Jason Broderick

Inluriyo and Verzenio helped patients with ER+/HER2– advanced breast cancer stay on treatment longer without their disease worsening vs standard therapy.

Among patients with previously treated estrogen receptor–positive (ER-positive), HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, Inluriyo (Imlunestrant), alone or combined with Verzenio (abemaciclib), helped patients stay on treatment longer without their disease worsening, compared with standard endocrine therapy, according to updated results from the EMBER-3 trial.

2025 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium,

 also showed a trend toward longer overall survival with Inluriyo-based treatments, although this was not statistically significant.

In patients with ESR1 mutations, updated progression-free survival data at a median follow-up of 27.6 months showed that the median progression-free survival in the Inluriyo cohort (138 patients) was 5.5 months versus 3.8 months in the standard-of-care group (118 patients). Among all patients, the median progression-free survival was 10.9 months with Inluriyo plus Verzenio (213 patients) versus 5.5 months with Inluriyo alone (213 patients). 

This progression-free survival benefit for the combination was maintained regardless of ESR1 mutation status. Among patients who had previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor, the median progression-free survival was 9.1 months with Inluriyo plus Verzenio (139 patients) versus 3.7 months with Inluriyo alone (140 patients).

At 50% overall survival maturity, results showed that at a median follow-up of 29.5 months in patients with ESR1 mutations, the median overall survival in the Inluriyo cohort was 34.5 months versus 23.1 months in the standard-of-care group. While not statistically significant, this 11.4-month numerical overall survival benefit was considered clinically meaningful. This overall survival improvement was consistent with Inluriyo across all prespecified subgroups of patients with ESR1 mutations. At 33% overall survival maturity, results showed that at a median follow-up of 27.1 months, the median overall survival was not reached with Inluriyo plus Verzenio versus 34.4 months with Inluriyo alone.

The EMBER-3 update also included data showing a clinically meaningful improvement in time to chemotherapy and progression-free survival 2 with the Inluriyo -based regimens.

In patients with ESR1 mutations, the median time to chemotherapy in the Inluriyo cohort was 15.6 months versus 10.2 months in the standard-of-care group. Among all patients, the median time to chemotherapy was 27.8 months with Inluriyo plus Verzenio versus 15.5 months with Inluriyo alone.

Progression-free survival 2 results in patients with ESR1 mutations showed a median progression-free survival 2 of 19.2 months in the Inluriyo cohort versus 13.5 months in the standard-of-care group. Among all patients, the median progression-free survival 2 was 22.6 months with Inluriyo plus Verzenio versus 18.5 months with Inluriyo alone.

Overall response rates were higher with Inluriyo versus standard-of-care and higher with Inluriyo plus Verzenio versus Inluriyo monotherapy, regardless of ESR1 mutation status.

Safety data were consistent with previously reported outcomes for Inluriyo and Verzenio with no new safety signals.

“Inluriyo, as monotherapy or in combination with Verzenio, provides an all-oral, chemotherapy-free option after progression on endocrine therapy for patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer,” said lead study author Dr. Komal Jhaveri, section head of the Endocrine Therapy Research Program, director of the Early Drug Development Service, and the Patricia and James Cayne Chair for Junior Faculty at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York.

Between October 2021 and November 2023, the open-label phase 3 EMBER-3 trial enrolled patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer previously treated with aromatase inhibitors with or without CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Overall, 874 patients with a median age of 62 were randomized to Inluriyo monotherapy (331 patients), Inluriyo plus Verzenio (213 patients), or standard-of-care (330 patients; investigator’s choice of endocrine therapy: exemestane or fulvestrant). Inluriyo was administered at 400 mg orally once daily and Verzenio was administered at 150 mg orally twice daily. Treatment cycles were 28 days.

At the data cutoff date of August 18, 2025, 10% of patients overall remained on treatment. This included 10%, 5%, and 18% of the single-agent Inluriyo, standard-of-care, and Inluriyo plus Verzenio arms, respectively. When patients discontinued treatment, first subsequent anticancer treatments were similar across the treatment arms.

