and adequate bone marrow, renal, and liver function.

Patients received PF-07248144 at the recommended expansion dose in combination with 500 mg of fulvestrant (Faslodex). The primary objective was safety and tolerability; secondary objectives included antitumor activity per RECIST 1.1 criteria and assessment of pharmacokinetics.

At the April 30, 2024, data cutoff, with a median follow-up of 16.4 months, updated find- ings presented during the 2024 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium showed that efficacy- evaluable patients who received the combination in parts 1B and 2B (n = 43) achieved an objective response rate (ORR) of 37.2% (95% CI, 23.0%- 53.3%). Additionally, the clinical benefit rate was 55.8% (95% CI, 39.9%-70.9%), and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.7 months (95% CI, 5.3-13.8). The median duration of response was not reached (95% CI, 7.2-not evaluable [NE]).

Among patients treated in the second line (n = 23), the ORR was 30.4% (95% CI, 13.2%- 52.9%) and the median PFS was 13.8 months (95% CI, 3.5-NE). These values for patients treated in the third line of therapy (n = 20) were 45.0% (95% CI, 23.1%- 68.5%) and 10.7 months (95% CI, 5.5-13.7), respectively.

The ORR and median PFS for patients with primary endocrine resistance (n = 7) were 57.1% (95% CI, 18.4%-90.1%) and not applicable due to the small sample size, respectively. Among patients with secondary endocrine resistance (n = 36), these values were 33.3% (95% CI, 18.6%-51.0%) and 10.8 months (95% CI, 3.7-16.5), respectively. Patients who received prior fulvestrant (n = 5) achieved an ORR of 60.0% (95% CI, 14.7%-94.7%); PFS data were not reported for these patients. Those without previous fulvestrant use (n = 38) experienced an ORR of 34.2% (95% CI, 19.6%-51.4%) and a median PFS of 7.5 months (95% CI, 3.7-13.8).

Patients who received prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment for less than 12 months (n = 10) had an ORR of 40.0% (95% CI, 12.2%-73.8%) and a median PFS of 7.4 months (95% CI, 3.5-NE). Those who received a CDK4/6 inhibitor for more than 12 months (n = 33) experienced an ORR of 36.4% (95% CI, 20.4%-54.9%) and a median PFS of 10.9 months (95% CI, 3.7-16.5).

Notably, antitumor activity was reported with the combination regardless of disease mutational status (

 The highest ORR was reported in patients with 

 wild-type disease (n = 23) at 43.5% (95% CI, 23.2%-65.5%). The median PFS in this subgroup was 13.7 months (95% CI, 5.6-NE).

In terms of safety in parts 1B and 2B, any-grade treatment-related adverse effects (TRAEs) occurred in all patients; grade 3 or higher TRAEs were reported in 62.8% of patients. The most frequent any-grade TRAEs occurring in at least 20% of patients included dysgeusia (83.7%), neutropenia (65.1%), and anemia (44.2%). No febrile neutropenia or grade 5 TRAEs were reported.

The study authors concluded that their findings suggested treatment with PF-07248144 may be able to overcome endocrine and CDK4/6 inhibitor resistance in patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. In May 2025, Arvinas announced that a cohort examining PF-07248144 in combination with the investigational, oral proteolysis-targeting chimera ER degrader vepdegestrant (ARV-471) would be added to the phase 1 study.

“These phase 1 [efficacy] data look quite promising, [however], although some patients responded well, there were no complete responses with [PF-07248144] even when given in [combination] with fulvestrant,” Olsen noted. “Many patients responded much more modestly. These findings prompted [my group] to [examine] if we could identify cooperating vulnerabilities that would enhance the effects of KAT6 inhibition in these patients.”

Enhancing KAT6 Inhibitor Efficacy Via Additional Combination Approaches

During the 2025 American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting, Olsen presented findings from a preclinical study she coauthored that sought to identify additional combination partners for KAT6 inhibition for the treatment of patients with ER-positive breast cancer.

 Olsen and her coauthors used CRISPR-based codependency mapping of ER-positive breast cancer cells to identify the transcriptional hub of KAT6A and screen for chromatin-associated proteins that could augment the effects of KAT6 inhibition. The study authors identified MEN1, which encodes for menin, as a potential sensitizer to treatment with KAT6 inhibitors.

“Menin is a well-studied gene in the context of leukemia, but it is much less well studied in the context of solid tumors, including breast cancer,” Olsen said. “Menin inhibitors have shown significant anti-leukemic activity in clinical trials with modest toxicity profiles. Due [to this], we were excited about the potential of combining menin inhibition with KAT6 inhibition [in breast cancer models] to further enhance antitumor activity.”

