Listen to our latest episode of ONCOLOGY on The Go with insights from expert multidisciplinary professionals across the oncology space. 

ONCOLOGY On The Go Podcast

CancerNetwork in now on YouTube! We'll be discussing in-depth topics, and speaking with top leaders in the oncology space.

Find Us On YouTube

Your next job in oncology is just a click away! Explore positions across the cancer care industry with CancerNetwork® Oncology Career Center.

CancerNetwork® Oncology Career Center

Get comprehensive coverage for the multidisciplinary oncology community with accurate, credible, and timely news and expert insights.

Subscribe to Our eNewsletter Today!

The September issue of ONCOLOGY features a rare case study on glioblastoma, discussions on end-of-life care, and insights into the field of pediatric oncology. 

September ONCOLOGY Publication

Deb Schrag, MD, MPH, discusses her journey into GI oncology, the development of patient-reported outcome systems, and her vision for the upcoming ASCO presidency.

Oncology has transitioned from a generalist field to one of immense sub-specialization, expanding to nearly 1000 different therapeutic options. For Deb Schrag, MD, MPH, the incoming president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) for the 2027-2028 term, this evolution highlights a shift from simply memorizing data to mastering the application and communication of accessible knowledge.

A gastrointestinal (GI) oncologist and population scientist, Schrag’s career has been defined by a commitment to the “science of care delivery”. Her early medical training in New York City during the height of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis epidemics provided a front row seat to how social determinants of health dictate patient outcomes. This experience launched a career-long dedication to public health and multidisciplinary collaboration—a "team sport" approach she likens more to soccer than tennis.

In an interview with CancerNetwork®, Schrag reflects on the following:

 Her work developing an open-source, global system to capture toxicity and adverse effects directly from the patient perspective, ensuring clinicians understand how patients feel between office visits.

 Addressing clinician burnout through the integration of AI to reduce administrative "drudgery" and the cultivation of high-functioning teams able to nurture resilience .

 Her vision for advancing ASCO’s mission by accelerating the translation of discovery into scalable, real-world care and ensuring that the discovery engine and research mission is preserved.

Through it all, Schrag remains guided by a simple yet profound piece of advice: "Stay curious". By maintaining sharp observational skills and directing attention toward meaningful insights, she believes the oncology community can move beyond helping patients survive to helping them truly thrive.

CancerNetwork: Are you able to discuss your undergraduate days and what drew you to the field of Gi oncology?

Schrag: I’m from New York City, went to Boston for college, and came home for medical school. I did my undergraduate medical training at Columbia Presbyterian at the height of the HIV epidemic. It was a triple epidemic of HIV, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, and cocaine. I had a front row seat to how social determinants of health influenced patient outcomes. I had an opportunity to see all the multiple dimensions and components of the complexity of patients’ lives and how that influenced the health care that they were able to access and receive, and how that determined outcomes. It launched my interest in public health and population science.

My interest in GI oncology emerged later…. Like so many people, I was influenced by some terrific mentors. What I liked about GI oncology was the variety of diseases some caused by genetic risk, others by lifestyle, behavioral factors and others by environmental exposure. Right now we are struggling to understand the epidemic of early onset cancers, particularly colorectal cancer.GI oncology is a team sport, and I found collaborating and working with surgeons, radiation oncologists, radiologists and pathologists to achieve the best possible outcomes for patients immensely rewarding. The joy of working as part of a multidisciplinary team and seeing team care enables us to push boundaries and achieve amazing things for our patients.

What are some of the most significant shifts you've witnessed in oncology?

Oncology started out as a generalist field, and it’s become more sub-specialized. When I started training in the 1990s, there were fewer than 50 drugs.. Now there are nearly 1000, so it is no longer possible for a human being to retain all that knowledge. It used to be that we memorized all the drugs and their [adverse] effects. Now knowledge is at our fingertips available in an instant on our phones, but the skill we need is the application of that knowledge and the ability to navigate complexity. How we access information and knowledge has changed, and how we do our work has changed.. It’s not so much knowing facts and information as knowing how to retrieve information, how to select the best information, and how to communicate that information in an impactful way that matters now. Information is also democratized because our patients and their families also have access to information. For example, we have to communicate with our patients and help them understand why trials are important and why a trial is right, or why a particular treatment is right, even if it has some challenging [adverse] effects. Early on, oncology was about what you knew. . Now what matters is how you apply the existing body of knowledge and how you convey and communicate it to achieve maximum impact. As we enter the era of machine learning and AI, how we obtain, discover and apply knowledge is undergoing further change—and for cancer care professionals the stakes are high.

