Podcasts about genmab

Hvordan holder man styr på alle hjørner af globalt orienterede virksomheder? Det spørgsmål vender Millionærklubben med Gabriels CEO, Anders Hedegaard Petersen, der - desværre - har erfaring med såkaldte “uregelmæssigheder” i én af selskabets divisioner i Mexico. Med i studiet er også direktør i Global Health Invest, Claus Johansen, der samler op på nye kræftdata fra Genmab præsenteret sent mandag aften, og chefanalytiker Lau Svenssen fra Svenssen & Tudborg tjekker ind på dagens marked og aktuelle finansnyheder. Vært: Bodil Johanne GantzelSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/MRT865. CME/MOC/NCPD/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until March 30, 2026.Navigating the ADC Roadmap for Modern Gynecologic Cancer Treatment: Expert Perspectives on Personalizing Patient Care In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and Foundation for Women's Cancer. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AbbVie, and Pfizer Inc. and Genmab.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/MRT865. CME/MOC/NCPD/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until March 30, 2026.Navigating the ADC Roadmap for Modern Gynecologic Cancer Treatment: Expert Perspectives on Personalizing Patient Care In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and Foundation for Women's Cancer. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AbbVie, and Pfizer Inc. and Genmab.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/MRT865. CME/MOC/NCPD/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until March 30, 2026.Navigating the ADC Roadmap for Modern Gynecologic Cancer Treatment: Expert Perspectives on Personalizing Patient Care In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and Foundation for Women's Cancer. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AbbVie, and Pfizer Inc. and Genmab.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/MRT865. CME/MOC/NCPD/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until March 30, 2026.Navigating the ADC Roadmap for Modern Gynecologic Cancer Treatment: Expert Perspectives on Personalizing Patient Care In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and Foundation for Women's Cancer. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AbbVie, and Pfizer Inc. and Genmab.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech Daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma and Biotech world.AbbVie has filed a lawsuit against Genmab, alleging that they have unlawfully used trade secrets to advance the development of antibody-drug conjugates through a company they acquired. On another note, AstraZeneca has made a significant investment of $2 billion in a Chinese obesity drug, despite facing political pressure and an ongoing fraud investigation. Novo is also entering the competition by placing a $2 billion bet on a triple agonist obesity drug from China. Shifting gears, the field of xenotransplantation is being explored as a potential solution to the organ shortage crisis. Companies are delving into gene editing and next-generation antibodies to pave the way for animal-to-human transplants. Overall, there are various opportunities for professionals in the pharmaceutical industry at companies like AbbVie and Genscript.

Skal Novo Nordisk tilbage til tidligere kurstinder, og hvad er udsigterne for Genmab gående fremover? Millionærklubben tjekker sundhedstilstanden på sundhedsaktierne sammen med Claus Johansen, CEO i Global Health Invest, der netop er vendt hjem fra biotech- og medicinalkonference i USA. Hør, hvad der rører sig i branchen og få hans syn på nogle af de store aktiedarlings herhjemme. I studiet tager Lau Svenssen og Michelle Nørgaard temperaturen på dagens marked og følger op på gårsdagens møde i den amerikanske centralbank. Vært: Bodil Johanne GantzelSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

De leverer varen og analytikerne synes mest af alt begejstrede for det regnskab, som Genmab fremlagde igår. Men - for der er jo altid et men - kursudviklingen står og falder stadig med én særlig ting. Hør hvilken i Millionærklubben, der debatterer aktiens potentiale på den korte og den lange bane med fondsforvalter Claus Johansen fra Global Health Invest. I studiet ser klubbens porteføljeforvalter, Lau Svenssen, på dagens aktiemarked og aktuelle regnskaber på en dag, hvor han også har taget barnebarnet Julius på 13 med i studiet. Vært: Bodil Johanne GantzelSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

欢迎收听雪球出品的财经有深度，雪球，国内领先的集投资交流交易一体的综合财富管理平台，聪明的投资者都在这里。今天分享的内容叫2025投资主题——创新药，来自丹书铁券。高利率时代让美股、港股创新药板块跌入深渊，利率预期成为定价依据，全然不顾一些成功上市的创新药已经走过创业期到业绩爆发前夜。利率下降、业绩反转、估值上升，2025年也许我们有机会见证一些出海成功的创新药迎来奇妙的三连击。首先分享一下创新药板块的一些优势。1、技术优势： 中国创新药在C A R - T疗法、ADC、双抗等领域具有相对优势。据统计，2023年国内的对外授权项目合计达到了93个，其中披露交易总额的项目有46个，交易总额高达455亿美元，首付款高达28亿美元。跨国药企用真金白银说话，表明中国创新药企业在某些领域具有技术优势。2、研发效率优势： 国内药企在临床前和临床环节的效率显著高于海外药企。据麦肯锡报告显示，国内药企的临床前效率是海外药企的1到2倍，临床效率达到海外药企的5倍。效率就是生命，时间就是金钱在中国创新药企业体现的淋漓尽致。3、估值优势：股价连跌四年，创新药板块跌破一级市场并购价格。接下来是一些收购案例：阿斯利康收购亘喜生物：2023年12月26日，阿斯利康宣布以约12亿美元收购亘喜生物，较亘喜生物2023年12月22日的收盘价溢价86%，较60天成交量加权平均价格溢价192%。诺华收购信瑞诺医药：2024年1月5日，诺华完成了对专注肾脏疾病的信瑞诺医药的收购，信瑞诺成为诺华的间接全资子公司；Genmab收购普方生物：2024年4月3日，丹麦药企Genmab以18亿美元收购普方生物，创下国内生物技术公司被并购的新纪录。BioNTech收购普米斯：2024年11月13日，德国药企BioNTech宣布以8亿美元预付款收购普米斯100%已发行股本，并在普米斯达到约定里程碑条件时，额外支付最高1.5亿美元的里程碑付款。目前创新药业绩拐点凸显。创新药研发周期漫长，从药物发现到最终获批上市，通常需要七八年的时间。在这么长的周期内，企业需要持续投入资金而无法获得直接的经济回报，导致在研发阶段资金压力巨大，容易出现亏损。由于创新药毛利率80%以上，处于极高水平，一旦上市放量，过了推广期创新药企业有机会迅速从亏损转向盈利。2025年我们即将见证中国出海成功的创新药企大幅盈利元年。创新药是中国新质生产力的代表之一。它的基本面不断向好，但是股价却持续下降，此外，它的二级市场估值远远低于一级市场并购价格；甚至在业绩爆发前夜股价依然萎靡不振。2025年我们期待创新药迎来转折，实现业绩与估值的双提升，为投资者创造更大的价值。

Scancell Holdings PLC CEO Phillip L'Huillier talked with Proactive's Stephen Gunnion about the company's latest interim results and its progress. He highlighted five key updates, including the latest data from the SCOPE study, which investigates the company's cancer vaccine for melanoma. The interim results showed an 80% disease control rate and a 72% overall response rate, significantly outperforming current standard-of-care treatments. L'Huillier also discussed the strong recruitment progress in the SCOPE and ModiFY studies, as well as an additional licensing deal with Genmab, reinforcing industry validation of Scancell's antibody portfolio. The company recently raised £11.3 million, securing funding to advance its clinical programs through 2025 and into the second half of 2026. He noted organizational changes, including his appointment as CEO and the hiring of Dr Nermeen Varawalla as chief medical officer, allowing Professor Lindy Durrant to refocus on scientific leadership as CSO. Looking ahead, Scancell expects multiple clinical data readouts in 2025, including full results from the SCIB1 arm of the SCOPE study by mid-year, as well as new data from the next-generation iSCIB1+ vaccine. Updates from the ModiFY study, including further efficacy results from the Modi-1 vaccine in head and neck cancer, are also anticipated in the second half of the year. L'Huillier expressed confidence in Scancell's future, emphasising its strong clinical pipeline, robust team, and committed investor base. “We have the team and the resources to execute the plan, and we will do that.” For more updates on Scancell and its progress, visit Proactive's YouTube channel. Don't forget to like this video, subscribe, and turn on notifications for more interviews. #Scancell #Biotech #CancerResearch #Immunotherapy #SCOPEStudy #ModiFYStudy #ClinicalTrials #HealthcareInnovation #Biopharma #Investing

Det er ikke sommer, det er heller ikke sol - men det er FREDAG.Millionærklubben dedikerer derfor hele udsendelsen til spørgsmål fra jer lyttere.Ingen ringere end Lars Persson og Lau Svenssen står klar i studiet til at svare på alt i øst og vest.Vi skal blandt andet forbi Deutsche Telekom, Genmab og Gubra. Lytterportefølje: Babcock & Wilcox, Dorian LPG, Envipco, Norsk Titanium, Nordic Paper Holding, Tesla Vært: Signe TerpSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete NCPD/ILNA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/XRZ865. NCPD/ILNA credit will be available until December 30, 2025.Personalized Care and Tailored Treatment Plans for Gynecologic Cancers: Practical Nurse Guidance on Utilizing Modern Therapeutic Approaches In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, Foundation for Women's Cancer, and National Ovarian Cancer Coalition. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer Inc. and Genmab.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete NCPD/ILNA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/XRZ865. NCPD/ILNA credit will be available until December 30, 2025.Personalized Care and Tailored Treatment Plans for Gynecologic Cancers: Practical Nurse Guidance on Utilizing Modern Therapeutic Approaches In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, Foundation for Women's Cancer, and National Ovarian Cancer Coalition. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer Inc. and Genmab.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete NCPD/ILNA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/XRZ865. NCPD/ILNA credit will be available until December 30, 2025.Personalized Care and Tailored Treatment Plans for Gynecologic Cancers: Practical Nurse Guidance on Utilizing Modern Therapeutic Approaches In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, Foundation for Women's Cancer, and National Ovarian Cancer Coalition. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer Inc. and Genmab.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete NCPD/ILNA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/XRZ865. NCPD/ILNA credit will be available until December 30, 2025.Personalized Care and Tailored Treatment Plans for Gynecologic Cancers: Practical Nurse Guidance on Utilizing Modern Therapeutic Approaches In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, Foundation for Women's Cancer, and National Ovarian Cancer Coalition. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer Inc. and Genmab.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

Millionærklubben slår dørene op til året sidste udsendelse med teknisk analytiker Lars Persson og investor Helge Larsen i studiet. Hør, hvad de har lært af 2024 og få deres bedste bud på interessante investeringstemaer i 2025. Du kan høre mere om blandt andre Novo Nordisk, Zealand Pharma, Genmab og Torm. Vært: Bodil Johanne Gantzel.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This 30-minute CME-accredited program, hosted by John Kuruvilla, MD, discusses best practices for talking to patients with hematologic malignancies about possibly participating in clinical trials.Jointly Provided by American Academy of CME and CheckRare CE.Support for this accredited continuing education activity has been made possible through educational grant from Merck.Estimated time to complete: 0.5 hours Start date: November 30, 2024End date: November 30, 2025  Activity FacultyJohn Kuruvilla, MDHematologist / Clinical InvestigatorPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreProfessor of MedicineUniversity of Toronto Target AudienceThis activity has been designed to meet the educational needs of physicians specializing in hematology-oncology. Other healthcare providers, including NPs and PAs, may also participate. Learning ObjectivesAfter participating in the activity, learners should be better able to- Describe the importance of clinical trials in furthering the science of hematologic malignancies treatment.- Describe and utilize best practices for engaging patients in shared decision making regarding clinical trial participation. Accreditation and Credit DesignationIn support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by American Academy of CME, Inc. and CheckRare CE. American Academy of CME, Inc. is Jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team. PhysiciansAmerican Academy of CME, Inc., designates this enduring material for a maximum of 0.5 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditsTM. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Other HCPsOther members of the care team will receive a certificate of participation. Disclosure StatementAccording to the disclosure policy of the Academy, all faculty, planning committee members, editors, managers and other individuals who are in a position to control content are required to disclose any relationships with any ineligible company(ies). The existence of these relationships is not viewed as implying bias or decreasing the value of the activity. Clinical content has been reviewed for fair balance and scientific objectivity, and all of the relevant financial relationships listed for these individuals have been mitigated.Disclosure of relevant financial relationships are as follows: Faculty Educator/PlannerDr. Kuruvilla discloses the following relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies:Honoraria: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Beigene, Genmab, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle GeneticsConsultant: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences/Kite, Merck, Roche, Seattle GeneticsGrant/Research Support: AstraZeneca, Kite, Merck, Novartis, RocheData Safety Monitoring Board: KaryopharmPlanners for this activity have no relevant financial relationships with any ineligible companies. This activity will not review off-label or investigational information. The opinions expressed in this educational activity are those of the faculty, and do not represent those of the Academy or CheckRare CE. This activity is intended as a supplement to existing knowledge, published information, and practice guidelines. Learners should appraise the information presented critically, and draw conclusions only after careful consideration of all available scientific information. Method of ParticipationThere are no fees to participate in the activity. Participants must review the activity information including the learning objectives and disclosure statements, as well as the content of the activity. To receive CME credit for your participation, please go to https://checkrare.com/learning/p-hematologic-malignancies-and-clinical-trial-participation-a-shared-decision-making-approach/   PrivacyFor more information about the American Academy of CME privacy policy, please access http://www.academycme.org/privacy.htm  For more information about CheckRare's privacy policy, please access https://checkrare.com/privacy/ContactFor any questions, please contact: CEServices@academycme.org               