Data from the preclinical study revealed that KAT6A and menin-KMT2A cooperatively regulate ER-driven genes. Menin and KAT6A also regulated estrogen-induced gene expression and ER chromatin binding; MEN1 loss was shown to sensitize cells to KAT6 inhibition. Additionally, KAT6A, KAT6B, and menin inhibition were found to be cooperative in multiple models of ER-positive breast cancer, including 

-mutated patient-derived xenograft models. The study authors concluded that the combination of KAT6 and menin inhibitors could represent a novel approach for the treatment of patients with ER-positive breast cancer and underscored that agents in both classes have displayed manageable toxicity profiles to date.

“Ideally, we want to test this combination approach in clinical trials eventually,” Olsen said. “We are currently working on expanding our preclinical models to include more patient-derived xenograft models and to test this combination more broadly, especially in the ER-resistant [disease] context.”

Mukohara T, LoRusso PM, Sommerhalder D, et al. PF 07248144 a first in class KAT6 inhibitor in patients with HR HER2 metastatic breast cancer: updated results from phase 1 dose expansion study. Presented at: 2024 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; December 10-13, 2024; San Antonio, TX. Abstract P4-04-28.

Mukohara T, Park YH, Sommerhalder D, et al. A phase 1 dose expansion study of a first-in-class KAT6 inhibitor (PF-07248144) in patients with advanced or metastatic ER+ HER2− breast cancer. 

. 2024;42(suppl 16):3006. doi:10.1200/ JCO.2024.42.16_suppl.3006

Arvinas reports first quarter 2025 financial results and provides corporate update. News release. Arvinas. May 1, 2025. Accessed May 8, 2025. https://ir.arvinas.com/news-releases/news-release-details/arvinas-reports-first-quarter-2025-financial-results-and

Olsen SN, Anderson B, Hatton C, et al. Combined inhibition of KAT6 and menin reverses estrogen receptor-driven gene expression programs in breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2025;85(suppl 1):1181. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2025-1181

KAT6, a histone acetyltransferase complex, is amplified in 10-15% of ER-positive breast cancer patients, making it a promising therapeutic target. PF-07248144, a KAT6 inhibitor, has shown efficacy in preclinical and phase 1 trials, particularly in combination with fulvestrant, achieving a 37.2% objective response rate. Safety concerns include high rates of treatment-related adverse effects. Preclinical studies suggest that combining KAT6 inhibitors with menin inhibitors could enhance antitumor activity, offering a novel approach for treating ER-positive breast cancer, especially in resistant cases.

Pathways

PF-07248144 is a first-in-class selective inhibitor of KAT6A and KAT6B that has displayed the ability to suppress ER expression in a preclinical study.

KAT6 Inhibition Shows Path to Overcoming Resistance Mechanisms in ER+ Breast Cancer

Following the September 2024 FDA approval of osimertinib (Tagrisso) in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), investigators have been pursuing the development of combination approaches using the addition of a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and other targeted therapeutics to safely enhance treatment regimens and improve outcomes for patients.

“One of the research areas I’m most interested in is developing immune-based approaches for mutations that are traditionally viewed as more immune resistant, such as 

 subtypes,” Sandip P. Patel, MD,
a professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of California San Diego Health, said in an interview with OncologyLive. “Better understanding how we can harness [a patient’s] immune system to address their tumor type is something that we are a little further along in for smoking-related cancers, but there’s no reason never smoking–related tumors can’t be sensitive to different immune approaches as well. I’m very keen on developing novel immunotherapeutics to help this patient population.”

Osimertinib was examined as monotherapy following chemoradiation in adult patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage III NSCLC with 

 exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R mutations in the phase 3 LAURA trial (NCT03521154).

 During the 2025 European Lung Cancer Congress (ELCC), updated overall survival (OS) data from LAURA demonstrated that patients who received osimertinib (n = 143) experienced a median OS of 58.8 months (95% CI, 54.1-not calculable [NC]) compared with 54.0 months (95% CI, 42.1-NC) among patients who received placebo (n = 73; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.40- 1.14; log-rank P = .140). The 48-month OS rates were 70% and 52%, respectively.

Prior data from LAURA supported the September 2024 FDA approval of osimertinib for the treatment of patients with locally advanced, unresectable NSCLC with 

 exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R mutations whose disease has not progressed during or following concurrent or sequential platinum-based chemoradiation therapy.

EGFR-Targeted Combinations Display Efficacy in NSCLC 

In the ongoing phase 2 ORCHARD study (NCT03944772), osimertinib is being evaluated in combination with multiple agents for the treatment of patients with 

-mutated NSCLC who experienced disease progression on frontline osimertinib.

During ELCC, investigators presented updated findings from an arm of ORCHARD that is examining osimertinib in combination with datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd; Datroway). The primary end point of the trial is investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1 criteria; key secondary end points include progression-free survival (PFS), OS, duration of response, and safety. 

"One area [where] we’ve made advances in NSCLC, particularly adenocarcinoma, has been around the use of precision oncology techniques in molecularly defined cohorts,” Patel noted. “One of the most common [alterations] is 

, for which we now have 3 reasonable frontline therapeutic options for patients. Unfortunately, patients can develop therapeutic resistance, so the idea of using similar precision approaches to address their targetable resistance has been an area of active interest. One study that has looked at this [approach] is ORCHARD.” 

