Jonah Feldman

Treatment with Brukinsa was associated with improved efficacy in patients with treatment-naïve CLL or SLL. 

Patients with treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) experienced long-term improved efficacy when treated with Brukinsa (zanubrutinib) compared with bendamustine plus Rituxan (rituximab), study results have shown.

Findings from a five-year follow-up of the phase 3 SEQUOIA trial were presented at the 2024 ASH Annual Meeting.

In cohort 1 of the trial, patients who were randomly assigned to Brukinsa (241 patients) experienced improved progression-free survival (PFS) regardless of disease risk status and COVID-19 impact compared with patients randomly assigned to Rituxan (238 patients). Brukinsa also showed better overall response rate (ORR) and adverse event (AE, side effects) incidence.

Progression-free survival: the time a patient lives without their disease spreading or worsening.

Overall response rate: patients who responded partially or completely to treatment.

Complete response: the disappearance of cancer.

Overall survival: how long a patient lives, regardless of disease status.

Neutropenia: low count of neutrophils, a type of white blood cell.

Atrial fibrillation: Irregular and often rapid heart rate, according to the Mayo Clinic.

Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors offer improved outcomes for patients with CLL/SLL, and the next-generation BTK inhibitors such as Brukinsa are designed for better efficacy and tolerability through increased potency, greater BTK specificity and more exposure coverage.

“With a median study follow-up of 61.2 months, [Brukinsa] has been shown to offer a sustained superior PFS over [Rituxan] in [patients with] treatment-naive CLL with 71% reduction of the risk of progression or death,” Dr. Mazyar Shadman, medical director of cellular immunotherapy at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, said in his presentation of the data.

Median PFS was not reached in patients given Brukinsa versus 44.1 months in those given Rituxan. The 54- and 60-month PFS rates were 80.1% and 75.8% with Brukinsa versus 44.6% and 40.1% with Rituxan, respectively.

Additionally, the degree of PFS difference was similar when the investigators adjusted for the impact of COVID-19 on the treatment outcomes, with 83.2% versus 45.2% 54-month PFS rates and 78.7% versus 40.6% 60-month PFS rates for Brukinsa versus Rituxan, respectively.

Regardless of IGHV status, Brukinsa showed consistent PFS benefit. However, treatment with Rituxan displayed lower PFS rates which were affected by IGHV status. Shadman noted that in prior reports from cohort 2 of the SEQUIOA trial, patients with deletion 17p (del[17p]) and TP53 mutations showed similar PFS rates in those without the high-risk features. “This suggests that the treatment with [Brukinsa] may overcome negative prognostic factors such as IGHV [mutation], del(17p) or TP53 mutation,” he said.

The ORR with long-term follow-up was 97.5% with Brukinsa versus 88.7% with Rituxan. With Brukinsa, the complete response (CR)/CR with incomplete bone marrow recovery (CRi) rates was 20.7% compared with Rituxan at 23.5%. The CR/CRi rate is the highest reported with an inhibitor monotherapy, according to Shadman.

In total, 34 deaths occurred in each arm at the time of follow-up. The estimated overall survival (OS) rates at 54 and 60 months with Brukinsa were 87.7% and 85.5%, respectively; after adjusting for COVID-19, it was 91.3% and 89.4%. For treatment with Rituxan, the estimated 54- and 60-month OS rates were 86% and 85%; then with COVID-19 adjustment, 87.8% and 86.8%.

In terms of toxicity, Brukinsa was well tolerated over the extended treatment period in these patients with CLL/SLL. The most common grade 3 (severe) or higher treatment-emergent and post-treatment AEs included COVID-19 (Brukinsa, 9% versus Rituxan, 2%), hypertension (12% versus 6%) and neutropenia (10% versus 41%).

There were “low rates of atrial fibrillation/flutter [afib/flutter], infections or AEs that limit daily living activities like [gastrointestinal] toxicities,” Shadman explained.

In the original readout of the SEQUOIA trial, Brukinsa showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS over Rituxan in patients with CLL/SLL without del(17p) at 26.2 months median follow-up.

