Podcasts about genmab

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we delve into the latest transformative movements within this dynamic arena, focusing on pivotal acquisitions, technological integrations, and regulatory updates shaping the future of healthcare solutions.Starting with strategic corporate maneuvers, Pfizer recently divested its 11.7% stake in GSK's ViiV Healthcare, a prominent player in HIV treatments. This $1.875 billion sale to Shionogi reflects Pfizer's strategy to offset anticipated revenue declines while fortifying Shionogi's position in the HIV treatment landscape. For GSK, the transaction brings a $250 million special dividend, highlighting competitive realignments as companies optimize portfolios in the lucrative HIV market.In another significant investment, Roche plans a $2 billion expansion at Genentech's North Carolina site to produce next-generation drugs targeting metabolic conditions like obesity. This move aligns with Roche's strategy to capture a growing market segment driven by the rising prevalence of obesity-related health issues globally.Exelixis is aggressively pursuing its ambition to become a top contender in the U.S. solid tumor market. With its flagship drug Cabometyx at the forefront, Exelixis anticipates promising Phase 3 results for new blockbuster candidates, underscoring its robust oncology-focused growth strategy. This field continues to attract substantial investment due to an unmet need for effective cancer therapies.Turning to regulatory landscapes, a landmark decision is anticipated from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the "skinny label" dispute between Hikma Pharmaceuticals and Amarin over generic Vascepa. This case could reshape patent litigation strategies and impact how generics are marketed against branded drugs, influencing future industry practices.Meanwhile, AbbVie and Genmab face reassessment after their Phase 3 trial for Epkinly in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma failed to meet survival endpoints. This outcome may prompt a strategic pivot towards pipeline diversification or new partnerships in oncology.Valneva recently withdrew its chikungunya vaccine Ixchiq from U.S. consideration following an FDA investigation into adverse events, highlighting the complex regulatory environment surrounding vaccine approvals and safety protocols. In contrast, Bristol Myers Squibb's collaboration with Microsoft aims to expedite lung cancer diagnosis using AI technology, reflecting a broader trend of integrating digital health solutions into drug development and patient care.GSK's acquisition of Rapt Therapeutics for $2.2 billion further emphasizes its commitment to innovative immunotherapies addressing unmet needs in food allergy treatments. This move aligns with trends towards personalized medicine as companies explore novel mechanisms for targeted therapeutic interventions.In scientific breakthroughs, Merck and Moderna report sustained efficacy in their cancer vaccine collaboration, showing a 49% reduction in melanoma risk over five years when combined with Keytruda. This sets a strong precedent for developing combination therapies that enhance long-term cancer treatment outcomes.Pfizer's $530 million agreement with Novavax seeks to leverage adjuvant technology across its vaccine programs, underscoring Pfizer's commitment to innovation amid ongoing competition within the vaccine market.Oncology advancements continue as AstraZeneca secures full rights to an armored CAR-T therapy from Abelzeta for $630 million. Targeting glypican-3 proteins associated with certain cancers, this acquisition highlights AstraZeneca's push into advanced cell therapies that promise revolutionary cancer care solutions.Beyond these corporate strategies, ARPA-H envisions transcending traditional vaccine technologies through innovative solutions that could render vSupport the show

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we delve into some of the most significant events shaping the industry, from innovative drug formulations and regulatory challenges to the dynamic IPO landscape and clinical trial outcomes.Starting with Novo Nordisk, their oral formulation of Wegovy is witnessing substantial uptake, showcasing a strong demand for novel obesity treatments. This rapid adoption underscores a competitive environment where companies like Eli Lilly, with its Zepbound launch, are vying for market share. The introduction of innovative delivery methods in obesity management not only drives immediate commercial success but also highlights a critical area of therapeutic advancement due to the rising global prevalence of obesity.From a regulatory perspective, alignment with bodies like the FDA remains crucial. Companies such as Beam Therapeutics and Cabaletta Bio emphasize this at events like the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, highlighting the importance of clear regulatory pathways in ensuring the successful approval of promising therapies. Conversely, Atara Biotherapeutics' recent setback with an unexpected FDA rejection demonstrates the unpredictability inherent in regulatory processes, which can significantly impact drug development timelines.The IPO market in biotech remains vibrant despite broader market uncertainties. Noteworthy are Agomab Therapeutics and Spyglass Pharma, each preparing for substantial public offerings. Agomab focuses on ALK5 inhibitors for inflammatory diseases, while Spyglass advances drug delivery implants for chronic eye conditions. This wave of IPOs highlights investor confidence in innovative therapies that address unmet medical needs and reflects a broader trend toward precision medicine and novel treatment modalities.In clinical research, AbbVie and Genmab faced a setback when their bispecific antibody failed to meet a crucial endpoint in a Phase III lymphoma study. Such challenges underscore the high stakes involved in oncology drug development, where successes can significantly alter treatment paradigms, yet failures remind us of the inherent risks.Turning to Alzheimer's disease, there is palpable excitement around next-generation treatments under investigation. These candidates promise to reshape the landscape by offering new hope in a field where effective therapies are desperately needed. This is complemented by advancements in manufacturing capabilities recognized as essential to strategic planning beyond 2026, ensuring that production processes can scale efficiently to meet global demands.On the workforce front, Takeda's decision to reduce its U.S. headcount, impacting its neurology teams, reflects industry trends where resource allocation is increasingly focused on core growth areas. Such strategic recalibrations are part and parcel of navigating competitive pressures and evolving market demands.In another realm, ImmunityBio's Phase 1 results for its CD19 CAR-NK cell therapy offer promising insights into innovative oncology approaches. The use of natural killer cells engineered with chimeric antigen receptors could revolutionize cancer treatment by providing targeted therapeutic options for hematological malignancies and potentially solid tumors.Regulatory approvals also continue to shape industry dynamics. SOBI's Aspaveli receiving EU approval for rare kidney diseases marks significant progress in complement inhibition therapies. Meanwhile, Bayer's Eylea approval for retinal vein occlusion-related visual impairment reinforces the vital role of VEGF inhibitors in ophthalmology.Strategic collaborations are also making headlines, as seen with Abelzeta and AstraZeneca's expanded partnership on GPC3 CAR-T therapy through an acquisition focused on China rights. This move illustrates the global interest inSupport the show

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we delve into a series of significant events that are shaping the landscape of this dynamic industry. The ever-evolving arena of drug approvals, regulatory challenges, and strategic shifts continues to captivate stakeholders across the globe.Sanofi's recent acquisition of Dynavax for $2.2 billion illustrates a prevailing trend within the sector—mergers and acquisitions aimed at expanding vaccine portfolios in response to global health priorities. This strategic move provides Sanofi with access to Heplisav-B, a hepatitis B vaccine, thereby reinforcing the importance of broadening vaccine offerings amid ongoing global health concerns.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been active in granting approvals for new therapies, reflecting ongoing efforts to address a wide range of medical needs. Agios Pharmaceuticals has received approval for Aqvesme, a treatment designed specifically for anemia in patients with either alpha- or beta-thalassemia. Meanwhile, Vanda Pharmaceuticals has secured approval for Nereus, a novel motion sickness treatment. These approvals highlight the FDA's dedication to advancing treatments for both common and rare medical conditions.A noteworthy milestone was achieved by Omeros Corporation as it secured FDA approval for Yartemlea—its first U.S. approval in 31 years. This drug is a novel treatment for hematopoietic stem cell transplant-associated thrombotic microangiopathy, underscoring the industry's focus on developing therapies for niche yet critical medical conditions.Verastem Oncology has opted to halt its phase 1/2 trial of a KRAS G12C inhibitor targeting non-small cell lung cancer due to increasing competition from next-generation inhibitors. This decision reflects the competitive and rapidly evolving landscape of oncology therapeutics where companies must adapt their strategies based on interim data and market dynamics.Foresee Pharmaceuticals has reported promising phase 3 results for Camcevi in treating central precocious puberty (CPP), a rare hormonal disorder. This demonstrates the potential for repurposing established drugs to address unmet needs in pediatric endocrinology.Inflarx is actively exploring partnerships to revitalize its C5a antibody vilobelimab which was initially developed for pyoderma gangrenosum but faced setbacks after a terminated phase 3 trial. The company's persistence in seeking new pathways forward exemplifies the challenges and resilience required in drug development, especially for rare diseases.Regulatory hurdles remain a significant challenge as illustrated by Outlook Therapeutics' ophthalmic bevacizumab facing another FDA rejection. Such outcomes emphasize the stringent regulatory environment that companies must navigate to bring innovative therapies to market.A federal judge's temporary pause on the 340B rebate pilot underscores ongoing legal and regulatory debates impacting healthcare policy and industry operations. The contentious rollout of this pilot reflects broader tensions between administrative actions and healthcare stakeholders.As we look forward, industry analysts anticipate that the surge in mergers and acquisitions observed in late 2025 will persist into 2026. Companies are driven by growth aspirations through strategic acquisitions aimed at expanding their pipelines and market reach.Despite positive advancements, some companies face setbacks. Johnson & Johnson's discontinuation of its $1.2 billion eczema therapy due to unsatisfactory clinical results highlights the inherent risks and unpredictability of drug development. Similarly, Genmab's withdrawal of a cancer drug from development underscores these challenges within oncology research.In contrast, Neuralink's plans to ramp up production of its brain-computer interface devices highliSupport the show

On this week's episode, Grace Colón, Chris Garabedian, Sam Fazeli, Paul Matteis, Yaron Werber, and special guest John Stanford kick off with a policy discussion on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), outlining both the opportunities and constraints it presents for biotech. The bill includes major biotech provisions such as a scaled back-down version of the BIOSECURE Act and the creation of a DoD Biotech Office, which suggests that biotech is now viewed as a national security asset. The conversation then shifts to positive signs in the biotech sector, including rising valuations, a decrease in companies with negative enterprise value, and predictions for the number of IPOs expected in the first half of 2026. Next, the group discusses conference highlights, including data from ASH presented by Lilly, BeOne Medicines, Gilead, and Arcellx versus J&J and Legend, as well as Genmab's Epkinly. In other data news, the discussion turns to Dyne Therapeutics' plans to seek FDA approval for DYNE-251 for DMD, following promising Phase 1/2 trial results. Despite some investor concerns about the FDA's regulatory stance on rare diseases, sentiment remains optimistic that it will be approved. The episode closes with a round robin where each co-host shares their optimism levels for biotech in 2026, rating it on a scale from 1 to 10. *This episode aired on December 12, 2025.