Looking back at your career, is there a trial or study that you’ve worked on that you’re most proud of or that you consider your biggest achievement?

I worked with a close colleague, and a team to develop a system to capture toxicity and the[adverse] effects of cancer treatment from the patient perspective. Many oncologists know about the CTCAE system that oncologists use to grade how severe [adverse] effects like nausea are.

We developed a system to elicit from patients, the severity of [adverse] effects, the frequency of [adverse] effects, and how much they’re interfering with patients’ daily lives. When we developed that system, we figured out how to ask patients the right questions. The patient reported outcomes version of the CTCAE or PRO-CTCAE is now out in the public domain and available in over 30 different languages. It’s maintained by the National Cancer Institute, and it’s been integrated into no longer hundreds, but 1000s of clinical trials for patients around the world. It’s completely free, open, and available. It of empowers patient engagement and generates outcome data that’ don’t just reflect how long survival is but how people feel on treatment. When new drugs are approved by the FDA having these outcomes ensure that we understand the effects of new agents on survival as well as how people function and feel--- from both patient and clinician perspective. I believe that is a significant step forwards in how we make therapeutic advances in cancer medicine. 

I’m proud of that work all accomplished as part of incredible teams, and I do think that, as we have more and more cancer treatments and patients are living longer and longer, we can pivot some of our attention to not just helping people survive, but helping them survive well. More than survive, we want people to thrive. After cancer treatment, we want to ask our patients, are you back on track, to whatever your previous track and life trajectory was? It is going to be different for a college student with Hodgkin’s disease vs an 80-year-old who may have bladder cancer. They have very different life trajectories. Whatever your thriving is, did we get you back there with our treatments? Did we manage to get you to where you were before the cancer diagnosis veered you off course for a bit? We have ways to measure that now that can help the next patient make a better decision. That work, to me, is fundamental, and I’m proud of it.

Regarding your ASCO presidency, what is something that you're most looking forward to accomplishing during your tenure?

I’m looking forward to advancing ASCO's mission. The global cancer community is powerful, particularly when we join forces and are aligned for what I would call the best values that transcend political, geographic, and economic boundaries. That’s the big picture answer. Specifically, I’m excited about advancing the discovery and translation agenda, and in particular, figuring out how we take all this amazing discovery and integrate it more quickly into care and scale it so that it reaches more people more quickly. What you might call the “science of care delivery”.

ASCO has reported on a workforce shortage, with many clinicians retiring or being burnt out. How will you attempt to combat this while helping mid-level clinicians nurture their careers?

I wish there were an easy answer or one word. [If there were], the one word would probably be AI, but that’s not so simple. AI is a piece of it. We can use AI to eliminate some of the drudgery or tasks related to approvals and various layers of administrative work that have just become a part of modern medicine, but we have to hold the line and minimize that, and work on leveraging these powerful new tools to help automate or reduce the burden of some of the work that may be necessary. But that doesn’t bring joy. What brings joy to most physicians are the interpersonal connections, the judgment, the insight, and the relationships and critically, the opportunity to make new discoveries that change lives. Filling out forms and documentation doesn’t add a lot of joy. We have to figure out how AI can help us eliminate some of the tedious drudgery so we can focus on the humanistic and creative aspects of our roles which are meaningful