Brukinsa was given at 160 milligrams twice daily until disease progression or intolerable toxicity and Rituxan was given for a maximum of six cycles. The primary end point was PFS, with ORR and CR rate as the key secondary end points. Crossover was allowed after progression and prior to starting any other therapy for CLL/SLL.

The median treatment duration with Brukinsa at the 61.2-month follow-up was 60.5 months, with 163 patients (67.6%) still receiving treatment. For Rituxan, 79% completed all six cycles of treatment and 13% discontinued early due to AEs. Fifty-nine patients overall crossed over from Rituxan to Brukinsa after experiencing disease progression.

“The result of this extended follow-up support the use of [Brukinsa] as the standard first-line treatment option for patients, regardless of the disease risk factors,” Shadman concluded.

“Sustained superiority of zanubrutinib vs bendamustine + rituximab in treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma: 5-year follow-up of cohort 1 from the SEQUOIA study” by Dr. Mazyar Shadman et al., 

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

subscribe to CURE®’s newsletters here.

Articles

Brukinsa (zanubrutinib) demonstrated superior long-term efficacy over bendamustine plus Rituxan (rituximab) in treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) patients, as shown in the five-year SEQUOIA trial follow-up. Brukinsa improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR), with a 71% reduction in progression or death risk. It was well tolerated, with fewer severe adverse events compared to Rituxan. The study supports Brukinsa as a standard first-line treatment, overcoming negative prognostic factors like IGHV mutation, del(17p), or TP53 mutation.

Patients with treatment-naive CLL/SLL experienced long-term improved efficacy when treated with Brukinsa compared with bendamustine plus Rituxan.

Brukinsa Supported as First-Line Treatment for Patients With CLL/SLL

Aspects of myelofibrosis, such as spleen size, were improved after receiving pelabresib plus Jakafi. 

Pelabresib (CPI-0610) plus Jakafi (ruxolitinib) continued to reduce splenomegaly, anemia, symptoms and bone marrow fibrosis in patients with JAK inhibitor-naive myelofibrosis, recent study findings demonstrated.

Results from the phase 3 MANIFEST-2 study were presented in a poster during the 

At a median follow-up of 72 weeks, the primary end point of spleen volume reduction of 35% (SVR35) was maintained, with a 48-week response rate of 57% with pelabresib and Jakafi versus 37.5% with Jakafi plus placebo. Total symptom score (TSS) improvement of at least 50% at week 48 was 45.3% versus 39.4%, respectively. Fewer patients required red blood cell transfusions, and bone marrow fibrosis improvement of at least one grade was reported in 41% versus 15%, respectively.

BET inhibitor: a treatment that targets BET proteins, which play a role in regulating gene expression.

Nadir: the lowest point a blood cell count reaches after a course of chemotherapy.

Proinflammatory cytokines: small proteins secreted by immune cells that play a role in the body’s inflammatory response.

Mutant clone burden: the proportion of cells in a tumor that contains a specific genetic mutation.

Variant allele frequency reduction: the decrease in the proportion of tumor cells that carry a specific genetic mutation within a tumor sample.

Thrombocytopenia: lower than normal number of platelets in the blood.

Accelerated and blast-phase progression: worsening stages of certain types of blood cancers.

“Results at 48 weeks showed deep and sustained SVR35 response with biomarker evidence suggesting additional benefit of the combination of pelabresib plus [Jakafi] versus [Jakafi] alone,” said Dr. John O. Mascarenhas, director of the Center of Excellence for Blood Cancers and Myeloid Disorders at Mount Sinai, in his poster presentation.

Pelabresib is an investigational small molecule BET inhibitor that can decrease the BET-mediated gene expression associated with MF.

 is a study that assigned 430 patients to receive Jakafi twice daily plus pelabresib or placebo once daily for 14 consecutive days of 21-day cycles. At the 2023 ASH Meeting, the MANIFEST-2 trial investigators reported that it had met its primary end point of 24-week SVR. Key secondary end points were absolute change in TSS and 50% or greater reduction in TSS from baseline (TSS50) at week 24, with other end points including SVR35 at week 48, hemoglobin response, bone marrow fibrosis and safety.

Patients had to have intermediate-1 or higher risk myelofibrosis, platelet count of at least 100,000/μL, spleen volume of at least 450 cm

, TSS of 10 or greater (≥3 for two symptoms), and ECOG performance status of 2 or lower.