At a median follow-up of 13.4 months, patients who received osimertinib plus Dato-DXd at a dose of 4 mg/kg (n = 35) achieved a median PFS of 9.5 months (95% CI, 7.2-9.8) and those who received osimertinib with 6 mg/kg of Dato-DXd (n = 33) experienced a median PFS of 11.7 months (95% CI, 8.3-not calculable). The ORRs were 43% (80% CI, 31%-55%) and 36% (80% CI, 25%-49%), respectively, and the median times to onset of response were 2.7 months (range, 1.5-4.1) and 1.4 months (range, 1.2-2.1), respectively. 

In terms of safety, patients who received 4 mg/kg or 6 mg/kg (n = 34) of Dato-DXd experienced treatment-related adverse effects (TRAEs) at a rate of 97%. Grade 3 or higher TRAEs (34% vs 56%, respectively), grade 3 or higher AEs (49% vs 74%), and serious AEs (31% vs 41%) were reported in both arms. One patient in the 4-mg/kg group experienced an AE leading to death. 

The most common any-grade AEs in the 4-mg/kg group included nausea (57%), alopecia (51%), and stomatitis (51%). In the 6-mg/kg group, the most common any-grade AEs included nausea (74%), alopecia (68%), stomatitis (56%), cough (53%), and vomiting (50%).

Osimertinib is being further examined with and without Dato-DXd in the ongoing phase 3 TROPION-Lung14 (NCT06350097) and TROPION-Lung15 (NCT06417814) studies.

 TROPION-Lung14 is comparing osimertinib in combination with Dato-DXd with osimertinib monotherapy in patients with treatment-naive locally advanced or metastatic 

-mutated nonsquamous NSCLC. In TROPION-Lung15 Dato-DXd with or without osimertinib is being examined vs platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic 

-mutated nonsquamous NSCLC who experienced disease progression on prior treatment with osimertinib. 

“There are multiple other studies that are looking at [approaches to overcome frontline treatment] resistance,” Patel noted. “There are a variety of studies in progress, which will hopefully increase the number of therapeutic opportunities for our patients who have resistance to frontline EGFR-directed strategies in NSCLC.” 

-mutated NSCLC was evaluated in the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial (NCT04487080).

 MARIPOSA compared the EGFR/MET bispecific antibody amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant) plus the EGFR TKI lazertinib (Lazcluze) with lazertinib or osimertinib monotherapy in patients with treatment-naive 

At a median follow-up of 37.8 months, data from the final OS analysis of MARIPOSA presented during ELCC 2025 demonstrated that patients who received amivantamab plus lazertinib (n = 429) achieved a median OS that was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 42.9-NR) compared with 36.7 months (95% CI, 33.4-41.0) among patients who received osimertinib (n = 429; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; 

 < .005). The 42-month OS rates were 56% and 44%, respectively. Additionally, the median intracranial PFS was 25.4 months (95% CI, 20.1-29.5) vs 22.2 months (95% CI, 18.4-26.9), respectively (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.02; 

Prior findings from MARIPOSA supported the August 2024 FDA approval of lazertinib plus amivantamab for the frontline treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC harboring 

 exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations.

“The [MARIPOSA] regimen makes sense for patients who want to maximize their antitumor benefit [and who] understand the toxicities, particularly gastrointestinal and skin toxicities, that could develop with the use of this therapeutic combination, as well as the amount of time that coming into the infusion center takes vs taking a pill,” Patel said. “It’s an important discussion to have with our patients around what I consider the 3 frontline regimens, which are the standards of care [SOC]: amivantamab plus lazertinib; chemotherapy plus osimertinib; or osimertinib alone. [Osimertinib monotherapy] is for patients who want to maximize quality of life with an oral-only regimen. These 3 [options] represent the SOC, with amivantamab plus lazertinib having an OS benefit at the cost of [increased] toxicity.”

Investigators Gather at ILCC to Further Discuss Combination Approaches and More

 International Lung Cancer Congress® (ILCC) hosted by Physicians’ Education Resource®, LLC, with Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, and Heather A. Wakelee, MD, FASCO, in July 2025. Investigators from across the field of lung cancer convened to further discuss the development of combination approaches in the space.

In advance of the event, Patel said he expected to see “a continued emphasis on the appropriate use of precision therapeutics in the correct setting, meaning those patients with 

 mutations get EGFR-directed therapy and those patients with 

 mutations will often get immunotherapy up front. [We are] thinking about how we can best use immunologic approaches in the curative-intent setting and increasing the number of patients with the opportunity to receive neoadjuvant or perioperative chemoimmunotherapy to maximize our cure rates for these patients, which fundamentally requires us to improve our low-dose CT screening rates for former smokers or those who’ve recently quit.”