Dr. Linda Duska and Dr. Domenica Lorusso discuss the practice-changing results of the phase 3 ENGOT-cx11/GOG-3047/KEYNOTE-A18 study, which evaluated pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy as treatment for previously untreated, high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Linda Duska: Hello, I'm Linda Duska, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and serve as the associate dean for clinical research at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. On today's episode, we'll be discussing a new standard of care for previously untreated, high- risk locally advanced cervical cancer. This follows the ENGOT-cx11/GOG-3047/KEYNOTE-A18 study, which I will be referring to as KEYNOTE-A18 for the rest of this podcast, which demonstrated that pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy improved both progression-free and overall survival compared to chemoradiotherapy alone. I was a co-author of this study, and I'm delighted to be joined today by the study's lead investigator, Dr. Domenica Lorusso, for today's discussion. She is also a professor of obstetrics and gynecology. She's at Humanitas University Rosano and the director of the Gynecologic Oncology Unit at the Humanitas Hospital San Pio in Milan, Italy. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Lorusso, it's great to be speaking with you today. Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Thank you, Linda. It's a great pleasure to be here. Thank you. Dr. Linda Duska: So I was hoping you could start us out with some context on the challenges associated with treating patients with high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer. Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Yes. I have to make a disclosure because in my experience as a gynecologist, cervical cancer patients are the most difficult patients to treat. This is a tumor that involves young patients [who often have] small kids. This is a very symptomatic tumor. More than 50% of patients report pain. Sometimes the pain is difficult to control because there is an infiltration of the pelvic nerves and also a kind of vaginal discharge, so it's very difficult to treat the tumor. Since more than 25 years, we have the publication of 5 randomized trials that demonstrate that when we combine platinum chemotherapy to radiation treatment, we increase overall survival by 6%. This is the new standard of care – concurrent chemoradiation plus brachytherapy. This is a good standard of care because particularly modern, image-guided radiotherapy has reported to increase local control. And local control in cervical cancer translates to better overall survival. So modern radiotherapy actually is able to cure about 75% of patients. This is what we expect with chemoradiation right now. Dr. Linda Duska: So what are the key takeaways of A18? This is a really exciting trial, and you've presented it a couple of times. Tell us what are the key takeaways that you want our listeners to know. Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Linda, this is our trial. This is a trial that we did together. And you gave me the inspiration because you were running a randomized phase 2 trial exploring if the combination of pembrolizumab to concurrent chemoradiation was able to give signals of efficacy, but also was feasible in terms of toxicity. There were several clinical data suggesting that when we combine immunotherapy to radiotherapy, we can potentially increase the benefit of radiotherapy because there is a kind of synergistic effect between the two strategies. Radiotherapy works as a primer and immunotherapy works better. And you demonstrated that it was feasible to combine immunotherapy to concurrent chemoradiation. And KEYNOTE-A18 was based on this preliminary data. We randomized about 1,060 patients to receive concurrent chemoradiation and brachytherapy or concurrent chemoradiation and brachytherapy in combination with pembrolizumab followed by pembrolizumab for about two years. Why two years? Because in more than 80% of cases, recurrence in this patient population occurred during the first two years. So the duration of treatment was based on the idea to provide protection to the patient during the maximum time of risk. And the trial had the two primary endpoints, progression free and overall survival, and met both the endpoints, a significant 30% reduction in the risk of progression that was confirmed. At the 3-year follow up, the observation was even better, 0.68. So 32% reduction in the risk of progression. And more importantly, because this is a curative setting, 33% reduction in the risk of death was reported in the experimental arm when pembro was combined with chemoradiation. Dr. Linda Duska: That's amazing. I wanted to ask you, a prior similar study called CALLA was negative. Why do you think A18 was positive? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Linda, there are several discussions about that. I had the possibility to discuss several times with the PI of CALLA, Brad Monk. The idea of Brad is that CALLA was negative because of using durvalumab instead of PD-1 inhibitor, which is pembrolizumab. I do not have exactly the same impression. My idea is that it's the kind of patient population enrolled. The patient population enrolled in KEYNOTE-A18 was really a high-risk population; 85% of that patient were node positive, where the definition of node positivity was at least 2 lymph nodes in the pelvis with a short diameter of 1.5. So, we are very confident this patient was node-positive, 55% at the grade 3 and 4 diseases. So this is really a high-risk population. I remember at the first presentation of CALLA, I was honored to discuss the CALLA trial when it was first presented at IGCS a few years ago. And when I received the forest plot of Calla, it was evident to me that in patients with stage III and node positive there was a signal of efficacy. And we have a huge number of patients with node positive. So in my opinion this is the reason why KEYNOTE-A18 is positive. Dr. Linda Duska: Yeah, I agree with you. I've thought about it a lot and I think you're right about that. The INTERLACE trial results were recently published. How should we interpret these results in the context of A18? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: So it's very difficult to compare the 2 trials. First of all, in terms of population. The population enrolled in INTERLACE is a low-risk, locally advanced but low risk population; 76% were stage II, 10% were stage I, 60% were node-negative patients. So, first of all, the population is completely different. Second is the type of radiotherapy that was provided. INTERLACE is a 10-year long trial, but in 10 years the quality and the technique of radiotherapy completely changed. Only 30% of patients in INTERLACE received what we call the modern image-guided brachytherapy, which is important because it provides local control and local control increases overall survival. And third, we read the paper. I'm not a methodologist, but there are some methodological biases in the paper. All the statistical design of the trial was based on PFS, but PFS was evaluated at physician description. And honestly, I never saw a trial that had no pre-specified timeline for radiological evaluation. It's very difficult to evaluate progression in cervical cancer because the fibrosis related to radiotherapy changes the anatomy in the pelvis. And I think that the radiological evaluation is important to address if the patient is progressing or not. Particularly, because the conclusion of CALLA is that the PFS was mainly in favor of distant metastasis. So really, it's difficult for me to understand how distant metastasis may be evaluated with the vagina visit. So really, it's very difficult to compare the two trials, but I have some concerns. And also because of toxicity in the study, unfortunately 30% of patients did not complete concurrent chemoradiation because of residual toxicity due to induction chemotherapy. So I wanted to be sure in the context of modern radiotherapy, if really induction chemo adds something to modern radiotherapy. Dr. Linda Duska: Well, I have two more questions for you. As we move immunotherapy into the front line, at least for these high risk locally advanced cervical cancer patients that were eligible for A18, what does that mean then for hopefully those few that develop recurrence in terms of second line therapy? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Well, Linda, this is a very important question. We do not have data about immuno after immuno, but I would not completely exclude this hypothesis because in KEYNOTE-A18, the patient received treatment for a well-defined time period. And for those patients not progressing during immunotherapy, I really guess if there is a space for the reintroduction of immunotherapy at the time of recurrence. In this moment we have 30% of patients in KEYNOTE-A18 in the control arm that receive immunotherapy after progression, but still we have 11% of patients that receive immunotherapy in combination with concurrent chemoradiation and then receive, again, immunotherapy in later line of therapy. I think we need to collect these data to capture some signals and for sure we have the new drug. We have antibody drug conjugate. The trials are ongoing exploring the role of antibody drug conjugate, particularly in immune pretreated patients. So I think this is a very interesting strategy. Dr. Linda Duska: I was going to ask you, “What are the next steps,” but I think you already answered that question. You talked about the second line. If you were going to redesign a study in the frontline, what would it look like? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Probably one question that I would like to answer – there are two questions in my opinion in KEYNOTE-A18 – one is induction immunotherapy. Linda, correct me if I'm wrong, you reported very interesting data about the immune landscape change when you use induction immunotherapy. And I think this is something that we need to explore in the future. And the second question is the duration of maintenance. Because, again, we decided for two years based only on the epidemiology of recurrence, but I guess if one year may be enough. Dr. Linda Duska: I think this sequencing question is really important, that the induction immunotherapy was actually GY017. I can't take credit for that, but I think you're right. I think the sequencing question is really important. Whether you need the concurrent IO or not is an important question. And then to your point about the 2 years, the length of the need for maintenance therapy is a question that we don't know the answer to. So there are lots of really important questions we can continue to ask. I want to thank you so much for sharing your valuable insights with us on the podcast today. You're always so thoughtful about this particular study and cervix cancer in general and also for your great work to advance the care for patients with GYN cancers. Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Thank you, Linda. It's our work - we progress together. Dr. Linda Duska: Yes. And we thank the patients as well. The over 1,000 patients that went on this trial during a pandemic. Right? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Absolutely. Without their generosity and their trust, we would not be able to do this trial. Dr. Linda Duska: So we're very grateful to them and we thank our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you all.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow today's speakers:  Dr. Linda Duska @Lduska Dr. Domenica Lorusso   Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on Twitter   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:   Dr. Linda Duska: Consulting or Advisory Role: Regeneron, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Ellipses Pharma Research Funding (Inst.): GlaxoSmithKline, Millenium, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Aeterna Zentaris, Novartis, Abbvie, Tesaro, Cerulean Pharma, Aduro Biotech, Advaxis, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Leap Therapeutics Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: UptToDate, Editor, British Journal of Ob/Gyn Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Consulting or Advisory Role: PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Genmab, Seagen, Immunogen, Oncoinvest, Corcept, Sutro Biopharma, Novartis, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, MSD, ImmunoGen, Seagen Research Funding (Inst.): PharmMar, Clovis, GSK, MSD, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, Seagen, Immunogen, Incyte, Roche, Pharma&, Corcept Therapeutics, Alkermes Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, Menarini  

Der er ikke længere nogen tvivl: Donald Trump er USAs 47. præsident. Det er et sceanarie, vi længe har forholdt os til hypotetisk. Men hvad sker der, når hypoteserne rammer virkeligheden, og Trump får nøglerne til Det Hvide Hus. Det spørger Millionærklubben om denne torsdag, hvor der også er landet et par regnskaber fra Zealand Pharma, Genmab, GN Store Nord og Torm. Dem vender vi i sidste halvdel af udsendelsen. Dagens panel er Ulrik Bie, økonomisk redaktør på Berlingske, Michelle Nørgaard, senioraktiestrateg i Jyske Bank samt Millionærklubbens egen Lau Svenssen. Vært: Signe TerpSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Ryan Augustin and Dr. Jason Luke discuss neoadjuvant immunotherapy and the importance of multidisciplinary team coordination, promising new TIL therapy for advanced melanoma, and the emerging role of CD3 engagers in treatment strategies. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Ryan Augustin: Hello, I'm Dr. Ryan Augustin, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a medical oncology fellow at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Joining me today is Dr. Jason Luke, an associate professor of medicine and the director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutic Center at the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center. I had the privilege of working as a postdoc in Jason's translational bioinformatics lab, where we investigated mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy in melanoma and other cancers.  Today, we'll be discussing 3 important topics, including neoadjuvant immunotherapy and the importance of multidisciplinary team coordination, the impact and practical considerations for incorporating TIL therapy into melanoma, and the current and future use of CD3 engagers in both uveal and cutaneous melanoma.  You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode.  Jason, it's great to have this opportunity to speak with you today. Dr. Jason Luke: Absolutely. Thanks, Ryan. It's great to see you. Dr. Ryan Augustin: So, to kick things off, Jason, we, of course, have seen tremendous advances in cancer immunotherapy, not only in metastatic disease but also the perioperative setting. Recent data have shown that the use of neoadjuvant therapy can provide not only critical prognostic information but can also help individualize post-resection treatment strategies and potentially even eliminate adjuvant therapy altogether in patients who achieve a pathologic, complete response. This signifies a conceptual shift in oncology with the goal of curing patients with immunotherapy. In triple-negative breast cancer, the KEYNOTE-522 regimen with pembrolizumab is standard of care. In non-small cell lung cancer, there are now four FDA approved chemo-IO regimens in both the neoadjuvant and perioperative settings. And, of course, in melanoma, starting with SWOG S1801 utilizing pembro mono therapy, and now with combined CTLA-4 PD-1 blockade based on results from the NADINA trial, neoadjuvant IO is the new standard of care in high-risk, resectable melanoma. It's important to highlight this because whereas other tumor types have more mature multidisciplinary care, for example, patients with breast cancer are reviewed by the whole team in every center, and every patient with lung cancer certainly benefits from multidisciplinary care conferences, that's not always the case with melanoma, given the relative frequency of cases compared to other tumor types.  Jason, would you say that we have now moved into an era where the integration of a multidisciplinary team and melanoma needs to be prioritized. And why is it important to have multidisciplinary team coordination from the onset of a patient's diagnosis? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, I think those are great questions, Ryan, and I think they really speak to the movement in our field and the great success that we've had integrating systemic therapy, particularly immunotherapy, into our treatment paradigms. And so, before answering your question directly, I would add even a little bit more color, which is to note that over the last few years, we've additionally seen the development of adjuvant therapy into stages of melanoma that, historically speaking, were considered low-risk, and medical oncologists might not even see the patient. To that, I'm speaking specifically about the stage 2B and 2C approvals for adjuvant anti-PD-1 with pembrolizumab or nivolumab. So this has been an emerging complication.  Classically, patients are diagnosed with melanoma by either their primary care doctor or a dermatologist. Again, classically, the next step was referral to a surgeon who had removed the primary lesion, with discussion around nodal evaluation as well. And that paradigm has really changed now, where I think integration of medical oncology input early on in the evaluation of the appropriate treatment plan for patients with melanoma is quite a pressing issue now, both because we have FDA approvals for therapeutics that can reduce risk of recurrence, and whether or not to pursue those makes a big difference to the patient for discussion early on.  And, moreover, the use of systemic therapies now, prior to surgery, of course, then, of course, requires the involvement of medical oncology. And just for an emphasis point on this, it's classically the case, for good reason, that surgeons complete their surgery and then feel confident to tell the patient, “Well, we got it all, and you're just in really good shape.” And while I understand where that's coming from, that often leaves aside the risk of recurrence. So you can have the most perfect surgery in the world and yet still be at very high risk of recurrence. And so it's commonly the case that we get patients referred to us after surgery who think they're just in totally good shape, quite surprised to find out that, in fact, they might have a 20% to 50% risk of recurrence. And so that's where this multidisciplinary integration for patient management really does make a big difference.  And so I would really emphasize the point you were making before, which is that we need multidisciplinary teams of med onc with derm, with surgery early on, to discuss “What are the treatment plans going to be for patients?” And that's true for neoadjuvant therapy, so, for palpable stage 3, where we might give checkpoint inhibitors or combinations before surgery. But it's true even in any reasonably high-risk melanoma, and I would argue in that state, anything more than stage 1 should be discussed as a group, because that communication strategy with the patient is so important from first principles, so that they have an expectation of what it's going to look like as they are followed out over time. And so we're emphasizing this point because I think it's mostly the case at most hospitals that there isn't a cutaneous oncology disease management meeting, and I think there needs to be.  It's important to point out that usually the surgeons that do this kind of surgery are actually either the GI surgeons who do colon cancer or the breast surgeons. And so, given that melanoma, it's not the most common kind of cancer, it could easily be integrated into the existing disease review groups to review these cases. And I think that's the point we really want to emphasize now. I think we're not going to belabor the data so much, but there are enormous advantages to either perioperative or adjuvant systemic therapy in melanoma. We're talking about risk reduction of more than 50%, 50-75% risk reduction. It's essential that we make sure we optimally offer that to patients. And, of course, patients will choose what they think is best for their care. But we need to message to them in a way that they can understand what the risks and benefits of those treatments are and then are well set up to understand what that treatment might look like and what their expectations would be out over time.  So I think this is a great art of medicine place to start. Instead of belaboring just the details of the trial to say, let's think about how we take care of our patients and how we communicate with them on first principles so that we can make the most out of the treatments that we do have available. Dr. Ryan Augustin: That's great, Jason. Very insightful points. Thank you.  So, shifting gears now, I'd also like to ask you a little bit about TIL therapy in melanoma. So our listeners will be aware that TIL is a promising new approach for treating advanced melanoma and leverages the power of a patient's cytotoxic T cells to attack cancer cells. While we've known about the potential of this therapy for some time, based on pioneering work at the NCI, this therapy is now FDA approved under the brand AMTAGVI (Lifileucel) from Iovance Biotherapeutics, making it the first cellular therapy to be approved for a solid tumor. Now, I know TIL therapy has been administered at your institution, Jason, for several years now, under trial status primarily for uveal melanoma using an in-house processing. But for many cancer centers, the only experience with cellular therapy has come under the domain of malignant hematology with CAR T administration. At our institution, for example, we have only recently started administering TIL therapy for melanoma, which has required a tremendous multidisciplinary effort among outpatient oncology, critical care, and an inpatient hematology service that has expertise in cytokine release syndrome.  Jason, where do you see TIL therapy fitting into the metastatic space? Which patients do you think are truly candidates for this intensive therapy? And what other practical or logistical considerations do you think we should keep in mind moving forward? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, thanks for raising this. I think the approval of lifileucel, which is the scientific name for the TIL product that's on the market now. It really is a shift, a landscape shift in oncology, and we're starting in melanoma again, as seems to be commonly the case in drug development. But it's really important to understand that this is a conceptually different kind of treatment, and therefore, it does require different considerations. Starting first with data and then actualization, maybe secondarily, when we see across the accelerated approval package that led to this being available, we quote patients that the response rate is likely in the range of 30%, maybe slightly lower than that, but a meaningful 25% to 30% response rate, and that most of those patients that do have response, it seems to be quite durable, meaning patients have been followed up to four years, and almost all the responders are still in response. And that's a really powerful thing to be able to tell a patient, particularly if the patient has already proceeded through multiple lines of prior standard therapy. So this is a very, very promising therapy.  Now, it is a complicated therapy as well. And so you highlighted that to do this, you have to have a tumor that's amenable for resection, a multidisciplinary team that has done a surgery to remove the tumor, sent it off to the company. They then need to process the TIL out of the tumor and then build them up into a personalized cell product, bring it back, you have to lympho-deplete the patient, re-introduce this TIL. So this is a process that, in the standard of care setting under best circumstances, takes roughly six weeks. So how to get that done in a timely fashion, I think, is evolving within our paradigms. But I think it is very important for people who practice in settings where this isn't already available to realize that referring patients for this should be a strong consideration. And thinking about how you could build your multidisciplinary team in a way to be able to facilitate this process, I think is going to be important, because this concept of TIL is relevant to other solid tumors as well. It's not approved yet in others, but we kind of assume eventually it probably will be. And so I think, thinking through this, how could it work, how do you refer patients is very important.  Now, coming back to the science, who should we treat with this? Well, of course, it's now an air quotes “standard of care option”, so really it ought to be available to anybody. I will note that currently, the capacity across the country to make these products is not really adequate to treat all the patients that we'd want. But who would we optimally want to treat, of course, would be people who have retained a good performance status after first line therapy, people who have tumors that are easily removable and who have not manifested a really rapid disease progression course, because then, of course, that six-week timeline probably doesn't make sense. The other really interesting data point out of the clinical trials so far is it has looked like the patients who got the least amount of benefit from anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, in other words, who progressed immediately without any kind of sustained response, those patients seem to have the best response to TILs, and that's actually sort of a great biomarker. So, this drug works the best for the population of patients where checkpoint inhibitors were not effective. And so as you think about who those patients might be in your practice, as you're listening, I think prioritizing it for primary progression on anti PD-1, again and giving it ahead thought about how would you get the patient through this process or referred to this process very quickly is really important because that lag time is a problem. Patients who have melanoma tend to progress reasonably quickly, and six weeks can be a long time in melanoma land. So, thinking ahead and building those processes is going to be important moving into the future Dr. Ryan Augustin: Definitely appreciate those practical considerations. Jason, thank you.  Moving on to our final topic, I was hoping to discuss the use of immune cell engagers in melanoma. So, similar to CAR T therapy, bispecific T-cell engagers, or BiTEs, as they're commonly known, are standard of care in refractory myeloma and lymphoma. But these antibodies engaging CD-3 on T cells and a tumor specific antigen on cancer cells are relatively new in the solid tumor space. Tarlatamab, which is a DLL-3 and CD-3 bispecific antibody, was recently approved in refractory small cell lung cancer, and, of course, tebentafusp, an HLA-directed CD-3 T cell engager was approved in uveal melanoma in 2022. Both T and NK cell engaging therapies are now offering hope in cancers where there has historically been little to offer. However, similar to our discussion with TIL therapy, bispecifics can lead to CRS and neurotoxicity, which require considerable logistical support and care coordination.  Jason, I was wondering if you could briefly discuss the current landscape of immune cell engagers in melanoma and how soon we may see these therapies enter the treatment paradigm for cutaneous disease. Dr. Jason Luke: I think it is an exciting, novel treatment strategy that I think we will only see emerge more and more. You alluded to the approval of tebentafusp in uveal melanoma, and those trials were, over the course of a decade, where those of us in solid tumor land learned how to manage cytokine release syndrome or the impact of these C3 bispecifics, in a way that we weren't used to. And what I'll caution people is that CRS, as this term, it sounds very scary because people have heard of patients that, of course, had difficult outcomes and hematological malignancies, but it's a spectrum of side effects. And so, when we think about tebentafusp, which is the approved molecule, really what we see is a lot of rash because GP100, the other tumor antigen target, is in the skin. So, patients get a rash, and then people do get fevers, but it's pretty rare to get more than that. So really what you have to have is the capacity to monitor patients for 12 hours, but it's really not more scary than that. So it really just requires treating a few people to kind of get used to these kinds of symptoms, because they're not the full-on ICU level CRS that we see with, say, CAR T-cells.  But where is the field going? Well, there's a second CD3 bispecific called brenetafusp that targets the molecule PRAME, that's in a phase 3 clinical trial now for frontline cutaneous melanoma. And tebentafusp is also being evaluated in cutaneous melanoma for refractory disease. So, it's very possible that these could be very commonly used for cutaneous melanoma, moving into, say, a two-to-four-year time horizon. And so therefore, getting used to what are these side effects, how do you manage them in an ambulatory practice for solid tumor, etc., is going to be something everyone's going to have to learn how to deal with, but I don't think it should be something that people should be afraid of.  One thing that we've seen with these molecules so far is that their kinetics of treatment effect do look slightly different than what we see with more classic oncology therapies. These drugs have a long-term benefit but doesn't always manifest as disease regression. So, we commonly see patients will have stable disease, meaning their tumor stops growing, but we don't see that it shrank a lot, but that can turn into a very meaningful long-term benefit. So that's something that we're also, as a community, going to have to get used to. It may not be the case we see tumors shrink dramatically upfront, but rather we can actually follow people with good quality- of-life over a longer period of time.  Where is the field going? You mentioned tarlatamab in small cell lung cancer, and I think we're only going to see more of these as appropriate tumor antigens are identified in different tumors. And then the other piece is these CD3 engagers generally rely upon some kind of engagement with a T cell, whether CD3 engagers, and so they can be TCR or T-cell receptor-based therapies, although they can be also SCFV-based. But that then requires new biomarkers, because TCR therapy requires HLA restriction. So, understanding that now we're going to need to profile patients based on their germline in addition to the genomics of the tumor. And those two things are separate. But I would argue at this point, basically everybody with cutaneous melanoma should be being profiled for HLA-A(*)0201, which is the major T-cell receptor HLA haplotype that we would be looking for, because whether or not you can get access immediately to tebentafusp, but therefore clinical trials will become more and more important.  Finally, in that T-cell receptor vein, there are also T cell receptor-transduced T cells, which are also becoming of relevance in the oncology community and people listening will be aware in synovial sarcoma of the first approval for a TCR-transduced T cell with afamitresgene autoleucel. And in melanoma, we similarly have TCR-transduced T cells that are coming forward in clinical trials into phase 3, the IMA203 PRAME-directed molecule particularly. And leveraging our prior conversation about TILs, we're going to have more and more cellular based therapies coming forward, which is going to make it important to understand what are the biomarkers that go with those, what are the side effect profiles of these, and how do you build your practice in a way that you can optimally get your patients access to all of these different treatments, because it will become more logistically complicated, kind of as more of these therapies come online over the next, like we said, two to four years kind of time horizon. So, it's very exciting, but there is more to do, both logistically and scientifically. Dr. Ryan Augustin: That's excellent. Thanks, Jason, and thank you so much for sharing your great insight with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks so much for the opportunity. Dr. Ryan Augustin: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode, and you can follow Dr. Luke on X, formerly known as Twitter, @jasonlukemd. And you can find me, @RyanAugustinMD. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow today's speakers: @ryanaugustinmd Dr. Jason Luke @jasonlukemd   Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures: Dr. Ryan Augustin: No relationships to disclose Dr. Jason Luke: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical, Pyxis, Alphamab Oncology, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch Oncology, Stipe, NeoTX Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, Alphamab Oncology, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius, Tesaro, Xilio, Xencor, Alnylam, Crown Bioscience, Flame Biosciences, Genentech, Kadmon, KSQ Therapeutics, Immunocore, Inzen, Pfizer, Silicon Therapeutics, TRex Bio, Bright Peak, Onc.AI, STipe, Codiak Biosciences, Day One Therapeutics, Endeavor, Gilead Sciences, Hotspot Therapeutics, SERVIER, STINGthera, Synthekine Research Funding (Inst.): Merck , Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma , EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring bank, Trishula, KAHR Medical, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena Oncology, Numab, Replimmune, Rubius Therapeutics, Synlogic, Takeda, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc., BioNTech AG, Scholar Rock, Next Cure Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), and Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof) Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio

Educational Objectives • Review recent clinical updates of RET inhibitors and how they fit into the treatment paradigm for non‒small cell lung cancer • Identify and manage adverse effects of RET inhibitors to ensure patient safety and improve adherence Moderator:  Lauren Ledbetter, PharmD, BCOP Clinical Pharmacy Specialist, Thoracic Medical Oncology The James Cancer Hospital at The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio Faculty: Zahra Mahmoudjafari, PharmD, MBA, BCOP, FHOPA Clinical Pharmacy Manager University of Kansas  Cancer Center Division of Hematologic Malignancies & Cellular Therapeutics Disclosures Lauren Ledbetter, PharmD, BCOP, has the following financial relationships with commercial interests to disclose: Consultant: The Dedham Group, Charles River Associates Speakers  Bureau: APPOS Zahra Mahmoudjafari, PharmD, MBA, BCOP, FHOPA, has the following financial relationships with commercial interests to disclose: Consultant: Pfizer, Sanofi, Genmab, Janssen Accreditation: Pharmacy Times Continuing Education™ is accredited by the  Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) as a provider of continuing pharmacy education. This activity is approved for 0.5 contact hour (0.5 CEU) under the ACPE universal activity number 0290-0000-24-304-H01-P. The activity is available for CE credit  through October 31, 2025. Supporter: This activity is supported by an educational grant from Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

In this episode of Market Mondays, we dive deep into a wide range of topics. We discuss the latest from SpaceX, Tesla's Robo Taxi day, and the Tesla Optimus robot. We explore whether owning all of Elon Musk's companies could be a smart hedge for the future and the current outlook for Bitcoin this month. We analyze why Genmab's stock hasn't moved despite strong fundamentals, and the incredible rise of ADMA stock—will it keep climbing or has it peaked? We also break down Nvidia's DGX B200, the impact of AMD's new chip, and consider if Cerebras can truly compete with NVIDIA. For long-term investors, we talk about stocks like VNO, and the potential of TSM through earnings, as well as the future of XRP and the comparison between Amazon and Mercado Libre.With the uncertainty in today's world, what does the market outlook look like for the end of the year? We also discuss potential entry points for Boeing, the long-term prospects for IONQ, and Microsoft's earnings. We wrap up with a look at hotel stocks like Marriott and Hilton, as well as the DOJ's move against Google and what it means for the stock.We also had a special guest, Congressman Byron Donalds, who shared insights on the Republican economic plan, Trump's election, black male voters, and more.#MarketMondays #Tesla #SpaceX #Bitcoin #ElonMusk #Stocks #Investing #Nvidia #AMD #CongressmanByronDonalds #Economy #Google #StockMarket #Microsoft #Boeing #TSMSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/marketmondays/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

The ESMO Congress yielded another win for cancer immunotherapy target TIGIT, but the readout resurfaced worries about the mechanism's past failures to turn positive earlier stage data into Phase III success. On a special edition of the BioCentury This Week podcast, BioCentury's editors deliver their takeaways from this year's meeting, including analysis of data for TIGIT blocker belrestotug from iTeos Therapeutics, a colorectal cancer readout featuring J&J's Rybrevant and an antibody-drug conjugate from Genmab. The BioCentury team is joined by Gwyn Bebb, who is global franchise head for oncology at podcast sponsor Parexel. Bebb discusses what's changed in the oncology landscape in the 10 years since the approval of the first immunotherapies, observations that COVID-19 vaccines might have a role in treating cancer and developments in the radiopharma field. This episode of BioCentury This Week was sponsored by Parexel Biotech.View full story: https://www.biocentury.com/article/65368100:01 - Sponsor Message: Parexel BioTech01:55 - iTeos' TIGIT Data04:56 - Rybrevant Colorectal07:22 - Gwyn Bebb's Take21:38 - More ESMO HighlightsTo submit a question to BioCentury's editors, email the BioCentury This Week team at podcasts@biocentury.com.Reach us by sending a text

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma and Biotech world.J&J has acquired heart failure implant maker V-Wave for up to $1.7 billion, while Medtronic reiterates its unchanged diabetes strategy despite a partnership with Abbott. Histosonics secured $102 million for a noninvasive tumor treatment using sound waves, and Edwards acquired Genesis' TAVR technology. The FDA approved NowDiagnostics' at-home syphilis test, offering results in 15 minutes with a drop of blood. The biotech industry remains strong in 2024, with startups thriving and technology advancements. Small biopharma and CROs are adopting multiple trial technologies, as per a recent survey.23andMe, known for consumer genetic testing, focuses on therapeutics development despite financial struggles and data breach lawsuits. Their lead candidate targets a new cancer treatment pathway using checkpoint inhibitors. Lilly's diabetes drug tirzepatide shows promise in reducing type 2 diabetes risk, while J&J's Rybrevant and Lazcluze combo is FDA-approved for lung cancer. Avidity and Kymera raised funds, Walgreens partnered with BARDA, and Merck licensed an antibody drug conjugate. Humana settles Medicare Part D fraud allegations, Steward hospitals in Massachusetts must sell five facilities, and McLaren Health Care faces another ransomware attack.Eli Lilly's tirzepatide demonstrates a 94% risk reduction for type 2 diabetes in overweight adults, and J&J's Rybrevant combo is the first chemo-free treatment for non-small cell lung cancer. Walgreens and BARDA collaborate to boost decentralized clinical trials, while three drugs are projected to drive drug price negotiation savings in 2026. Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs roles are crucial for market access, AbbVie and Genmab expand Tepkinly's European label, and biopharma companies like Lykos, Galera, and Grail announce staff reductions. AstraZeneca receives FDA approval for Imfinzi's perioperative use.Lykos restructures with significant staff cuts post-FDA rejection of their therapy, Acelyrin shifts focus to thyroid eye disease treatment after layoffs. Biotech IPO sizes are increasing despite slow IPO rates, Lilly opens an R&D hub in Boston, Ovid and Lexicon downsize staff. Stay informed with Biopharma Dive's comprehensive coverage of biotech and pharma industry news.

Effective communication between patients and healthcare providers is crucial to facilitate shared decision-making and meaningful dialogue that supports improved patient outcomes in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) care. In this episode, CANCER BUZZ speaks with Jean Louise Koff, MD, MSc, associate professor in the Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, about fostering trust, rapport, and collaboration in the patient-provider relationship. “I think empathy is a key part of establishing a relationship between a provider and a patient. [It] helps the patient feel safe when they're dealing with what can be a very stressful and frightening situation...A phrase that I like to use: ‘Our care team is going to take care of you. We are here for you during this diagnosis, and we're going to take care of you as you move through your care plan.'” — Jean Louise Koff, MD, MSc   Jean Louise Koff, MD, MSc Associate Professor Department of Hematology and Oncology Winship Cancer Institute Emory University School of Medicine Atlanta, GA   This video podcast was produced in partnership with the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society and made possible by support from Abbvie, Genmab, and Genentech. Resources ·       Reframing the Conversation: Effective Practices for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma - ACCC ·       DLBCL Communication Roadmap - ACCC

After securing approval last week for Alzheimer's drug Kisunla, Eli Lilly was back in the news Monday with the $3.2 billion acquisition of immunology biotech Morphic Holding. This represents another deal in the lucrative immunology and inflammation (I&I) space, which saw $12.3 billion in M&A activity last year, with analysts predicting this momentum would carry over into 2024.  Investment continues to pour into another hot therapeutic space: antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). British biopharma company Myricx Bio netted a £90 million ($115.5 million) Series A round to expand its ADC platform and advance its pipeline into the clinic. Several other pharmaceutical companies are looking to capitalize on the potential of the ADC market—which is estimated to reach nearly $30 billion by 2028—including Johnson & Johnson, Genmab and Ipsen, who have all struck M&A deals in the space this year. Still others, including Sutro Biopharma and Mersana Therapeutics, are hoping to supercharge their potential via the immune system with immunostimulatory ADCs. And GLP-1s continue to make headlines, with one study linking semaglutide to an optic nerve condition that can cause sudden vision loss, and another showing the drug class could significantly lower the risk of 10 obesity-related cancers in diabetes patients. Novo Nordisk's Wegovy has successfully expanded into China, where its patent will expire in less than two years, paving the way for biosimilar competition, and Lilly's Mounjaro elicited greater weight loss than Novo's Ozempic in a new observational study.