Harnessing the power of AI and teaching the global workforce how to use AI [is imperative]. The oncology workforce skews senior, but the senior members of the workforce need to be trained, and the next generation is going to kick it up a notch and take it to the next level. We have to engage the next generation and help them understanding how rewarding careers in oncology are despite the challenges. In the future, new professionals will partner with us and play a greater role in helping us make impactful discoveries. For example, we’re going to have more engineers partnering with us. We’ve had nurse practitioners for a couple of decades now. We’ll see that continue to grow, but we have to engage them and integrate them into our practice and ensure that we partner together effectively. We also need to understand the science of teamwork and how we work together. High-functioning teams are probably one of the best antidotes to burnout. When people feel like they’re part of a high-functioning team and they feel known and understood and that their roles matter, they feel more joy in their work, and they’re less prone to burnout. Burnout can be associated with loneliness and isolation, and loneliness and isolation are not good for anyone. They are especially devastating for people in helping professions like medicine. Nurturing the joy in medicine and tapping into what motivated people to enter the profession in the first place are critical tasks.

What is one piece of advice that you still carry to this day?

It’s so simple, but don’t forget to read. Keep reading. Which is a simple way of saying, stay curious. Stay engaged. Keep paying attention. These days it may be listening to a podcast or audiobook, but that is just another form of reading. What it means, is try to learn something new. Read something not just in your comfort zone. For me, that may be reading a study in the field of infectious disease or in the field of informatics, or something that’s not directly in my field, maybe something from the cardiovascular field. And count something is a succinct way of saying, “Stay curious, Keep those observational skills open.” Observe. Pay attention. Your attention is a precious gift, and it is a powerful tool. What you’re paying attention to, what you’re counting, and what you’re noting do matter and will lead to insights and spark new ideas. These days, I do think we often talk about the data economy, but I also think we have an attention economy. There is so much information, so much knowledge, and so many opportunities that where we direct our attention is critically important.

Dr. Deb Schrag elected ASCO president for 2027-28 term. News release. ASCO. December 19, 2025. Accessed January 21, 2026. https://tinyurl.com/2vxpfh9b

Basch E, Iasonos A, McDonough T, et al. Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: results of a questionnaire-based study. 

. 2006;7(11):903-909. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70910-X

Kirkwood MK, Balogh EP, Accordino MK, et al. Where have we been and where are we going? The state of the hematology and medical oncologist workforce in America. 

. 2025;21(12):1775-1785. doi:10.1200/OP-25-00144

Articles

ASCO President Elect Talks Advancing Patient-Centered Care and Team-Based Innovation

Why Discuss Ductal Carcinoma In-Situ at a Major Oncology Conference?

Among the many hot topics discussed at the 

2026 American College of Radiation Oncology (ACRO) Summit

, radiation therapy for breast cancer was discussed frequently. Jean L. Wright, MD, FASTRO, delivered one such presentation on breast cancer titled “Updates and Best Practices for [ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)]”.

As evidenced by the name, she detailed the current updates and best practices for treating patients who are diagnosed with DCIS. Notably, while DCIS is not a high-risk diagnosis and is instead a low-risk diagnosis, there are a great deal of options available to patients, which can complicate the decision-making process. Currently, surgery does remain the standard-of-care; however, investigators still seek a non-surgical strategy to manage DCIS.

Wright, the chair of the radiation oncology department, as well as a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, spoke with CancerNetwork® during the Summit. Throughout the conversation, she also highlighted how, after a patient completes surgery, they are still able to decide between receiving endocrine therapy or radiation. Wright also reiterated the constant flow of new information and data on DCIS.

Why is it important to discuss DCIS care?

Well, it’s an important topic, because even though ductal carcinoma in situ is a low-risk diagnosis, as I emphasized in the presentation, the decision-making around how we’re going to treat patients with DCIS is amongst the most complex, just because of the very wide range of options that we have. As I shared in the talk, most patients present asymptomatically and have to first make a decision about undergoing surgery. Surgery is the standard treatment right now, but there is a lot of interest in exploring non-surgical management. There’s a lot of discussion that, particularly certain motivated patients, will bring that into the conversation, which you have to be facile with addressing. Then postoperatively, you have radiation, you have endocrine therapy, and then even within those categories, you have a wide range of options. There’s so much to consider. I’ll also say that just preparing for this talk, I looked back on what had been published even within the last year, and there's just constant new information that's coming out. There’s just a lot to think about.

Videos

According to Jean L. Wright, MD, FASTRO, the flow of new information and research pertaining to ductal carcinoma in situ is constant.