FDA approves osimertinib for locally advanced, unresectable (stage III) non-small cell lung cancer following chemoradiation therapy. FDA. September 25, 2024. Accessed April 17, 2025. bit.ly/3RTKZQF

Ramalingam SS, Ozguroglu M, Ahn MJ, et al. Osimertinib (osi) after definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients (pts) with unresectable (UR) stage III EGFR-mutated (EGFRm) non-
small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): updated overall survival (OS) analysis from the LAURA study. 

. 2025;20(suppl 1):S123-S124. doi:10.1016/S1556-0864(25)00379-X

Le X, Hendriks L, Morabito A, et al. Osimertinib (osi)+ datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) in patients (pts) with 

-mutated (EGFRm) advanced NSCLC (aNSCLC) whose disease progressed on first-line (1L) osi: ORCHARD. 

. 2025;20(suppl 1):S2-S4. doi:10.1016/S1556-0864(25)00196-0

Three phase 3 trials of datopotamab deruxtecan-based combinations initiated in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. News release. Daiichi-Sankyo. October 30, 2024. Accessed April 21, 2025. bit.ly/3GkKzQX

Yang JCH, Kim YJ, Lee SH, et al. Amivantamab plus lazertinib vs osimertinib in first-line (1L) 

-mutant (EGFRm) advanced NSCLC: final overall survival (OS) from the phase III MARIPOSA study. 

. 2025;20(suppl 1):S6-S8. doi:10.1016/ S1556-0864(25)00199-6

FDA approves lazertinib with amivantamab-vmjw for non-small lung cancer. FDA. Updated August 20, 2024. Accessed April 21, 2025. bit.ly/3Y5PP0P

 International Lung Cancer Congress. Physicians’ Education Resource, LLC. Accessed April 17, 2025. bit.ly/4lC4H14

The development of combination therapies involving osimertinib and other targeted agents is advancing treatment for EGFR-mutated NSCLC. The LAURA trial demonstrated improved overall survival with osimertinib monotherapy post-chemoradiation. The ORCHARD study is exploring osimertinib with datopotamab deruxtecan, showing promising progression-free survival and response rates. The MARIPOSA trial highlighted the efficacy of amivantamab plus lazertinib, offering an overall survival benefit over osimertinib monotherapy. These studies underscore the importance of precision oncology in overcoming resistance and optimizing treatment strategies for NSCLC patients.

Sandip P. Patel, MD, discusses targeted therapy combination regimens in EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

ADC-, Bispecific Antibody–Based Therapies Help Build a New Treatment Paradigm in EGFR+ NSCLC

Although allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) represents a potentially curative treatment option for patients with certain hematologic malignancies, the development of graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) remains a significant risk. During the 51st Annual Meeting of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT), expert investigators from around the world gathered to share their findings from studies examining approaches to optimizing allo-HSCT and preventing GVHD, including posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) and Orca-T.

“It seems that transplantation is becoming more tolerable as the years go on,” Arpita Gandhi, MD, MS, said. “There’s more work to be done, but it’s time to share this wealth of knowledge with our referring colleagues. Transplantation is tolerable, and it’s becoming more tolerable with novel approaches. I believe it’s time to take on the challenges of the difficult, refractory, and active diseases.”

 Peer Exchange filmed during EBMT, a panel of expert hematologists and transplantation specialists gathered to discuss the present landscape of allo-HSCT in patients with hematologic malignancies, current and emerging approaches for GVHD prophylaxis, and the potential effects of notable data presented during the meeting.

Determining the Right Patients for Allo-HSCT and GVHD Prophylaxis Strategies

The panelists opened their conversation by briefly outlining their approach to selecting patients for allo-HSCT, including in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

“[In patients with] AML, we look into genetic risk factors and focus on the intermediate- and adverse-risk groups per European LeukemiaNet [ELN] classification,” Nelli Bejanyan, MD, said. “The updated version has more molecular features that were added, [which] define the adverse-risk patients. In patients with favorable-risk disease, we consider allo-HSCT if they are positive for minimal residual disease [MRD] post first consolidation or in their second complete remission [CR]; otherwise they do not have curative potential with allo-HSCT. In patients with intermediate-risk disease, allo-HSCT [had] a long-term survival benefit of [approximately] 50% and curative [potential]. In [patients with] adverserisk disease, the [survival benefit] is approximately 40% based on Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research [CIBMTR] data.”

According to the 2024 ELN genetic risk classifications, adult patients with AML with favorable-risk disease harbor mutations in 

 or have disease with other cytogenetic and/or molecular abnormalities. Those in the intermediate-risk group have disease that is positive for internal tandem duplications of the FLT3 gene, 

 mutations are classified as having adverse-risk disease.