Dr. Diwakar Davar and Dr. Jason Luke discuss advances in the neoadjuvant immunotherapy space that were presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including promising outcomes in high-risk melanoma from the NADINA trial, as well as other new treatment options for patients with advanced cancers.    TRANSCRIPT Dr. Diwakar Davar: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your guest host, Dr. Diwakar Davar, and I am an associate professor of medicine and the clinical director of the Melanoma Skin Cancer Program at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. I am delighted to have my colleague and friend Dr. Jason Luke on the podcast today to discuss key late-breaking abstracts and advances in immunotherapy that were presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Dr. Luke is an associate professor of medicine, the associate director of clinical research, and the director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutic Center at the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center.   You will find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode.  Jason, it's always a pleasure to hear your insights on the key trials in these spaces and to have you back as a guest on this podcast that highlights some of the work, especially advances, that were just presented. Dr. Jason Luke: Well, thanks very much for the invitation. I always love joining the podcast. Dr. Diwakar Davar: We'll start very quickly by talking about some advances and really interesting things that happened both in the context of melanoma but also in immunotherapy in general. And we'll start with what I think was certainly one highlight for me, which was LBA2, the late-breaking abstract on the NADINA trial. It was featured in the Plenary Session, and in this abstract, Dr. Christian Blank and colleagues reported on the results of this phase 3 trial of neoadjuvant ipi-nivo. This is the flipped dose of ipi1/nivo3 versus adjuvant nivolumab in PD-1 naive, macroscopic, resectable, high-risk stage 3 melanoma.  By way of background, neoadjuvant immunotherapy for those listening is an area of increasing interest for drug developers and development for both approved and novel agents. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy has been studied with multiple approved agents, including PD-1 monotherapy, PD-1 LAG-3, PD-1 CTLA-4, T-VEC, as well as investigational agents and multiple randomized and non-randomized studies. The benchmark pathologic response rates with these agents range from 17% PCR with PD-1 monotherapy, 45% to 55% PCR with PD-1 CTLA-4 combination therapy, and slightly higher 57% PCR with PD-1 LAG-3 has recently reported by Dr. Rodabe Amaria from MD Anderson. However, as we embark on phase 3 comparisons for various neoadjuvant compared to adjuvant immunotherapy trials and combinations, we're increasingly moving towards event-free survival as the primary endpoint for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant studies. And this was most recently studied in the context of SWOG S1801, a study that was led by Dr. Sapna Patel.  So, Jason, before we start on NADINA, can you briefly summarize the SWOG S1801 trial and the event-free survival statistic reported by Dr. Patel and her colleagues? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, absolutely. And these data were reported at ESMO about two years ago and then in the New England Journal last year. The S1801 study answered a very simple question: What would happen if you took three of the doses of standard adjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab and moved them prior to surgery? And on a high level, the study is as simple as that. And many of us were somewhat skeptical of this trial design because we thought that just moving the doses earlier may not actually have a major impact.  In the study, you alluded to the event-free survival statistic, and that alludes to what was considered an event. And so, without reading all of it, there were several different aspects that were included in terms of time, based on the date of randomization until the first of a series of events, such as disease progression, toxicity from treatment, if the patient was unable to go to surgery or had surgical complications, or if they had delay in starting the adjuvant therapy due to toxicity, and obviously, recurrence of melanoma or death from any cause. In that context, merely moving the 3 doses of pembrolizumab to the neoadjuvant setting saw an improvement in this two-year event free survival to 72% for the neoadjuvant therapy compared to 49% for the adjuvant therapy. That was quite an outstanding change. And again, noting the power of neoadjuvant treatment, really dictating the impact of anti PD-1, again, just with 3 doses moving from adjuvant into the neoadjuvant setting, and I think all of us were somewhat surprised to see that magnitude of a benefit. But it set up the current study very well, where we now look at combination therapy. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So let's move on to the phase 3 NADINA trial. Do you want to perhaps discuss the study design, particularly focusing on the EFS primary endpoint and maybe also touching on the different schedules? So, SWOG S1801 was a neoadjuvant study of 3 cycles of pembrolizumab and how did that compare and contrast to the neoadjuvant combination that was studied in NADINA? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, as you alluded to, NADINA investigated the regimen of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and compared that against adjuvant therapy with nivolumab alone. So, in the study, as you alluded, the dose and schedule of the two drugs used was nivolumab at 3 milligrams per kilogram, and ipilimumab with 1 milligram per kilogram. That was based on a series of signal finding and safety studies that had been previously done by the same group of authors identifying that as the optimal treatment regimen. And it's worth noting that's slightly different than the labeled indication that's generally used for those same drugs for metastatic melanoma, albeit that the NCCN also endorses this schedule. So, in the trial, 423 patients were randomized, 1:1 to receive either neoadjuvant therapy with those 2 doses of nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with standard adjuvant therapy with nivolumab following surgery.   Now, one interesting tweak was that there was an adaptive nature to the study, meaning that patients had a fiducial placed at the index lymph node, and after the neoadjuvant therapy in that arm, that lymph node was removed. And if the patient had a major pathological response, they did not go on to receive the adjuvant portion of the treatment. So it was adaptive because those patients who did very well to the neoadjuvant did not require the adjuvant portion. And in those patients who did not achieve a major pathological response, they could go on to have the adjuvant therapy. And that also included the BRAF therapy for those whose tumors were BRAF mutants.  It's also worth pointing out that the definition of event free survival was slightly different than in the S1801 study that was alluded to just a second ago. And here, EFS was defined from the date of randomization until progression due to melanoma or due to treatment. So that's slightly different than the definition in the S1801 trial. So, a somewhat complicated study, but I really applaud the authors because I think this study does mirror what we would likely be doing in actual clinical practice.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, just to briefly summarize the efficacy, and then to get your comments on this, the path response, the PCR rate was 47%. The major pathologic response rate, which is the proportion of patients with between 0% to 1/10% of residual viable tumors, was about 12%. And for a major pathologic response rate of 0% to 10% of 59%. And then the rest of the patients had either pathologic partial response, which was 10% to 50%, or pathologic non response or 50% or greater residual viable tumor, all assessed using central pathology grades. The one year RFS was 95% in the FDR patient population versus 76% in the pathologic partial response patient population, 57% in the pathologic non response patient population. So how do you view these results? Can you context the FDR rates and the EFS rates from NADINA relative to nivo-rela and also potentially SWOG 1801? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, I think these are very exciting results. I think that for those of us that have been following the field closely, they're actually not especially surprising because they mirror several studies that have come before them. When we put them in context with other studies, we see that these rates of major pathological response are consistent with what we've seen in phase 2 studies. They're relatively similar. Or I should say that the results from nivolumab and relatlimab, which was also pursued in a phase 2 study of somewhat similar design, are somewhat similar to this. So, combination immunotherapy does look to deliver a higher major pathological response than pembrolizumab alone, as was known in S1801. Which of course, the caveat being is these are cross control comparisons that we need to be careful about. So I think all of these are active regimens, and I think adding a second agent does appear to enhance the major pathologic response rates. When we look at the event free survival, we see something similar, which is that numerically it looks to be that combination immunotherapy delivers a higher event free survival rate. And that looks to be rather meaningful given the difference in the hazard ratios that were observed between these various studies. And here in the NADINA study, we see that 0.3 hazard ratio for EFS is just extremely impressive.  So the abstract then, from ourselves, out of these specific studies, what does this mean more broadly in the real world, where patients exist and the rest of the landscape for clinical trials? I think we can't take enough time to stop for a second and just think about what a revolution we've come forward in with immune checkpoint blockade and melanoma. When I started my career, now, more than 15 years ago, melanoma was the cancer that made cancer bad. And now here we say, in the highest risk of perioperative patients, we can deliver 2 doses of nivolumab and ipilimumab, and essentially half of the patients then don't need to go on, and more than half the patients don't need to go on to have a full surgery and don't need adjuvant therapy. And from what we could tell of a very, very low risk of every heavy recurrence of melanoma. Of course, there's the other half of patients where we still need to do better, but these are just fantastic results and I think highly meaningful for patients.   In the context of ongoing clinical trials, another abstract that was presented during the meeting was the update to the individualized neoantigen therapy, or V940 with pembrolizumab or against pembrolizumab alone. That's the KEYNOTE-942 study. In that study, they presented updated data at two and a half years for relapse free survival, noting a 75% rate without relapse. So those results are also highly intriguing. And these are in a similar population of very high risk patients. And so I think most of us believe that neoadjuvant therapy with this study in NADINA is now confirmed as the priority approach for patients who present with high-risk stage 3 disease. So that would be bulky disease picked up on a scan or palpable in a clinic. I think essentially all of us now believe patients should get preoperative immunotherapy. We can debate which approach to take, and it may vary by an individual patient's ability to tolerate toxicity, because, of course, multi agent immunotherapy does have increased toxicity relative to anti PD-1 alone. But we'll have to wait now for the full phase 3 results from the V940 individualized neoantigen therapy. And if those come forward, that will be an extremely attractive approach to think about for patients who did not achieve a major pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy, as well as of course to the other populations of patients with melanoma where we otherwise currently give adjuvant therapy stage 2B all the way through stage 4 resected. It's an amazing time to think about perioperative therapy in melanoma. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So this is clearly outstanding data, outstanding news. Congratulations to the investigators for really doing what is an investigative initiated trial conducted across multiple continents with a huge sample size. So this clearly appears to be, at this point in time at least, a de facto standard. But is this going to be FDA-approved, guideline-approved, or is it possible in your mind? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, that's an interesting question. This study was not designed with the intent to necessarily try to register this treatment regimen with the FDA. One would have to take a step back and say, with how powerful these data appear, it sort of seemed like it would be too bad if that doesn't happen. But all the same, I think the community and those of us who participate in guideline recommendations are fully supportive of this. So, I think we will see this move into compendium listings that support insurance approval, I think, very, very quickly. So, whether or not this actually becomes formally FDA approved or is in the guidelines, I think this should become the standard approach that is considered for patients, again presenting with high-risk stage 3 disease.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: Fantastic. So now we're going to go in and talk about a slightly different drug, but also from the melanoma context, and that is the safety and efficacy of RP1 with nivolumab in the context of patients with melanoma who are PD-1 failures. So, this is Abstract 9517. And in this abstract, our academic colleagues essentially talked about these data, and we'll start by describing what RP1 is. RP1 essentially is a HSV-1 based oncolytic immunotherapy. And RP1 expresses GM-CSF as well as a fusogenic protein, GALV-GP-R-. And in this abstract, Dr. Michael Wong from MD Anderson and colleagues are reporting the results of IGNYTE, which is a phase I trial of intratumoral RP1 co-administered with systemic nivolumab in patients with advanced metastatic treatment refractory cutaneous melanoma. And the data presented in this abstract represents data from a registration directed, abbreviated as RD, registration directed cohort of RP1 plus nivolumab in PD-1 refractory melanoma. So, let's start with the description of the cohort.  Dr. Jason Luke: Right. So, in this study, there were a total of 156 patients who were presented, and that included an initial safety and dose finding group of 16, as well as the RD cohort, as you noted, of 140 patients. And it's important to point out that this was a cohort that was selected for a very strict definition of progression on anti PD-1, or a combination immunotherapy as their immediately prior treatment. So, all of the patients in the cohort had exposure to anti PD-1, and 46% of them had anti PD-1 plus anti CTLA4, nivolumab and ipilimumab as their immediately prior therapy. This was also a group of relatively high-risk patients when one considers stage. So, within the stage 4 population, the entry here included 51% who had stage M1B, C, and D melanoma. And that is worth pointing out because this is an injectable therapy. So, trials like this in the past have tended to be biased towards earlier stage, unresectable or metastatic melanoma, meaning stage 3B, 3C, 3D and then stage 4m1a. Again, to emphasize the point here, these were pretreated patients who had a strict definition of anti PD-1 resistance, and over half of them, in fact, had high-risk visceral metastatic disease.  In that context, it's very interesting to observe that the overall response rate was described in the total population, as 31%, and that included 12% who achieved complete response. And so, again, to make sure it's clear, we're talking about a treatment where the oncolytic virus is injected into one or multiple sites of recurrent disease, and then the patients administer nivolumab as per standard. And so, I think these data are quite intriguing. Again, such a high- risk population and their maturity now, with a follow-up of over a year, I think, makes this look to be a very interesting treatment option.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: I guess on that topic of mature follow-up, it probably would be important for us to inform our audience that the top line data for the primary analysis was actually just released, I think, earlier today, and wherein the central confirmed objective response rate was 34% by modified RECIST and 33% by RECIST, clearly indicating that these responses, as you noted, very treatment refractory patient population, these responses were clearly very durable. So, you mentioned that there were responses seen in uninjected visceral lesions, responses seen in both PD-1 and PD-1 CTLA-4 refractory patients. Can you talk a little bit about the response rate in these high-risk subgroups, the uninjected visceral lesions, the patients who had both combination checkpoint and epidural refractory response rate by primary PD-1 resistance.  Dr. Jason Luke: Sure. You know, I think, again, to emphasize this point in the study, we saw that there were responses in the non-injected lesions, and I think it's really important to emphasize that. Some have referred to this as a putative abscopal like effect, similar to what is described in radiation. But it implies that local treatment with the oncolytic virus is triggering a systemic immune response. In the higher risk patient population, we'll note that whereas the overall response rate in PD-1 refractory patients was 34%, in the combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 refractory patients, the response rate was 26%. So, [this is] still very good. And when we looked at that split by stage, as I alluded to before, in the population of patients that had, what you might call earlier unresectable diseases, so 3B through 4A, the response rate was 38%, and in the stage 4 M1b through M1d, it was 25%. So slightly lower, but still very good. And that would be as expected, because, of course, the patients with visceral metastatic disease have more advanced disease, but those response rates look quite good. Again, looking at the combination refractory population as well as the more high-risk disease. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, clearly, these are very promising data and exciting times for multiple investigators in the field and the company, Replimune, as well. So, what are the next steps? I believe that a registration trial is planned, essentially, looking at this with the goal of trying to get this combination registered. Can you tell us a little bit about IGNYTE-3, the trial design, the control arm, and what you foresee this trial doing over the next couple of years?  Dr. Jason Luke: So, as this agent has been maturing, it's worth pointing out that the company that makes this molecule, called RP1, but I guess now we'll have to get used to this name vusolimogene oderparepvec as the actual scientific term, they have been having ongoing discussions with the FDA, and there is the potential that this agent could come forward on an accelerated path prior to the results being released from a phase 3 trial. That being said, the phase 3 confirmatory study, which is called the IGNYTE-3 study, is in the process of being launched now. And that's a study investigating this molecule in combination with nivolumab, as was alluded to earlier, and a randomized phase 3 design, where that combination is compared with a physician's choice, essentially a chemotherapy-based option.   In that study, it will be 400 patients with stage 3B through stage 4; patients will have progressed on anti PD-1, either as a combination or in sequence, and then come on the study to be randomized to either vusolimogene oderparepvec plus nivolumab versus that physician's choice. And the physician's choice includes chemotherapy agents, but also nivolumab plus relatlimab as another option, or an anti PD-1 monotherapy, if that's deemed to be a reasonable option by the treating investigator. And the primary endpoint of that study is overall survival. And unfortunately, in this highly refractory patient population, that's something that may not take long to identify with key secondary endpoints of progression free survival, as well as overall response rate. I'm quite enthusiastic about this study, given these data, which have now been centrally confirmed as you alluded to before. I think this is a very exciting area of investigation and really crossing my fingers that this may be perhaps the first locally administered therapy which does appear to have a systemic impact that can hold up in phase 3. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Very, very, very exciting results. And I guess it's worthwhile pointing out that this company also has got, I think, multiple studies planned with both RP1 and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in a solid organ transplant patient population where single agent activity has already been reported by Dr. Migden at prior meetings, as well as a novel trial of potentially RP2 metastatic uveal melanoma. So we'll now pivot to Abstract 6014. So, 6014 is a drug by a company known as Merus. Essentially, it's a very novel agent. Merus essentially is a company that is specialized in making bicyclics and tricyclics. And these are not bicycles or tricycles, but rather drugs that essentially are bispecific antibodies. And Merus essentially has come up with petosemtamab. I think we're going to have to figure out better names for all of these drugs at some point. But petosemtamab, or MCLA-158, essentially is a bicyclic, targeting both EGFR as well as LGR-5. So EGR-5, of course, is a known oncogenic driver in multiple tumor types, squamous, including non small cell lung cancer, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, but also head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. And LGR-5 essentially is leucine-rich repeat-containing G-protein coupled receptor 5, but it's a receptor in cancer stem cells and certainly highly expressed in head neck squam. And MCLA-158, or petosemtamab is a IgG one bispecific with ADCC-activity because of IgG1 backbone co-targeting EGFR and LGR5. Merus had earlier results that evaluated petosemtamab monotherapy. They defined the RP2D and second- and third-line head and neck blastoma patients with a respectable response rate of 37% investigator-assessed ORR with six months median DoR, and this was published by Ezra Cohen about a year or so ago.  In this abstract, Dr. Fayette and colleagues report on the results of the MCLA-158-CL01 trial, which is a trial of pembrolizumab plus petosemtamab in one front line head and neck squamous cell population. So maybe let's start with the description of the cohort. And it is a small trial, but we'll be able, I think, to dig into a little bit about why this might be exciting. Dr. Jason Luke: Yes. So, as alluded to, it's not the biggest trial as yet, but there were 26 patients with anti PD-1 treatment naive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. And all the patients in the study did receive, as you alluded to, pembrolizumab plus petosemtamab. Based on the label for pembrolizumab, all the patients in this study were PDL-1 positive. So that's one point that it's worth pointing out to make sure that that's understood. This is the population of patients who would be expected to benefit from pembrolizumab in the first place. Now, in the abstract, they reported out only 10 response evaluable patients, but they updated that in the actual slides of presentation at the meeting. So among 24 patients that were alluded to, 67% were described as having had a response, although some of those were yet to be confirmed responses. And when it was evaluated by PDL-1 status, there didn't seem to be a clear enrichment of response in the PD-1 positive more than 20% group, as compared to the 1-19% group. That isn't especially surprising because that was a trend that one would see, presumably with pembrolizumab alone. But overall, I think these data are pretty exciting in terms of a preliminary study. Dr. Diwakar Davar: You know, you mentioned that the objective response rate was high, almost 60-something%. The prognosis of these patients is generally poor. The OS is typically thought of as between 6-15 months. And based on KEYNOTE-048, which was led by Dr. Burtness and colleagues, the standard of care in the setting is pembrolizumab +/- platinum based chemotherapy regimens. Allowing for the fact that we only have 10 patients here, how do you think these results stack up against KEYNOTE-048? And you made a very important point earlier, which was, by definition, pembro is on label only for the CPS. So PDL-1 score, at least in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma CPS and not TPS. But in the CPS 1% or greater patient population, where pembro is on label, how do these results stack up against the KEYNOTE-048 results. Dr. Jason Luke: Right. KEYNOTE-048 is considered the seminal study that dictates frontline treatment in head and neck cancer. And before we dive into this too far, we do want to acknowledge that here we're comparing 26 patients versus a phase 3 trial. So, we're not trying to get too far ahead of ourselves, but this is just a preliminary comparison. But in KEYNOTE-048, as you alluded to, two regimens were superior to chemotherapy. One was the pembrolizumab monotherapy, as well as pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy. So again, the study overall survival, of course, was much higher, the PDL-1 positive subgroup, which is what dictated the unlabeled use of this. But response to pembro monotherapy in that population of patients is still modest. We're talking about upwards of 20-30%. So, if you compare that to, again, preliminary evidence here from this trial of only 24 patients, that response rate of 60% seems extremely high. And so even if that were to come down somewhat in a larger data series of patients, that still looks to be quite promising as a treatment regimen, that might eventually even be chemotherapy sparing for this population of patients. I think this raises a lot of eyebrows that perhaps this dual targeting approach, EGFR and LDR-5, may bring something really important to the field that evolves it. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, what are the next steps for petosemtamab? You mentioned that the activity was interesting. Are we going to see a larger trial? Any thoughts on where things are going to go?  Dr. Jason Luke: Well, based on the phase 2 data of petosemtamab alone, even without pembrolizumab, the molecule had already been given fast track designation by FDA, which means allowing for greater communication between the drug sponsor in the FDA and designing a seminal study design. One would assume that this trial will be rapidly expanded quite greatly, perhaps to 100 or 200 patients, to try to flush out what the real response rate is in a more meaningful number of patients. But I think these data will probably also trigger the design and probably near-term evaluation or expedited acceleration of a phase III clinical trial design that would potentially validate this against the current standard of care. So, I'm pretty excited. I think we'll see a lot more about this agent in the relatively near future. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, finally, we'll pivot to the last abstract that we're going to talk about, which is Abstract 2504. It's a relatively interesting target, CCR8 monoclonal antibody. But this is the efficacy and safety of LM-108, and LM-108 is an anti CCR8 monoclonal antibody that is being developed by LaNova Medicine. And the results that are described, actually a pool set of results of combinations of LM-108 with anti PD-1, two separate anti PD-1, in patients with gastric cancer, mostly done ex-U.S., which is interesting because of this patient population, and it's a pool result of several, 3 phase 1 and 2 studies.  LM-108 is an Fc-optimized anti CCR8 monoclonal antibody that selectively depletes tumor infiltrating Tregs. The abstract reported a pooled analysis of three phase 1, 2 trials with 3 different NCT numbers that all evaluated the efficacy of LM-108 and anti PD-1 in patients with gastric cancer. So, let's start with the description of the cohort. Maybe, Jason, you can tell us a little bit about before you start, as you describe the cohort, sort of what we know, editorially speaking, about the difficulty with which Tregs depletion has been tried and obviously failed up until now in the tumor microenvironment. Dr. Jason Luke: Right. I think that's a really interesting comment. And so, for decades, in fact, targeting regulatory T-cell to alleviate immune exclusion in the tumor microenvironment has been of interest in immuno-oncology. And in preclinical mouse models, it seems quite clear that such an approach can deliver therapeutic efficacy. However, by contrast, in human clinical trials, various different Treg depleting strategies have been attempted, and there's really little to no evidence that depleting Tregs from human tumors actually can deliver therapeutic responses. And by that we're referring to CD-25 antibodies. The drug ipilimumab, the CTLA-4 antibody, was punitively described as a Tregs depleter preclinically, but that doesn't seem to be the case in patients. And so, in that background, this is quite an eye raiser that an anti CCR8 antibody could be driving this effect. Now, before we talk about the results of this trial, I will point out, however, that given the Fc-optimization, it's entirely possible that the Tregs are being depleted by this mechanism, but that more could also be going on. Because Fc gamma RII binding by this antibody that could be nonspecific also has the potential to trigger immune responses in the tumor microenvironment, probably mediated by myeloid cells. So I think more to come on this. If this turns out to be the first meaningful Tregs depletor that leads to therapeutic efficacy, that would be very interesting. But it's also possible this drug could have multiple mechanisms.  So, having said all of that, in the clinical trial, which was a pooled analysis, like you mentioned, of LM-108 in combination with anti PD-1 of a couple different flavors, there were 48 patients treated either with LM-108, with pembrolizumab, or with toripalimab, which is another anti PD-1 antibody. On the drug combination was, generally speaking, pretty well tolerated, noting grade 3 treatment related adverse events in the range of 38%, which is somewhat expected given combination immunotherapy. We talked about nivolumab and ipilimumab before, which, of course, gives even higher rates of immune-related adverse events, with the most common toxicities being anemia, lipase elevations, rash, ALC decrease; albeit, quite manageable. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, what about the objective response rate? Can you contextualize the efficacy? And as you do that, maybe we'll think about what you'd expect in the context of, say, gastric cancer, especially in patients who've never really had a prior checkpoint inhibitor before. What do you think about the ORR? What do you think about the relative efficacy of this combination? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, so, in the study, they described overall response rate in the 36 patients as 36% and described immediate progression for survival of about 6.5 months. And so that was among patients who were treatment naive. And in second-line patients, they actually described an even higher response rate, although it was only 11 patients, but they're at 64%. And so, I think those data look to be somewhat interesting. When I was actually scrutinizing the actual data presented, it was of some interest to note that the quality of responses seemed to be about as good on the lower dose of LM-108, so 3 milligrams per kilogram as compared to 10 milligrams per kilogram. I think there's definitely more to learn here to try to optimize the dose and to fully understand what the overall efficacy of this treatment combination would be.  I would emphasize that in this disease, I think novel treatment strategies are certainly warranted. While anti PD-1 with chemotherapy has moved the needle in terms of standard of care treatment, it's really only a minor subset of patients who derive durable long-term benefit like we normally associate with immune checkpoint blockade. I think these are preliminary data. They're very intriguing.   You alluded to earlier that this population of patients was an Asian data set, and it is well known that the efficacy of chemotherapy and immunotherapy does appear to be somewhat enhanced in Asian populations, and that goes to distributions of metastasis and tumor microenvironment effects, etc. Very difficult to try to tease any of that out in this abstract, other than to look at these data and suggest that this is pretty interesting, both from a novel therapeutic approach, we talked about the Tregs consideration, but also straight up on the efficacy because I think if these data could hold up in a larger number of patients, and particularly in a western population of patients, I think it would be very intriguing. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Certainly, ASCO 2024 had a lot of interesting data, including data from targeted agents, the LAURA trial, ADCs. But just focusing on the immune therapy subset, we certainly saw a lot of great advances in patients who were treated with neoadjuvant as well as relapse refractory disease in the context of RP1 and then a couple of newer agents such as this petosemtamab as well as LM-108. And of course, we cannot forget to highlight the extended DMFS data from the pembro vaccine study from KEYNOTE-942.  Jason, as always, thank you for taking a little bit of time out of your extremely busy schedule to come and give us insights as to how these agents are impacting the landscape. We really value your input and so thank you very much.  Dr. Jason Luke: Thank you for the opportunity. Dr. Diwakar Davar: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find the links to all the abstracts that we discussed in the transcript of this episode. And finally, if you value the insights that you hear on this podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. So, thank you.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow today's speakers:   Dr. Diwakar Davar   @diwakardavar   Dr. Jason Luke   @jasonlukemd      Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:       Dr. Diwakar Davar:     Honoraria: Merck, Tesaro, Array BioPharma, Immunocore, Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences    Consulting or Advisory Role: Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences    Consulting or Advisory Role (Immediate family member): Shionogi    Research Funding: Merck, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CellSight Technologies, GSK, Merck, Arvus Biosciences, Arcus Biosciences    Research Funding (Inst.): Zucero Therapeutics    Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Application No.: 63/124,231 Title: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING CANCER Applicant: University of Pittsburgh–Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education Inventors: Diwakar Davar Filing Date: December 11, 2020 Country: United States MCC Reference: 10504-059PV1 Your Reference: 05545; and Application No.: 63/208,719 Enteric Microbiotype Signatures of Immune-related Adverse Events and Response in Relation to Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy       Dr. Jason Luke:    Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical, Pyxis, Alphamab Oncology, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch Oncology, Stipe, NeoTX    Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, Alphamab Oncology, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius, Tesaro, Xilio, Xencor, Alnylam, Crown Bioscience, Flame Biosciences, Genentech, Kadmon, KSQ Therapeutics, Immunocore, Inzen, Pfizer, Silicon Therapeutics, TRex Bio, Bright Peak, Onc.AI, STipe, Codiak Biosciences, Day One Therapeutics, Endeavor, Gilead Sciences, Hotspot Therapeutics, SERVIER, STINGthera, Synthekine    Research Funding (Inst.): Merck , Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma , EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring bank, Trishula, KAHR Medical, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena Oncology, Numab, Replimmune, Rubius Therapeutics, Synlogic, Takeda, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc., BioNTech AG, Scholar Rock, Next Cure    Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), and Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof)    Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio

An interview with Genmab's Jan van de Winkel to mark 25 years of the company, and 20 years of the Scrip Awards. A brief history of the antibody-focused biotech company so far, and its plans for future expansion.

Dr. Diwakar Davar and Dr. Jason Luke discuss key abstracts from the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting that explore triplet therapy in advanced melanoma, TIL cell therapy in immune checkpoint inhibitor–naive patients, and other novel approaches that could shape the future of immunotherapy in melanoma and beyond.  TRANSCRIPT Dr. Diwakar Davar: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am your guest host, Dr. Diwakar Davar. I'm an associate professor of medicine and the clinical director of the Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. I'm delighted to have my friend and colleague, Dr. Jason Luke, on the podcast today to discuss key abstracts in melanoma and immunotherapy that will be featured and highlighted at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Dr. Luke is an associate professor of medicine, the director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutic Center, as well as the associate director for clinical research at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center.  You will find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode.  Jason, as always, it's a pleasure to have you on this podcast to hear your key insights on trials in the immunotherapy space and melanoma development paradigm, and to have you back on this podcast to highlight some of this work.  Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks so much for the opportunity to participate. I always enjoy this heading into ASCO.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: We're going to go ahead and talk about three abstracts in the melanoma space, and we will be starting with Abstract 9504. Abstract 9504 essentially is the RELATIVITY-048 study. It describes the efficacy and safety of the triplet nivolumab, relatlimab, and ipilimumab regimen in advanced PD-1 naive melanoma. So in this abstract highlighted by Dr. Ascierto and colleagues, they report on the results of this phase 2 trial in this setting. By way of background, PD-1 inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors starting in PD-1 and CTLA-4, as well as PD-1 and LAG-3, are all FDA-approved on the basis of several pivotal phase 3 trials, including KEYNOTE-006, CheckMate-066, CheckMate-067, and most recently, RELATIVITY-047. Jason, can you briefly summarize for this audience what we know about each of these drugs, at least the two combinations that we have at this time?  Dr. Jason Luke: For sure. And of course, these anti PD-1 agents, became a backbone in oncology and in melanoma dating back to more than 10 years ago now, that response rates in the treatment-naive setting to anti PD-1 with either pembrolizumab or nivolumab are roughly in the range of mid-30s to high-40s. And we've seen clinical trials adding on second agents. You alluded to them with the seminal study being CheckMate-067, where we combined a PD-1 antibody and CTLA-4 antibody or nivo + ipi. And there the response rate was increased to approximately 56%. And more recently, we have data combining PD-1 inhibitors with anti-LAG-3. So that's nivolumab and relatlimab. Now, in that trial, RELATIVITY-047, the overall response rate was described as 43%. And so that sounds, on a first pass, like a lower number, of course, than what we heard for nivolumab and ipilimumab. We have to be cautious, however, that the cross-trial comparison between those studies is somewhat fraught due to different patient populations and different study design. So I think most of us think that the response rate or the long-term outcomes between PD-1, CTLA-4, and PD-1 LAG-3 are probably roughly similar, albeit that, of course, we have much better or much longer follow up for the nivo + ipi combo.  The one other caveat to this, of course then, is that the side effect profile of these two combinations is distinct, where the incidence of high-grade immune-related adverse events is going to be roughly half with nivolumab and relatlimab, a combination of what you would see with the nivolumab and ipilimumab. So that has caused a lot of us to try to think about where we would use these different combinations. But we do see that all of these treatments can land a durable long-term response in the subset of patients that do have an initial treatment benefit. The landmark, I think, for the field has been the 7-and-a-half-year median overall survival that we've seen with PD-1 plus CTLA-4, nivo + ipi; of course, we don't have such long-term follow up for PD-1 and LAG-3. But I think that's the setting for thinking about the rationale for combining a triplet regimen of PD-1, CTLA-4, and LAG-3. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, Jason, in your mind, given the difference in the disparity and durability of the responses for the 067 regimen of nivo-ipi, and the RELATIVITY-047 regiment of nivo-rela, what is the standard of care in the U.S., and how does it change in the rest of the world, knowing that nivo-rela is not necessarily approved in all jurisdictions? Dr. Jason Luke: So this is a major complication in our field, is that there is perhaps not complete agreement across the world in terms of what the frontline standard of care should be. I think most United States investigators, or those of us that really treat melanoma most of the time, would suggest that a combination regimen, given the enhanced response rate and longer-term outcomes, should be the consideration for the majority of patients. In fact, in my practice, it's hard to think of who I would treat with a monotherapy PD-1 approach in the PD-1 naive setting. So either nivo + ipi or nivo + rela. As you alluded to however, in other regulatory settings throughout the world, combinations might not actually even be approved at this point. So PD-1 monotherapy would be the backbone of that setting. It does set up some complications when you think about a comparator arm; say you were going to look at various combinations, probably PD-1 monotherapy would be the worldwide comparator. You have to understand though, in the United States, I think that that's a less attractive option. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So in RELATIVITY-047, Dr. Ascierto and his colleagues are looking at generating a triplet. And in this case, they looked at this in the context of frontline metastatic melanoma, 46 patients. Very interestingly, the dose of ipilimumab studied here was 1 mg/kg through 8 weeks, not the 3 mg/kg every three weeks times four doses using 067, or even the low dose ipilimumab regimen that you studied in the second line setting, which was 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses. So let's talk about the results and specifically the implications of potentially studying lower doses of ipi. Dr. Jason Luke: I appreciate you raising that point. I think it's really important as we think about this dataset because this triplet regimen is not by any means the only version of a triplet that could be developed using these agents. So just to give the high-level numbers from the abstract, we see from these data that the overall response rate is described as 59% and 78%, a disease control rate with patients having an unreached link. So duration of response of unreached, and then the progression-free survival at about 5 months. So those are really interesting data. But as was alluded to, it's not totally clear to me that that's the best that we could do with this regimen.   Now, you alluded to this low-dose ipilimumab schedule at 1 mg/kg every 8 weeks, and it's really important to note that we have no benchmark for that regimen in melanoma oncology. And in fact, the one study that used that regimen, which was the adjuvant study of nivolumab and ipilimumab, known as CheckMate915, is in fact the only immune checkpoint inhibitor study in melanoma oncology that was actually negative. That study noted no benefit to adding ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 8 weeks on top of nivolumab, again, the adjuvant setting. So it's a little bit curious to then understand what it means in this study to have that amount of ipilimumab added to the rela-nivo backbone. And that manifests in a few different ways. We see the response rate here at 59%. Again, if you compare that just against the standard nivo + ipi dosing schedule, it's about the same. So is that really an advantage to having the triplet as compared to just doing standard nivo + ipi?   We do see that it manifests in a slightly lower rate of grade 3/4 immune-related adverse events, at 39%. That's a little bit lower than what we'd expect for standard nivo + ipi. But again, I think that that emphasizes to me the possibility that some efficacy was left on the table by using this very low dose ipilimumab regimen. I think that's really a concern. It's not clear to me that these triplet data really differentiate from what we'd expect with the already approved regimen of nivo + ipi. Therefore, it makes it difficult to think about how would we really want to move this regimen forward, or should there be more work done about dose and schedule to optimize how we might want to do this?  Dr. Diwakar Davar: As far as triplet therapy in the context of frontline metastatic melanoma, meaning triplet immune therapy, because there are at least several targeted therapy triplets that are FDA-approved, [but] not necessarily widely utilized. How would you summarize the future for triplet therapy? Do you think it's potentially attractive? Do you think it's very attractive with some caveats? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, I think it's attractive, and we have 3 independently active agents. And so I do think it's a priority for the field to try to figure out how we could optimize the therapy. We've had such a revolution in melanoma oncology, talking about 7.5-year median survival from CheckMate-067, but that still implies that 7.5 years, half the patients have passed away. There's more to do here. And so I do think it should be a priority to sort this out. I guess I would be cautious, though, about advancing this regimen directly to a phase 3 trial because it doesn't seem clear to me that this is optimized in terms of what the outcome could be. If we're willing to tolerate higher rates of toxicity from other dose schedules of nivo-ipi alone, then I think we should do a little bit more here to potentially explore the space that might be possible to increase that overall response rate a little more without getting into a completely exaggerated toxicity profile that would be unacceptable. So, I do think it's exciting, but there's possibly more to do before really think about going big time with this. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Great. So now we'll switch gears and move from frontline metastatic melanoma to the second line and beyond looking at a new agent and contextualizing the effects of that actually in the frontline settings. So Abstract 9505 describes the efficacy and safety of lifileucel, which is essentially autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapies, also known as TIL, in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with ICI naive, so not necessarily pretreated, but ICI naive metastatic or unresectable melanoma. This is data from the IOV-COM-202 Cohort 1A oral abstract presented by Dr. Thomas and colleagues. In this abstract, Dr. Thomas and colleagues are presenting data from the 1A cohort, which is the phase 2 portion of the frontline trial that is evaluating autologous TIL with pembro in checkpoint inhibited naive metastatic melanoma.  By way of background, TIL is FDA approved on the basis of several cohorts from a phase 2 trial. The data has been presented multiple times now by Drs. Sarli, Chesney, and multiple colleagues of ours. And essentially autologous TIL, which is generated from a surgical procedure in which a patient undergoes a surgery to extract a tumor from which T cells are then grown after ex vivo expansion and rapid expansion protocol. The entire procedure was essentially pioneered by several colleagues at the NCI, primarily Dr. Steve Rosenberg, and this approach produces objective response rates of approximately 31% to 36%. And the most recent publication demonstrated that at median follow up of approximately 2 years, the median duration of response was not reached. The median OS was about 14 months and PFS was about 4 months or so. So, can you contextualize the results of the abstract in the frontline setting? And then we'll talk a little bit about where we think this is going to go. Dr. Jason Luke: So I think this is a timely study given the recent approval. And in the abstract presented here, we see an early data cut from the PD-1 naive study, as you alluded to. So here we had 22 patients and distributed across various states of advanced melanoma. Ten out of the 22 had M1C, but there also were smatterings of earlier M1A and M1B at 18.2% and 9.1%. So this is important, as we think who the treatment population is that's going to be optimized with a TIL procedure. The median sum of diameters, meaning how much tumor burden the patients have, was about 5.5cm, and I'll note that that's a relatively modest amount of tumor burden, albeit not that unusual for an early-stage trial. So of the patients that participated, 8 had BRAF mutations so that's 36%. That's not that high, but it's reasonable. And I think the important overlying number, the response rate so far in the study, with about 17 months of follow up, was 63.6%, and that includes 22% or 23% having complete response. So those are interesting data.  And another point that was made in the abstract, which we've all seen, is that responses to TIL, all of immunotherapy but especially TIL, do seem to mature over time, meaning they deepen over time. So it's possible the response rate could go up some extent as we watch this study advance. So I think these are exciting data on some level. Also, a 63.6% response rate sounds pretty impressive, but we do have to put that in the context of a double checkpoint blockade, which we just got done discussing, gives you almost a 60% response rate, 59% response rate. So then the question really is: Is it worth the amount of effort that we could go into generating a TIL product in a treatment naive patient, and put them through the lymphodepletion that is associated with TIL and the high dose interleukin 2 treatment that accompanies the reinfusion of the TIL, if you're going to get a response rate that's roughly the same as what you would get if you gave them off the shelf nivo plus ipilimumab?  At this point it's a little bit hard to know the answer to that question. I think it could be possible that the answer is yes, because we don't know exactly which populations or patients are most likely to benefit from each of these therapies. And if it could be teased out who's not going to benefit to nivo + ipi from the get-go, then of course, we would want to offer them a therapy that has that frontline potential, durable, long-term response. But I have to say, on a one-to-one with TIL therapy, you get a lot of toxicity initially with the treatment; with nivo + ipi on the back end, you get a fair amount of toxicity with the treatment. How are we going to judge those two things? And I think we probably need a larger dataset to really have a good handle on that.  So these are interesting early data, but it's not totally clear to me that even if this holds up all the way through the trial, and we're going to talk about the design of the registration trial here in a second, a 60% response rate on its own without further biomarker stratification is a little bit hard for me to see in clinical practice why we would want to do that, given we can already just go off the shelf and give checkpoint inhibitors. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So that brings us to TILVANCE-301. So TILVANCE is a phase 3 trial. It's a registration intent trial by our Iovance colleagues evaluating the pembro-TIL regimen versus pembrolizumab alone. So in this phase 3 trial, approximately 670 patients will be randomized to either arm A, which is lifileucel + pembro. And in this arm A, patients are going to be getting lifileucel with the tumor resection, non-myeloablative lymphoid depletion, the lifileucel and abbreviated course of high-dose IL-2, and thereafter, continued pembro for the study mandated duration versus arm B, where patients will be getting just pembrolizumab monotherapy per label. Arm B patients, per the design, may cross over to receive TIL monotherapy at the time of central-blinded, radiology-confirmed disease progression.   The study design otherwise is fairly routine and, per most of our registration trials these days, patients have actually been permitted to receive neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, including checkpoint inhibitors, as long as the receipt of the therapy was more than 6 months prior to the inclusion of the patient in that registration trial. The dual primary efficacy endpoints as stated are BICR-assessed objective response rate as well as PFS, and the key secondary endpoint is overall survival.   So Jason, what are your thoughts on the study design and potentially the regulatory implications, particularly given, one, the control arm of pembro monotherapy, and two, the role of TIL crossover to receive TIL monotherapy at the time of BICR mandated progression for arm B? Dr. Jason Luke: So this goes to a few points that we've touched on already in the discussion here. When we think about the primary endpoints for this study, with one of them being overall response rate, one has to assume that that's a given that they would get that. I feel like that's a low bar. And we go back to that cross-trial comparison. If their results end up being that the response rates are about 60%, I don't know that that differentiates necessarily from what's already available in the field with combination immune checkpoint blockade. For the purposes of the study that would mean it's a positive study, so I think that would probably be good. But again, the comparator to pembrolizumab monotherapy, I think some of us would argue, isn't really consistent with what we would do with a patient in our clinic. So it's not that it's bad per se, but I think there's going to be a whole lot of cross-trial comparison. So if the study is positive, that would be good for getting the drug available. It's still a bit hard though, based on the preliminary data that I've seen, to imagine how this would have uptake in terms of utilization as a frontline therapy.  