JCO Editor-in-Chief Dr. Jonathan Friedberg is joined by colleagues Dr. Jennifer Woyach, Dr. Wojciech Jurczak, and Dr. Matthew Davids to discuss simultaneous publications presented at ASH 2025 on pertibrutinib, a new upfront treatment option for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: I'm Jonathan Friedberg, editor of Journal of Clinical Oncology, and welcome to JCO After Hours, where we are covering two manuscripts that were presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting 2025 in Orlando, Florida. I am delighted to be joined by colleagues on this call to discuss these pivotal manuscripts which cover the topic of pirtobrutinib, a new upfront treatment option for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. I will first just introduce our guests, Dr. Woyach. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Hi, my name is Jennifer Woyach. I am from the Ohio State University. Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Hello, I am Wojciech Jurczak, working at the National Research Institute of Oncology in Krakow, Poland. Dr. Matthew Davids: Hi, I am Matthew Davids from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: We are going to start by just learning a little bit about these two trials that were both large, randomized phase 3 studies that I think answered some definitive questions. We will start with your study, Jennifer. If you could just describe the design of your study and the patient population. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Absolutely. So this is the BRUIN CLL-314 study, and this is a phase 3 randomized trial of pirtobrutinib versus ibrutinib in patients with CLL or SLL who had not previously been treated with a covalent BTK inhibitor. The patients were both treatment-naive and relapsed/refractory, about one-third of the patients treatment-naive, the rest relapsed/refractory, and they were stratified based upon 17p deletion and the number of prior lines of therapy. The primary objective was looking at non-inferiority of overall response rate over the entire treated population as well as the relapsed/refractory patient population. Key secondary objectives included progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat and the smaller relapsed/refractory and treatment-naive populations. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And just comment a little bit on the risk of the patients. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: This study was fairly typical of this cohort of patients. Within the relapsed/refractory patient population, there was a median of one prior line of therapy in each of the groups, up to nine prior lines of therapy in the patients included on the study. For the overall cohort, about two-thirds of the patients were IGHV unmutated, about 15% had 17p deletion, 30% had TP53 mutations, and about 35% to 40% had a complex karyotype, which is three or more abnormalities. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And what were your findings? Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Regarding the primary outcome, which is the focus of the publication, we did find that pirtobrutinib was indeed non-inferior and actually superior to ibrutinib for overall response rate throughout the entire patient population and in both the relapsed/refractory and treatment-naive cohorts. PFS is a little bit immature at this time but is trending towards also being significantly better in pirtobrutinib-treated patients compared with ibrutinib-treated patients. Probably most significantly, we found this to be the case in the treatment-naive cohort where there was a striking trend to an advantage of pirtobrutinib versus ibrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And the follow-up that you have on that progression-free survival? Dr. Jennifer Woyach: So we have about 18 months follow-up on progression-free survival. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: The second study, Wojciech, can you just go through the design and patient population that you treated? Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Thank you, Dr. Friedberg, for this question. So the BRUIN CLL-313 study was, in fact, the first phase 3 study with pirtobrutinib in exclusively untreated CLL patients. It was a randomized study where we challenged pirtobrutinib versus bendamustine-rituximab. At the time we designed the protocol, bendamustine-rituximab was an option as a standard of care, and Bruton tyrosine kinase monotherapy was used far more commonly than nowadays. The primary target of the study was progression-free survival. We took all untreated patients except for those with 17p deletions. Therefore, it is a good representation for intermediate risk. We had about 60% of the population, 56 to be precise, which was unmutated, evenly distributed into two treatment arms. 17p deleted cases were excluded, but we had about 7% and 8% of TP53 mutated patients as well as about 11% and 7%, respectively, in the pirtobrutinib and bendamustine-rituximab arm of patients with complex karyotype. The progression-free survival was in favor of pirtobrutinib and was assessed by an independent review committee. What is important is that the progression-free survival of the bendamustine-rituximab arm was actually similar to the other studies addressing the same questions, like the comparison with ibrutinib in the ALLIANCE study or zanubrutinib in the SEQUOIA study. What was different was the hazard ratio. In our study, it was 0.20. It was one of the longest effect sizes noted in the frontline BTK study. It represented an 80% reduction in progression-free survival or death. If we compare it to ibrutinib or zanubrutinib, it was 0.39 and 0.42 respectively. Presumably, this great effect contributed towards a trend of overall survival difference. Although survival data are not mature enough, there is a clear trend represented by three patients we lost in the pirtobrutinib arm versus 10 patients lost in the bendamustine-rituximab arm. This trend in overall survival is becoming statistically significant despite the fact that there was a possibility of crossover, and effectively 52.9 patients, which means 18 out of 34 patients relapsing in the bendamustine-rituximab arm, were treated by pirtobrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: I am going to turn it over to Matt. The question is: why study pirtobrutinib in this patient population? And then with these two studies, how do you find the patients that were treated, are they representative of people who you see? And do you see this maybe being approved and more widely available? Dr. Matthew Davids: I think in terms of the first question, why study this in a frontline population, we have seen very impressive data with pirtobrutinib in a very difficult-to-treat population of CLL patients. This was from the original BRUIN phase 1/2 study where most of the patients had at least two or three lines of therapy, often both a covalent BTK inhibitor and the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax, and yet they were still responding to pirtobrutinib. The drug was also very well tolerated in that early phase experience. And actually, we have seen phase 3 data from the BRUIN 321 study comparing pirtobrutinib to bendamustine and rituximab in a relapse population as well. So I think that really motivated these studies to look at pirtobrutinib as a first therapy. You know, often in other cancers of course, we want to use our best therapy first, and I think these studies are an initial step at looking at that. In terms of the second question around the patient population, these are pretty representative patient populations, I would say, for most frontline CLL studies. We see patients who are a bit younger and fitter than sort of the general population of CLL patients who are treated in clinical practice, and I think that is true here as well. Median age in the sort of mid-60s here is a bit younger than the typical patients we are treating in practice. But that is not different from other CLL frontline studies that we have seen recently, so I think it makes it a little bit easier as we kind of think across studies to feel comfortable that these are relatively similar populations. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: How do you see this either getting regulatory approval or potentially being used compared to current standard of care options? Dr. Matthew Davids: So my understanding is that both of these trials were designed with registrational intent in the frontline setting, and they are both positive studies. That is certainly very encouraging in terms of the potential for an approval here. We have seen in terms of the FDA recently some concerns around the proportion of patients who are coming from North America, and my understanding is that is relatively low on these two studies. But nonetheless, the datasets are very impressive, and so I think it is certainly supportive of regulatory approval for frontline pirtobrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: I will ask Jennifer a question. The control arm in your study was ibrutinib, and I think many in the audience may recognize that newer, second-generation BTK inhibitors like acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib are more frequently used now if monotherapy is decided. How do you respond to that, and how would you put your results in your pirtobrutinib arm in context with what has been observed with those agents? Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Yeah, that is a great question. Even though in the United States we are predominantly using acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib when choosing a monotherapy BTK inhibitor, this is actually not the case throughout the entire world where ibrutinib is still used very frequently. The head-to-head studies of both acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib compared to ibrutinib have shown us pretty well what the safety profile and efficacy profile of the second-generation BTK inhibitors is. So even though we do not have a head-to-head study of acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib versus pirtobrutinib, I think, given the entirety of data that we have with all of the covalent BTK inhibitors, I think we can safely look at the pirtobrutinib arm here, how the ibrutinib arm compares or performs in context with those other clinical trials. And though we really can not say anything about pirtobrutinib versus acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib, I think we can still get a good idea of what might be the clinical scenarios in which you might want to choose pirtobrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And Wojciech, do you agree with that? Obviously, I think you have acknowledged that chemoimmunotherapy is rarely used anymore as part of upfront treatment for CLL. So, I guess a similar question. If you were to put the pirtobrutinib result in your study in context with, I guess, more contemporary type controls, would you agree that it is competitive? Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Well, I think that that was the last study ever where bendamustine-rituximab was used as a comparator arm. So we should notice that smashing difference. Because if we look at the progression-free survival at two years, we have 93.4% in pirtobrutinib arm versus 70.7% in bendamustine-rituximab arm. Bendamustine-rituximab arm did the same as in the other trials, like ALLIANCE or SEQUOIA. Pirtobrutinib did exceptionally well, as pirto is not just the very best BTK inhibitor overcoming the resistance, but perhaps even more important for the first line, it is very well tolerated and is a very selective drug. Now, if we look at treatment-related adverse events, the discontinuation rate, they were hardly ever seen. If we compared the adverse events in exposure-adjusted incidence, literally all adverse events were two or three times higher in bendamustine-rituximab arm except for the bleeding tendency, which however was predominantly in CTCAE grade 1 and 2 with just 0.7% of grade 3 hemorrhage. Therefore, I think that we should actually put the best and the safest drugs upfront if we may, and pirtobrutinib is, or should be, the first choice if we choose monotherapy. Now, I understand that we are not presenting you the data of pirtobrutinib in combination with anti-CD20 or with BCL2 inhibitors, but that is to come. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: Matt, how would you envision, were regulatory approval granted and this were an option, using this in the upfront patient population? Is there anybody who you would preferentially use this or start on this treatment? Or would this be something that you would tend to reserve for second line? Dr. Matthew Davids: So I would say that in general for most of my patients who would want to start with a continuous BTK inhibitor, I would still use a covalent BTK inhibitor, and I say that for a couple of reasons despite the very promising data from these studies. The first is that the follow-up for both of these phase 3 trials is still quite short, in the range of a median 18 to 24 months. And we know that CLL is a marathon, not a sprint, and these patients are going to probably be living for a very long time. And we do have much longer follow-up from the covalent BTK inhibitors, median of 10-year follow-up with ibrutinib and five to six years with zanubrutinib and acalabrutinib respectively. And you know, I do not think that the pirtobrutinib is going to fall off a cliff after two years, but on the other hand, I think there is a lot of value to long-term data in this disease, and that is why I think for most of my patients I would stick with covalent BTK inhibitors. But the other important factor that we need to consider is patients who are younger and may have many different CLL treatments over the years. We have to be very careful, I think, about how we sequence these drugs. We know right now that we can start with covalent BTK inhibitors and then subsequently patients will respond well to the non-covalent inhibitor pirtobrutinib in later lines of therapy. But right now we do not have prospective data the other way around. So how will the patients on these studies who progress on pirtobrutinib respond to covalent BTK inhibitors? We do not know yet. There have not been a lot of progression events, which is great, but we would like to see some data in that respect to feel more comfortable with that sequence. Now, I do think that particularly for older patients and those who have significant cardiovascular comorbidities, if they wanted to go on a continuous BTK inhibitor, I do think these data really strongly support using pirtobrutinib as the BTK inhibitor of choice in that population. In particular, the cardiovascular risks with pirtobrutinib seem to be quite low. I was very struck in the comparison with BR that the rate of AFib was equivalent between the two arms of the study. And that is really the first time we have seen that with any of these BTK inhibitors, no elevated risk of AFib in a randomized study. I think that is the population where it will get the most traction first, is the upfront, sort of older patient with significant cardiovascular comorbidities. And as the data from these studies mature, I think that we will start to see more widespread use of pirtobrutinib in the frontline setting. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: Jennifer, I am just curious if you have any personal experience or heard anecdotally about after progression on pirtobrutinib the use of other BTK inhibitors and whether there is a growing experience there. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: I do not think that there is much clinical experience, you know, as Matt alluded to, it certainly has not been tested yet. There has been some data in relapsed CLL suggesting that in people who have resistance mutations to covalent BTK inhibitors after treatment with pirtobrutinib, sometimes those mutations go away. I think most of us are concerned that they are probably not actually gone but maybe in compartments that we just have not sampled, suggesting that sort of approach where you might sequence a covalent inhibitor after a non-covalent in somebody who had already been resistant probably would not work that well. But, you know, in this setting where people had never been exposed to a covalent BTK inhibitor before, we really have no idea what the resistance patterns are going to be like. We assume they will be the same as what we have seen in relapsed CLL, but I think we just need some longer follow-up to know for sure. Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: If I may confront Dr. Davids about the use of covalent BTK inhibitors upfront, well, I think that we should abandon the idea of using the first and the second and the third generation, at least if we don't have medical lines. If we endlessly block the same pathway, it is not going to be effective. So if pirtobrutinib gets approval in first, second line, we do not necessarily have to use it in the first line. I am not here in a position to defend that we should treat patients with pirtobrutinib upfront and not BCL2 time-limited regimen. However, the way I look at CLL patients when choosing therapy is not just how should I treat them now, but what would be the best regimen in 5, 10 years if I have to re-treat them. And in some instances, the idea may be that in this setting we would like to have a BTK inhibitor upfront to have a BCL2 inhibitor later to make it time-limited. Although I understand and I agree with Matthew that if we have an elderly, fragile population, then the charm of having a drug taken once a day in a tablet with literally few cardiovascular adverse events might be an option. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And I will give Matt the last word whether he wants to respond to that, and also just as a forward-looking issue, I know both investigators have implied that there will be future studies looking at combinations with pirtobrutinib, and if you have any sense as to what you would be looking for there. Dr. Matthew Davids: The field really is heading toward time-limited therapy for most patients, I would say. There is a bit of a discrepancy right now in the field between sort of what we are doing in academic practice and what is done sort of more widely in community practice. And so right now we are going to see evolving datasets comparing these approaches. We are already seeing data now from the CLL17 study with ibrutinib comparing continuous to time-limited venetoclax-based therapy, and we are seeing similar efficacy benefits from these time-limited therapies without the need for continuous treatment. And so that is where I think some of the future studies with pirtobrutinib combining it with venetoclax and other partners are so important. Fortunately, several of these studies are already ongoing, including a phase 3 trial called CLL18, which is looking at pirtobrutinib with venetoclax, comparing that to venetoclax and obinutuzumab. So I am optimistic that we are going to be developing these very robust datasets where we can actually use pirtobrutinib in the frontline setting as a time-limited therapy as a component of a multi-drug regimen. So far, those early data are very promising. Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Perhaps last but not least, in a single center we have treated over 300 patients with pirtobrutinib. So eventually some of them relapsed. And I must say that our experience on BCL2 inhibitors, not just venetoclax but including sonrotoclax, are appealingly good. Therefore, by using pirtobrutinib even earlier, we do not block the efficacy of other compounds. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: All right. Well, I want to thank all of our speakers. I also want to congratulate our two guests who presented these very influential papers at the ASH Annual Meeting, and chose to publish them in JCO, so we thank you for that, and Dr. Davids for your commentary - really appreciated. That is this episode of JCO After Hours. Thank you for your attention. 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.   Disclosures Dr. Wojciech Jurczak Consulting or Advisory Role: BeiGene, Lilly, Abbvie/Genentech, Takeda, Roche, AstraZeneca Research Funding: Roche, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Abbvie/Genentech Dr. Jennifer Woyach Consulting or Advisory Role: Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Loxo, Newave Pharmaceutical, Genentech, Abbvie, Merck Research Funding: Company name: Janssen, Schrodinger, beone, Abbvie, Merck, Loxo/Lilly Dr. Matthew Davids Honoraria: Curio Science, Aptitude Health, Bio Ascend, PlatformQ Health, Plexus Consulting or Advisory Role: Genentech, Janssen, Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Ascentage Pharma, BeiGene, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Merck, MEI Pharma, Nuvalent, Inc., Galapagos NV, Schroedinger Research Funding: Ascentage Pharma, Novartis, MEI Pharma, AstraZeneca  