The primary endpoints were progression-free survival per investigator assessment for single-agent Inluriyo versus standard-of-care in all patients and in patients with ESR1 mutations, as well as progression-free survival for Inluriyo plus Verzenio versus Inluriyo in all patients. Overall survival was a secondary endpoint, and exploratory endpoints included time to chemotherapy and progression-free survival 2.

Based on the primary progression-free survival analysis of EMBER-3, 

the FDA approved single-agent Inluriyo in September 2025 for

 the treatment of patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative, ESR1 mutation-positive advanced breast cancer with disease progression following at least 1 line of endocrine therapy.

Regarding next steps for Inluriyo, Jhaveri said the randomized, open-label, global, multicenter phase 3 EMBER-4 study has completed enrollment, accruing approximately 8,000 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer who have received 2 to 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor who are at increased risk of recurrence. Patients are being randomized to single-agent Inluriyo or standard-of-care endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen.

"Imlunestrant with or without abemaciclib in advanced breast cancer (ABC): Updated efficacy results from the phase 3 EMBER-3 trial," by Dr. Komal Jhaveri, et al. Presented at: San Antonio Breast Cancer Conference; December 9-12, 2025; San Antonio, TX. GS3-08.

A study of imlunestrant, investigator’s choice of endocrine therapy, and imlunestrant plus abemaciclib in participants with ER+, HER2– advanced breast cancer (EMBER-3). ClinicalTrials.gov. Updated July 11, 2025. Accessed December 12, 2025. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04975308

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

Articles

Inluriyo (Imlunestrant), alone or with Verzenio (abemaciclib), demonstrated improved progression-free survival in ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer patients compared to standard endocrine therapy, as per EMBER-3 trial results. The combination therapy showed a trend towards longer overall survival, though not statistically significant. In patients with ESR1 mutations, Inluriyo-based regimens extended progression-free survival and time to chemotherapy. The FDA approved Inluriyo for ESR1 mutation-positive advanced breast cancer. The EMBER-4 study is underway, evaluating Inluriyo in early breast cancer patients at risk of recurrence.

Inluriyo/Verzenio Extends Treatment Benefit in ER+/HER2– Breast Cancer 

Tecvayli plus Darzalex Faspro improved overall and progression-free survival versus standard daratumumab regimens in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Treatment with Tecvayli (teclistamab-cqyv) plus Darzalex Faspro (daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj; subcutaneous daratumumab) led to meaningful improvements in both overall survival and progression-free survival versus standard daratumumab-based treatments in people with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received up to three prior treatments, according to results from the phase 3 MajesTEC-3 trial presented at the 

The 36-month overall survival rate was 83.3% with Tecvayli plus Darzalex Faspro (Tec-Dara) versus 65% with investigator’s choice of Darzalex Faspro plus dexamethasone and either (DPd) or bortezomib (DVd).

At a median follow-up of 34.5 months the median progression-free survival had not been reached with Tec-Dara versus 18.1 months with DPd/DVd. The 36-month progression-free survival rates were 83.4% versus 29.7%.

The depth of response was also greater with Tec-Dara. The duration of response was not yet evaluable for Tec-Dara compared with 23.5 months with DPd or DVd. Moreover, 81.8% of patients receiving Tec-Dara achieved a complete response or better compared with 31.1% with DPd or DVd. Among evaluable patients the minimal residual disease negativity rate was 89.3% versus 63%.

“MajesTEC-3 showed unprecedented efficacy supporting a new second line and later standard of care with broad potential across academic and community settings” said lead study author Dr. María-Victoria Mateos, of Hospital Universitario de Salamanca, in Salamanca, Spain.

Tec-Dara Safety Profile Shows Manageable Side Effects and Low Neurotoxicity

The safety profile for Tec-Dara showed that all cases of cytokine release syndrome were grade 1 (44.2%) or grade 2 (15.9%) and all cases were resolved. The rate of immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome was low with Tec-Dara at 1.1%. The most common hematologic side effect with Tec-Dara was any grade neutropenia at 78.4% versus 82.8% with DPd/DVd. The most common nonhematologic side effects were infections which occurred at grade 3/4 rates of 54.1% versus 43.4% in the Tec-Dara versus control arms.