 In patients with MDS, the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System can help hematologists with risk stratification by incorporating molecular and cytogenetic characteristics, noted Everett Meyer, MD, PhD. “We [consider] the risk stratification [factors], focusing on [patients with] intermediate- to high-risk [disease] to move to transplantation. There are also many clinically based factors to consider, [such as] how much their cytopenia is affecting them, fatigue, recurrent infections, bleeding risk, and transfusion requirements. By and large, [patients with] MDS are very underserved. It’s estimated that only [approximately] 20% of patients who could be eligible for transplant and benefit from it eventually get to transplant, so it’s an area where we need improvement.”

Caspian Oliai, MD, MS, explained that allo-HSCT in patients with ALL is an evolving field and questions remain in terms of which patients will benefit the most. Notably, data from the phase 3 ECOG-E1910 trial (NCT02003222) showed that patients with newly diagnosed MRD-negative, Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)–negative, B-cell–lineage ALL who underwent allo-HSCT and received blinatumomab (Blincyto) plus chemotherapy (n = 22) experienced a 3-year overall survival (OS) rate of 82% vs 71% in patients who received chemotherapy alone (n = 22; HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.12-2.11).

“In patients [with] Ph–negative ALL without high-risk features, incorporating blinatumomab long term without allo-HSCT appears to be a curative strategy,” Oliai said. “In patients with Ph-like B-cell ALL, especially those with a 

 rearrangement, the history of this subtype is not good; the [approximate] long-term survival rate is 25%. In my practice, I would try to give allo-HSCT in all these patients.

“In my practice, I don’t tend to give allo-HSCT in patients with Ph-positive B-cell ALL, unless there is an IKZF1 mutation with another mutation that puts them at high risk for relapse,” he continued. “There are many good ways to monitor these patients, and if there’s a reemergence of residual disease, that is the time to take them to allo-HSCT. A counterargument to this approach [would say] that it’s best to take a patient to allo-HSCT as early as possible. [For example], if you’re achieving nice responses with a chemotherapy-free tyrosine kinase inhibitor– [based] regimen and you see reemergence later, you have delayed transplant for a substantial amount of time, which could potentially affect its curative potential. It’s an interesting and controversial academic aspect of the field.”

GVHD remains a significant complication of allo- HSCT, underscoring the importance of effective GVHD prophylaxis strategies. The panelists noted that graft source as well as prophylaxis approach can be associated with varying risks of GVHD, especially chronic GVHD.

During EBMT, investigators presented data from a retrospective study that aimed to characterize late events and long-term outcomes with PTCy following allo-HSCT in patients with AML. The study included adult patients with AML in the EBMT registry who received PTCy-based allo-HSCT in first remission from a haploidentical donor, matched sibling donor (MSD), or 10/10 matched unrelated donor (MUD) between 2010 and 2022 and were leukemia free at 2 years post transplant.

Findings from the study demonstrated that patients in the overall population (N = 1289) experienced 2- and 5-year OS rates of 94% (95% CI, 92%-95%) and 84% (95% CI, 80%-88%), respectively. The leukemia-free survival rates at these respective time points were 90% (95% CI, 88%-92%) and 82% (95% CI, 79%-86%). The cumulative incidences of chronic GVHD at 2 and 5 years were 4% (95% CI, 2%-6%) and 7% (95% CI, 4%-10%), respectively. The rates of chronic GVHD– free relapse-free survival (GRFS) were 92% (95% CI, 88%-94%) and 87% (95% CI, 80%-92%), respectively.3 Using the MSD group (n = 175) as the reference, the HRs in terms of OS in the MUD (n = 208) and haploidentical (n = 906) groups were 1.86 (95% CI, 0.59-5.87; 

 = .26), respectively. The HRs for leukemia-free survival in the MUD and haploidentical groups were 1.74 (95% CI, 0.71-4.27; 

“Thinking about how these data from this study taken together influence the field, they show that PTCy is associated with good OS, even in the myeloablative setting; 66% of patients in this study received myeloablative conditioning,” Oliai said. “If we can reproduce these long-term outcomes in prospective clinical trials, that would be fantastic.”

In another study presented during EBMT, investigators shared real-world data regarding the incidence of GVHD according to prophylaxis strategy in patients with hematologic malignancies who received allo-HSCT from MSDs and MUDs. The study included patients from 13 centers in Spain treated from 2018 to 2020.

At a median follow-up of 47.3 months, the 3-year progression-free survival and OS rates in the overall population (N = 489) were 57% (95% CI, 54%-60%) and 66% (95% CI, 63%-69%). The 1-year nonrelapse mortality rate was 14% (95% CI, 12%-16%), and the 3-year GRFS rate was 39% (95% CI, 35%-44%).

Additionally, data from a multivariate analysis revealed that patients in the MSD group who received GVHD prophylaxis with a calcineurin inhibitor plus methotrexate (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.93-1.94; 

 = .117) or with antithymocyte globulin (ATG; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.27-4.10; 

 = .950) were more likely to develop moderate or severe chronic GVHD vs those who received PTCy. In the MUD group, patients did not experience a benefit with any of these approaches vs PTCy in terms of preventing moderate or severe chronic GVHD.