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 EBAC/CME information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/WMS865. EBAC/CME credit will be available until December 2, 2026.Putting the Puzzle Together in Advanced Ovarian and Cervical Cancers: Translating Evidence Into Practice for Approved and Emerging ADCs In support of improving patient care, 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 independent educational grant from 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 EBAC/CME information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/WMS865. EBAC/CME credit will be available until December 2, 2026.Putting the Puzzle Together in Advanced Ovarian and Cervical Cancers: Translating Evidence Into Practice for Approved and Emerging ADCs In support of improving patient care, 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 independent educational grant from Genmab.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Jason Westin discuss the federal funding climate for cancer research and the persistent problem of drug shortages, two of the major concerns facing the oncology community in 2026. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I am a medical oncologist and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. There are always multiple challenges facing oncologists, and today, we discuss two of them that really stand out for 2026: threats to federal funding for cancer research and the persistent problem of drug shortages. I am thrilled to welcome Dr. Jason Westin, who believes that one way to meet these challenges is to get oncologists more involved in advocacy, and he will share some strategies to help us meet this moment in oncology. Dr. Westin is a professor in the Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, but he actually wears a lot of hats within ASCO. He is a member of the Board of Directors and has also previously served as chair of ASCO's Government Relations Committee. And he is also one of the inaugural members of ASCO's Political Action Committee, or PAC. He has testified before Congress about drug shortages and many other issues. Dr. Westin, I am really excited to have you on the podcast today and dive into some of these elements that will really impact our community in 2026. Thanks so much for joining us today. Dr. Jason Westin: Thank you for having me. Dr. Monty Pal: You've had such a range of experience. I already alluded to you testifying before Congress. You've actually run for office before. You wear so many different hats. I'm used to checking my PubMed every other day and seeing a new paper out from you and your group, and you publish in the New England Journal [of Medicine] on practice-setting standards and the diseases that you treat. But you've also done all this work in the domain of advocacy. I can't imagine that balancing that is easy. What has sort of motivated you on the advocacy front? Dr. Jason Westin: Advocacy to me is another way to apply our skills and help more people than just those that you're sitting across from at the time. Clinical research, of course, is a tool to try and take what we know and apply it more broadly to people that you'll never meet. And advocacy, I think, can do the same thing, where you can have a conversation with a lawmaker, you can advocate for a position, and that hopefully will help thousands or maybe even more people down the road who you'd never get to directly interact with. And so, I think it's a force multiplier in the same way that research can be. And so, I think advocacy is a wonderful part of how doctors care for our patients. And it's something that is often difficult to know where to start, but once people get into advocacy, they can see that the power, the rewarding nature of it is attractive, and most people, once they get going, continue with that through the rest of their career. Dr. Monty Pal: So, I'll ask you to expand on that a little bit. We have a lot of our younger ASCO members listening to this podcast, folks that are just starting out their careers in clinical practice or academia. Where does that journey begin? How do you get to the point that you're testifying in front of Congress and taking on these bigger sort of stances for the oncology community? Dr. Jason Westin: Yeah, with anything in medicine and in our careers, you have to start somewhere. And often you start with baby steps before you get in front of a panel of senators or other high-profile engagement opportunities. But often the first setting for junior colleagues to be engaged is doing things – we call them "Hill Days" – but basically being involved in kind of low-stakes meetings where you're with a group of peers, some of whom have done this multiple times before, and can get engaged talking to members of representatives' offices, and doing so in a way where it's a natural conversation that you're telling a story about a patient in your clinic, or that you're telling a personal experience from a policy that impacted your ability to deliver optimal care. It sounds stressful, but once you're doing it, it's not stressful. It's actually kind of fun. And it's a way that you can get comfort and skill with a group of peers who are there and able to help you. And ASCO has a number of ways to do that, both at the federal level, there's the Hill Day where we each April have several hundred ASCO members travel to Capitol Hill. There's also state engagement that can be done, so-called visiting at home, when representatives from the U.S. Congress or from state legislators are back in district. You can meet with your own representatives on behalf of yourself, on behalf of your organization, and advocate for policies in a way that can be beneficial to your patients. But those initial meetings that are in the office often they're low stakes because you could be meeting not with the representative but with their staff. And that staff sometimes is as young or even younger than our junior colleagues. These sometimes can be people in their 20s, but they're often extremely knowledgeable, extremely approachable, and are used to dealing with people who are new to advocacy. But they actually help make decisions within the office. So it's not a waste of time. It's actually a super useful way to engage. So, it's that first step of anything in life. The activation energy is always high to do something new. But I'd encourage people who are listening to this podcast already having some level of interest about it to explore ways that they could engage more. Dr. Monty Pal: You know, I have to tell you, I'm going to riff on what you just said for a second. ASCO couldn't make it any easier, I think, for folks to participate and get involved. So, if you're listening to this and scratching your head and thinking, "Well, where do I begin? How do I actually sign on for that meeting with a local representative?" Go to the ASCO ACT Network website. And I'll actually talk to our producer, Geraldine, to make sure we've got a link to that somewhere associated with this podcast after it's published, Jason, but I actually keep that on my browser and it's super easy. I check in there every now and then and see if there's any new policy or legislation that ASCO, you know, is sort of taking a stance on, and it gives me some fodder for conversation with my local representatives too. I mean, it's just an awesome, awesome vehicle. I'm going to segue right from there right to the issues. So, you and I are both at academic centers. You know, I think this is something that really pervades academia and enters into implications for general clinical practice. There's been this, you know, massive sort of proposal for decreased funding to the NCI and to the NIH and so forth. Tell us what ASCO is doing in that regard, and tell us perhaps how our community can help. Dr. Jason Westin: We live in interesting times, and I think that may be an understatement x 100. But obviously investments in research are things that when you're at an academic center, you see and feel that as part of your daily life. Members of Congress need to be reminded of that because there's a lot of other competing interests out there besides investing in the future through research. And being an elected representative is a hard job. That is something where you have to make difficult choices to support this, and that may mean not supporting that. And there's lots of good things where our tax dollars could be spent. And so, I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's not unlimited resources. However, ASCO has done an excellent job, and ASCO members have led the charge on this, of stating what research does, what is the benefit of research, and therefore why should this matter to elected representatives, to their staff, and to those people that they're elected to serve. And ASCO has led with a targeted campaign to basically have that message be conveyed at every opportunity to elected representatives. And each year on Hill Day, one of the asks that we have is to continue to support research: the NCI, NIH, ARPA-H, these are things that are always in the asks to make sure that there's appropriate funding. But effectively playing offense by saying, "It's not just a number on a sheet of paper, this is what it means to patients. This is what it means to potentially your loved ones in the future if you are in the opposite situation where you're not on the legislative side, but you're in the office receiving a diagnosis or receiving a difficult piece of news." We only have the tools we have now because of research, and each breakthrough has been years in the making and countless hours spent funded through the engine of innovation: clinical research and translational research. And so ASCO continues to beat that drum. You mentioned earlier the ACT Network. Just to bring that back again is a very useful, very easy tool to communicate to your elected representatives. When you sign up on the ASCO ACT website, you get emails periodically, not too much, but periodically get emails of, "This is a way you can engage with your lawmakers to speak up for this." And as you said, Monty, they make it as easy as possible. You click the button, you type in your address so that it figures out who your elected representatives are, and then it will send a letter on your behalf after like five clicks to say, "I want you to support research. I want you to vote for this particular thing which is of interest to ASCO and by definition to members of ASCO." And so the ACT Network is a way that people listening can engage without having to spend hours and significant time, but just a few clicks can send that letter to a representative in Congress. And the question could be: does that matter? Does contacting your senator or your elected representative do anything? If all they're hearing is somebody else making a different argument and they're hearing over and over again from people that want investments in AI or investments in something else besides cancer research, whatever it is, they may think that there's a ground shift that people want dollars to be spent over here as opposed to at the NIH or NCI or in federally funded research. It is important to continue to express the need for federal funding for our research. And so, it really is important for folks to engage. Dr. Monty Pal: 100%. One of the things that I think is not often obvious to a lot of our listeners is where the support for clinical trials comes from. You know, you've obviously run the whole gamut of studies as have I. You know, we have our pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies, which are in a particular bucket. But I would say that there's a very important and critical subset of studies that are actually government funded, right? NCI-funded clinical trials. If you don't mind, just explain to our audience the critical nature of the work that's being done in those types of studies and if you can, maybe compare and contrast the studies that are done in that bucket versus perhaps the pharmaceutical bucket. Dr. Jason Westin: Both are critical, and we're privileged that we have pharma studies that are sponsored and federally funded clinical research. And I think that part of a healthy ecosystem for us to develop new breakthroughs has a need for both. The pharma sponsored studies are done through the lens of trying to get an approval for an agent that's of interest so that the pharma company can then turn around and use that outside of a clinical trial after an FDA approval. And so those studies are often done through the lens of getting over the finish line by showing some superiority over an existing treatment or in a new patient population. But they're done through that lens of kind of the broadest population and sometimes relatively narrow endpoints, but to get the approval so that then the drug can be widely utilized. Clinical trials done through cooperative groups are sometimes done to try and optimize that or to try and look at comparative things that may not be as attractive to pharma studies, not necessarily going for that initial approval, but the fine tuning or the looking at health outcomes or looking at ensuring that we do studies in representative populations that may not be as well identified on the pharma sponsored trials, but basically filling out the gaps in the knowledge that we didn't gain from the initial phase 3 trial that led to the approval. And so both are critical. But if we only do pharma sponsored trials, if we don't fund federally supported research and that dries up, the fear I have, and many others have, is that we're going to be lacking a lot of knowledge about the best ways to use these great new therapies, these new immune therapies, or in my team, we do a lot of clinical trials on CAR T-cell therapies. If we don't have federally funded research to do the important clinical studies, we'll be in the dark about the best ways to use these drugs, and that's going to be a terrible shame. And so we really do need to continue to support federal research. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, there are no softball questions on this podcast, but I think everybody would be hard pressed to think that you and I would come on here and say, "Well, no, we don't need as much money for clinical trials and NCI funding" and so forth. But I think a really challenging issue to tackle, and this is something we thought to ask you ahead of the podcast, is what to do about the general climate of, you know, whether it's academic research or clinical practice here that seems to be getting some of our colleagues thinking about moving elsewhere. I've actually talked to a couple of folks who are picking up and moving to Europe for a variety of considerations, other continents, frankly. The U.S. has always been a leader when it comes to oncology research and, one might argue, research in general. Some have the mindset these days that we're losing that footing a little bit. What's your perspective? Are you concerned about some of the trends that you're seeing? What does your crystal ball tell you? Dr. Jason Westin: I am highly concerned about this. I think as you said, the U.S. has been a leader for a long time, but it wasn't always. This is not something that's preordained that the world-leading clinical research and translational research will always be done in the United States. That is something that has been developed as an ecosystem, as an engine for innovation and for job development, new technology development, since World War II. That's something that through intentional investments in research was developed that the best and brightest around the world, if they could choose to go anywhere, you wanted them to come to work at universities and academic places within the United States. And I think, as you said, that's at risk if you begin to dry up the investment in research or if you begin to have less focus on being engaged in research in a way that is forward thinking, not just kind of maintaining what we do now or only looking at having private, for profit sponsored research. But if you don't have the investment in the basic science research and the translational research and the forward-thinking part of it, the fear is that we lose the advantage and that other countries will say, "Thank you very much," and be happy to invest in ways to their advantage. And I think as you mentioned, there are people that are beginning to look elsewhere. I don't think that it's likely that a significant population of researchers in the U.S. who are established and have careers and families – I don't think that we're going to see a mass exodus of folks. I think the real risk to me is that the younger, up-and-coming people in undergraduate or in graduate school or in medical school and are the future superstars, that they could either choose to go into a different field, so they decide not to go into what could be the latest breakthroughs for cancer patients but could be doing something in AI or something in a different field that could be attractive to them because of less uncertainty about funding streams, or they could take that job offer if it's in a different country. And I think that's the concern is it may not be a 2026 problem, but it could be a 2036 or a 2046 problem that we reap what we sow if we don't invest in the future. Dr. Monty Pal: Indeed, indeed. You know, I've had the pleasure of reviewing abstracts for some of our big international meetings, as I'm sure you've done in the past too. I see this trend where, as before, we would see the preponderance of large phase 3 clinical trials and practice setting studies being done here in the U.S., I'm seeing this emergence of China, of other countries outside of the U.S. really taking lead on these things. And it certainly concerns me. If I had to sort of gauge this particular issue, it's at the top of my list in terms of what I'm concerned about. But I also wanted to ask you, Jason, in terms of the issues that are looming over oncology from an advocacy perspective, what else really sort of keeps you up at night? Dr. Jason Westin: I'm quite concerned about the drug shortages. I think that's something that is a surprisingly evergreen problem. This is something that is on its face illogical that we're talking about the greatest engine for research in the world being the United States and the investment that we've made in drug development and the breakthroughs that have happened for patients all around the world, many of them happen in the United States, and yet we don't necessarily have access to drugs from the 1970s or 1980s that are cheap, generic, sterile, injectable drugs. This is the cisplatins and the vincristines and the fludarabine type medications which are not the sexy ones that you see the ads in the magazine or on TV at night. These are the backbone drugs for many of our curative intent regimens for pediatrics and for heme malignancies and many solid tumors. And the fact that that's continuing to be an issue is, in my opinion, a failure to address the root causes, and those are going to require legislative solutions. The root causes here are basically a race to the bottom where the economics to invest in quality manufacturing really haven't been prioritized. And so it's a race to the cheapest price, which often means you undercut your competitor, and when you don't have the money to invest in good manufacturing processes, the factory breaks down, there's no alternative, you go into shortage. And this has been going on for a couple of decades, and I don't think there's an end in sight until we get a serious solution proposed by our elected officials. That is something that bothers me in the ways where we know what we should be doing for our patients, but if we don't have the drugs, we're left to be creative in ways we shouldn't have to do to figure out a plan B when we've got curative intent therapies. And I think that's a real shame.  There's obviously a lot of other things that are concerning related to oncology, but something that I have personally had experience with when I wanted to give a patient a CAR T-cell, and we don't have a supply of fludarabine, which is a trivial drug from decades ago in terms of the technology investments in genetically modified T-cells, to not then have access to a drug that should be pennies on the dollar and available at any time you want it is almost like the Air Force investing in building the latest stealth bomber, but then forgetting to get the jet fuel in a way that they can't use it because they don't have the tools that they need. And so I think that's something that we do need to have comprehensive solutions from our elected officials. Dr. Monty Pal: Brilliantly stated. I like that analogy a lot. Let's get into the weeds for a second. What would that proposal to Congress look like? What are we trying to put in front of them to help alleviate the drug shortages? Dr. Jason Westin: We could spend a couple hours, and I know podcasts usually are not set up to do that. And so I won't go through every part. I will direct you that there have been a couple of recent publications from ASCO specifically detailing solutions, and there was a recent white paper from the Senate Finance Committee that went through some legislative solutions being explored. So Dr. Gralow, ASCO CMO, and I recently had a publication in JCO OP detailing some solutions, more in that white paper from the Senate Finance. And then there's a working group actually going through ASCO's Health Policy Committee putting together a more detailed proposal that will be published probably around the end of 2026. Very briefly, what needs to happen is for government contracts for purchasing these drugs, there needs to be an outlay for quality, meaning that if you have a manufacturing facility that is able to deliver product on time, reliably, you get a bonus in terms of your contract. And that changes the model to prioritize the quality component of manufacturing. Without that, there's no reason to invest in maintaining your machine or upgrading the technology you have in your manufacturing plant. And so you have bottlenecks emerge because these drugs are cheap, and there's not a profit margin. So you get one factory that makes this key drug, and if that factory hasn't had an upgrade in their machines in 20 years, and that machine conks out and it takes 6 months to repair or replacement, that is an opportunity for that drug to go into shortage and causes a mad dash for big hospitals to purchase the drug that's available, leaving disparities to get amplified. It's a nightmare when those things happen, and they happen all the time. There are usually dozens, if not hundreds, of drugs in shortage at any given time. And this has been going on for decades. This is something that we do need large, system-wide fixes and that investment in quality, I think, will be a key part. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, brilliantly said. And I'll make sure that we actually include those articles on the tagline for this podcast as well. I'll talk to our producer about that as well.  I'm really glad you mentioned the time in your last comment there because I felt like we just started, but in fact, I think we're right at our close here, Jason, unfortunately. So, I could have gone on for a couple more hours with you. I really want to thank you for these absolutely terrific insights and thank you for all your advocacy on behalf of ASCO and oncologists at large. Dr. Jason Westin: Thank you so much for having me. I have enjoyed it. Dr. Monty Pal: Thanks a lot. And many thanks to our listeners too. You can find more information about ASCO's advocacy agenda and activities at asco.org. Finally, if you value the insights that you heard today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks so much. ASCO Advocacy Resources: Get involved in ASCO's Advocacy efforts: ASCO Advocacy Toolkit Crisis of Cancer Drug Shortages: Understanding the Causes and Proposing Sustainable Solutions, JCO Oncology Practice 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. Find out more about today's speakers:     Dr. Monty Pal   @montypal   Dr. Jason Westin @DrJasonWestin   Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on X     ASCO on Bluesky    ASCO on Facebook      ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:     Dr. Monty Pal:    Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview   Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical   Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis   Dr. Jason Westin: Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Kite/Gilead, Janssen Scientific Affairs, ADC Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene/Juno, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Abbvie, MorphoSys/Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Abbvie, Chugai Pharma, Regeneron, Nurix, Genmab, Allogene Therapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma Research Funding: Janssen, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, MorphoSys/Incyte, Genentech/Roche, Allogene Therapeutics