Mateos noted that the rates of infections were much higher with Tec-Dara versus the control arm during the first 6 months although “beyond month 6 the incidence of infections was comparable and what’s especially important is that the overall incidence of infection declined over time.”

Explaining the reason for the decrease in infections over time Mateos said “The study was initiated before the approval of Tecvayli when we did not yet have any peer-reviewed guidelines for the management of patients with bispecific monoclonal antibodies. When we observed this rate of infections especially during the first 6 months the trial protocol was amended and it was reinforced that investigators should use immunoglobulin replacement therapy and antimicrobial prophylaxis.”

At the time of the study analysis 71% of patients remained on Tec-Dara. Fewer patients discontinued Tec-Dara at 4.6% versus 5.5% who discontinued DPd/DVd in the control arm. Fewer patients died in the Tec-Dara arm at 15.9% versus 33.1%.

Robust Phase 3 Design Confirms Tec-Dara Efficacy in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

The phase 3 MajesTEC-3 trial enrolled patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had received 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor and lenalidomide (Revlimid). Patients who had received only 1 prior line had to be lenalidomide refractory per International Myeloma Working Group criteria and all patients had to have an ECOG performance status of 0 to 2. Patients were not eligible to enroll if they had previously received BCMA-directed therapy or if they were refractory to anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies.

Overall, 587 patients were randomized from October 22 2021 to September 29 2023. The median patient age was 65 years and the median number of prior lines of therapy was 2. There were 291 patients randomized to Tec-Dara and 296 patients randomized to DPd (269 patients) or DVd (27 patients).

Following the approved step-up dose schedule patients in the experimental arm received Tecvayli at 1.5 mg/kg weekly in cycles 1 and 2 followed by 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks in cycles 3 to 6 and 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks in cycle 7 onward. The cycles were 28 days. Darzalex Faspro was administered at 1800 mg every week for cycles 1 and 2 every 2 weeks for cycles 3 to 6 and every 4 weeks for cycles 7 onward. In the control arm patients received investigator’s choice of DPd or DVd according to the approved schedules of the regimens.

Commenting on the Tec-Dara regimen Mateos said “It is important to note that the combination of Tecvayli plus Darzalex Faspro is a subcutaneous administration with a convenient monthly dosing after cycle 6 and the combination is free of steroids after cycle 1 day 8 and this is all extremely important from the patient perspective.”

The primary end point was progression-free survival per independent review committee. Secondary end points included overall survival response minimal residual disease negativity symptom score and quality of life safety and pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity.

Tecvayli is currently approved by the FDA for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least 4 prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor an immunomodulatory agent and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

“Phase 3 randomized study of teclistamab plus daratumumab versus investigator’s choice of daratumumab and dexamethasone with either pomalidomide or Bortezomib (DPd/DVd) in patients (Pts) with relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): Results of majestec-3,” by Dr. María-Victoria Mateos. 

“FDA approves teclistimab-cqyv for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma,” by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. News release; Oct. 25, 2022.

Tecvayli (teclistamab-cqyv) combined with Darzalex Faspro (daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj) significantly improved overall and progression-free survival in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients compared to standard daratumumab-based treatments, as shown in the phase 3 MajesTEC-3 trial. The Tec-Dara regimen demonstrated a higher complete response rate and manageable safety profile, with low neurotoxicity and declining infection rates over time. The trial's robust design confirmed Tec-Dara's efficacy, supporting its potential as a new standard of care in second-line and later treatments for multiple myeloma.

Tecvayli plus Darzalex Faspro improved overall and progression-free survival versus standard daratumumab regimens in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. 

Tecvayli Treatment Combo Improves Outcomes in Relapsed/Refractory Myeloma 

In a direct comparison, Jaypirca matched Imbruvica in response and suggested a progression-free survival benefit for patients with CLL/SLL.

Among patients in the relapsed/refractory and treatment-naive settings with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor–naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), Jaypirca (pirtobrutinib) worked as well as Imbruvica (ibrutinib) in shrinking or controlling cancer, according to updated data from the phase 3 BRUIN CLL-314 trial.

