Dr. Joshua K. Sabari is the editor in chief of CURE. He also serves as an assistant professor in the Department of Medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine and director of High Reliability Organization Initiatives at Perlmutter Cancer Center.

Dr. Joshua K. Sabari

Cancer touches everyone — cutting across religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status: © stock.adobe.com.

Cancer is nonpartisan. It touches everyone — cutting across religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status. As a community, we fight to prevent, diagnose, treat, cure and grieve this “Emperor of All Maladies.” There is, and will continue to be, tremendous hope and opportunity in the field of oncology, fruits reaped by the long-standing commitment and investment in scientific discovery.

The funding landscape for cancer research is complex, with multiple stakeholders invested in improving outcomes. There is an intricate woven mix of federal, state and private resources set up to study and fight cancer. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) are by far the largest federally funded mechanisms that exist to combat cancer. You and I, taxpayers, are the largest funders of health and research in the United States.

In 1971 the National Cancer Act, an amendment to the Public Health Service Act of 1944, led to the establishment of the NCI, officially declaring our “war on cancer.” The act granted broad authority to the director of the NCI and significantly increased funding to academic research institutions. Private institutions, foundations and pharmaceutical companies also play a critical role in this battle and, together with federal funding, have led to significant improvements in outcomes and overall survival for people diagnosed with cancer. NIH and NCI funding contributed to 99% of therapies approved between 2014 and 2019, and ongoing advances will likely contribute to the future of cancer care in America and globally.

The fiscal year 2026 budget proposes a \$17.5 billion cut to the NIH, including the NCI, amounting to a 37% cut in funding. We cannot accept this! Our community of scientists, clinicians, patients and caregivers cannot allow a climate of fear and budget cuts to slow down discovery. In a recent powerful letter to the American people, scientists spanning the political spectrum representing the nation’s top medical and scientific researchers, including Nobel laureates elected members of the National Academies of Sciences and Medicine, wrote that “… the voice of science must not be silenced. We all benefit from science, and we all stand to lose if the nation’s research enterprise is destroyed.” Cutting funding for critical cancer research, including clinical trials, would destroy this great enterprise that is baked into the fabric of our country. Rapid changes and cuts to the infrastructure of the Food and Drug Administration risk slowing down the approval of novel therapies for patients in waiting. We need to act rationally and swiftly to urge our elected officials to change course and continue to fund the critical work that will continue to lead to discovery and cure.

As I sit with a young woman who newly diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer, she asks me if there is hope: “How will our current landscape of budget cuts, fear and skepticism affect my outcome?” I tell her that I don’t know, but I promise her that we will do everything in our power as a community to allow her to live well and with a focus on quality and dignity of life.

For the readership of CURE, please understand that basic science research may be under fire, but the practice of oncology has not changed. Clinics are functioning as usual. Clinical trials are functioning as usual. Treatment, progress and cure are still within reach.

Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice,” so too is scientific progress — the discoveries of tomorrow are fundamentally entrenched in the investments we make today. Despite the current landscape of research funding, there is a tremendous amount of hope and ongoing opportunity for progress today.

For more news on cancer updates, research and education,

don’t forget to subscribe to CURE®’s newsletters here.

Articles

Cancer affects all demographics, and the fight against it involves prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and research. The funding landscape for cancer research is complex, involving federal, state, and private resources, with the NIH and NCI being major contributors. The proposed 2026 budget cuts to the NIH threaten progress in cancer research and treatment. Despite these challenges, the oncology community remains committed to advancing care and maintaining hope for patients. The practice of oncology continues, with clinics and clinical trials operating as usual, emphasizing the importance of sustained investment in scientific discovery.

Cancer is nonpartisan. It touches everyone — cutting across religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status.

Funding for Cancer Research: Hope in a State of Fear

Dr. Joshua Sabari and Dr. Nausheen Ahmed sat down to discuss topline takeaways in the realm of hematologic malignancies following the 2025 ASCO Meeting. 

What Should Patients with Multiple Myeloma Know After ASCO 2025? 

Dr. Joshua K. Sabari and Dr. Nausheen Ahmed sat down to discuss topline takeaways in the realm of hematologic malignancies following the 

, highlighting what patients should know following the meeting.

"We had a great ASCO Meeting [with updates across] the myeloma and lymphoma fields. I am going to highlight some of the some of the studies that were presented that were [most] interesting," Ahmed began.