At the data cutoff of March 29, 2024, 126 of 214 patients (58.9%) receiving the combination and 134 of 216 patients (62%) receiving Jakafi plus placebo were still being treated.

In addition to a higher number of patients showing SVR35 response at week 48, 13.1% of patients had a loss of SVR35 response and an increase of 25% from nadir with pelabresib versus 20% with placebo, or 21% versus 36.8%, respectively by alternate definition of loss of SVR35 response. The mean change was -54.5% with the combination versus -33.5% with Jakafi plus placebo, and 82.2% had a response at any time with the combination versus 57.9% with Jakafi plus placebo.

The absolute change from baseline TSS was -15.99 for 

 versus -14.05 for Jakafi plus placebo at week 24, and -16.24 versus -14.11, respectively at week 48. TSS individual domain scores were similar between the two groups and similar to national norms for people without MF, according to the investigators. An analysis of the Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form excluding fatigue showed a least square mean change from baseline of -16.19 with pelabresib plus Jakafi versus -13.86 with placebo plus Jakafi. Mascarenhas said that “additional symptom benefit of pelabresib could be difficult to detect due to a ceiling effect in TSS, especially in the fatigue domain.”

When looking at patients who had both SVR35 and TSS improvement of 50%, there were 77 (36%) who received the combination versus only 41 (19%) in the placebo group.

A hemoglobin response as defined as a 1.5 g/dL or greater mean increase from baseline in the absence of transfusions in the past 12 weeks was observed in a numerically greater proportion of patients who received pelabresib (13.1% versus 7.9%), and hemoglobin levels rose and approached baseline in patients with anemia. In the combination group, 27.6% required transfusion in the first 24 weeks and 21.8% required it in the next 24 weeks, compared with 38.6% and 33.2%, respectively, in the placebo plus Jakafi group.

At week 48, bone marrow fibrosis had improved in 41%, remained unchanged in 45%, and worsened in 14% of those receiving pelabresib versus improving in 15%, remaining unchanged in 54.2%, and worsening in 30.8% of those receiving placebo. The improvement of bone marrow fibrosis of at least one grade at week 24 was 38.3% versus 25.3% in the respective groups, showing that the difference widened at week 48.

Disease-relevant proinflammatory cytokines showed a numerically greater reduction at week 48 in the pelabresib plus Jakafi group. The level of proinflammatory cytokines was lower in those who had an SVR35 response, regardless of which treatment they received.

Another exploratory end point was the change in mutant clone burden in peripheral blood samples by next-generation sequencing. At week 48, there was greater reduction in the pelabresib plus Jakafi group, with a variant allele frequency reduction of 50% in 15% versus 9% of those receiving placebo plus Jakafi. The mean change from baseline was -24.1% versus -16.3% in the respective groups, and a correlation was found between SVR35 response and reduced mutation clone burden.

In terms of safety, grade 3 (severe) or higher treatment-emergent side effects were reported in 57.1% of the pelabresib plus Jakafi group versus 62.1% of the placebo plus Jakafi group. Grade 3 or higher anemia was reported in 25.9% and 38.3%, respectively, and grade 3 or higher thrombocytopenia was reported in 15.1 and 6.1%, respectively. The most common nonhematologic treatment-emergent side effects include diarrhea, constipation, dysgeusia, cough and nausea. Death occurred in 20 of 214 patients (9.3%) in the pelabresib plus Jakafi group and 18 of 216 (8.3%) in the placebo plus Jakafi group.

Accelerated and blast-phase progression to leukemia transformation was reported in 6.1% of the pelabresib plus Jakafi group and 4.2% of the placebo plus Jakafi group at a data cutoff of August 30, 2024. Newly acquired mutations were detected in 26% and 22%, respectively, and high molecular risk mutations were seen in 4% and 2%, respectively. Mutations were no longer detectable in 11% and 12%, and high molecular risk mutations were no longer detectable in 3% and 1%, respectively. Investigators proposed that a similar number of patients indicated that pelabresib does not have an additional mutagenic effect when combined with Jakafi.