In this direct comparison, the data also suggested that patients taking Jaypirca showed a progression-free survival benefit, Dr. Jennifer Woyach reported when presenting the findings at the 2025 American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting.

In the intent-to-treat population of patients with either relapsed/refractory CLL or treatment-naive CLL, the overall response rate was 87% in patients randomized to Jaypirca (331 patients) versus 78.5% in those randomized to Imbruvica (331 patients). The best overall response with Jaypirca versus Imbruvica, respectively, was complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery of 4.8% versus 2.4%, partial remission or nodular partial remission of 82.2% versus 76.1%, partial remission with lymphocytosis of 2.4% versus 3.9%, stable disease of 5.4% versus 10.9%, and progressive disease of 1.5% versus 1.2%.

In the treatment-naive population, the overall response rate was 92.9% in patients randomized to Jaypirca (112 patients) versus 85.8% in those randomized to Imbruvica (113 patients). The best overall response with Jaypirca versus Imbruvica, respectively, was complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery of 7.1% versus 3.5%, partial remission or nodular partial remission of 85.7% versus 82.3%, partial remission with lymphocytosis of 0.9% versus 2.7%, stable disease of 2.7% versus 4.4%, and no cases of progressive disease.

In the relapsed/refractory population, the overall response rate was 84% in patients randomized to Jaypirca (219 patients) versus 74.8% in those randomized to Imbruvica (218 patients). The best overall response with Jaypirca versus Imbruvica, respectively, was complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery of 3.7% versus 1.8%, partial remission or nodular partial remission of 80.4% versus 72.9%, partial remission with lymphocytosis of 3.2% versus 4.6%, stable disease of 6.8% versus 14.2%, and progressive disease of 2.3% versus 1.8%.

Intent-to-Treat Population: all patients who were assigned to a treatment group in a study, regardless of whether they completed the treatment as planned.

Overall Response Rate (ORR): the percentage of patients whose cancer shrinks or disappears during treatment.

Complete Remission (CR): no signs of cancer can be found using standard testing.

Complete Remission With Incomplete Hematologic Recovery (CRi): cancer cannot be detected, although blood counts have not fully returned to normal.

Partial Remission (PR): cancer has shrunk but is still present.

Nodular Partial Remission (nPR): cancer has shrunk, and some abnormal areas remain but are improved compared with before treatment.

Partial Remission With Lymphocytosis (PR-L): cancer has shrunk even though a temporary increase in certain white blood cells is seen.

Stable Disease (SD): cancer has not grown significantly and has not shrunk enough to meet remission criteria.

Progressive Disease (PD): cancer has grown or spread during treatment.

Progression-Free Survival (PFS): the length of time a patient lives without the cancer getting worse.

“Jaypirca demonstrated consistently higher overall response rates than Imbruvica across all patients including treatment-naive and relapsed/refractory populations,” said Woyach, director of the Division of Hematology at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Progression-free survival data, although immature, showed a trend in favor of Jaypirca. In the intent-to-treat population, at a median follow-up of 22 months with Jaypirca and 19.7 months with Imbruvica, the 18-month progression-free survival rates per investigator assessment were 86.9% versus 82.3%. In the relapsed/refractory population, at a median follow-up of 18.4 months with Jaypirca and 15.8 months with Imbruvica, the investigator-assessed 18-month progression-free survival rates were 81.7% versus 79.2%. In the treatment-naive population, at a median follow-up of 22.5 months with Jaypirca and 22.4 months with Imbruvica, the investigator-assessed 18-month progression-free survival rates were 95.3% versus 87.6%.

“Early trends in progression-free survival favored Jaypirca among all patients and in the relapsed/refractory and treatment-naive populations,” said Woyach, adding that the most pronounced effect occurred in the treatment-naive population, which had the longest follow-up at this data cutoff.