The implementation of AI into radiomics may help predict the likelihood of response to therapies among patients undergoing breast cancer treatment.

Outlining Advances in AI For Breast Cancer Screening/Radiomics

Clinical trials, including the phase 3 TAILORx trial (NCT00310180), have served as validation points for radiomic models, enabling clinicians to predict responses to endocrine therapy and other treatments with CT scans.

Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, FACP, the systemwide chief of Hematology and Oncology at Saint Luke’s University, discussed key advances regarding the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in breast cancer screening and treatment. First, he highlighted a new step for breast cancer: validation of breast cancer screening at a population level.

Then, he explained that he is examining the use of AI in the early detection of cancer through mammograms, but that it has been applied to genomic testing and biomarker testing as well. Additionally, citing findings presented at the 

2025 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium,

 he stated that transformer-based architecture could predict recurrence in patients and identify certain patients who may require additional screening for germline alterations or risk factors.

Using radiomics as an example, he explained that a CT scan can be used to assess the probability of response with certain therapies. Citing studies such as the TAILORx trial, he concluded by suggesting that studies have validated many of these models for use in the clinic.

In breast cancer, the new steps are, first, validation at the population level. Each country and each region is doing its own clinical trials. I’m currently running for early detection with mammograms and others. We also have seen that the implementation of AI into the genomic testing, or the biomarker testing, on our patients is becoming relevant.

There were some updates from [the 2025 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium] showing how a potential transformer-based architecture can predict potential recurrence in patients. It can optimize those recurrent response scores that we are seeing from different vendors in a more meaningful way and find those niche patients that need either more screening or early detection of other things, such as germline alterations or risk factors, when we use any combination with other data sets.

In this case, for example, we can use radiomics. We know that with radiomics, we can, just by looking at a CT scan, understand if the patient is going to respond to, for example, endocrine therapy. That’s something that, for us, is mind blowing because we did not have that information before. Now, using the data sets for many clinical trials that have been done before––the [phase 3 TAILORx trial] and others––has been a major validation point for many of those models that are being deployed in the clinic, or at least in clinical practice for further validation.

Feng C, Muhammad H, Chavan SS, et al. Artificial intelligence predicts OncotypeDX recurrence scores directly from H&E-stained whole slide images of ER+/HER2- node-negative breast cancer surgical sections. Presented at: 2025 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; December 9-12, 2025; San Antonio, TX. PS3-06-02

OS and PFS rates were positive as demonstrated by real-world data in patients given SBRT for oligometastatic ovarian cancer.

Patients with oligometastatic ovarian cancer who received stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) experienced positive outcomes and minimal toxicity, according to results from a poster presented at the 

The overall survival (OS) rate at 1 year was 85.6%, at 2 years if was 73.8%, and 3 years it was 59.0%. The median OS was not reached. Additionally, the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 1 year was 76.4%, at 2 years it was 54.0%, and at 3 years it was 48.0%. The median PFS was 28.9 months.

A total of 54.5% of patients experienced progression. The in-field progression rate was 9.1% and deemed by authors as “rare”, and most treatment failures occurred out of the field. The out-of-field progression rate was 36.4%.

“Most disease progression occurred outside the treated field, supporting the role of SBRT in durable local disease control. These real-world data support SBRT as a safe and effective treatment option in carefully selected patients,” Lifei Zhu, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at Washington University and colleagues wrote in the poster.

This single-institution analysis occurred between January 2011 and September 2025. The authors cited that the purpose of the study was to determine local control, recurrence patterns, survival outcomes, and toxicity associated with SBRT in patients with oligometastatic ovarian cancer.

A total of 22 patients were enrolled, and 90.9% were oligoprogressive after surgery and systemic therapy. At presentation, 4.5% of patients were oligometastatic, and 4.5% were oligometastatic after surgery. At the time of SBRT, 5 or fewer sites of disease were noted.

The primary end point was in-field progression, out-of-field progression, OS, and PFS. Secondary end points included the worst toxicity 6-months post-SBRT per CTCAE v5.0 criteria and ECOG performance status change.