The investigators intend to present longer follow-up data from MANIFEST-2 at future medical congresses. “Rates of grade 3 or greater [treatment-emergent side effects] were similar in both groups and leukemia transformation continues to be followed up closely,” said Mascarenhas.

The combination of pelabresib and Jakafi demonstrated significant efficacy in reducing splenomegaly, anemia, symptoms, and bone marrow fibrosis in JAK inhibitor-naive myelofibrosis patients. The MANIFEST-2 study showed sustained spleen volume reduction and symptom improvement at 48 weeks, with fewer transfusions and better bone marrow fibrosis outcomes compared to Jakafi alone. Safety profiles were comparable, with similar rates of severe side effects and leukemia transformation. The study also indicated a reduction in proinflammatory cytokines and mutant clone burden, suggesting additional benefits of the combination therapy.

Adding pelabresib to a JAK inhibitor may improve multiple aspects of myelofibrosis, including spleen size, symptoms and bone marrow fibrosis.

Pelabresib Plus Jakafi Maintains Efficacy in JAK-Naive Myelofibrosis 

The combination of Nubeqa (darolutamide) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; reduces the amount of testosterone in the body) significantly improved radiographical progression-free survival (PFS; the length of time during and after treatment when a patient with cancer lives without the disease worsening) in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive (still responds to hormone therapy) prostate cancer (mHSPC), according to results presented at the 2024 ESMO Congress.

Compared with ADT alone, the addition of the androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI; blocks activity of androgen receptor, a protein that aids cancer growth) Nubeqa reduced the risk of radiographical progression or death by 46% and demonstrated low safety risks in the phase 3 ARANOTE trial.

The ARANOTE trial demonstrated that adding Nubeqa to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly extended the time patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer lived without their disease worsening.

Compared to ADT alone, Nubeqa plus ADT reduced the risk of radiographic progression or death by 46%.

Nubeqa had a low risk of side effects, making it a promising treatment option for patients with prostate cancer.

The ARANOTE trial suggests that Nubeqa plus ADT could be a valuable treatment option for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, especially for those who may not tolerate or benefit from traditional treatments.

The combination of Nubeqa and ADT outperformed ADT alone in terms of both efficacy and safety.

“[Nubeqa], ADT, plus docetaxel is already a standard of care for men with mHSPC and ARASENS shows that [Nubeqa] plus ADT plus docetaxel had a favorable efficacy and safety profile compared with ADT plus docetaxel in these patients,” explained Dr. Fred Saad, professor and chairman of urology and director of genitourinary oncology at the University of Montreal Hospital Center in Canada, in his presentation. “ARANOTE was designed to evaluate the role of [Nubeqa] [plus] ADT without docetaxel to hopefully provide a new treatment option for men with mHSPC.”

Despite the ARASENS trial establishing the efficacy of ARPI, ADT and chemotherapy, it was only compared with ADT plus docetaxel and Nubeqa plus ADT had not been compared with ADT alone, leading to the ARANOTE trial to determine if this combination can be a treatment option without chemotherapy.

A total of 669 patients were randomly assigned to receive Nubeqa 600 milligrams twice daily plus ADT (446 patients) or placebo plus ADT (223 patients). They must have had metastatic disease confirmed by conventional imaging or soft tissue/visceral metastases on CT or MRI assessed by central review and ECOG performance status of 0 (fully active), 1 (limited activity), or 2 (poor activity). They were stratified by presence or absence of visceral metastases (spreading of cancer to internal organs) and prior local therapy. The primary focus was radiographical PFS (rPFS) by central blinded review, with secondary focuses including overall survival (OS; time from the start of treatment when a patient with cancer is still alive), time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA; time it takes for PSA levels to rise after treatment) progression and safety.

Baseline characteristics and disease characteristics were broadly similar across the groups; Saad highlighted the approximately 30% of the population who were Asian and 10% who were Black, which enabled these groups to be studied more closely. In the Nubeqa group, 71.1% had de novo metastatic disease compared with 75.3% in the ADT alone group. Visceral disease was present in 11.9% and 12.1% of each respective group and 17.9% of each group had prior local therapy.