In univariate analysis, patients in the MSD group who received a calcineurin inhibitor plus methotrexate (HR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.82-3.98; 

 < .001) and sirolimus-based (HR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.85-4.76; P < .001) GVHD prophylaxis were significantly more likely to experience grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD vs those who received PTCy. Compared with PTCy, ATG- (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.25-3.43; 

 = .005) and sirolimus-based (HR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.80-4.90; 

 < .001) prophylaxis were significantly associated with worse acute GVHD rates in the MUD group, as was prophylaxis with a calcineurin inhibitor plus methotrexate (HR, 4.98; 95% CI, 3.21-7.70; 

“[Data from] this retrospective study showed a benefit [with PTCy in terms of] reduction of both acute and chronic GVHD, which is what we have seen in multiple [other] retrospective and prospective studies, confirming what our clinical inclination has been,” Amandeep Salhotra, MD, commented.

Investigators Share Exciting Clinical Trial Data with Orca-T During EBMT

The panelists transitioned their conversation to discuss updated clinical trial data presented during EBMT about the investigational allogeneic T-cell immunotherapy Orca-T, which employs high-purity regulatory T cells for GVHD prophylaxis.

“Orca-T is a high-precision immune therapy [that] is composed of stem and immune cells that are derived from an allogeneic donor, and it leverages a highly purified and polyclonal [regulatory T-cell] population that is capable of controlling alloreactive immune responses,” Oliai explained. “The standard allograft of hematopoietic cell transplantation is composed of a variety of cell types that are typically administered together in a single infusion. However, the full benefits of allo-HSCT could be achieved by cellular selection, in which you purify for certain cell types that provide a therapeutic benefit while reducing other cell types that pose a potential risk.”

The phase 3 Precision-T trial (NCT05316701) compared Orca-T with standard-of-care allo- HSCT in patients aged 18 to 65 years with AML, MDS, ALL, or mixed-phenotype acute leukemia who otherwise would have undergone standard allo-HSCT and were in CR or CR with incomplete count recovery. The primary end point was moderate to severe chronic GVHD–free survival (cGFS). Secondary end points included OS, GRFS, and the incidence of moderate to severe chronic GVHD.

Data from the Precision-T trial demonstrated that patients who received Orca-T with tacrolimus (n = 93) achieved a 1-year cGFS rate of 78.0% (95% CI, 65.0%-86.6%) vs 38.4% (95% CI, 26.2%-50.5%) among patients treated with allo-HSCT and tacrolimus plus methotrexate (n = 94; HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.47; log-rank 

 < .00001). The rates of moderate to severe chronic GVHD were 12.6% (95% CI, 5.3%-23.1%) compared with 44.0% (95% CI, 31.3%-56.1%), respectively (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08-0.43; Gray test 

 = .00002). The 1-year OS rates were 93.9% (95% CI, 85.8%-97.4%) vs 83.1% (95% CI, 72.9%-89.8%), respectively (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.20-1.22; log-rank 

“This is the first time that a high-precision immunotherapy derived from a donor graft has been delivered across the country from variable apheresis centers to a centralized manufacturing facility and then to the 19 participating centers with no graft failures,” Meyer, who presented the findings during the meeting, commented. “[This is] remarkable. It’s something that would be very difficult for each of our individual centers to do. That’s an achievement because it opens up a new era of the potential to deliver this and other future graft-engineered products to our patients.”

Additionally, data from a retrospective study that included long-term follow-up from a subset of patients treated with Orca-T in a phase 1b study (NCT04013685) showed that patients treated with Orca-T achieved a higher OS rate vs those who received PTCy. The study compared outcomes for patients treated in the study with those of patients from the CIBMTR registry who received PTCy.

“This was not randomized clinical trial data; it is a comparison of a phase 1 trial of Orca-T [with] real-world outcomes of PTCy,” Gandhi noted. “When we selected patients for this comparison, they were chosen in terms of eligibility similar to what would be [required] on [Precision-T]. In both groups, patients underwent transplantation in 2018 or after, and the age group was similar compared with the phase 3 study, which is 18 to 65 years [old] using myeloablative conditioning.”

Patients who received Orca-T (n = 77) achieved 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates of 96% (95% CI, 88%-99%), 88% (95% CI, 78%-94%), and 86% (95% CI, 73%-92%), respectively. Comparatively, these respective rates were 82% (95% CI, 78%-87%), 73% (95% CI, 68%-79%), and 67% (95% CI, 61%-74%) among patients from the CIBMTR registry who received PTCy (n = 293).

“[In the future], I want to see analyses [comparing] all of the approaches we have [available],” Gandhi said in conclusion. “[This should include] not just 1 randomized study, but an [analysis] of all of our GVHD prophylaxis and transplant platforms.”

1. Döhner H, DiNardo CD, Appelbaum FR, et al. Genetic risk classification for adults with AML receiving less-intensive therapies: the 2024 ELN recommendations. 