Regarding safety, the most common all-grade treatment-emergent side effects with Jaypirca versus Imbruvica were neutropenia (22.7% versus 17.8%), upper respiratory tract infection (17.9% versus 19.4%), anemia (15.2% versus 14.2%), pneumonia (13.6% versus 15.1%), and diarrhea (13.3% versus 19.1%). The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent side effects with Jaypirca versus Imbruvica were neutropenia (17.3% versus 13.2%), pneumonia (6.4% versus 8.6%), and anemia (5.8% versus 3.7%).

Rates of all-grade (10.6% versus 15.1%) and grade 3 or higher (3.3% versus 4.9%) hypertension were lower with Jaypirca versus Imbruvica. One patient developed Richter transformation with Jaypirca versus 4 patients with Imbruvica.

“Jaypirca was well tolerated with fewer dose reductions and discontinuations due to treatment-emergent side effects than Imbruvica,” Woyach said.

She noted that side effects of special interest were mostly low-grade and consistent with prior Jaypirca studies. Grade 3 or higher neutropenia (25.2% versus 17.5%) and anemia (6.1% versus 3.7%) were higher with Jaypirca versus Imbruvica; however, grade 3 or higher thrombocytopenia was lower with Jaypirca (3.6% versus 4%).

All-grade atrial fibrillation or flutter (2.4% versus 13.5%) was substantially lower with Jaypirca versus Imbruvica, particularly among patients aged 75 years or older (4.5% versus 21.4%).

The phase 3 BRUIN CLL study accrued patients with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor–naive CLL/SLL, including both treatment-naive and relapsed/refractory disease. Overall, 662 patients (intent-to-treat population) were randomized to Jaypirca (331 patients) or Imbruvica (331 patients) between August 18 2022 and June 17 2024. The median age was 67 years in both arms and the median number of prior therapies in both arms was 1. In the intent-to-treat population, 225 patients were treatment-naive and 437 patients were relapsed/refractory.

In patients with evaluable samples, 68% (199 of 293 patients) versus 66% (183 of 277 patients) in the Jaypirca versus Imbruvica cohorts had unmutated IGHV. Additionally, 40% (104 of 259 patients) versus 34% (78 of 227 patients) and 15% (50 of 331 patients) versus 16% (52 of 331 patients) had complex karyotype with 3 or more abnormalities and del(17p), respectively.

Jaypirca was administered orally at 200 mg daily and Imbruvica was administered orally at 420 mg daily. The primary end point was non-inferiority of overall response rate in the intent-to-treat population or relapsed/refractory population. The key secondary end point was superiority of progression-free survival in the intent-to-treat population or relapsed/refractory population.

This study is the first to compare Jaypirca and Imbruvica in treatment-naive patients and patients with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor-naive relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL.

Jaypirca is currently approved by the FDA for patients with relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL

 who have previously received a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor. When the progression-free survival data from the BRUIN CLL study fully mature, it is hoped that the trend favoring Jaypirca will be upheld and can support a regulatory filing for use in earlier CLL/SLL treatment lines.

“Pirtobrutinib vs ibrutinib in treatment-naïve and relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL: Results from the first randomized phase III study comparing a non-covalent and covalent BTK inhibitor,” by Dr. Jennifer Woyach, et al. Blood.

“FDA grants traditional approval to pirtobrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma,” by U.S. Food and Drug Administration. News release; Dec. 3, 2025.

FDA Approves Jaypirca for Relapsed/Refractory CLL or SLL, by Alex Biese. CURE; Dec. 3, 2025. https://www.curetoday.com/view/fda-approves-jaypirca-for-r-r-cll-or-sll

Jaypirca (pirtobrutinib) demonstrated superior efficacy compared to Imbruvica (ibrutinib) in treating Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor-naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) patients, as shown in the phase 3 BRUIN CLL-314 trial. The trial revealed higher overall response rates and progression-free survival benefits with Jaypirca, particularly in treatment-naive patients. Safety profiles indicated fewer dose reductions and discontinuations with Jaypirca. The study's findings may support regulatory approval for Jaypirca in earlier treatment lines for CLL/SLL, pending maturation of progression-free survival data.