Alexis Garcia and Ed Carson walk through Thursday's market action and discuss key stocks to watch in Stock Market Today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Topman Bill Lundberg van het Nederlandse biotechbedrijf Merus zal $205 mln (ruim €175 mln) overhouden aan de miljardenovername van de onderneming door branchegenoot Genmab. Het is de een-na-hoogste beloning in Nederland ooit voor een bestuurder na een overname. Beleggersvereniging VEB noemt het ‘absurd'. Ook Eumedion, een organisatie die grote institutionele beleggers vertegenwoordigt, zegt ‘moeite te hebben’ met de regeling voor de ceo van Merus. Farmaredacteur Thieu Vaessen vertelt waar Lundberg zijn bonus aan te danken heeft. Lees: Topman Merus verdient $205 mln dankzij overname door Genmab De Europese Commissie wil steun aan Oekraïne financieren via een gezamenlijke EU-lening of via een ‘herstel-lening’ met bevroren Russische tegoeden. Die tweede optie is de favoriet, maar er ligt één land dwars: België. Dat is de thuisbasis van Euroclear, de instelling waar zo’n €140 mrd van de in totaal €210 mrd aan bevroren tegoeden van de Russische centrale bank staat. Daar draagt België de juridische risico’s voor. Toch wil Brussel het plan doorzetten. Correspondent Daan Ballegeer vertelt waarom én hoe. Lees: Brussel presenteert ‘herstel-lening’ die België niet alleen kan blokkeren Hoe kan het dat verreweg de meeste Nederlanders zeggen zich zorgen te maken over milieu en klimaatverandering, maar de verduurzaming ondertussen blijft steken? Doordat mensen het beleid oneerlijk vinden, zo schrijft de Raad voor de leefomgeving en infrastructuur (Rli) in een nieuw advies. En die mensen hebben nog gelijk ook: het tot nu toe gevoerde beleid voor verduurzaming vergroot de sociale ongelijkheid. FD-redacteur Lien van der Leij vertelt hoe milieubeleid volgens de Raad wél moet. Lees: Verduurzaming loopt vast, omdat mensen het beleid oneerlijk vinden Redactie: Sophia Wouda, Jort Siemes & Floyd Bonder Presentatie: Floyd Bonder See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

