Reid Merryman, MD, on Potential Clinical Designs with MRD-Guidance for Patients with DLBCL

News
Video

Expert details the potential for a clinical trial using minimal residual disease to guide therapy for patients with DLBCL.

Reid Merryman, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, spoke with CancerNetwork® about the detailed the future potential research building off an oral presentation investigating the prognostic value of circulating tumor DNA among patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) from the 2020 American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting & Exposition.

Transcription:

Yeah, I think you can think of different potential clinical trial designs. So, I think, The data that I presented at ASH suggests that there’s this high-risk patient population, but I don’t think we’re quite ready yet to use this in the clinical setting. I think the next step would be a clinical trial that would use MRD [minimal residual disease] to guide therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL. So, You can imagine collecting samples for patients after salvage chemotherapy and directing MRD-negative patients to transplant and MRD-positive patients to an alternative treatment, for example CAR [chimeric antigen receptor] T-cell therapy, as part of a clinical trial.

Newsletter

Stay up to date on recent advances in the multidisciplinary approach to cancer.

Recent Videos
Future research will aim to assess the efficacy of PIPAC-MMC plus systemic therapy vs systemic therapy alone in patients with peritoneal tumors.
Although small incision surgery may serve as a conduit to deliver PIPAC-MMC, it may confer benefits in the staging and treatment of peritoneal tumors.
Patients with peritoneal metastases were historically associated with limited survival and low consideration for clinical trials.
Findings from the OVARIO study show that patients with HRR–deficient and BRCA-mutated disease benefitted the most from niraparib/bevacizumab maintenance.
Select comorbidities, ECOG status, and the receipt of radiation were among the differences between a real-world cohort and the RUBY trial population.
Related Content