You alluded to the crossover, and I think there, the assumption is that patients who get TIL therapy as a second line perhaps would have an attenuated benefit. But I'm not sure that's really true. It certainly looks from the data that we have, like the patients who benefit most from TIL are going to be those who didn't respond to anti PD-1 in the front line. So I'm not sure how much difference there's going to be between first- and second-line TIL therapy, but those data will kind of wait to be seen. So I think it's an important study. Of course, the accelerated approval of TIL as a later line therapy is dependent on this trial being positive. So there is some risk that if this trial ended up not being positive, that that could have regulatory implications on the utility or availability of TILs, a subsequent line therapy. But all of these, I guess we'll have to wait to see the results. We do hope for a positive trial here, although I think it'll be nuanced to sort of interpret those data given that pembrolizumab monotherapy control arm.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: Fantastic. So we've learned a lot about TIL, both its use in the second-line setting and this very exciting but potentially risky frontline trial that is ongoing at some centers in the United States and certainly a lot of ex-U.S. enrollment.   So we'll now pivot to a related product which actually belongs to a much larger class of agents that are antigen specific T-cell therapies in a variety of different formats. And that is Abstract 9507, which is the “Phase 1 safety and efficacy of IMC-F106C, a PRAME × CD3 ImmTAC bispecific, in post-checkpoint cutaneous melanoma (CM).” Now, in this abstract, Dr. Omid Hamid and colleagues reported the results of this phase 1 trial. As a disclosure, I'm an investigator and the last author on this manuscript. Jason, it would be important for our audience, for us to maybe firstly, outline the PRAME as a target, and then the ImmTAC as a platform prior to discussing these results. So let's start with the target PRAME, which I think is a target that you know well. So why don't you start with the target and we'll talk a little bit about that and then the platform? Dr. Jason Luke: Yeah, so I think for the audience, being aware of PRAME, or the Preferentially Expressed Antigen in Melanoma, is going to be quite important moving into the future. So PRAME as a therapeutic target is a cancer testis antigen that's overexpressed in tumor tissues. And of course the name has melanoma in it, but it's not uniquely present in melanoma. So the expression patterns of PRAME as a target are very high in melanoma. So in cutaneous disease, this is upwards of almost 100%, somewhere between 95% and 100%, in metastatic melanoma tissues. And PRAME has several different roles on a molecular level, although I don't think for our purposes here, it's so much important to be aware of them, but rather that this is a very highly expressed target, which then can make it attractive for using T cell receptor-based therapies. And so in the case we're talking about here on the ImmTAC platform, that's a CD3 PRAME×CD3 bispecific approach. But of course there are other approaches that can also be taken, such as TCR T cells that directly go after PRAME itself. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Let's now talk about the platform and how it differs from some of the other antigen targeting platforms that you have just alluded to. I think the Immtac platform is basically a fusion protein comprising engineered TCRs with a CD3 specific short chain variable fragment. And then the engineered TCR therefore binds antigens in an HLA dependent fashion. But you know quite a lot about some of these alternative platforms, and I think it'll be important to contextualize for the audience the difference between ImmTAC, which is a prototype drug that is already approved in the context of tebentafusp. But how does this differ from some of the other more nuanced platforms, such as the Immatics TCR or TCR platform and TScan TCRT nanoplasmonic platform.  Dr. Jason Luke: Right. So the ImmTAC platform as alluded to is already approved on the market with tebentafusp, which is the gp100-CD3 bispecific molecule. And the advantage of that approach is infusion off the shelf of a drug. The downside of it is that it is a weekly dosing strategy as it stands now. And there are some complicated disease kinetics associated with treatment response, which we'll come back to in the context of the PRAME bispecific. Those are, in contrast with T-cell receptor-transduced T cells, as an alternative strategy, which is a form of adopted cell transfer. So we just got done talking about TIL therapy, which of course, is trying to take lymphocytes out of the tumor and grow them up and then give them back. Here with TCR-transduced T cells, we're talking about taking leukopak from the blood and then using different transfection approaches to try to insert into the lymphocytes of the patient a T cell receptor that recognizes to a certain cancer antigen, in this case, PRAME.  So you alluded to a couple of different companies that have different platforms to do this. Immatics has a molecule called IMA 203, for which there have been data disclosed in the past year, again showing some very interesting responses in patients who have highly refractory melanoma. That process, though, again, does require lymphodepletion before you reinfuse the cells. Again, in contrast, the ImmTAC, which is an off the shelf revenue administer, there you have to make the product and then bring the patient back, lymphodeplete, and give the cells back. Immatics platform uses a viral transfection vector. The T scan approach that you alluded to before uses an approach of a mixed system on multiple HLA backgrounds to try to get past HLA-A*02:01 only, and in this case, uses a plasmid-based transfection syndrome that perhaps can be more broadly utilized given the lack of a lentiviral vector.   So this is a complicated area of technology that starts to get into immune engineering, and I think for the purposes of this discussion, we don't want to belabor it. But both of these technologies, talking about the CD3 bispecific with the off the shelf aspect of it and the adoptive cell transfer, each of these using a T cell receptor-based therapy to try to go after PRAME, I think have very high upsides, and I think we'll initially see it in melanoma over the next year or so. But this is likely to be relevant to multiple tumor types beyond melanoma.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: So let's discuss the results of this phase 1 trial. IMC-F106C, like all other ImmTAC, is administered intravenously and does require step-up dosing. You alluded to the fact that the tebentafusp was approved, and it's one of those drugs that is fortunately otherwise administered weekly, which can be difficult for the patient and requires at least the patient spend the first 3 doses overnight under some kind of monitoring, whether it's in the hospital or extended outpatient monitoring, for at least 23 hours. The efficacy of this agent and this platform appears to be surprising in that you tend to see a relatively low RECIST response rate. We'll have you comment a little bit on why that is the case and what may be the role of ctDNA, as opposed to conventional RECIST in assessing response.   At least in this trial, they mandated pre-testing, but did not require it for study enrollment. And pre-positivity was defined using immunohistochemistry with a relatively low H-score of 1%. And the molecular response definition was a 0.5 log or a 68% ctDNA reduction just prior to the first imaging assessment. So how do you contextualize the results? But maybe before you talk a little bit about the results, the ctDNA aspect, that was a recent publication by Drs. Rich Carvajal, Alex Shoushtari, and I think you are also involved in that.  Dr. Jason Luke: So, I think an interesting observation around tebentafusp has been that ctDNA may be a better predictor of long-term outcomes. And how you define ctDNA response is still something that the field is grappling with, albeit that I think is going to be an important consideration as we think about these novel therapies, these ImmTACs and other CD3 engagers moving into the future. But for the purposes of the abstract here, we see that in the population of patients treated, there were 46 patients with cutaneous melanoma. The majority got monotherapy with IMC-F106C, and that's the PRAME bispecific. So 40 patients that got monotherapy and six who got a combination with checkpoint inhibitor. All these patients had prior treatment with immunotherapy, and most of them had PD-1 and CTLA-4 antibody with a small spanner that also had BRAF inhibitors.  In terms of that PRAME testing that you alluded to, based on the immunohistochemistry H-score greater than 1%, 35 out of 40 patients were positive, so they defined 5 as negative. And we could come back if we have time, but there are other ways to do PRAME testing as well that I think may become unique for different agents, maybe an important biomarker. In the data, 31 out of the 46 patients were RECIST evaluable. The outcomes of those patients were to note that the response rate was 13%, which was four partial responses. But 35% of patients had tumor regression with a disease control rate at 65%. It was clear that there was an enrichment by PRAME positivity for both progression free and overall survival. So those patients who had obvious positivity essentially had a doubling of the PFS and more than the doubling of the OS, 2.1 to 4.1 months for TFS and landmark OS, 40% to 94%. So I think these are quite intriguing data.  It does suggest that for the vast majority of patients, we do see some induction of the antitumor effect, albeit that RECIST might undercall the effect. And so this may become another area where the ctDNA monitoring might be able to help us to understand who is likely to have really long-term benefit from this therapy. And given the number of emerging treatments that we have for melanoma, we might be able to really focus in on that group of patients in terms of optimizing how we would use this drug moving into the future. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So you talked about a response rate, and at first glance, this response rate is a little underwhelming. We're talking about 4 out of 31 RECIST evaluable patients, 13%. So it's in the double digits, but barely. So how enthusiastic are you about the results? How does it contrast with at least the publicly known data from other brain targeting approaches, such as the IMA203 agent, understanding that while they may be all targeting somewhat the same target, they are actually extraordinarily different platforms. One's off the shelf, one's highly customized. How do you contextualize the results? How would it contrast with other cellular approaches?  Dr. Jason Luke: I think it's important, again, to emphasize the point you made, which is that they're very different kinds of treatments. So even though they both target PRAME, they're going to be differently useful, and they could be quite useful for different groups of patients. And so here we see that there is a subfraction of patients who are deriving long-term benefit. And we commonly have an argument in our field about, is overall response rate really a useful monitor that describes a patient-centric outcome? While, of course, patients like to know their tumors are shrinking, what they want the most is for the tumors not to get worse and for them not to pass away from cancer. So I think I'm enthusiastic about these results, but emphasizing the point that we need to better understand who is going to benefit the most from this CD3 bispecific PRAME approach and how we're going to be able to harness that into long term benefit for patients because there's no doubt that an off the shelf therapy has a high degree of value relative to adoptive cell transfer, which sort of requires a big wind up.   So when you say, what does it contrast with? Well, the data for IMA203 has shown more than a 50% response rate in patients with more than 5 lines of therapy for metastatic disease. That really looks quite exciting. And several of those patients are now out for quite an extended period, meaning 2 years or more given only a single dose of IMA203. But again, the caveat being, you have to make the cell product for the patient, and that takes time. You lymphodeplete the patient, not all patients can tolerate that in the refractory disease setting, and then they have to be able to tolerate the reinfusion of the cells. And so this drug, IMC-F106C, looks very promising. Moving into the earlier phase trial that we'll talk about, I think the TCR T cell program has a lot of upsides for patients, especially with refractory disease. And so I think these two different approaches are really on parallel tracks. They both target PRAME, but I don't think they necessarily need to be compared one to one, as if they're going to go head-to-head with each other. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So now we'll talk a little bit about the frontline setting, because on the basis of some of these results, Immunocore is now exploring IMC-F106C frontline melanoma. This trial is actually being presented as a trial in progress at this meeting by Georgina Long and colleagues. Some of us are co-authors in that abstract. And in this study, HLA-A*02:01 positive patients with advanced unresectable melanoma will be randomized one to one to the combination of IMC-F106C, which actually, I think after this meeting will be known as bre-ni in combination with nivolumab versus nivolumab regimens, which will either be nivo or nivo-rela, investigators choice and likely dependent on region. So what do you think of the challenge of this trial? We talked about some of the challenges of the TILVANCE trial earlier. But what is going to be the challenge of this trial and in this setting, particularly given the response rates that we've seen so far? Dr. Jason Luke: Yeah, so, similar to comments we had before, thinking about what the optimal control arm is for a study like this is difficult, and so that'll be important as we think about interpreting the results. One has to assume for the purpose of this conversation that it is a positive trial, and that adding the PRAME bispecific theory does lead to an improvement in progression free survival relative to those in checkpoint alone approaches. And I think the magnitude of that difference is going to be of some relevance. And then I think importantly, also figure out who needs this treatment and who's going to benefit long term are going to be really important considerations.  We alluded to how this drug requires an intensive dosing period at the get go, and so telling patients that they need to come in weekly or bi-weekly initially for some number of weeks before they switch to a longer-term intermittent regimen, that comes with real world considerations for patients, their families, their finances, etc. So the benefit has to be clearly obvious that makes it worthwhile doing that, again, because a default could be giving drugs that we've had for 10 years with the nivolumab and ipilimumab. So there's going to be a lot of cross-trial comparison that is going to necessarily have to take place here to think about what these results really mean in the context of other available therapies.  I think the study is reasonable to do. I think this is a very active agent. There's no doubt there's a subset of patients who seem to benefit a lot from it. And I would just emphasize the point that that's probably going to be the most important thing to really drill down on is under the assumption there's a positive trial, we need to know who those people are so we could optimize giving this kind of a treatment to them. Dr. Diwakar Davar: I guess one important point to underscore what Jason said about potential predictive biomarkers, I think as part of the presentation, Dr. Hamid and colleagues will be talking about a candidate predictive biomarker of this agent, which is potentially class specific and not necessarily agent specific of a T cell signature that potentially could define patients who are more likely to benefit from this agent.  So, Jason, as always, thank you for sharing your expertise and insights with the team today. We certainly look forward to catching up again for our wrap up episode after the annual meeting where we'll talk about some of the data that we could not talk about, particularly the late breaking abstracts and other key advances that will shape the future of, certainly the field of immunotherapy and melanoma, potentially the field of cancer immunotherapy at large. Dr. Jason Luke: Oh, thanks very much for the opportunity. Dr. Diwakar Davar: And thank you to our listeners today. You'll find the links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And finally, if you value the insights that you hear on this podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. So thank you, and we'll see you soon.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow today's speakers:   Dr. Diwakar Davar   @diwakardavar   Dr. Jason Luke   @jasonlukemd      Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:       Dr. Diwakar Davar:     Honoraria: Merck, Tesaro, Array BioPharma, Immunocore, Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences    Consulting or Advisory Role: Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences    Consulting or Advisory Role (Immediate family member): Shionogi    Research Funding: Merck, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CellSight Technologies, GSK, Merck, Arvus Biosciences, Arcus Biosciences    Research Funding (Inst.): Zucero Therapeutics    Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Application No.: 63/124,231 Title: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING CANCER Applicant: University of Pittsburgh–Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education Inventors: Diwakar Davar Filing Date: December 11, 2020 Country: United States MCC Reference: 10504-059PV1 Your Reference: 05545; and Application No.: 63/208,719 Enteric Microbiotype Signatures of Immune-related Adverse Events and Response in Relation to Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy       Dr. Jason Luke:    Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical, Pyxis, Alphamab Oncology, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch Oncology, Stipe, NeoTX    Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, Alphamab Oncology, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius, Tesaro, Xilio, Xencor, Alnylam, Crown Bioscience, Flame Biosciences, Genentech, Kadmon, KSQ Therapeutics, Immunocore, Inzen, Pfizer, Silicon Therapeutics, TRex Bio, Bright Peak, Onc.AI, STipe, Codiak Biosciences, Day One Therapeutics, Endeavor, Gilead Sciences, Hotspot Therapeutics, SERVIER, STINGthera, Synthekine    Research Funding (Inst.): Merck , Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma , EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring bank, Trishula, KAHR Medical, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena Oncology, Numab, Replimmune, Rubius Therapeutics, Synlogic, Takeda, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc., BioNTech AG, Scholar Rock, Next Cure    Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), and Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof)    Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio      