Of note, 85.7% of patients had preserved or improved ECOG performance status. This included 6 patients who improved, 12 who were stable, and 3 who declined. Additionally, 6 patients had baseline ECOG performance status of 1 and then transitioned to ECOG performance status of 0.

No grade 3 or higher toxicities were observed. Within 6 months, the toxicity rates showed 86.4% of patients having grade 0 to 1, and 13.6% had grade 2. The most common adverse effects included none (22.7%), respiratory (4.5%), skin (4.5%), gynecologic (4.5%), genitourinary (9.1%), fatigue/general (4.5%), and gastrointestinal (about 50%).

“Oligometastatic ovarian cancer remains challenging following surgery and systemic therapy. SBRT enables delivery of high-dose focal radiation while sparing surrounding normal tissues. Prior studies have demonstrated encouraging outcomes, but real-world data on recurrence patterns, survival, and toxicity remain limited,” the authors concluded.

Zhu L, Tang JY, Mehta KJ, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for oligometastatic ovarian cancer. Presented at the 2026 American College of Radiation Oncology Summit; Orlando, FL. February 4-6, 2026.

OS and PFS rates were positive as demonstrated by real-world data in patients given SBRT for oligometastatic ovarian cancer. 

Real-World Data Yield Positive Outcomes of SBRT in Oligometastatic Ovarian Cancer

One oral presentation exhibited updated results from the phase 3 KarMMa-3 trial (NCT03651128) evaluating idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; Abecma) among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

 expert hematologist-oncologists from around the world have gathered in Salt Lake City, Utah, to share important research and advancements across different blood cancer disciplines. Sessions have revealed potentially practice-changing insights regarding the use of transplantation, novel cellular therapies, and other modalities for diverse hematologic malignancy populations.

Among the numerous oral and poster presentations featured so far, this year’s gathering has seen several key updates in the multiple myeloma field. Here are some of the takeaways that may influence the future of multiple myeloma care.

KarMMa-3: Optimizing Cellular Therapy Use Across Patient Subgroups

 This specific analysis focused on describing the efficacy and safety outcomes of older and younger patients who received ide-cel or standard-of-care regimens for their disease.

Among patients 70 years or older who received ide-cel (n = 49) or standard regimens (n = 27), the objective response rates (ORRs) were 81.6% (95% CI, 70.8%-92.5%) vs 48.1% (95% CI, 29.3%-67.0%), respectively (

 = .0037). For patients younger than 70 who received ide-cel (n = 205) or standard treatment (n = 105), the respective ORRs were 68.8% (95% CI, 62.4%-75.1%) vs 41.0% (95% CI, 31.5%-50.4%; 

The median overall survival (OS) was clinically meaningful in older and younger patients who were treated with ide-cel; the median values were not reached (NR) and 39.5 months (95% CI, 27.8-NR), respectively. Additionally, median PFS was extended with ide-cel for patients 70 years or older (

Safety data revealed no significant differences in outcomes among younger and older patients who received ide-cel. In patients 70 years or older and those younger than 70, respectively, findings revealed cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in 6.4% vs 4.5% of patients, and 25.5% vs 27.0% had infections.

“These observations reinforce the potential for durable benefit with a single ide-cel infusion in a real-world context without additional adverse safety signals, supporting its use across age groups,” study investigator Krina K. Patel, MD, MSc, associate professor in the Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma of the Division of Cancer Medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, stated in her presentation of the data.

AZD0120: A Novel CAR T-Cell Therapy Option?

As part of another oral presentation, Shambavi Richard, MD, shared preliminary data from the phase 1b/2 DURGA-1 trial (NCT05850234) assessing AZD0120, a first-in-class BCMA/CD19 dual-targeting agent, for patients with relapsed/refractory disease.

Among 23 evaluable patients who received AZD0120 at 1 x 10

 cells/kg, the median time to first response was 28 days. Additionally, the ORR was 96%, which included stringent complete responses (sCRs) or CRs in 78.3% of patients as well as partial responses (PRs) in 17.4%. Regarding 5 patients with prior exposure to BCMA-directed therapy, the ORR was 100%, and 80% had sCRs or CRs. Among 17 patients who were evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) status per next-generation sequencing, MRD-negative status was reported in 94%.