Primary and Secondary Efficacy End Points

At data cutoff of June 7, 2024, median follow-up was 25.3 months for the Nubeqa group and 25 months for the placebo group. The median rPFS for Nubeqa plus ADT was not reached, meaning less than half of patients did not show disease progression, compared with 25 months for placebo plus ADT. At 24 months, the rate of rPFS was 70.3% for the Nubeqa group versus 52.1% for the placebo group.

The rPFS benefit with Nubeqa was consistent across all analyzed subgroups. For patients with low disease volume, the hazard ratio (HR; a statistical measure comparing the risk of an event between two groups) was 0.3 compared with an HR of 0.6 for those with high-volume disease. Those with prior local therapy had an HR of 0.34 whereas those with no prior local therapy had an HR of 0.59.

Although OS was not mature and was not reached in both groups, the stratified HR was 0.81 favoring Nubeqa. Adding Nubeqa also showed a benefit across other secondary focuses including time to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, time to PSA progression, time to initiation of subsequent systemic therapy and time to pain progression. It also led to 62.6% of patients with PSA less than 0.2 nanograms/milliliter at any time during treatment, compared with only 18.5% in the placebo group.

The median treatment duration was 24.2 months in the Nubeqa group compared with 17.3 months for the placebo group. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; treatment induced side effects) was similar between the groups, with 91% any-grade and 30.8% grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life threatening) TEAEs with Nubeqa plus ADT and 90% any-grade and 30.3% grade 3 or 4 with ADT plus placebo. There was a rate of 4.7% grade 5 (fatal) TEAEs in the Nubeqa group versus 5.4% for the placebo group. Serious TEAEs occurred at a rate of 23.6% in the Nubeqa group versus 23.5% in the placebo group and 6.1% discontinued treatment due to TEAEs in the Nubeqa group, a lower rate than the 9% in the placebo group.

When looking at TEAEs associated with ARPIs in particular, they were similar across the groups. Fatigue, mental impairment disorder, hypertension, cardiac arrythmias, coronary artery disorders, heart failure, falls, bone fracture, vasodilation (the widening of blood vessels) and flushing, diabetes and hyperglycemia, and rash all occurred in fewer than 10% of patients in either group and exposure-adjusted incidence rate per 100 patient years was also similar in the Nubeqa and placebo groups.

“[Nubeqa] and ADT significantly improved rPFS in patients with mHSPC, showed a benefit across all secondary endpoints, [and] had a favorable safety profile, confirming previous studies using [Nubeqa],” said Saad. “We believe that Nubeqa and ADT, without the need of docetaxel, could become an additional standard of care for mHSPC.”

Adding Nubeqa to androgen deprivation therapy improved radiographic progression-free survival in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

Nubeqa Plus ADT Outperformed ADT Alone in Treating Prostate Cancer

Enhertu (T-DXd; fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki) reduced deterioration in physical and role functioning (ability to perform tasks) and pain compared with treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) in patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-low or -ultralow metastatic (spreading) breast cancer, according to quality-of-life (QOL) data presented at the 

The data, which were presented about the randomized phase 3 DESTINY-Breast06 trial, evaluated patients with HR-positive, HER2-low and patients with HR-positive, HER2-ultralow disease. Patients were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis to receive 5.4 milligrams/kilograms T-DXd every three weeks or TPC chemotherapy including capecitabine, nab-paclitaxel, or paclitaxel. The patient-reported responses were assessed for both the intent-to-treat population (ITT; 436 patients for Enhertu and 430 patients for TPC) and the HER2-low group (359 patients and 354 patients, respectively).

Patients with HR-positive/HER2-low/ultralow breast cancer who received Enhertu experienced slower deterioration of pain compared to those on standard treatment.

The study showed that Enhertu had a manageable side effect profile.

The study included both HER2-low and HER2-ultralow patients, suggesting that Enhertu may be effective for a broader range of patients.

The results of the DESTINY-Breast06 trial suggest that Enhertu could be a valuable treatment option for patients with HR-positive/HER2-low/ultralow breast cancer.

The median duration of treatment was 11 months with Enhertu versus 5.6 months with TPC chemotherapy. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 oncology-specific questionnaire (general oncology-specific questionnaire that measures the quality of life of cancer patients) and the QLQ-BR45 breast cancer­-specific questionnaire (breast cancer-specific questionnaire that assesses the quality of life of patients) were assessed at baseline, every three weeks until the end of treatment, and then every three weeks until second progression or death.