De beursgang van OpenAI is aanstaande, maar het bedrijf wordt mogelijk ingehaald door een concurrent. AI-reus Anthropic maakt zich klaar voor een beursgang. Volgens de Financial Times heeft het bedrijf een advocatenkantoor in de arm genomen die dat moet regelen. Dat betekent voor aartsrivaal OpenAI hoor je in deze aflevering. We duiken ook op Eutelsat. Dat moest dé Europese concurrent van Starlink worden, het satellietbedrijf van Elon Musk. Beleggers hadden daar dit voorjaar nog het volste vertrouwen in: toen schoot het aandeel liefst 600 procent omhoog. Maar de Japanse investeerder Softbank zegt nu het vertrouwen op: ze verkopen de helft van hun belang. Met hun nog veel meer beleggers, want van die stijging in maart is weinig meer over. Of Eutelsat óóit nog in de buurt komt van Starlink, gaan we bespreken. Vertellen we je ook nog over de spijkerbroekenoorlog die gaande is in de Verenigde Staten. American Eagle, Levi Strauss en GAP halen alles en iedereen uit de kast om klanten te trekken. Spotjes met actrice Sydney Sweeney, zelfs een Levi's-liedje van Beyoncé: bedrijven trekken er miljoenen voor uit. En je hoort waarom de topman van een Nederlands biotechbedrijf een bonus van 205 miljoen euro op zijn bankrekening mag bijschrijven. De op één na grootste beloning voor een bestuurder van een Nederlands bedrijf ooit.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

De beursgang van OpenAI is aanstaande, maar het bedrijf wordt mogelijk ingehaald door een concurrent. AI-reus Anthropic maakt zich klaar voor een beursgang. Volgens de Financial Times heeft het bedrijf een advocatenkantoor in de arm genomen die dat moet regelen. Dat betekent voor aartsrivaal OpenAI hoor je in deze aflevering. We duiken ook op Eutelsat. Dat moest dé Europese concurrent van Starlink worden, het satellietbedrijf van Elon Musk. Beleggers hadden daar dit voorjaar nog het volste vertrouwen in: toen schoot het aandeel liefst 600 procent omhoog. Maar de Japanse investeerder Softbank zegt nu het vertrouwen op: ze verkopen de helft van hun belang. Met hun nog veel meer beleggers, want van die stijging in maart is weinig meer over. Of Eutelsat óóit nog in de buurt komt van Starlink, gaan we bespreken. Vertellen we je ook nog over de spijkerbroekenoorlog die gaande is in de Verenigde Staten. American Eagle, Levi Strauss en GAP halen alles en iedereen uit de kast om klanten te trekken. Spotjes met actrice Sydney Sweeney, zelfs een Levi's-liedje van Beyoncé: bedrijven trekken er miljoenen voor uit. En je hoort waarom de topman van een Nederlands biotechbedrijf een bonus van 205 miljoen euro op zijn bankrekening mag bijschrijven. De op één na grootste beloning voor een bestuurder van een Nederlands bedrijf ooit.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Het Utrechtse biotechbedrijf Merus is voor $8 mrd overgenomen door het Deens-Nederlandse biotechbedrijf Genmab dankzij zijn veelbelovende medicijn tegen hoofd-halskanker. De Utrechters maakten dit nieuwe geneesmiddel met behulp van een eigen muis: de genetisch gemodificeerde Merusmuis. Farmaredacteur Thieu Vaessen neemt ons mee in de futuristische wereld van medicijnontwikkeling. Lees: De muis van €8 mrd: hoe Merus een baanbrekend medicijn ontwikkelde Luchthaven Schiphol moet krimpen, maar wil tegelijk groeien. Het bedrijf gaat de komende jaren miljarden euro’s investeren in onder meer een nieuwe terminal en het opknappen en verduurzamen van de bestaande gates. Ook kijkt het luchthavenbedrijf nadrukkelijk naar investeringen over de grens. Luchtvaartredacteur Erik van Rein hoorde van topman Pieter van Oord hoe hij de krimp en groei denkt te combineren. Lees: Schiphol zet miljoenen opzij voor buitenlandse investeringen Wie een feestelijk etentje organiseert, komt niet meer weg met een paar op de tafel gekwakte bordjes met hapjes, gevolgd door een servies dat uit drie verschillende borden bestaat. De hogere kunst van het tafelschikken, of tablescaping zoals het op sociale media is gedoopt, komt deze koude wintermaanden menig woonkamer binnen. FD-redacteur Loeka Oostra vertelt over het ondernemerschap in deze branche én geeft decoratietips. Lees: Welkom aan de statementtafel Redactie en montage: Sophia Wouda & Nelleke van der Heiden Presentatie: Nelleke van der Heiden See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dans ce numéro du Journal des biotechs, l'analyste biotech Frédéric Gomez revient sur les progressions boursières du moment avec Medincell (/cours/1rPMEDCL/)et Nanobiotix (/cours/1rPNANO/). Il analyse également la situation de Novo Nordisk et livre son coup de cœur sur Genmab.L'entretien est consacré à THX Pharma. Son PDG Mathieu Charvériat revient sur les derniers développements en cous de la biotech. Hébergé par Audion. Visitez https://www.audion.fm/fr/privacy-policy pour plus d'informations.

DDW's Bruno Quinney narrates key stories of the week to keep DDW subscribers up-to-date on the latest industry updates.  This week's news is led by the agreement by Genmab to acquire Merus, an announcement which could have important ramifications in cancer research. Scientists have also made breakthroughs in pancreatic cancer, as well as in the understanding of Covid ‘brain fog'. 

On this week's episode, Eric Schimidt, Sam Fazeli, Brian Skorney, Yaron Werber, and Brad Loncar open withmacro news including Pfizer's deal with the White House on U.S. drug manufacturing and pricing, which helped shelve the Most Favored Nation pricing and looming tariffs. The co-hosts agreed it was a savvy move that secured goodwillfor the industry and gave investors confidence, leading to new XBI highs. Discussion then moved to regulatory updates with the new CDER head, George Tidmarsh, stirring controversy with now-deleted LinkedIn posts criticizing surrogate endpoints. Combined with recent CRLs on CMC grounds, the group debates inconsistency at the agency and top-down decision-making that adds uncertainty for companies and investors. In M&A, Genmab's $8 billionacquisition of Merus and competitive dynamics with Bicara are mentioned, along with whether the streak of weekly biotech deals marks a broader industry trend. In data, the co-hosts discussed MoonLake's hidradenitis suppurativa data and stock moves, Larimar's Friedreich's ataxia data and stock fall, along with Enanta's RSV data and big stock reversal. The episode concludes with a look ahead as the group discusses Q4 conferences, including ESMO, and Q3 earnings risks forcertain companies. *This episode aired on October 3, 2025.

Genmab closed out a busy third quarter for M&A in biopharma, picking up cancer biotech Merus for $8 billion. This deal—the year's fifth largest—came just a week after Pfizer acquired rising obesity star Metsera for $4.9 billion. Just seven days later, Metsera made the New York–based pharma look like a genius with mid-stage data for one of the deal's centerpiece therapies, MET-097i, showing 14% placebo-adjusted weight loss over 28 weeks.After months of tarrying and threats, President Donald Trump announced last week that 100% tariffs would take effect Oct. 1—with broad exceptions for companies that have taken steps to build out their domestic manufacturing footprints. One company that has answered that call—as well as a letter sent by the president to 17 of the largest pharma companies requesting action on his most-favored-nation drug pricing policy—is Pfizer. In a joint oval office announcement with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and HHS officials, Trump said Pfizer would offer all new medicines at MFN prices.Meanwhile, over at the FDA, CDER Director George Tidmarsh, who has flown relatively under the radar since taking the post in July, took to LinkedIn to address the subject of relying on surrogate endpoints in drug approvals. In a since deleted post, Tidmarsh called out Aurinia Pharmaceuticals' lupus drug as an “egregious” example of this phenomenon. CDER's sister agency, CBER, also made a splash last week, publishing three draft recommendations intended to accelerate the development of cell and gene therapies.Speaking of CGT, maybe the biggest clinical development news of the year emerged from this space last week when uniQure announced that its gene therapy for Huntington's disease, AMT-130, slowed disease progression by 75% after three years. With these data in hand, uniQure plans to file for FDA approval of the treatment in the first quarter of 2026. If successful, AMT-130 would be the first genetic therapy for the intractable neurodegenerative disease.Finally, biopharma's glass ceiling just got a little more tightly sealed. Emma Walmsley, the industry's first female CEO, is stepping down after nine years at GSK, handing the reins to current chief commercial officer, Luke Miels. When Walmsley officially departs on Dec. 31, she will leave Vertex CEO Reshma Kewalramani and incoming Takeda CEO Julie Kim to represent the sisterhood at the highest ranks of the biopharma industry.