. 2024;144(21):2169-2173. doi:10.1182/blood.2024025409

2. Liedtke M, Sun Z, Litzow MR, et al. Assessment of outcomes of allogeneic stem cell transplantation by treatment arm in newly diagnosed measurable residual disease negative patients with B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia randomized to conventional chemotherapy +/- blinatumomab in the ECOG-ACRIN E1910 phase III National Clinical Trials Network trial. 

. 2024;144(suppl 1):779. doi:10.1182/ blood-2024-207557

3. Rodríguez-Arbolí E, Ferhat Berland AT, Angelucci E, et al. Late events and long-term outcomes after post-transplant cyclophosphamide-based haploidentical allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with acute myeloid leukemia: an ALWP-EBMT study. Presented at: 51st Annual EBMT Meeting; March 30-April 2, 2025; Florence, Italy. Abstract OS13-08.

4. Bento L, Jurado M, Salas MQ, et al. Incidence of graft versus host disease according to prophylaxis strategy in matched related and unrelated donor allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: real-world experience of GETH-TC. Presented at: 51st Annual EBMT Meeting; March 30-April 2, 2025; Florence, Italy. Abstract OS11-07.

5. Meyer EH, Salhotra A, Gandhi AP, et al. Orca-T demonstrates improved survival free of chronic GvHD compared to conventional allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant: a randomized phase 3 trial in advanced hematologic malignancies. Presented at: 51st Annual EBMT Meeting; March 30-April 2, 2025; Florence, Italy. Abstract OS15-01.

6. Gandhi AP, Srour SA, Oliai C, et al. Observational comparison of overall survival between phase 1B Orca-T and registry-based post-transplant cyclophosphamide patients. Presented at: 51st Annual EBMT Meeting; March 30-April 2, 2025; Florence, Italy. Abstract OS3-04.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) offers a curative option for certain hematologic malignancies, but graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) remains a major challenge. Recent studies presented at the EBMT meeting explored strategies to optimize allo-HSCT and prevent GVHD, including posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) and Orca-T. The discussions highlighted the importance of patient selection based on genetic risk factors and the potential of novel therapies like Orca-T, which showed promising results in reducing chronic GVHD and improving survival outcomes compared to standard allo-HSCT.

In an OncLive Peer Exchange filmed during EBMT, investigators discuss approaches to optimizing allo-HSCT and preventing GVHD in hematologic malignancies.

New Approaches Combat GVHD and Improve Transplantation Outcomes in Hematologic Malignancies

It would be difficult for any objective observer of the current cancer management paradigm to suggest that precision medicine is not playing an important role in defining optimal therapeutic strategies for individual patients. Further, it is virtually certain that cancer drug development in the future will have a continued focus on obtaining detailed molecular data from the tumor/germline to assign specific treatments. Finally, it is highly likely that precision medicine will increasingly affect other aspects of cancer management, including the recommendation to employ specific prevention and screening strategies, or receive/avoid specific drugs based on germline profiles (pharmacogenomics). 

However, in the opinion of this commentator, there are aspects of the growth of precision cancer (“molecular”) medicine, two of which are highlighted here, that raise concerns deserving of additional discussion as this revolution in management moves forward. 

The first question relates to the societal value of the specific focus of precision medicine on the biological and pathological effects of molecular abnormalities within the tumor/germline of individuals with or at risk of developing cancer vs an alternative far more global public health perspective on reducing the burden of malignant disease. 

Clearly, this issue has multiple components, including the priority given to research funding and to the level of financial support provided at the federal, state, and local levels to public health strategies for cancer prevention and early detection. 

Although one can certainly make the argument that there should be no irreconcilable conflict between the goals of molecular-based and population-based approaches to cancer control, an objective assessment of both the current health and cancer care landscapes would provide a strong dissent to this conclusion, with the realistic requirement for society to thoughtfully prioritize both limited financial and personnel resources. 

In addition, one might reasonably suggest that as a greater proportion of cancer-associated health care dollars is allocated to expensive precision medicine therapeutic strategies, there will likely be less available for public/ population-based approaches more focused on prevention. One can only imagine, for example, the financial burden on third-party payment (including government sources) associated with such novel approaches as CRISPR-based personalized antineoplastic agents.

The thoughtful but provocative words of James Tabery, author of the recently published book Tyranny of the Gene: Personalized Medicine and Its Threat to Public Health, emphasize a perspective worthy of additional discussion

“My thesis is that there have been and remain powerful financial, political, technological, and scientific forces that are driving this embrace of personalized medicine and promoting the idea of medicine as something genetic while simultaneously impeding the study of environmental determinants of wellness and disease. Genes have become far easier to study than environments. Probing DNA has benefitted from technical developments that have eluded environmental health research, and medical genetic research has been subject to less partisan politicization than environmental health research. The result of all this is a biomedical research industry that is now prioritizing the study of genetic causes of health and illness not because those causes play a particularly large role in health outcomes but because those causes are faster, cheaper, more profitable, and more politically palatable than the environmental alternative.” 