After a median follow-up of 3.9 months (range, 0.9-19.7), there were no deaths or dose-limiting toxicities. Across both dosing levels, the most common grade 3/4 adverse effects (AEs) included decreased neutrophil counts (81%), decreased lymphocyte counts (50%), and decreased white blood cell counts (42%). Other safety data revealed no grade 3 or higher CRS and no delayed neurotoxicity; 1 patient experienced grade 1 immune cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS).

“A single infusion of AZD0120 resulted in early and deep responses, with 96% ORR, 78% sCR/CR, and 94% MRD negativity in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma,” Richard, associate professor of Medicine (Hematology and Medical Oncology) with the Center of Excellence for Multiple Myeloma at Mount Sinai, stated in her presentation of the data.

 “The safety profile is well suited for outpatient administration, and 35% of patients on this study received an outpatient CAR-T infusion.”

How Do Outcomes Differ Across Rural and Urban Populations?

Investigators of a poster presentation utilized information from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to spotlight critical differences in outcomes between urban and rural populations from the pre–CAR-T era—2018 to 2019—to the early CAR-T era—2021 to 2022—of multiple myeloma.

Among 18,019 urban patients, the rate of myeloma-specific mortality declined from 17% in the pre–CAR-T period to 15% in the early CAR-T era (

 = .003), while pulmonary mortality decreased from 0.76% to 0.40% (

 = .008). Among 2155 patients in rural communities, the rate of myeloma-specific mortality slightly increased from 20% to 21% between periods (

 = .4), and the rate of other-cause mortality changed from 5.1% to 7.0% (

“CAR-T–era mortality improvements were observed in urban patients but not in rural populations. Rural patients experienced higher non–MM mortality,” Mahija Cheekati, MD, a hematology fellow at Ochsner Clinic in Louisiana, wrote with coauthors in the poster.

 “These findings highlight a geographic gap in [multiple myeloma] outcomes in the early CAR-T era.”

Ailawadhi A, Arnulf B, Patel K, et al. KarMMa-3 subgroup analysis in older patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with idecabtagene vicleucel. Presented at: 2026 Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings of ASTCT and CIBMTR; February 4-7, 2026; Salt Lake City, UT. Abstract 40.

Richard S, Gaballa M, Gregory T, et al. Safety and efficacy of AZD0120, a BCMA/CD19 dual-targeting CAR T-cell therapy, in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: preliminary results from the DURGA-1 phase 1b/2 study. Presented at: 2026 Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings of ASTCT and CIBMTR; February 4-7, 2026; Salt Lake City, UT. Abstract 37.

Cheekati M, Jerves F, Elhusseiny K, Mahmoud A. Urban-rural disparities in multiple myeloma outcomes in the early CAR-T era. Presented at: 2026 Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings of ASTCT and CIBMTR; February 4-7, 2026; Salt Lake City, UT. Abstract 421.

From key clinical trial updates to reports on treatment disparities, the 2026 Tandem Meetings saw several critical developments in multiple myeloma. 

2026 Tandem Meetings: What’s the Latest Research in Multiple Myeloma?

Hematologic oncologists from around the world convened in Salt Lake City, Utah, to attend the 2026 Tandem Meetings.

Hematologic oncologists from around the world convened in Salt Lake City, Utah, to attend the 

. Therein, presenters shared key data on CAR T-cell therapy use in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), particularly regarding its impact on cardiovascular (CV) risk, efficacy in the real-world setting and among younger patients, and in CD19-negative groups.

Which CAR T Therapy is Optimized for Cardiovascular Risks?

In an oral presentation of the CARTiAC trial, Mohammad Alhomoud, MBBS, discussed findings from a propensity core-matched analysis comparing the CV safety of lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi; liso-cel) with axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta; axi-cel) in patients with NHL, wherein the former exhibited a more favorable CV profile.