Genmab's $8 billion acquisition of multispecifics company Merus is the Danish biotech's largest step toward marketing its own pipeline. On the latest BioCentury This Week podcast, BioCentury's analysts discuss the evolution of Genmab, which, for many years, relied on a partnership model that delivered blockbuster revenues but now is making a change as a patent cliff looms.The analysts also assess the tenure of Emma Walmsley the longtime CEO of GSK, and what's next for the U.K. pharma under incoming CEO Luke Miels. Turning to the U.S., Washington Editor Steve Usdin discusses President Donald Trump's looming tariff threat on imports of branded drugs, which Usdin says would hurt small biotechs the most. Usdin also analyzes the response of multinational pharmaceutical companies to the president's demand that they make “most favored nation” price concessions, now that Monday's deadline has passed. This episode of BioCentury This Week is sponsored by IQVIA Biotech.View full story: https://www.biocentury.com/article/657131#biotech #pharma #deals #FGF21 #MASH #Interleukin5 #asthma #PhRMA #PBM #tarriff #MFN00:01 - Sponsor Message: IQVIA Biotech02:26 - Genmab's Merus Buy09:43 - CEO Switch at GSK17:22 - Trump Tariff Threat21:17 - MFN Drug PricingTo submit a question to BioCentury's editors, email the BioCentury This Week team at podcasts@biocentury.com.Reach us by sending a text

Genmab køber hollandsk biotek­sel­skab for 51 mia. kr. Søstrene Grene slår rekord og øger milliardsalg med 31 pct. Novo Nordisk tilbyder ansatte degradering eller fyring. Obton stemmer ja til redningsplan. Konsor­tium køber Electronic Arts for over 50 mia. dollar. Netanyahu godkender Trumps 20-punkts fredsplan for Gaza. Vance advarer om at USA styrer mod regeringsnedlukning. Vært: Lasse Ladefoged (lasse.ladefoged@borsen.dk)  

Ohne Aktien-Zugang ist's schwer? Starte jetzt bei unserem Partner Scalable Capital. Alle weiteren Infos gibt's hier: scalable.capital/oaws. Merger Monday bei EA, Occidental, Genmab und Merus. TotalEnergies und Lufthansa entlassen. Uber und Meta haben große Side-Gigs. Trump mag US-Filme & Cannabis. Moonlake crasht. Lyft (WKN: A2PE38) oder Uber? Wir klären auf. Was haben TikTok, die Software AG, EA, Dell, die UFC und Manchester City gemeinsam? Silver Lake und Egon Durban! Diesen Podcast vom 30.09.2025, 3:00 Uhr stellt dir die Podstars GmbH (Noah Leidinger) zur Verfügung.

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech Daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma and Biotech world.Genmab has acquired Merus, a rising star in the field of oncology, for $8 billion. The acquisition includes Merus' bispecific antibody, petosemtamab, which targets EGFR and LGR5 and has shown potential for head-and-neck cancer. In other news, GSK CEO Emma Walmsley is stepping down after nine years, with Chief Commercial Officer Luke Miels set to replace her next year. The FDA's decision to disclose complete response letters in real-time has raised questions about transparency and the agency's role. Additionally, Biogen has shuffled staff after ending work on AAV, while Heidelberg has cut 75% of its staff after missed royalty payments.The FDA's real-time disclosure of complete response letters benefits investors by providing greater visibility into regulatory decisions. In September, the FDA's actions included boosting Keytruda while rejecting two spinal muscular atrophy therapies due to manufacturing issues. A judge's ruling on the FDA's authority over laboratory-developed tests reflects the impact of a recent Supreme Court decision. Six FDA decisions to watch for in Q4 could have significant implications for the biopharma industry and patients. Recent developments include positive results for an immuneering asset in pancreatic cancer, FDA approval for Lilly's oral SERD for breast cancer, and positive outcomes for uniQure's Huntington's therapy. Additionally, the FDA is streamlining development of cell, gene, and regenerative therapies. Other news includes the revival of a dormant drug as a potential autism treatment, setbacks in obesity studies, and unexpected rejections for certain therapies. Upcoming webinars and job opportunities are also highlighted.Listeners are encouraged to provide feedback on topics they would like to see covered in future episodes.

Genmab, een Deens-Nederlands biotechbedrijf, neemt een ander biotechbedrijf, Merus, over. De R&D kantoren van beide bedrijven zijn buren op het Science Park in Utrecht. Ze zijn akkoord over een overnamebod van $8 mrd. Genmab raakt op deze manier betrokken bij het uitrollen van een veelbelovend medicijn tegen hoofd- en halskanker dat momenteel ontwikkeld wordt door Merus. We vragen aan onze redacteur Thieu Vaessen wat er gemoeid is met de deal. Lees: Genmab neemt voor $8 mrd Nederlandse biotechbedrijf Merus over KLM gaat samen met vakbonden FNV, CNV, én een bemiddelaar, weer om de tafel. Ze hervatten de cao-onderhandelingen van het grondpersoneel. KLM had eerder de vakbonden voor de rechter gedaagd om een staking tegen te gaan. De rechter vond dat de staking onder voorwaarden door kon gaan. Nu bond KLM toch in en worden de onderhandelingen hervat. We spreken met onze redacteur Alwine de Jong over wat er op tafel ligt. Lees: CNV en FNV schorten stakingen bij KLM voorlopig op Een hoge staatsschuld (bijna 120% van het bruto binnenlands product), een begrotingstekort dat jaar op jaar ver boven de Europese norm van 3% uitstijgt en een rente op overheidsobligaties die gestaag blijft oplopen. Het zijn drie cijfers die maken dat er in Frankrijk grote zorgen zijn over de overheidsfinanciën, maar stuk voor stuk gelden ze ook voor België. En dat maakt de kans groot dat kredietbeoordelaars de rating ook voor België naar beneden bijstellen, vertelt redacteur Daan Bleus. Lees: Na Frankrijk riskeert ook België een lagere kredietbeoordeling Redactie: Nelleke van der Heiden, Floyd Bonder & Daniël van der Korst Presentatie: Floyd Bonder See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

US equity futures are higher with S&P going up. European and Asian equity markets both higher. Hang Seng outperforms amid tech gains. Bonds firmer, which sees US 10-year yield off 4 bps at 4.1%. Dollar softer, oil down, gold up. Industrial metals are mostly firmer. After global pharma shares came under pressure last Friday from President Trump's announcement of a 100% tariff on branded drugs, Europe and Japan officials expressed confidence that their levies will be capped at the 15% stipulated in their respective trade agreements with US, according to press. White House official said UK faces 100% levy given there was no specific stipulation for pharmas in their US deal. Sources indicated British government set to concede UK should pay more for some medicines and Starmer chief business adviser Chandra will travel to Washington next week to convey such overtures.Companies Mentioned: TotalEnergies, Occidental Petroleum, Merus, Genmab