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/VRN865. CME/MOC/NCPD/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until April 16, 2025.Advancing ADCs in Gynecologic Cancers: Expert Insights on Recent Evidence, Implementation Strategies, and Patient Care In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, Foundation for Women's Cancer, and National Ovarian Cancer Coalition. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., ImmunoGen, Inc., and Seagen and Genmab.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/VRN865. CME/MOC/NCPD/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until April 16, 2025.Advancing ADCs in Gynecologic Cancers: Expert Insights on Recent Evidence, Implementation Strategies, and Patient Care In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, Foundation for Women's Cancer, and National Ovarian Cancer Coalition. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., ImmunoGen, Inc., and Seagen and Genmab.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/VRN865. CME/MOC/NCPD/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until April 16, 2025.Advancing ADCs in Gynecologic Cancers: Expert Insights on Recent Evidence, Implementation Strategies, and Patient Care In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, Foundation for Women's Cancer, and National Ovarian Cancer Coalition. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., ImmunoGen, Inc., and Seagen and Genmab.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/VRN865. CME/MOC/NCPD/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until April 16, 2025.Advancing ADCs in Gynecologic Cancers: Expert Insights on Recent Evidence, Implementation Strategies, and Patient Care In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, Foundation for Women's Cancer, and National Ovarian Cancer Coalition. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., ImmunoGen, Inc., and Seagen and Genmab.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/VRN865. CME/MOC/NCPD/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until April 16, 2025.Advancing ADCs in Gynecologic Cancers: Expert Insights on Recent Evidence, Implementation Strategies, and Patient Care In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, Foundation for Women's Cancer, and National Ovarian Cancer Coalition. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., ImmunoGen, Inc., and Seagen and Genmab.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

Audio roundup of selected biopharma industry content from Scrip over the business week ended 5 April 2024. In this episode: Genmab buys into ADCs; Roivant set to take on AbbVie in uveitis; Ipsen signs firs ADC pact; South Korea looks to build biotech momentum; and the end of the road for Acorda. https://scrip.citeline.com/SC150062/Quick-Listen-Scrips-Five-MustKnow-Things

Dagens erhvervsoverblik: Minister har mistet tilliden - Forsvarschef færdig efter fregatfejl, Genmab-boss tror på milliardsalg efter opkøb, Udenlandsk arbejdskraft giver milliarder i statskassen viser ny analyse. Vært: Sofie Rud (soru@borsenb.dk)

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma and Biotech world.This week's Commercialization Weekly highlights Bristol Myers' success with a Kras drug trial, Astrazeneca's FDA approval for a rare disease drug acquired from Alexion, FDA approval for Akebia's anemia pill after a previous rejection, and Acorda's bankruptcy filing. The FDA is also set to make decisions on expanding the use of two multiple myeloma cell therapies, a top-selling medicine, and Pfizer's gene therapy work. Risant Health has launched after Kaiser closed the acquisition of Geisinger, with plans to acquire more nonprofits. Surescripts is reportedly exploring a sale, with a private equity buyer being a potential option.Genmab acquired ProfoundBio for $1.8 billion, joining the trend of increased M&A activity in the development of antibody-drug conjugates. Paragon's hub-and-spoke biotech model resulted in another reverse merger with Oruka Therapeutics going public. Diagonal has raised $128 million to develop more efficient 'activator' antibody drugs. A dementia-focused venture capital firm is exploring new brain drugs beyond anti-amyloid therapies. Roivant reported positive immune drug data and announced share buyback plans.Genmab recently acquired the company ProfoundBio for $1.8 billion, expanding its presence in the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) space with a focus on gynecologic cancers and solid tumors. Meanwhile, Diagonal Therapeutics secured $128 million in funding for their unique approach to developing agonist antibodies for rare diseases. In other news, Vanda Pharmaceuticals received FDA approval for their antipsychotic drug Fanapt for bipolar disorder, while Eli Lilly's diabetes treatment Mounjaro will be in short supply due to high demand.The text discusses the impact of tensions in U.S.-China research and development (R&D) relations on the Chinese antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) investment boom. With the departure of Chinese biotech company Wuxi from Bio, concerns over national security implications of U.S.-China R&D relationships are growing. The text also mentions the appointment of a new CEO at Lonza and Avenzo's pursuit of a licensing strategy with a new $150 million investment. Overall, the biopharma industry is experiencing significant developments in drug development, mergers and acquisitions, and regulatory decisions. Stay updated with Healthcare Dive for more insights into healthcare trends and news.Thank you for tuning in to Pharma and Biotech daily. Stay informed!

Episode 43: From Fellow to Full-Time Role with Megan Kahleifeh On this episode of the IPhO Podcast, we're joined by Megan Kahleifeh, PharmD, Senior Manager, Global Medical Communications at Genmab. As Megan neared the end of her medical affairs fellowship, she began to explore full-time roles at other companies. Though it wasn't her original plan to leave, she found external opportunities that aligned more closely with the career path she hoped to take. Megan shares the knowledge and skills she gained during her fellowship that made her a strong candidate when applying for full-time roles. One of her biggest pieces of advice: know how to communicate effectively and proactively! If you're preparing for next steps after your fellowship, you don't want to miss this episode! We hope you enjoy.