To kick things off, Ahmed highlighted the 

 which evaluated transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, and in the study, investigators evaluated treatment with subcutaneous Darzalex (daratumumab) plus Velcade (bortezomib), Revlimid (lenalidomide), dexamethasone and Revlimid maintenance versus standard Velcade, Revlimid, and dexamethasone. The trial showed an improvement in stringent complete response and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity with the investigate regimen compared with standard of care.

Ahmed continued by touching on the ADVANCE trial in the transplant-eligible, newly diagnosed myeloma patient population. The study evaluated treatment with Kyprolis (carfilzomib), Revlimid, and dexamethasone with or without Darzalex (daratumumab), finding that the investigative treatment showed a statistically significant improvement in minimal residual disease negativity, with no new safety signals.

She also touched on key takeaways in the lymphoma patient population, highlighting cellular therapies specifically. Ahmed highlighted the phase 1 study of KITE-363, an anti-CD19/CD20 CAR-T cell therapy for those with relapsed/refractory B -cell lymphoma. Investigators found that utilizing the therapeutic had a favorable safety and efficacy profile, and demonstrated a potential role as a next-generation CAR T product.

“Thank you, Dr. Ahmed,” Dr. Sabari concluded. “That was a beautiful and exhaustive list of different abstracts presented at ASCO 2025. It's great to hear that the number of therapies being developed and approved for our patients with hematologic malignancies. Thank you for joining us and thank you for imparting your wisdom on our CURE readership.”

Ahmed is a board-certified hematologist and associate professor, Hematologic Malignancies and Cellular Therapeutics, at The University of Kansas, KU Medical Center. Sabari is the editor in chief of CURE. He also serves as an assistant professor in the Department of Medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine and director of High Reliability Organization Initiatives at Perlmutter Cancer Center.

Videos

Dr. Nausheen Ahmed reviews key 2025 ASCO findings in myeloma and lymphoma, including new therapies and trials improving patient options and outcomes.

 brought many different updates to light in the realm of hematological malignancies, including multiple myeloma and lymphoma, Dr. Nausheen Ahmed said in an interview with Dr. Joshua K. Sabari. Ahmed emphasized that there are various takeaways that are important for patients coming out of the annual meeting.

In the interview, hosted by Sabari, Ahmed highlighted studies like the PERSEUS trial, the ADVANCE trial, and others within the space, emphasizing what is important for patients to know.

: Hello. I'm Dr. Joshua Sabari, a thoracic medical oncologist at NYU Langone Health's Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York. I'm also the editor-in-chief of CURE magazine, and I'm really excited to be joined today by my colleague, Dr. Nausheen Ahmed. Dr. Ahmed, please introduce yourself.

: Hello. I am Dr. Nausheen Ahmed, a transplant and cell therapy physician at the University of Kansas, specializing in cellular therapy. We had a great ASCO for the myeloma and lymphoma fields, and I'm going to highlight some of the interesting studies that were presented. My specialty is mostly CAR T, but I'll also discuss myeloma.

In newly diagnosed myeloma, we had results from the PERSEUS trial, a phase 3 study looking at subcutaneous Darzalex (daratumumab), Revlimid (lenalidomide), Velcade (bortezomib), and dexamethasone (Dara-VRd) with Darzalex and Revlimid maintenance in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. This was compared to a control arm of VRd and Revlimid, and it clearly continues to show improvement in progression-free survival and minimal residual disease (MRD) rates.

We also had data from the ADVANCE trial, a randomized multicenter trial of Kyprolis (carfilzomib), Revlimid, and dexamethasone (KRd) with or without Darzalex in newly diagnosed myeloma. These were also transplant-eligible patients, and stem cell collection was permitted after four cycles. In this trial, we observed a significant increase in MRD negativity rate with no new safety concerns when using Dara-KRd compared with KRd. This provides more options for patients.

I also wanted to highlight a third trial here, MAGNETISM-6 Part 1, which includes Elrexfio (elranatamab-bcmm) in combination with Darzalex and Revlimid in newly diagnosed myeloma patients who are not eligible for transplant. The results are promising in this study as well.

Moving on to the relapsed/refractory myeloma setting, we had long-term data from the CARTITUDE-1 trial, with more than five years of follow-up. This is truly exciting and has energized the community. Relapsed/refractory myeloma is a very difficult-to-treat population; most patients in this trial had received up to six lines of therapy, and we know the prognosis is typically very poor for such patients. However, with CARTITUDE-1, we see that with Carvykti (ciltacabtagene autoleucel; cilta-cel) at five years, one-third of the patients are still alive, which is quite remarkable and exciting.