Børsugen skydes i gang med et opkøb fra Genmab, og Millionærklubben står klar til kommentarer og dialog om sagen med teknisk analytiker Lars Persson i studiet og senior aktieanalytiker Henrik Hallengreen fra Jyske Bank på telefonen. Med fra Saxo Banks hovedsæde er også chefstrateg Ole Hansen, der giver sit syn på råvaremarkederne - herunder de højtflyvende ædelmetalpriser. Og sidst i udsendelsen kan du få indblik i en aktiespilsstrategi, der fik Jens Christiansens spilleformue til at vokse med 1,8 mio. kr. på bare 24 timer. Vært: Bodil Johanne GantzelSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Op 1 iemand hoeft ABN Amro niet te rekenen. De Nederlandsche Bank gaat niet zomaar voor een overname van de bank liggen, zegt president Olaf Sleijpen. Hij is fan van één Europese kapitaalmarkt, en daarbij hoort ook dat elk overnamebod op waarde moet worden beoordeeld. Dus ziet hij het voorstel van het Belgische KBC vrolijk tegemoet. Als KBC nog twijfelde, is dit dan de bevestiging dat de weg voor een overname vrij is? Dat zoeken we deze aflevering uit. Verder hebben we het over de Europese autosector. Die krijgt bijval van een belangrijke politicus. De man aan de leiding van het grootste autoland van Europa is om. Friedrich Merz springt voor zijn autobouwers in de bres en wil af van de verplichte overstap naar elektrische motoren. Tegen 2035 wil de EU dat autobouwers geen enkele benzine- of dieselmotor meer maken. Maar autobouwers zien het als de strop, aangezien de concurrentie uit China moordend is. En met Merz aan hun zijde kan daar nog wel eens verandering in komen. Je hoort ook nog over een miljardenovername tussen twee Nederlandse bedrijven op Wall Street. Over de grootste uitkoop van een beursbedrijf met geleend geld ooit. Groter dan die van Twitter zelfs. En het gaat over het einde van een beursverhaal aan het Damrak. Een verhaal dat van korte duur was, want na één jaar zit het avontuur er alweer op.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Genmab har annonceret, at man vil købe det hollandske biotekselskab Merus for 51 mia. kr. Hvis købet går i gennem bliver det danmarkshistoriens syvende største virksomhedsopkøb nogensinde. Alligevel er Genmabs aktiekurs i dag faldet med mere end 3 pct. Gæst: Heidi Birgitte Nielsen, økonomiredaktør, Finans Vært: Kasper Søegaard, podcastredaktør, Finans See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Op 1 iemand hoeft ABN Amro niet te rekenen. De Nederlandsche Bank gaat niet zomaar voor een overname van de bank liggen, zegt president Olaf Sleijpen. Hij is fan van één Europese kapitaalmarkt, en daarbij hoort ook dat elk overnamebod op waarde moet worden beoordeeld. Dus ziet hij het voorstel van het Belgische KBC vrolijk tegemoet. Als KBC nog twijfelde, is dit dan de bevestiging dat de weg voor een overname vrij is? Dat zoeken we deze aflevering uit. Verder hebben we het over de Europese autosector. Die krijgt bijval van een belangrijke politicus. De man aan de leiding van het grootste autoland van Europa is om. Friedrich Merz springt voor zijn autobouwers in de bres en wil af van de verplichte overstap naar elektrische motoren. Tegen 2035 wil de EU dat autobouwers geen enkele benzine- of dieselmotor meer maken. Maar autobouwers zien het als de strop, aangezien de concurrentie uit China moordend is. En met Merz aan hun zijde kan daar nog wel eens verandering in komen. Je hoort ook nog over een miljardenovername tussen twee Nederlandse bedrijven op Wall Street. Over de grootste uitkoop van een beursbedrijf met geleend geld ooit. Groter dan die van Twitter zelfs. En het gaat over het einde van een beursverhaal aan het Damrak. Een verhaal dat van korte duur was, want na één jaar zit het avontuur er alweer op.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Diwakar Davar and Dr. Jason Luke discuss novel agents in melanoma and other promising new data in the field of immunotherapy that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Diwakar Davar: Hello. My name is Diwakar Davar, and I am welcoming you to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. 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. Today, I'm joined by my colleague and good friend, Dr. Jason Luke. Dr. Luke is a professor of medicine. He is also the associate director of clinical research and the director of the Phase 1 IDDC Program at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. He and I are going to be discussing some key advancements in melanoma and skin cancers that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Jason, it is great to have you back on the podcast. Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks again so much for the opportunity, and I'm really looking forward to it. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Perfect. So we will go ahead and start talking a little bit about a couple of key abstracts in both the drug development immunotherapy space and the melanoma space. The first couple of abstracts, the first two, will cover melanoma. So, the first is LBA9500, which was essentially the primary results of RELATIVITY-098. RELATIVITY-098 was a phase 3 trial that compared nivolumab plus relatlimab in a fixed-dose combination against nivolumab alone for the adjuvant treatment of resected high-risk disease. Jason, do you want to maybe give us a brief context of what this is? Dr. Jason Luke: Yeah, it's great, thanks. So as almost all listeners, of course, will be aware, the use of anti–PD-1 immunotherapies really revolutionized melanoma oncology over the last 10 to 15 years. And it has become a standard of care in the adjuvant setting as well. But to review, in patients with stage III melanoma, treatment can be targeted towards BRAF with BRAF and MEK combination therapy, where that's relevant, or anti–PD-1 with nivolumab or pembrolizumab are a standard of care. And more recently, we've had the development of neoadjuvant approaches for palpable stage III disease. And in that space, if patients present, based on two different studies, either pembrolizumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab can be given prior to surgery for somewhere in the 6- to 9-week range. And so all of these therapies have improved time-to-event endpoints, such as relapse-free or event-free survival. It's worth noting, however, that despite those advances, we've had a couple different trials now that have actually failed in this adjuvant setting, most high profile being the CheckMate-915 study, which looked at nivolumab plus ipilimumab and unfortunately was a negative study. So, with RELATIVITY-047, which was the trial of nivolumab plus relatlimab that showed an improvement in progression-free survival for metastatic disease, there's a lot of interest, and we've been awaiting these data for a long time for RELATIVITY-098, which, of course, is this adjuvant trial of LAG-3 blockade with relatlimab plus nivolumab. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Great. So with that, let's briefly discuss the trial design and the results. So this was a randomized, phase 3, blinded study, so double-blinded, so neither the investigators knew what the patients were getting, nor did the patients know what they were getting. The treatment investigational arm was nivolumab plus relatlimab in the fixed-dose combination. So that's the nivolumab standard fixed dose with relatlimab that was FDA approved in RELATIVITY-047. And the control arm was nivolumab by itself. The duration of treatment was 1 year. The patient population consisted of resected high-risk stage III or IV patients. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed RFS. Stage and geography were the standard stratifying factors, and they were included, and most of the criteria were balanced across both arms. What we know at this point is that the 2-year RFS rate was 64% and 62% in the nivolumab and nivolumab-combination arms, respectively. The 2-year DMFS rate was similarly equivalent: 76% with nivolumab monotherapy, 73% with the combination. And similar to what you had talked about with CheckMate 915, unfortunately, the addition of LAG-3 did not appear to improve the RFS or DMFS compared to control in this patient population. So, tell us a little bit about your take on this and what do you think might be the reasons why this trial was negative? Dr. Jason Luke: It's really unfortunate that we have this negative phase 3 trial. There had been a lot of hope that the combination of nivolumab with relatlimab would be a better tolerated combination that increased the efficacy. So in the metastatic setting, we do have 047, the study that demonstrated nivolumab plus relatlimab, but now we have this negative trial in the adjuvant setting. And so as to why exactly, I think is a complicated scenario. You know, when we look at the hazard ratios for relapse-free survival, the primary endpoint, as well as the secondary endpoints for distant metastasis-free survival, we see that the hazard ratio is approximately 1. So there's basically no difference. And that really suggests that relatlimab in this setting had no impact whatsoever on therapeutic outcomes in terms of efficacy. Now, it's worth noting that there was a biomarker subanalysis that was presented in conjunction with these data that looked at some immunophenotyping, both from circulating T cells, CD8 T cells, as well as from the tumor microenvironment from patients who were treated, both in the previous metastatic trial, the RELATIVITY-047 study, and now in this adjuvant study in the RELATIVITY-098 study. And to briefly summarize those, what was identified was that T cells in advanced melanoma seemed to have higher expression levels of LAG-3 relative to T cells that are circulating in patients that are in the adjuvant setting. In addition to that, there was a suggestion that the magnitude of increase is greater in the advanced setting versus adjuvant. And the overall summary of this is that the suggested rationale for why this was a negative trial may have been that the target of LAG-3 is not expressed as highly in the adjuvant setting as it is in the metastatic setting. And so while the data that were presented, I think, support this kind of an idea, I am a little bit cautious that this is actually the reason for why the trial was negative, however. I would say we're not really sure yet as to why the trial was negative, but the fact that the hazard ratios for the major endpoints were essentially 1 suggests that there was no impact whatsoever from relatlimab. And this really makes one wonder whether or not building on anti–PD-1 in the adjuvant setting is feasible because anti–PD-1 works so well. You would think that even if the levels of LAG-3 expression were slightly different, you would have seen a trend in one direction or another by adding a second drug, relatlimab, in this scenario. So overall, I think it's an unfortunate circumstance that the trial is negative. Clearly there's going to be no role for relatlimab in the adjuvant setting. I think this really makes one wonder about the utility of LAG-3 blockade and how powerful it really can be. I think it's probably worth pointing out there's another adjuvant trial ongoing now of a different PD-1 and LAG-3 combination, and that's cemiplimab plus fianlimab, a LAG-3 antibody that's being dosed from another trial sponsor at a much higher dose, and perhaps that may make some level of difference. But certainly, these are unfortunate results that will not advance the field beyond where we were at already. Dr. Diwakar Davar: And to your point about third-generation checkpoint factors that were negative, I guess it's probably worth noting that a trial that you were involved with, KeyVibe-010, that evaluated the PD-1 TIGIT co-formulation of vibostolimab, MK-4280A, was also, unfortunately, similarly negative. So, to your point, it's not clear that all these third-generation receptors are necessarily going to have the same impact in the adjuvant setting, even if they, you know, for example, like TIGIT, and they sometimes may not even have an effect at all in the advanced cancer setting. So, we'll see what the HARMONY phase 3 trial, that's the Regeneron cemiplimab/fianlimab versus pembrolizumab control with cemiplimab with fianlimab at two different doses, we'll see how that reads out. But certainly, as you've said, LAG-3 does not, unfortunately, appear to have an impact in the adjuvant setting. So let's move on to LBA9501. This is the primary analysis of EORTC-2139-MG or the Columbus-AD trial. This was a randomized trial of encorafenib and binimetinib, which we will abbreviate as enco-bini going forward, compared to placebo in high-risk stage II setting in melanoma in patients with BRAF V600E or K mutant disease. So Jason, you know, you happen to know one or two things about the resected stage II setting, so maybe contextualize the stage II setting for us based on the trials that you've led, KEYNOTE-716, as well as CheckMate-76K, set us up to talk about Columbus-AD. Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks for that introduction, and certainly stage II disease has been something I've worked a lot on. The rationale for that has been that building off of the activity of anti–PD-1 in metastatic melanoma and then seeing the activity in stage III, like we just talked about, it was a curious circumstance that dating back about 7 to 8 years ago, there was no availability to use anti–PD-1 for high-risk stage II patients, even though the risk of recurrence and death from melanoma in the context of stage IIB and IIC melanoma is in fact similar or actually higher than in stage IIIA or IIIB, where anti–PD-1 was approved. And in that context, a couple of different trials that you alluded to, the Keynote-716 study that I led, as well as the CheckMate 76K trial, evaluated pembrolizumab and nivolumab, respectively, showing an improvement in relapse-free and distant metastasis-free survival, and both of those agents have subsequently been approved for use in the adjuvant setting by the US FDA as well as the European Medicines Agency.  So bringing then to this abstract, throughout melanoma oncology, we've seen that the impact of anti–PD-1 immunotherapy versus BRAF and MEK-targeted therapy have had very similar outcomes on a sort of comparison basis, both in frontline metastatic and then in adjuvant setting. So it was a totally reasonable question to ask: Could we use adjuvant BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy? And I think all of us expected the answer would be yes. As we get into the discussion of the trial, I think the unfortunate circumstance was that the timing of this clinical trial being delayed somewhat, unfortunately, made it very difficult to accrue the trial, and so we're going to have to try to read through the tea leaves sort of, based on only a partially complete data set. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, in terms of the results, they wanted to enroll 815 patients, they only enrolled 110. The RFS and DMFS were marginally improved in the treatment arm but certainly not significantly, which is not surprising because the trial had only accrued 16% to 18% of its complete accrual. As such, we really can't abstract from the stage III COMBI-AD data to stage II patients. And certainly in this setting, one would argue that the primary treatment options certainly remain either anti–PD-1 monotherapy, either with pembrolizumab or nivolumab, based on 716 or 76K, or potentially active surveillance for the patients who are not inclined to get treated.  