Visit nascentmc.com/podcast for full show notes Visit learnamastyle.com for the free course on ChatGPT4 for medical writers and editors.  - The FDA has approved amivantamab (Rybrevant) in combination with chemotherapy (carboplatin-pemetrexed) for the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test. This approval converts the May 2021 accelerated approval of amivantamab to full approval. - The FDA approved the AGENT Drug-Coated Balloon (DCB) for treating in-stent restenosis in coronary artery disease patients, introducing the first drug-coated coronary balloon in the US. It uses a paclitaxel-coated catheter to deliver medication directly to the vessel wall, offering an alternative to traditional treatments and aiming to reduce recurrence risks. The approval was based on the AGENT IDE trial, demonstrating its effectiveness over uncoated balloon angioplasty in reducing lesion failure, with no significant adverse events reported. - The FDA approved an oral suspension form of ibrutinib (Imbruvica) for several conditions, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia and chronic graft versus host disease, addressing the needs of patients who have difficulty swallowing pills. This is the first oral suspension formulation of a Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor, originally approved in 2013 for mantle cell lymphoma. The approval, granted to Johnson & Johnson and Pharmacyclics, aims to simplify treatment for patients challenged with pill-swallowing. - Epcoritamab-bysp (Epkinly) received FDA approval for treating adult patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after at least two prior therapies, marking it as the first subcutaneously administered bispecific antibody for this condition. It works by targeting both CD3 on T cells and CD20 on B cells to induce cell death. Based on the EPCORE NHL-1 trial results, this approval extends its use beyond diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, with AbbVie and Genmab sharing commercial responsibilities.  - The FDA granted priority review to the New Drug Application for govorestat (AT-007), a treatment for classic galactosemia, potentially the first of its kind if approved. Govorestat, an aldose reductase inhibitor, aims to reduce harmful galactitol levels, based on phase 3 study results among pediatric patients. Applied Therapeutics announced a PDUFA target action date of August 28, 2024, highlighting the urgent need for treatments in this area. - Obeticholic acid (Ocaliva) received FDA consideration for an expanded application to treat primary biliary cholangitis, building on its 2016 accelerated approval. It's designed for patients with or without cirrhosis, showing promise in post-marketing studies to confirm its clinical benefits. The review includes data from various studies and real-world evidence, with a PDUFA target date of October 15, 2024, aiming to address the needs of this autoimmune liver disease population.  - The FDA approved Biktarvy for HIV patients with suppressed viral loads who exhibit M184V/I resistance, offering a new treatment option for those with specific resistance mutations. Biktarvy combines three therapies in a single tablet, based on successful 48-week study data. Manufactured by Gilead Sciences, this approval expands treatment possibilities for patients facing resistance challenges. - The FDA rejected Minerva Neurosciences' New Drug Application for roluperidone as a treatment for schizophrenia's negative symptoms, citing insufficient evidence from a single study and lack of comprehensive data. Despite showing promise in targeting specific brain receptors, the FDA's concerns highlight the need for more extensive research and data to confirm its effectiveness and safety. Minerva plans to engage with the FDA to address these issues.

Genmab's Q4 2023 earnings call, unedited

How does one maintain innovation in the antibody industry? In this episode of The Chain, host Tariq Ghayur, PhD, consultant and entrepreneur in residence, FairJourney Biologics, talks with Janine Schuurman, PhD, president of The Antibody Society, independent biotech consultant and founder of Lust for Life Sciences, about her inspiration to get into antibody engineering, her impressive career at Genmab, advice for a productive work environment, and her current work. Dr. Schuurman also shares insights on staying innovative, how to deal with the challenges of the industry, why young scientists should not be afraid to fail, as well as her plans as the new president of The Antibody Society. Links:   Lust for Life Sciences: https://www.lustforlifescience.com/  The Antibody Society: https://www.antibodysociety.org/  FairJourney Biologics: https://fjbio.com/  

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/HGE865. CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until February 16, 2025.From Resistance to Resilience in R/R CLL: Sequencing Strategies for Achieving Effective Continuous Care In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and CLL Society. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by an educational grant from Lilly.Disclosure PolicyAll relevant conflicts of interest have been mitigated prior to the commencement of the activity.Faculty/Planner DisclosuresCo-Chair/PlannerMeghan C. Thompson, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AstraZeneca; Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Inc.; and Pharmacyclics LLC/Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Grant/Research Support from AbbVie; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; Genmab; and Nurix Therapeutics. Research funding goes to Institution.Co-Chair/PlannerCatherine C. Coombs, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AbbVie Inc.; Allogene Therapeutics; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Lilly; MEI Pharma, Inc.; Mingsight Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Octapharma USA, Inc.Grant/Research Support from Lilly.Speaker for AbbVie Inc.; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; and Genentech, Inc.Planning Committee and Reviewer DisclosuresPlanners, independent reviewers, and staff of PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, do not have any relevant financial relationships related to this CE activity unless listed below.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/HGE865. CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until February 16, 2025.From Resistance to Resilience in R/R CLL: Sequencing Strategies for Achieving Effective Continuous Care In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and CLL Society. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by an educational grant from Lilly.Disclosure PolicyAll relevant conflicts of interest have been mitigated prior to the commencement of the activity.Faculty/Planner DisclosuresCo-Chair/PlannerMeghan C. Thompson, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AstraZeneca; Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Inc.; and Pharmacyclics LLC/Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Grant/Research Support from AbbVie; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; Genmab; and Nurix Therapeutics. Research funding goes to Institution.Co-Chair/PlannerCatherine C. Coombs, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AbbVie Inc.; Allogene Therapeutics; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Lilly; MEI Pharma, Inc.; Mingsight Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Octapharma USA, Inc.Grant/Research Support from Lilly.Speaker for AbbVie Inc.; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; and Genentech, Inc.Planning Committee and Reviewer DisclosuresPlanners, independent reviewers, and staff of PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, do not have any relevant financial relationships related to this CE activity unless listed below.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/HGE865. CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until February 16, 2025.From Resistance to Resilience in R/R CLL: Sequencing Strategies for Achieving Effective Continuous Care In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and CLL Society. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by an educational grant from Lilly.Disclosure PolicyAll relevant conflicts of interest have been mitigated prior to the commencement of the activity.Faculty/Planner DisclosuresCo-Chair/PlannerMeghan C. Thompson, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AstraZeneca; Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Inc.; and Pharmacyclics LLC/Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Grant/Research Support from AbbVie; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; Genmab; and Nurix Therapeutics. Research funding goes to Institution.Co-Chair/PlannerCatherine C. Coombs, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AbbVie Inc.; Allogene Therapeutics; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Lilly; MEI Pharma, Inc.; Mingsight Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Octapharma USA, Inc.Grant/Research Support from Lilly.Speaker for AbbVie Inc.; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; and Genentech, Inc.Planning Committee and Reviewer DisclosuresPlanners, independent reviewers, and staff of PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, do not have any relevant financial relationships related to this CE activity unless listed below.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/YUZ865. CME/MOC credit will be available until December 31, 2024.Controlling and Conquering CLL: Guidance on Modern Targeted Options, Innovative Combinations, and Sequential ManagementPenn State College of Medicine is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians.This activity is developed in collaboration with our educational partners, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and CLL Society.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Lilly; and Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company and Janssen Biotech, Inc., administered by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC.DisclosuresProf. John G. Gribben, MD, DSc, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for Amgen and Gilead Sciences/Kite.Grant/Research Support from AstraZeneca.John N. Allan, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AbbVie; Adaptive Biotechnologies; ADC Therapeutics; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; Epizyme, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; LAVA Therapeutics; Lilly; Pharmacyclics LLC; and TG Therapeutics, Inc.Grant/Research Support from BeiGene, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Speaker for AbbVie; BeiGene, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Pharmacyclics LLC.Nicole Lamanna, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AbbVie; Adaptive Biotechnologies; Allogene Therapeutics; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Inc.; and Pharmacyclics LLC.Grant/Research Support from AbbVie; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Inc.; MingSight Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Octapharma USA, Inc.; Oncternal Therapeutics; and TG Therapeutics, Inc.Meghan C. Thompson, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AstraZeneca; Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Inc.; and Pharmacyclics LLC/Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Grant/Research Support from AbbVie; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; Genmab; and Nurix Therapeutics. Research funding goes to Institution.Honoraria from Brazilian Association of Hematology; Curio Science; Dava Oncology; Hemotherapy and Cellular Therapy (ABHH); Intellisphere LLC; Massachusetts Medical Society; MJH Life Sciences; Phillips Group Oncology Communications; and VJHemOnc.Larry Marion has no financial interests/relationships or affiliations in relation to this activity.Other PVI staff who may potentially review content for this activity have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Penn State College of Medicine staff and faculty involved in the development and review of this activity have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.All of the relevant financial relationships listed for these individuals have been mitigated.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/YUZ865. CME/MOC credit will be available until December 31, 2024.Controlling and Conquering CLL: Guidance on Modern Targeted Options, Innovative Combinations, and Sequential ManagementPenn State College of Medicine is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians.This activity is developed in collaboration with our educational partners, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and CLL Society.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Lilly; and Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company and Janssen Biotech, Inc., administered by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC.DisclosuresProf. John G. Gribben, MD, DSc, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for Amgen and Gilead Sciences/Kite.Grant/Research Support from AstraZeneca.John N. Allan, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AbbVie; Adaptive Biotechnologies; ADC Therapeutics; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; Epizyme, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; LAVA Therapeutics; Lilly; Pharmacyclics LLC; and TG Therapeutics, Inc.Grant/Research Support from BeiGene, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Speaker for AbbVie; BeiGene, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Pharmacyclics LLC.Nicole Lamanna, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AbbVie; Adaptive Biotechnologies; Allogene Therapeutics; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Inc.; and Pharmacyclics LLC.Grant/Research Support from AbbVie; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Inc.; MingSight Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Octapharma USA, Inc.; Oncternal Therapeutics; and TG Therapeutics, Inc.Meghan C. Thompson, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AstraZeneca; Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Inc.; and Pharmacyclics LLC/Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Grant/Research Support from AbbVie; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; Genmab; and Nurix Therapeutics. Research funding goes to Institution.Honoraria from Brazilian Association of Hematology; Curio Science; Dava Oncology; Hemotherapy and Cellular Therapy (ABHH); Intellisphere LLC; Massachusetts Medical Society; MJH Life Sciences; Phillips Group Oncology Communications; and VJHemOnc.Larry Marion has no financial interests/relationships or affiliations in relation to this activity.Other PVI staff who may potentially review content for this activity have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Penn State College of Medicine staff and faculty involved in the development and review of this activity have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.All of the relevant financial relationships listed for these individuals have been mitigated.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/YUZ865. CME/MOC credit will be available until December 31, 2024.Controlling and Conquering CLL: Guidance on Modern Targeted Options, Innovative Combinations, and Sequential ManagementPenn State College of Medicine is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians.This activity is developed in collaboration with our educational partners, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and CLL Society.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Lilly; and Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company and Janssen Biotech, Inc., administered by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC.DisclosuresProf. John G. Gribben, MD, DSc, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for Amgen and Gilead Sciences/Kite.Grant/Research Support from AstraZeneca.John N. Allan, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AbbVie; Adaptive Biotechnologies; ADC Therapeutics; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; Epizyme, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; LAVA Therapeutics; Lilly; Pharmacyclics LLC; and TG Therapeutics, Inc.Grant/Research Support from BeiGene, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Speaker for AbbVie; BeiGene, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Pharmacyclics LLC.Nicole Lamanna, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AbbVie; Adaptive Biotechnologies; Allogene Therapeutics; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Inc.; and Pharmacyclics LLC.Grant/Research Support from AbbVie; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Inc.; MingSight Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Octapharma USA, Inc.; Oncternal Therapeutics; and TG Therapeutics, Inc.Meghan C. Thompson, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AstraZeneca; Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Inc.; and Pharmacyclics LLC/Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Grant/Research Support from AbbVie; AstraZeneca; BeiGene, Inc.; Genentech, Inc.; Genmab; and Nurix Therapeutics. Research funding goes to Institution.Honoraria from Brazilian Association of Hematology; Curio Science; Dava Oncology; Hemotherapy and Cellular Therapy (ABHH); Intellisphere LLC; Massachusetts Medical Society; MJH Life Sciences; Phillips Group Oncology Communications; and VJHemOnc.Larry Marion has no financial interests/relationships or affiliations in relation to this activity.Other PVI staff who may potentially review content for this activity have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Penn State College of Medicine staff and faculty involved in the development and review of this activity have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.All of the relevant financial relationships listed for these individuals have been mitigated.

Recently, Genmab and AbbVie announced updated results of the phase 1/2 EPCORE™ NHL-1 clinical trial of epcoritamab (epco) for patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma. In this interview, Dr. Matthew Hadfield and Dr. Alankrita Taneja of the Oncology Data Advisor Fellows Forum speak with Dr. Tahi Ahmadi, Chief Medical Officer at Genmab, and Dr. Jacqueline Nielsen, Therapeutic Area Head for Hematology at AbbVie, about the significance of these results, the benefits of epcoritamab's subcutaneous administration, management of adverse events, and the future role of epcoritamab in the treatment landscape for follicular lymphoma.

In der heutigen Folge „Alles auf Aktien“ sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Daniel Eckert und Holger Zschäpitz über Turbulenzen bei Boeing, einen Mega-Aktienrückkauf bei Qiagen und was sonst noch wichtig wird in dieser Woche. Außerdem geht es um Nvidia, Alaska Airlines, United Airlines, Catalent, Bitcoin, Invesco Nasdaq Biotech ETF (WKN: A12CCJ), iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology (WKN: A2DWAW), AstraZeneca, Amgen, Sanofi, Gilead, Biogen, Moderna, Biontech, Genmab, Atai Life Science, Global X Genomics & Biotechnology (WKN: A2QRCP), Bristol Meyers-Squib, BB Biotech. Wir freuen uns über Feedback an aaa@welt.de. Ab sofort gibt es noch mehr "Alles auf Aktien" bei WELTplus und Apple Podcasts – inklusive aller Artikel der Hosts und AAA-Newsletter. Hier bei WELT: https://www.welt.de/podcasts/alles-auf-aktien/plus247399208/Boersen-Podcast-AAA-Bonus-Folgen-Jede-Woche-noch-mehr-Antworten-auf-Eure-Boersen-Fragen.html. Disclaimer: Die im Podcast besprochenen Aktien und Fonds stellen keine spezifischen Kauf- oder Anlage-Empfehlungen dar. Die Moderatoren und der Verlag haften nicht für etwaige Verluste, die aufgrund der Umsetzung der Gedanken oder Ideen entstehen. Hörtipps: Für alle, die noch mehr wissen wollen: Holger Zschäpitz können Sie jede Woche im Finanz- und Wirtschaftspodcast "Deffner&Zschäpitz" hören. Außerdem bei WELT: Im werktäglichen Podcast „Das bringt der Tag“ geben wir Ihnen im Gespräch mit WELT-Experten die wichtigsten Hintergrundinformationen zu einem politischen Top-Thema des Tages. +++ Werbung +++ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte! https://linktr.ee/alles_auf_aktien Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article7893735/Impressum.html Datenschutz: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

Hvad er de største muligheder - og hvad er de største udfordringer i året, der venter foran os? Dét spørgsmål landede i indbakken hos os i Millionærklubben fredag, og det var så godt, at vi faktisk går i dybden med det i denne udsendelse. Vi skal også forbi Genmab, inflation og centralbankmøder. Alt sammen med senior aktiestrateg i Jyske Bank, Michelle Nørgaard, og Millionærklubbens faste forvalter, Lau Svenssen. Vært: Signe TerpSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.