scout

Videos

7 experts are featured in this series.

Panelists discuss how to choose between first-line (1L) luspatercept vs erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) therapy for SF3B1-negative patients with lower-risk MDS (LR-MDS) with erythropoietin (EPO) levels under 200 mU/mL. Team Whataburger argues that luspatercept’s superior response rates (60% vs 40%) and survival benefits make it the clear frontline choice, while Team In-and-Out counters that ESA remains viable for minimally transfusion-dependent patients due to cost considerations and potential for sequential therapy approaches.

7 experts are featured in this series.

Panelists discuss how the IMerge trial data demonstrate imetelstat’s efficacy in SF3B1-negative patients with lower-risk MDS who failed ESA therapy, achieving substantial hemoglobin improvements (averaging 4-5 g/dL in responders) with meaningful transfusion independence rates. They debate the clinical significance of modest patient-reported quality-of-life improvements and question whether historical hemoglobin ceiling limits should be reconsidered given robust treatment responses.

2 KOLs are featured in this series.

Panelists discuss how managing the safety profile of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib requires proactive patient education and early toxicity identification, with approximately 25% of patients discontinuing therapy due to adverse events in both clinical trials and real-world practice, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and immunotherapy-related adverse events for appropriate management.

2 KOLs are featured in this series.

Panelists discuss how the KEYNOTE-B61 study demonstrated impressive survival outcomes with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 17.9 months and median overall survival (OS) of 41.5 months, effectively doubling the historical tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy benchmarks of 8 to 9 months PFS and 21 months OS in patients with non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

6 experts are featured in this series.

Experts discuss the trade-offs between long-term efficacy and real-world tolerability in EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment, debating innovative targeted regimens vs familiar chemotherapy-based approaches and emphasizing the importance of personalized care, supportive infrastructure, and shared decision-making in optimizing outcomes.

6 experts are featured in this series.

Experts have a nuanced debate on frontline treatment for EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with brain metastases, contrasting the central nervous system (CNS) efficacy and clinical familiarity of chemotherapy-based combinations with the precision and potential durability of newer targeted regimens, ultimately emphasizing individualized care and critical appraisal of trial data.

Experts discuss how the evolving landscape of patient access to medical information challenges clinicians to stay current and communicate effectively, while emphasizing the expanding role of circulating tumor DNA testing across multiple cancers—offering more precise, personalized treatment guidance and paving the way for earlier, targeted interventions that improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

Experts discuss that although financial concerns about ctDNA testing exist, they are generally manageable with patient education and transparent communication, and that incorporating ctDNA into formal clinical guidelines could reduce insurance barriers and alleviate patient anxiety, ultimately enabling broader access to this valuable personalized cancer monitoring tool.

Experts discuss how real-world data counter concerns that ctDNA testing increases patient anxiety, highlighting that most patients feel more reassured and confident in their care when receiving personalized ctDNA results, which supports its integration into routine surveillance to improve both clinical decision-making and patient quality of life.