Can you tell us a little bit about how you foresee drug development going forward in this space because, you know, for example, with HARMONY, certainly IIC disease is a part of HARMONY. We will know at least a little bit about that in this space. So what do you think about the stage IIB/C patient population? Is this a patient population in which future combinations are going to be helpful, and how would you think about where we can go forward from here? Dr. Jason Luke: It is an unfortunate circumstance that this trial could not be accrued at the pace that was necessary. I think all of us believe that the results would have been positive if they'd been able to accrue the trial. In the preliminary data set that they did disclose of that 110 patients, you know, it's clear there is a difference at a, you know, a landmark at a year. They showed a 16% difference, and that would be in line with what has been seen in stage III. And so, you know, I think it's really kind of too bad. There's really going to be no regulatory approach for this consideration. So using BRAF and MEK inhibition in stage II is not going to be part of standard practice moving into the future. To your point, though, about where will the field go? I think what we're already realizing is that in the adjuvant setting, we're really overtreating the total population. And so beyond merely staging by AJCC criteria, we need to move to biomarker selection to help inform which patients truly need the treatment. And in that regard, I don't think we've crystallized together as a field as yet, but the kinds of things that people are thinking about are the integration of molecular biomarkers like ctDNA. When it's positive, it can be very helpful, but in melanoma, we found that, unfortunately, the rates are quite low, you know, in the 10% to 15% range in the adjuvant setting. So then another consideration would be factors in the primary tumor, such as gene expression profiling or other considerations.  And so I think the future of adjuvant clinical trials will be an integration of both the standard AJCC staging system as well as some kind of overlaid molecular biomarker that helps to enrich for a higher-risk population of patients because on a high level, when you abstract out, it's just clearly the case that we're rather substantially overtreating the totality of the population, especially given that in all of our adjuvant studies to date for anti–PD-1, we have not yet shown that there's an overall survival advantage. And so some are even arguing perhaps we should even reserve treatment until patients progress. I think that's a complicated subject, and standard of care at this point is to offer adjuvant therapy, but certainly a lot more to do because many patients, you know, unfortunately, still do progress and move on to metastatic disease. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Let's transition to Abstract 2508. So we're moving on from the melanoma to the novel immunotherapy abstracts. And this is a very, very, very fascinating drug. It's IMA203. So Abstract 2508 is a phase 1 clinical update of IMA203. IMA203 is an autologous TCR-T construct targeting PRAME in patients with heavily pretreated PD-1-refractory metastatic melanoma. So Jason, in the PD-1 and CTLA-4-refractory settings, treatment options are either autologous TIL, response rate, you know, ballpark 29% to 31%, oncolytic viral therapy, RP1 with nivolumab, ORR about 30-ish percent. So new options are needed. Can you tell us a little bit about IMA203? Perhaps tell us for the audience, what is the difference between a TCR-T and traditional autologous TIL? And a little bit about this drug, IMA203, and how it distinguishes itself from the competing TIL products in the landscape. Dr. Jason Luke: I'm extremely enthusiastic about IMA203. I think that it really has transformative potential based on these results and hopefully from the phase 3 trial that's open to accrual now. So, what is IMA203? We said it's a TCR-T cell product. So what that means is that T cells are removed from a patient, and then they can be transduced through various technologies, but inserted into those T cells, we can then add a T-cell receptor that's very specific to a single antigen, and in this case, it's PRAME. So that then is contrasted quite a bit from the TIL process, which includes a surgical resection of a tumor where T cells are removed, but they're not specific necessarily to the cancer, and they're grown up in the lab and then given to the patient. They're both adoptive cell transfer products, but they're very different. One is genetically modified, and the other one is not. And so the process for generating a TCR-T cell is that patients are required to have a new biomarker that some may not be familiar with, which is HLA profiling. So the T-cell receptor requires matching to the concomitant HLA for which the peptide is bound in. And so the classic one that is used in most oncology practices is A*02:01 because approximately 48% of Caucasians have A*02:01, and the frequency of HLA in other ethnicities starts to become highly variable. But in patients who are identified to have A*02:01 genotype, we can then remove blood via leukapheresis or an apheresis product, and then insert via lentiviral transduction this T-cell receptor targeting PRAME. Patients are then brought back to the hospital where they can receive lymphodepleting chemotherapy and then receive the reinfusion of the TCR-T cells. Again, in contrast with the TIL process, however, these T cells are extremely potent, and we do not need to give high-dose interleukin-2, which is administered in the context of TIL. Given that process, we have this clinical trial in front of us now, and at ASCO, the update was from the phase 1 study, which was looking at IMA203 in an efficacy population of melanoma patients who were refractory at checkpoint blockade and actually multiple lines of therapy. So here, there were 33 patients and a response rate of approximately 50% was observed in this population of patients, notably with a duration of response approximately a year in that treatment group. And I realize that these were heavily pretreated patients who had a range of very high-risk features. And approximately half the population had uveal melanoma, which people may be aware is a generally speaking more difficult-to-treat subtype of melanoma that metastasizes to the liver, which again has been a site of resistance to cancer immunotherapy. So these results are extremely promising. To summarize them from what I said, it's easier to make TCR-T cells because we can remove blood from the patient to transduce the T cells, and we don't have to put them through surgery. We can then infuse them, and based on these results, it looks like the response rate to IMA203 is a little bit more than double what we expect from lifileucel. And then, whereas with lifileucel or TILs, we have to give high-dose IL-2, here we do not have to give high-dose IL-2. And so that's pretty promising. And a clinical trial is ongoing now called the SUPREME phase 3 clinical trial, which is hoping to validate these results in a randomized global study. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Now, one thing that I wanted to go over with you, because you know this trial particularly well, is what you think of the likelihood of success, and then we'll talk a little bit about the trial design. But in your mind, do you think that this is a trial that has got a reasonable likelihood of success, maybe even a high likelihood of success? And maybe let's contextualize that to say an alternative trial, such as, for example, the TebeAM trial, which is essentially a T-cell bispecific targeting GP100. It's being compared against SOC, investigator's choice control, also in a similarly heavily pretreated patient population. Dr. Jason Luke: So both trials, I think, have a strong chance of success. They are very different kinds of agents. And so the CD3 bispecific that you referred to, tebentafusp, likely has an effect of delaying progression, which in patients with advanced disease could have a value that might manifest as overall survival. With TCR-T cells, by contrast, we see a very high response rate with some of the patients going into very durable long-term benefit. And so I do think that the SUPREME clinical trial has a very high chance of success. It will be the first clinical trial in solid tumor oncology randomizing patients to receive a cell therapy as compared with a standard of care. And within that standard of care control arm, TILs are allowed as a treatment. And so it will also be the first study that will compare TCR-T cells against TILs in a randomized phase 3. But going back to the data that we've seen in the phase 1 trial, what we observe is that the duration of response is really connected to the quality of the response, meaning if you have more than a 50% tumor shrinkage, those patients do very, very well. But even in patients who have less than 50% tumor shrinkage, the median progression-free survival right now is about 4.5 months. And again, as we think about trial design, standard of care options for patients who are in this situation are unfortunately very bad. And the progression-free survival in that population is probably more like 2 months. So this is a trial that has a very high likelihood of being positive because the possibility of long-term response is there, but even for patients who don't get a durable response, they're likely going to benefit more than they would have based on standard chemotherapy or retreatment with an anti–PD-1 agent. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Really, a very important trial to enroll, a trial that is first in many ways. First of a new generation of TCR-T agents, first trial to look at cell therapy in the control arm, a new standard of efficacy, but potentially also if this trial is successful, it will also be a new standard of trial conduct, a new kind of trial, of a set of trials that will be done in the second-line immunotherapy-refractory space. So let's pivot to the last trial that we were going to discuss, which was Abstract 2501. Abstract 2501 is a first-in-human phase 1/2 trial evaluating BNT142, which is the first-in-class mRNA-encoded bispecific targeting Claudin-6 and CD3 in patients with Claudin-positive tumors. We'll talk a little bit about this, but maybe let's start by talking a little bit about Claudin-6. So Claudin-6 is a very interesting new target. It's a target that's highly expressed in GI and ovarian tumors. There are a whole plethora of Claudin-6-targeting agents, including T-cell bispecifics and Claudin-6-directed CAR-Ts that are being developed. But BNT142 is novel. It's a novel lipid nanoparticle LNP-encapsulated mRNA. The mRNA encodes an anti–Claudin-6 CD3 bispecific termed RiboMAB-021. And it then is administered to the patient. The BNT142-encoding mRNA LNPs are taken up by the liver and translated into the active drug. So Jason, tell us a little bit about this agent. Why you think it's novel, if you think it's novel, and let's talk a little bit then about the results. Dr. Jason Luke: So I certainly think this is a novel agent, and I think this is just the first of what will probably become a new paradigm in oncology drug development. And so you alluded to this, but just to rehash it quickly, the drug is encoded as genetic information that's placed in the lipid nanoparticle and then is infused into the patient. And after the lipid nanoparticles are taken up by the liver, which is the most common place that LNPs are usually taken up, that genetic material in the mRNA starts to be translated into the actual protein, and that protein is the drug. So this is in vivo generation, so the patient is making their own drug inside their body. I think it's a really, really interesting approach. So for any drug that could be encoded as a genetic sequence, and in this case, it's a bispecific, as you mentioned, CD3-Claudin-6 engager, this could have a tremendous impact on how we think about pharmacology and novel drug development moving into the future in oncology. So I think it's an extremely interesting drug, the like of which we'll probably see only more moving forward. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Let's maybe briefly talk about the results. You know, the patient population was heavily pretreated, 65 or so patients, mostly ovarian cancer. Two-thirds of the patients were ovarian cancer, the rest were germ cell and lung cancer patients. But let's talk a little bit about the efficacy. The disease control rate was about 58% in the phase 1 population as a whole, but 75% in the ovarian patient population. Now tell us a little bit about the interesting things about the drug in terms of the pharmacokinetics, and also then maybe we can pivot to the clinical activity by dose level. Dr. Jason Luke: Well, so they did present in their presentation at ASCO a proportionality showing that as higher doses were administered, that greater amounts of the drug were being made inside the patient. And so that's an interesting observation, and it's an important one, right? Suggesting that the pharmacology that we classically think of by administering drugs by IV, for example, would still be in play. And that did translate into some level of efficacy, particularly at the higher dose levels. Now, the caveat that I'll make a note of is that disease control rate is an endpoint that I think we have to be careful about because what that really means is sometimes a little bit unclear. Sometimes patients have slowly growing tumors and so on and so forth. And the clinical relevance of disease control, if it doesn't last at least 6 months, I think is probably pretty questionable. So I think these are extremely interesting data, and there's some preliminary sense that getting the dose up is going to matter because the treatment responses were mostly observed at the highest dose levels. There's also a caveat, however, that across the field of CD3 bispecific molecules like this, there's been quite a bit of heterogeneity in terms of the response rate, with some of them only really generating stable disease responses and other ones having more robust responses. And so I think this is a really interesting initial foray into this space. My best understanding is this molecule is not moving forward further after this, but I think that this really does set it up to be able to chase after multiple different drug targets on a CD3 bispecific backbone, both in ovarian cancer, but then basically across all of oncology. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Perfect. This is a very new sort of exciting arena where we're going to be looking at, in many ways, these programmable constructs, whether we're looking at in vivo-generated, in this case, a T-cell bispecific, but we've also got newer drugs where we are essentially giving drugs where people are generating in vivo CAR T, and also potentially even in vivo TCR-T. But certainly lots of new excitement around this entire class of drugs. And so, what we'd like to do at this point in time is switch to essentially the fact that we've got a very, very exciting set of data at ASCO 2025. You've heard from Dr. Luke regarding the advances in both early drug development but also in advanced cutaneous melanoma. And Jason, as always, thank you so much for sharing your very valuable and great, fantastic insights with us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Jason Luke: Well, thanks again for the opportunity. Dr. Diwakar Davar: And thank you to our listeners for taking your time to listen today. You will find the links to the abstracts that we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And 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:    Dr. Diwakar Davar    @diwakardavar    Dr. Jason Luke @jasonlukemd Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter       ASCO on Bluesky   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

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。

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.

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

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