Updated Data Reinforce Treatment With Jaypirca in CLL/SLL 

Among patients with deficient mismatch repair, stage 3 colorectal cancer and resistance to chemotherapy, Tecentriq (atezolizumab) plus chemotherapy treatment reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 50% compared with chemotherapy treatment alone, according to data from the phase 3 ATOMIC trial which were shared in a press briefing at the 

The trial sought to determine if adding an immune checkpoint inhibitor to standard care would improve outcomes after surgical resection in this population.

“These data establish this combination as a new standard treatment for patients with stage III colon cancer and deficient mismatch repair,” said lead author Dr. Frank A. Sinicrope, coleader, Gastrointestinal Cancer Program, and clinical investigator, Mayo Foundation, both in Rochester, Minnesota, during the press briefing.

ATOMIC enrolled 712 patients across more than 300 sites in the National Clinical Trials Network. Patients were eligible if they had resected stage III colon cancer, deficient mismatch repair determined by immunohistochemistry, no prior chemotherapy or radiation, and an ECOG performances status of 2 or less.

After undergoing surgery, patients were randomly assigned to receive Tecentriq plus the standard mFOLFOX6 chemotherapy regimen of oxaliplatin, leucovorin calcium, and fluorouracil, followed by 6 months of Tecentriq in the treatment arm versus mFOLFOX6 alone in the control arm. The primary end point was disease-free survival and secondary end points were overall survival and side effect profile.

At the data cutoff of February 4, 2025, the median follow-up was 37.2 months. At the second interim analysis at 75% of disease-free survival events, it was determined that the study met the protocol-specified boundary for efficacy and the data were released.

At 3 years, the combination resulted in a disease-free survival rate of 86.4% versus 76.6% for chemotherapy alone. “This is a substantial…benefit achieved,” Sinicrope said. Referring to the disease-free survival curves, Sinicrope added that “the [disease-free survival] curve is plateauing, indicating that we’re not seeing any more recurrences or death with the immunotherapy and chemotherapy combination.”

Subgroup analysis also demonstrated a positive disease-free survival benefit across subpopulations defined by age, sex, race, tumor location, and risk group for patients in the mFOLFOX plus Tecentriq arm. In particular, proximal and distal tumor location, T-stage, and risk group demonstrated disease-free survival that favored the treatment versus the control arm.

“No matter the patient’s age, their sex, their race, their location, T-stage, or N-stage, patients are doing better with the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy,” Sinicrope said.

The safety of mFOLFOX6 plus Tecentriq was in line with the known safety profiles of each, with a manageable increase in nonfebrile neutropenia.

“We regard [these findings] as a highly impactful study that will change clinical practice, and it actually represents the first immunotherapy adjuvant study in colon cancer,” Sinicrope concluded.

“The most important thing about this study is that it involves a real-world population that I will see in my clinic,” Joel Saltzman, MD, medical oncologist, Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, said during the commentary section of the press briefing. “We have seen patients in whom we thought immunotherapy would be helpful, but we weren’t sure if we could integrate it into their care,” Saltzman continued.

He further noted that “this was a study that took 5 years to accrue patients at more than 300 sites, and it would not have been feasible without the support of federal funding from the National Cancer Institute and our cooperative group network.”

subscribe to CURE®’s newsletters here.

The ATOMIC trial demonstrated that adding Tecentriq (atezolizumab) to chemotherapy significantly reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 50% in patients with stage III colorectal cancer and deficient mismatch repair. This combination therapy showed a 3-year disease-free survival rate of 86.4% compared to 76.6% with chemotherapy alone. The trial enrolled 712 patients and confirmed the efficacy of the combination across various subpopulations. The safety profile was consistent with known data, and the study is expected to change clinical practice by establishing a new standard treatment.

Tecentriq and chemotherapy combination reduces the risk of death versus chemotherapy alone in deficient mismatch repair, stage 3 colorectal cancer.

Jason Broderick

Inluriyo/Verzenio Extends Treatment Benefit in ER+/HER2– Breast Cancer

Tecvayli Treatment Combo Improves Outcomes in Relapsed/Refractory Myeloma

Updated Data Reinforce Treatment With Jaypirca in CLL/SLL

Tecentriq Plus Chemo Reduced Risk of Death vs Chemo Alone in dMMR Colon Cancer

Latest News