Specifically, the findings showed that among 906 patients treated with CAR T-cell therapies, including 535 who received axi-cel and 176 who received liso-cel, the overall incidence of cardiovascular events (CVEs) was 9% in the total population and 8% vs 4% among the axi-cel and liso-cel groups. Moreover, the unadjusted OR of developing a CVE with liso-cel compared with axi-cel was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.09-0.76; 

= .023), and with propensity-score matching, the OR was 0.19 (95% CI, 0.06-0.46; 

< .001). The most common CVE with axi-cel vs liso-cel was atrial arrhythmia (36% vs 43%).

Furthermore, between the overall cohort and those who experienced CVEs, the incidence of grade 1 to 2 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was similar (68% vs 65%), but the incidence of grade 3 or 4 CRS was numerically larger in those who experienced a CVE (8.8% vs 26%). CVEs also correlated with lower overall survival (OS) among patients receiving CAR T-cell therapies, with 12- and 24-month OS rates of 63% (95% CI, 48%-82%) vs 73% (95% CI, 66%-79%) and 47% (95% CI, 30%-75%) vs 61% (95% CI, 54%-69%) between those who did and did not experience CVEs by day 30 of treatment (

Patients receiving CAR T cells were selected across 6 international centers and underwent monitoring for CVEs by a cardiologist. After CVEs were captured and adjudicated, propensity score matching was done between products. The primary end point of the study was to compare CV safety across approved CD19 CAR T-cell products in NHL.

Notably, patients in the axi-cel and liso-cel arms had a median age of 62 years (IQR, 52-69) and 73 years (IQR, 65-78), respectively. Most patients were male (62% vs 61%), had a Karnofsky performance score of less than 90 (56% vs 71%), and had large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL; 92% vs 92%).

In each arm, 51% vs 54% had 1 to 2 CV risk factors, and 14% vs 20% had 3 or more. The most common CV risk factors in both arms were hypertension, smoking, and diabetes.

“In this largest multicenter international cohort to date, enriched with real-world patients with preexisting CV risk factors, CD19 CAR T-cell products demonstrate distinct CV safety profiles with respect to incidence, timing, and type,” Alhomoud, a bone marrow transplant and cellular therapist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, concluded.

Ascertaining CAR T Outcomes in Younger Patients in the Real World and Clinical Trials

A separate poster, presented by Irtiza N. Sheikh, DO, explored outcomes among patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL receiving liso-cel in the clinical trial and real-world settings, as well as among patients younger than 50 and those 50 years and older.

 Overall, the findings revealed that efficacy outcomes were similar in both settings, and that younger patients experienced a more pronounced efficacy benefit with the CAR T-cell therapy.

Specifically, in the real-world setting among patients younger than 50 years vs the overall population, the objective response rates (ORRs) were 72% (95% CI, 60%-81.5%) vs 81% (95% CI, 79%-84%), with respective complete response (CR) rates of 68% (95% CI, 56%-78%) vs 72% (95% CI, 69%-75%). Moreover, in the clinical trial setting, the respective ORRs were 65% (95% CI, 55%-75%) vs 74% (95% CI, 70%-78%), with CR rates of 49% (95% CI, 38%-60%) vs 55% (95% CI, 50%-59%).

Furthermore, in the real-world setting, the 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) rates among those younger than 50 vs the overall cohort were 58% (95% CI, 45%-69%) vs 52% (95% CI, 49%-55%). In the clinical trial setting, the 18-month PFS rates were 44.5% (95% CI, 34%-55%) vs 40% (95% CI, 35.5%-44%) in the respective groups.

Regarding OS, the 12-month rates in the real-world setting were 73% (95% CI, 61%-82%) and 68% (95% CI, 65%-71%) in the younger than 50 and overall populations. The respective 18-month rates were 66% (95% CI, 55%-75%) vs 57% (95% CI, 52%-61%) in the clinical trial setting.

In the real-world setting, CRS events occurred in 58% of the younger population and 51% of the overall population, and neurological events, including immune effector-cell neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), occurred in 28% vs 27%. Among those treated in the clinical trial setting, 52% of those younger than 50 and 43% of all patients experienced CRS, and 26% vs 24% experienced neurological events. Most CRS and neurological events were grade 1 or 2 in both settings.