Other notable reports include the IRMA trial, which reported on giving Sarclisa (isatuximab-irfc) in a different way, using an on-body injector. This is also great for patients. The trial compared subcutaneous Sarclisa via an on-body delivery system versus the traditional intravenous (IV) form of Sarclisa, both given with Pomalyst (pomalidomide) and dexamethasone (Pd) in the relapsed/refractory myeloma setting. This was a non-inferiority trial, and we saw fewer infusion reactions and higher patient satisfaction. This approach has the potential to increase practice efficiency and is likely to be adopted in clinical practice.

We also have the first-in-human study of JNJ-5322, a novel trispecific antibody in patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma. This Phase I trial is also looking promising, something to watch out for in the future.

Moving on, I'll talk about lymphoma, focusing on the CAR T and cell therapy aspects. The phase 1 study, KITE-363, which is a bicistronic CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy, was presented. It showed a good safety and efficacy profile, and we hope this mechanism, and this drug, might emerge in the future to improve outcomes with our currently available CAR T therapies. We also have pretty interesting data on multi-virus specific T cells to enhance the activity of bispecific antibodies. Here, we looked at bispecific antibodies, which currently have the advantage over CAR T of being "off-the-shelf." However, their clinical activity relies on T-cell function. The addition of multi-virus specific T cells is supposed to have increased cytotoxicity and the ability to reach tissue, essentially working synergistically with the bispecifics to increase efficacy.

Those are the main abstracts of interest. There's just one other thing to highlight: there were two abstracts presented, one as a poster from the VA (Veterans Affairs), which showed that CAR T-cell therapy is still not utilized as much as we'd like in eligible patients. It seemed that referral for CAR T was the main barrier to these patients receiving the therapy. Another poster, which I co-authored, looked at optimizing the duration of monitoring for CAR T patients. It suggested that instead of keeping patients for four weeks post-infusion, they could be kept for just two weeks, since most toxicities occur within two weeks. This could be practice-changing in terms of increasing access as well.

: Thank you, Dr. Ahmed. That was a beautiful and exhaustive list of different abstracts presented at ASCO 2025. It's great to hear that the number of therapies being developed and approved for our patients with hematologic malignancies. Thank you for joining us and thank you for imparting your wisdom on our CURE readership. It is a pleasure to meet you.

Transcript has been edited for clarity and conciseness.

The 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting showcased significant advancements in hematological malignancies, particularly multiple myeloma and lymphoma. Key studies, such as the PERSEUS and ADVANCE trials, demonstrated improved outcomes in newly diagnosed myeloma patients, highlighting the efficacy of novel drug combinations. The CARTITUDE-1 trial provided promising long-term data for relapsed/refractory myeloma, while the IRMA trial introduced a more patient-friendly delivery method for Sarclisa. In lymphoma, innovative CAR T-cell therapies and bispecific antibodies showed potential for enhanced treatment efficacy. Barriers to CAR T-cell therapy utilization and monitoring optimization were also discussed.

The 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting brought many different updates to light in the realm of hematological malignancies, including multiple myeloma and lymphoma.

Experts Impart Notable Information and Updates for Those With Blood Cancers 

Patients with blood cancers like polycythemia vera may benefit in learning more about recent data from ASCO 2025: © stock.adobe.com.

Patients with hematologic malignancies like polycythemia vera, a kind of myeloproliferative neoplasm, may benefit in learning more about recent data which was shared at the 

Following the meeting, expert oncologists, Dr. Joshua J. Sabari and Dr. Raajit K. Rampal, sat down for an interview with CURE to walk through these updates in data, breaking down what patients should take away from the meeting.

Rampal is the director of the Center for Hematologic Malignancies, as well as the director of the Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, located in New York. Sabari is the editor in chief of CURE. He also serves as an assistant professor in the Department of Medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine and director of High Reliability Organization Initiatives at Perlmutter Cancer Center, also located in New York.

: Hi, I'm Dr. Josh Sabari, a thoracic medical oncologist at NYU Langone Health's Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York, and I'm also the editor-in-chief of CURE. I want to introduce my colleague, Dr. Raajit Rampal. Raajit, please introduce yourself.

: Hi. I'm Raajit Rampal at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. I lead our program in myeloproliferative neoplasms.