Importantly, others have reached similar conclusions regarding the status and complexities of critically relevant public health initiatives in this country.

Societal support for such strategies, including continued efforts to reduce all forms of tobacco use, human papillomavirus vaccination, demonstrated effective cancer screenings, and obesity management, simply cannot be overstated. 

In summary, caution is advised that the situation highlighted above not become a competition, but rather effective complementary approaches to the cancer problem and that essential public health strategies never become a casualty of the precision medicine revolution. There is much to consider, and further discussion is warranted. 

Returning to the demonstrated remarkable success of precision cancer medicine in favorably affecting the survival of individual patients with advanced cancers, we observe a different but equally perplexing issue: that of the observed less than optimal utilization of essential molecular diagnostics (including next-generation sequencing [NGS]) in noninvestigative clinical practice. 

Consider for a moment the realistic potential for widespread standard-of- care utilization of NGS testing in routine oncology care, as demonstrated in a recent report of a health organization “pathologist-directed protocol system-wide [platform], where somatic testing was performed immediately at the time of diagnosis for all patients with advanced solid tumor[s].”

Approximately half of all patients in this analysis were found to have had “at least one actionable genomic biomarker-driven–approved and/or guideline-recommended targeted or immunotherapy,” with a similar percentage being potentially eligible for a molecular-based clinical trial. Further, for those individuals with at least 6 months of follow-up, 52% had been treated with either immunotherapy or a targeted therapeutic. Finally, while recognizing the critical fact that this was a heterogeneous population and the data were not generated from a randomized trial, individuals treated with a molecularly based targeted therapeutic experienced improved overall survival (P < .001) compared with those managed with chemotherapy alone. However, it must be noted that in this experience, “testing was also performed under the research protocol at no cost, to remove potential reimbursement-related barriers....” 

So, the critical question to be asked here is: How many of the individuals able to benefit from the results of the molecular analysis would have been denied this opportunity if the required third-party payment for NGS testing had been denied or was insufficient for the procedure to be undertaken? 

There are a number of reasons for the failure of clinicians to obtain somatic and germline molecular testing despite strong evidence of its clinical utility,

 including the absence of adequate decision-support tools, and concern for payment of these relatively expensive tests must surely be high on the list of physician concerns. The potential tragedy associated with the failure to identify a clinically relevant molecular abnormality that may result in effective treatment with the increasing number of regulatory-approved tumor-agnostic antineoplastic therapeutics is a concern that cannot be overstated.

Ledford H. CRISPR cancer trial success paves the way for personalized treatments. Nature. 2022;611(7936):433-434. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-03676-7

Tabery J. Tyranny of the Gene: Personalized Medicine and Its Threat to Public Health. Alfred A. Knopf; 2023.

Fineberg HV. Setting public health priorities in the United States. JAMA. 2025;333(12):1025-1027.doi:10.1001/jama.2025.0485

Dowdell AK, Meng RC, Vita A, et al. Widespread adoption of precision anticancer therapies after implementation of pathologist-directed comprehensive genomic profiling across a large US health
system. 

. 2024;20(11):1523-1532. doi:10.1200/OP.24.00226 

Hage Chehade C, Jo Y, Gebrael G, et al. Trends and disparities in next-generation sequencing in metastatic prostate and urothelial cancers. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(7):e2423186. doi:10.1001/
jamanetworkopen.2024.23186

Klatte DCF, Starr JS, Clift KE, et al. Utilization and outcomes of multigene panel testing in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. 

.2024;20(8):1081-1090. doi:10.1200/23.00447

Gouda MA, Nelson BE, Buschhorn L, Wahida A, Subbiah V. Tumor-agnostic precision medicine from the AACR GENIE database: clinical implications. 

. 2023;29(15):2753-2760.doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-0090


Precision medicine is increasingly pivotal in cancer management, focusing on molecular data to tailor treatments. However, concerns arise about its societal value compared to broader public health strategies. The financial emphasis on precision medicine may detract from prevention efforts. Despite its success, precision medicine faces challenges like underutilization of molecular diagnostics due to cost and lack of decision-support tools. The balance between precision and public health approaches is crucial, ensuring that essential public health strategies are not overshadowed by the precision medicine revolution.

Maurie Markman, MD, raises concerns about public health priorities and resource allocation in light of the expanding role of precision medicine in cancer.

Vol. 26/No. 7 | Oncology Live®

Natural Language Processing Streamlines Clinical Encounter Note Collection in Indolent Systemic Mastocytosis

KAT6 Inhibition Shows Path to Overcoming Resistance Mechanisms in ER+ Breast Cancer

ADC-, Bispecific Antibody–Based Therapies Help Build a New Treatment Paradigm in EGFR+ NSCLC

New Approaches Combat GVHD and Improve Transplantation Outcomes in Hematologic Malignancies

A Closer Look at Issues With the Expanding Role of Precision Medicine in Cancer Management