An expert emphasizes that treatment decisions for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are highly personalized, balancing clinical efficacy with patient lifestyle, quality of life, and preferences—prioritizing overall survival alongside minimizing adverse effects and hospital visits—while endorsing flexible treatment durations, including breaks and dose adjustments, to maintain both effectiveness and patient well-being through shared decision-making.
An expert highlights that safety considerations in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treatment depend on prior therapies and disease status, emphasizing early combination therapy for better control, vigilant bone health management with bone-modifying agents, proactive adverse effect mitigation, and the importance of exercise, nutrition, and cardiovascular monitoring to optimize patient outcomes and quality of life.
Panelists discuss how to monitor patients on JAK inhibitors, including blood count checks every 1 to 2 weeks initially, baseline spleen imaging with follow-up at 3 to 6 months, and symptom burden assessment.
Panelists discuss how to select among the four available JAK inhibitors (Ruxolitinib, Fedratinib, Pacritinib, and Momelotinib) based on patient-specific factors such as anemia, thrombocytopenia, and symptom burden.
A panelist discusses how real-world experience with ruxolitinib and belumosidil shows similar response rates to clinical trials (45% and 65% respectively), emphasizes the importance of antimicrobial prophylaxis and supportive care, and describes gradual steroid tapering strategies once patients achieve responses.
An expert emphasizes that genomic profiling—including both germline and somatic testing—is now essential in metastatic prostate cancer management because it identifies key mutations such as homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations that guide targeted therapies such as PARP inhibitors, informs the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in select cases, and helps predict disease aggressiveness to tailor monitoring and treatment strategies.
An expert discusses recent trial data showing that combining radium-223 with enzalutamide modestly improves outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with bone metastases—highlighting the necessity of bone-modifying agents to reduce fracture risk—while results from the TRITON3 trial underscore the greater efficacy of PARP inhibitors such as rucaparib when used early and in combination for BRCA-mutated patients.
Panelists discuss how JAK inhibitor therapy can benefit patients with intermediate-1–risk myelofibrosis despite being studied primarily in higher-risk patients in the COMFORT and JUMP trials.
Panelists discuss how risk stratification, symptom burden, and splenomegaly guide treatment decisions for a 68-year-old woman with intermediate-risk myelofibrosis who isn’t interested in transplant.
A panelist discusses how to sequence the four approved cGVHD agents based on patient-specific factors, recommending axatilimab or belumosidil for lung involvement, any of the three oral agents for skin/joint disease, and ibrutinib for lymphoma patients, while considering individual toxicity profiles and disease manifestations.
An expert discusses how combining androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) with PARP inhibitors, particularly enzalutamide with talazoparib, has significantly improved outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)—especially for patients with homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutations—underscoring the importance of early genomic testing and personalized combination therapy.
An expert discusses how treatment decisions in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) increasingly depend on prior androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) exposure, highlighting the need for individualized therapy sequencing based on evolving practice patterns and patient history.
Panelists discuss how future directions in chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD) management may include preemptive use of targeted therapies, first-line treatment with newer agents, and cell-based approaches.
Panelists discuss how axatilimab demonstrates particularly good responses for gastrointestinal graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) and may improve sclerotic skin changes despite lower rates of overall skin response.
Panelists discuss how axatilimab showed promising response rates in the AGAVE-201 trial, even in patients with graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD) who had failed other approved therapies.
An expert shares clinical pearls with the community, offering insights and tips for managing patients effectively.
An expert discusses the safety profiles of combination regimens, effective strategies for managing side effects, and how to weigh the potential for toxicity versus efficacy/benefits when discussing treatment options with patients.
An expert discusses a treatment approach for the patient case above, how factors like brain metastases influence first-line treatment choices, reviews high-risk/CNS outcomes data from MARIPOSA and FLAURA2, and shares their impression of icPFS and DoR from MARIPOSA, along with how to determine which patients are best suited for either combination treatment option.
An expert discusses treatment goals for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced/metastatic NSCLC, how to approach combination therapy with high-risk patients, and how recent data has influenced their practice.
An expert discusses recent updates on first-line treatments in EGFR-mutated NSCLC, including the MARIPOSA trial comparing amivantamab + lazertinib vs osimertinib, and the FLAURA2 trial of osimertinib + chemotherapy, and how the data is likely to impact the treatment landscape.
An expert discusses the case of a 55-year-old man with EGFR-mutated advanced/metastatic NSCLC, focusing on treatment considerations and management strategies.
A panelist discusses how four FDA-approved agents treat steroid-refractory cGVHD, including ibrutinib (65% response rate), belumosidil (74% response rate), ruxolitinib (50% vs 25% in phase 3 trial), and axatilimab (74% response rate with durable responses lasting 17.2 months median failure-free survival).
Panelists discuss how new treatments like rusfertide (a hepcidin mimetic) offer promising options for polycythemia vera patients, demonstrating benefits in reducing phlebotomy requirements while addressing the paradoxical iron deficiency caused by current treatments, potentially improving quality of life while allowing patients to maintain their existing cytoreductive therapies, though questions remain about whether it will show the disease-modifying effects seen with ruxolitinib and interferons.
Panelists discuss how interferon therapy for polycythemia vera requires patient education about its unique characteristics, including the need for long-term treatment (with benefits most apparent at 36 months rather than 12 months), potential adverse effects (mild flu-like symptoms, depression, injection site reactions, and autoimmune issues), and evolving dosing strategies that may improve tolerability, while emphasizing that with FDA approval of ropeginterferon, insurance hurdles have decreased and molecular response monitoring may eventually guide treatment optimization.
A panelist discusses how advances in chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD) prevention include posttransplant cyclophosphamide showing significant reduction in moderate to severe cGVHD and the promising Precision-T trial using split-dose infusions of regulatory T cells followed by conventional T cells, both demonstrating improved cGVHD-free survival compared with standard prophylaxis.
A panelist discusses how community-based care coordination can be implemented for patients with chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD) on axatilimab, with initial cycles administered at specialized centers followed by local infusions under community oncologist supervision, with periodic assessment visits to evaluate treatment response.
Panelists discuss how a multidisciplinary team approach to patient education and medication management is crucial for ensuring adherence and optimal outcomes with oral medications like elacestrant.
Panelists discuss how real-world studies have shown improved outcomes with elacestrant compared with the original EMERALD trial data, demonstrating that proper patient selection leads to better treatment responses.
Panelists discuss balancing clinical trial data with real-world patient factors when choosing between treatment options, emphasizing the importance of quality of life alongside cancer control in the second-line setting.
Panelists discuss how the EMERALD trial demonstrated elacestrant's efficacy in ESR1-mutated tumors, particularly in patients who had received CDK4/6 inhibitors for at least 12 months. This led to its FDA approval for this specific population.