Patients were included on the study of they received liso-cel for relapsed/refractory LBCL in the real world or within a clinical trial setting. Those from clinical trials including TRANSCEND NHL 001(NCT02631044), OUREACH (NCT03744676), TRANSCEND WORLD (NCT03484702), and TRANSFORM (NCT03575351) were included in the cross-trial analysis. In both settings, ORR, CR rates, duration of response (DOR), PFS, and OS were assessed in addition to adverse effects (AEs) of special interest and non–relapsed mortality rates.

“Efficacy outcomes were similar to the overall population in both settings despite some high-risk features being more prevalent in younger populations,” Sheikh, assistant professor in the Department of Pediatrics - Patient Care, Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Section of the Division of Pediatrics at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, wrote in the presentation with study coinvestigators. “Responses were deep and durable in younger patients from the real-world and clinical trial settings, with 12-month and 18-month DOR rates of 80% and 61.5%, respectively.”

Does CD19 Status Impact the Efficacy of CD19-Targeted CAR T Therapies?

In another poster, presented by Chen Zhang, MD, MS, FACP, a third-year Hematology/Oncology fellow at Rush MD Anderson Cancer Center, a real-world study explored the activity of an autologous anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy among patients with CD19-negative LBCL.

 Findings from within suggest that similar efficacy and a lower incidence of ICANS was observed in the CD19-negative population compared with those with CD19-positive status, supporting its use in both populations.

Efficacy data showed that among those in the CD19-positive (n = 174) and CD19-negative groups (n = 37), the ORR was 60.0% vs 51.7% (

= .41), and the respective CR rates were 51.1% vs 37.9% (

= .20). Furthermore, the 2-year estimates for PFS and OS were 30.1% vs 30.6% (

Additionally, regarding safety, similar rates of CRS (73.0% vs 67.6%; 

= .5047) and severe CRS were observed (8.0% vs 5.4%; 

= .7435). By contrast, a significantly higher incidence of any-grade ICANS (43.1% vs 21.6%; 

= .0151) and severe ICANS (28.7% vs 5.4%; 

= .0015) was observed in the CD19-expressing population. Severe cytopenia was numerically higher in the CD19-posiitve group (54.0% vs 40.0%), but it did not reach statistical significance (

The retrospective analysis collected data from the Cell Therapy Consortium on adult patients with LBCL treated with an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy and no prior CD19-targeting therapy. The study explored CD19 pretreatment status on activity and measured ORR, CR rate, OS, PFS, and safety as measured by rates of CRS, ICANS, and cytopenia.

The median patient age in the CD19-positive and CD19-negative groups was 63.0 years and 62.0 years. Most patients were male (65.5% vs 64.9%), received axi-cel (56.9% vs 48.6%), and had diffuse LBCL or high-grade B-cell lymphoma (88.5% vs 97.3%). The median number of prior lines in each arm was 3, and 69.0% vs 73.0% had refractory disease.

“Similar efficacy of anti-CD19 CAR T [cells] was found in CD19-negative LBCL. Our findings support the use of anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy in CD19-negative LBCL, as determined by immunohistochemistry [IHC] or flow cytometry,” Zhang wrote in the poster with study coauthors. “Future larger studies with more sensitive CD19 measurement are warranted.”

Alhomoud M, Al Wahad AA, Brown S, et al. CARTiAC: Comparative cardiovascular safety of CAR T products for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma – a propensity score–matched international multicenter study. Presented at: 2026 Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings of ASTCT and CIBMTR; February 4-7, 2026; Salt Lake City, UT. Abstract 17.

Sheikh IN, Patel K, Perales MA, et al. Clinical outcomes of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) in YOUNGER PATIENTS (Pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Presented at: 2026 Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings of ASTCT and CIBMTR; February 4-7, 2026; Salt Lake City, UT. Abstract 210.

Zhang C, Sun X, Feng L, et al. Activity of autologous Anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in CD19-negative large B-cell lymphoma: a cell therapy consortium real world experience. Presented at: 2026 Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings of ASTCT and CIBMTR; February 4-7, 2026; Salt Lake City, UT. Abstract 514.

CAR T-cell therapies displayed strong efficacy and manageable safety across lymphoma populations at the 2026 Tandem Meetings.