Patient-reported responses (PROs) from the DESTINY-Breast06 trial showed a similar median time to deterioration (TTD; time it takes for a condition to worsen) overall between the two groups in the ITT population and the HER2-low subgroup, but differences in some symptoms. The median time to pain deterioration (time it takes for pain to worsen) showed the most significant improvement for Enhertu at 22 months versus 6.3 months for TPC.

“The global health/QOL was observed over 31 weeks for both groups. The QOL scores did not change from the baseline to a clinically significant degree,” Dr. Xichun Hu, of the department of medical oncology in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center and professor in the department of oncology at Shanghai Medical College at Fudan University in Shanghai, China, said in his presentation. “Time to deterioration in QOL was similar with the two treatment groups. [Enhertu] reduced the risk of clinically meaningful deterioration in pain by 49%.”

The prior lines of therapy received by patients in this study included at least two lines of endocrine therapy with or without targeted therapy for metastatic breast cancer or those who had disease progression within six months of starting first-line (first treatment) endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy for metastatic breast cancer or recurrence within 24 months after starting chemotherapy with endocrine therapy.

In the primary analysis of the trial, investigators reported that it met its primary goal of progression-free survival (PFS; how long a person lives without their disease worsening) with Enhertu showing 13.2 months compared with 8.1 months for TPC.

The QLQ-C30 evaluated Global Health Status (GHS)/QOL, physical, emotional, role, social and cognitive functional scales and symptom scales. Hu reported that overall GHS/QOL were maintained over 31 weeks with Enhertu and TPC in the ITT population, with a mean baseline GHS score of 69.51 and 65.88, respectively. With a mean change of 10 points from baseline being considered meaningful, neither group showed any significant shifts over time with 65.8% compliance in the Enhertu group and 69.8% in the TPC group. The median time to deterioration in GHS/QOL was 11.3 months for Enhertu and 10.5 months for TPC.

In terms of pain, Enhertu significantly reduced the risk of deterioration per QLQ-C30. It also reduced the risk of deterioration in several other outcomes including physical functioning, role functioning, emotional functioning and fatigue. Enhertu was worse than TPC in nausea/vomiting, appetite loss and constipation.

The QLQ-BR45 evaluated multi-item scores including skin mycosis symptoms, body image, sexual functioning, group symptoms and breast symptoms. The TPC group showed a clinically meaningful deterioration based on this measure, reaching a 10-point adjusted mean change from baseline at approximately seven weeks and continuing to show 10 or more points difference through 31 weeks. However, the Enhertu group did not differ significantly from baseline. “Among the components in the BR45 questionnaire, clinically meaningful deterioration of skin and mucosal system was observed with TPC, but not with [Enhertu],” said Hu.

He emphasized that with a duration of treatment approximately double that of TPC, Enhertu maintained QOL as well as delaying time to deterioration in some areas. “Gastrointestinal [GI] symptoms reported by patients who received T-DXd highlight the importance of implementing antiemetic prophylaxis in the clinic. Further investigation of the effect of antiemetic prophylaxis on GI symptoms and associated QOL in patients receiving T-DXd is warranted,” said Hu.

He added that the GI side effects reported in the QOL data “did not appear to be detrimental to overall preservation of QOL and were consistent with the safety profile reported by study investigators.”

“PRO results describing patients’ perspective further support [Enhertu] as a new therapeutic option following one or more endocrine-based therapies for patients with HER2-low and HER2-ultralow, HR-positive metastatic breast cancer,” he concluded.

Enhertu improved the time it took for patients with a breast cancer subset to experience worsening pain and other symptoms, without affecting overall quality of life.

Jonah Feldman

Brukinsa Supported as First-Line Treatment for Patients With CLL/SLL

Pelabresib Plus Jakafi Maintains Efficacy in JAK-Naive Myelofibrosis

Nubeqa Plus ADT Outperformed ADT Alone in Treating Prostate Cancer

Enhertu Maintains QOL, Slows Pain in HR+/HER2 Metastatic Breast Cancer

Latest News