: Raajit, thanks for joining us. I know ASCO is historically not a hematologic malignancy conference — we have ASH for that. However, what were the big takeaways from the ASCO meeting in the realm of leukemia this year?

: Yes, a couple of key things to highlight. As you just said, it's important to point out that we actually had a hematologic malignancy presentation as part of the plenary session. 

 a hepcidin mimetic being tested for polycythemia vera, aims to potentially liberate people from therapeutic phlebotomies. The high-level data showed that patients were, in fact, able to be rendered free of therapeutic phlebotomy and also experienced symptomatic improvement. So, if that drug gains approval, 

I think it may have a really useful path in the treatment of polycythemia vera.

A couple of other key highlights: one presentation, keeping with the theme of myeloproliferative neoplasms, was on a drug called Besremi (ropeginterferon alfa-2b-njft), which is FDA-approved for polycythemia vera. It was tested in essential thrombocythemia versus the only other approved drug we have in essential thrombocythemia, Agrylin (anagrelide), which was approved in the 1990s. That data showed that, as compared to anagrelide, Besremi was able to improve outcomes for patients by reducing the risk of thrombosis (the main concern with that disease) and also by improving patient symptom profiles. Finally, it showed a molecular effect, meaning we saw a reduction in the driver mutation burden in patients with essential thrombocythemia. So, some interesting things; we'll see if that drug also gets approval based on this phase 3 data.

There was also an interesting presentation on blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm, a very rare leukemia for which we have an approved drug called tagraxofusp, which targets CD123. A new drug called pivekimab sunirine, which also targets CD123, was presented. The data showed that pivekimab sunirine was able to induce remissions in a high proportion of patients. The only way to cure blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm is with a stem cell transplant, and this drug was able to bridge patients to stem cell transplant. That is perhaps the very important thing that was observed, both in untreated and previously treated patients. I think the final point there is that with our current anti-CD123 drug, tagraxofusp, we do see capillary leak syndrome, which can be a high-grade event, and that was not observed with pivekimab sunirine. So that may offer a different opportunity for treatment.

I think the last thing I'll point out was a presentation on chronic myeloid leukemia, which is clearly one of our great successes in oncology. Now we have an abundance of riches, which allows us to better select drugs for patients, taking into account their goals and their comorbidities. The newest kid on the block is Scemblix (asciminib), which is FDA-approved for frontline therapy or after failing two different TKIs. The drug was compared in a phase 3b study versus nilotinib, which is also an FDA-approved drug for chronic myeloid leukemia. The endpoint here was actually the proportion of patients who withdrew from treatment due to adverse events. What was found was that patients were more likely to stay on asciminib.

The importance of this finding is that with more powerful drugs, we know we can get patients into remissions quicker with chronic myeloid leukemia, which means they can usually go on to a trial of treatment-free remission, where we stop the drug and see if the disease comes back. However, the problem has been that many of the second-generation TKIs we use in chronic myeloid leukemia have more toxicities. This is a case where we don't see more toxicities with a different and more potent drug. So, I think to me, those are some of the major takeaways from ASCO, which had a fair number of hematologic malignancies abstracts this year.

: Yeah, quite impressive. You know, it's interesting that hematologic malignancies are truly an amalgamation of many diseases. Thank you for summarizing that so eloquently. And I appreciate you being here. Thank you for all the work that you do with CURE and for our readers. Dr. Rampal, thank you for joining us.

For more news on cancer updates, research and education, don’t forget to 

subscribe to CURE®’s newsletters here.

Recent updates from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting highlighted advancements in treatments for hematologic malignancies, including polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia. Key findings included the potential of rusfertide to eliminate the need for therapeutic phlebotomies in polycythemia vera patients and the efficacy of Besremi in reducing thrombosis risk in essential thrombocythemia. Additionally, pivekimab sunirine showed promise in treating blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm without causing capillary leak syndrome. Scemblix demonstrated fewer adverse events compared to nilotinib in chronic myeloid leukemia, enhancing treatment adherence.

Patients with blood cancers like polycythemia vera, a kind of myeloproliferative neoplasm, may benefit in learning more about recent data from ASCO 2025.

Dr. Joshua K. Sabari

Funding for Cancer Research: Hope in a State of Fear

What Should Patients with Multiple Myeloma Know After ASCO 2025?

Experts Impart Notable Information and Updates for Those With Blood Cancers

What Patients With Polycythemia Vera Should Know After ASCO 2025

Latest News