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

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

Videos

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 

2026 American College of Radiation Oncology (ACRO) Summit

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.

Articles

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.

Tandem Meetings Recap: T-Cell Efficacy and Safety Updates in Lymphoma

Theranostics, a technique that combines traditional medication with diagnostics, is “limitless”, according to Brandon Mancini, MD, MBA, FACRO.

2026 American College of Radiation Oncologists (ACRO) Summit

 serves as a platform for radiation oncologists to gather and share ideas on the latest and greatest in radiation oncology. Theranostics was among those escalating and newer topics on display.

At ACRO, Brandon Mancini, MD, MBA, FACRO, co-hosted a presentation titled “Theranostics in radiation oncology: Building programs, empowering teams, shaping the future”. Prior to that talk, he spoke with CancerNetwork® about the reality of theranostics within radiation oncology. The discussion detailed everything from the literal definition of theranostics to where the future of theranostics might lie, like combinations with immunotherapy.

: Theranostics is literally a combination of the terms “therapy” and “diagnostics”. Typically, that diagnostic is a PET scan where someone gets an injection, and you’re identifying whether a certain type of target on a tumor exists within that person’s body, or within that tumor that they might have. Then the therapy is a medication or radio pharmaceutical, that’s injected and goes and connects with that exact same target, but it’s delivering focal radiation for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for several weeks, but at the millimeter type level, with very little damage or irritation to surrounding tissues. It’s therapy merging with diagnostics, theranostics, and it’s a form of precision medicine that is definitely emerging and getting more well-known across the world.

Why is theranostics an important topic in radiation oncology right now?

Theranostics, in general, is this escalating field within radiation oncology, nuclear medicine, and oncology and beyond. This is a neat opportunity, with ACRO being one of the salient meetings in radiation oncology, to continue the conversation, get more in-depth into theranostics, and to excite or motivate people to consider this as part of their practice each day.

What are some of the key takeaways from your discussion on theranostics at ACRO?

It’s going to be reviewing exactly what theranostics is, for those who may not be aware, reviewing the data that has led to the FDA approval of the agents we use each day, reviewing why radiation oncology plays an important role within this space, and a call to action to motivate people to be interested, involved, and consider incorporating this into their cancer care every day.

What do institutions need to build a successful theranostics program?

[You need] a clinical champion. You need good physics support and good clinical support from nursing and nuclear medicine technologists and/or radiation therapists, and a good referral collaborative effort between other specialties. Whether that’s nuclear medicine, medical oncology, or some of the surgical specialties, you need that comprehensive mindset because for a lot of radiation oncologists, it would be an add-on to what they’re used to doing each day with brachytherapy or external beam radiation. So, a good team of nursing and other sub-specialists to make sure that the patient journey is good and care is delivered in a high-quality manner, and that it can be successfully incorporated into standard practice without too much of a hassle.

What has your experience been with the theranostics program at BAMF Health?

We’re unique in the sense that we are a dedicated theranostic center, where we are vertically integrated, and we do radiopharmaceutical production of the imaging agents. Those diagnostic tests that we’re talking about, where we’re producing the radiopharmaceutical, we’re imaging that patient on site, where we’re able to expeditiously determine if they qualify for the theranostic type treatment. Then we deliver that treatment on our second floor. We’re a fully integrated center to ensure that patients entering who might qualify for theranostics can have everything accounted for. We also run somewhere between 20 and 30 clinical trials, where [we are] looking to expand beyond the current indications in prostate cancer and neuroendocrine tumors. These unique theranostic-only centers are becoming more prevalent and will continue to grow over the years. It’s an exciting time for the field.

What emerging theranostic tools are exciting?

Some of the emerging things within theranostics include different radioisotopes—right now, the FDA-approved treatments are called beta emitters, so [they’re an] effective but more gentle treatment, and they do work, but for some folks, they don't. There are therapies called alpha emitters, which are more potent, pack a bigger punch, and may potentially have more success in treating more resistant or stubborn cancers. There’s a lot of evolution in the type of targets that are being investigated. Clinical trials are currently covering somewhere between 10 and 20 different tumor types. Again, there are only 2 FDA-approved treatments: one is for prostate cancer, and one is for neuroendocrine tumor. Just the thought and the ability to dive into additional targets to try and find solutions for things like breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, [colorectal] cancer, gynecologic cancers, etc, is incredibly exciting. You’re just seeing a ton of investment from an infrastructure, research, and clinical trials perspective to advancing this. There are somewhere around 100 clinical trials looking at different agents. Some of the most exciting aspects are just the fact that there's so much excitement within the field.

Where do you see the space going in the next 3 to 5 years?

People are seeing the promise, and some have quoted theranostics as an additional pillar within cancer care for the years to come. In those next 3 to 5 years, that’s what we’re going to see. We’re going to continue to see evolution. The therapies are going to get better. People [will] live longer with a better quality of life, and we're going to see more FDA-approved agents so that people beyond prostate cancer and neuroendocrine tumors can have additional options in this space. Even those with prostate cancer or neuroendocrine tumors will have additional options to continue to maintain good quality and quantity of life as well. A lot of promise. We’ll also be seeing things like combination therapies, potentially combining with immunotherapy, targeted agents, or chemotherapies, along with that theranostic agent. It’s limitless. As far as where this will go, we’ll see personalized dosing, personalized treatment schedules, and probably much larger doses than we give now, extending those treatments beyond what we give now. We’re in [theranostics’] infancy, and it’s going to grow exponentially over the next few years.

Theranostics in Radiation Oncology: What is it and Why is it Important? 

“OS was superior with myeloablative conditioning and transplantation in first complete remission [CR1], while older age was associated with inferior outcomes,” according to the study authors.

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation with myeloablative conditioning improved long-term overall survival (OS) among certain patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to 17-year findings from a single-center study presented in a poster session at the 

Among 120 adult patients with ALL, treatment yielded a median OS of 10.5 years (95% CI, 3.4-not reached [NR]). The OS rates were 78%, 61%, and 54% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Additionally, the median OS was 10.5 years among those who received myeloablative conditioning compared with 1.6 years for patients who underwent reduced-intensity or nonmyeloablative (RIC/NMA) regimens (

Data showed a median OS that was NR among patients who were 18 to 39 years old, 10.5 years among those who were 40 to 59 years old, and 1.2 years among those who were 60 to 75 years old (

 <.001). Investigators noted that OS outcomes were comparable based on lineage, donor matching, race, and sex.

“OS was superior with myeloablative conditioning and transplantation in first complete remission [CR1], while older age was associated with inferior outcomes. Engraftment was universal and early non-relapse mortality [NRM] was low across conditioning strategies,” lead study author Cristian Taborda, MD, a clinical fellow in Medical Oncology and Hematology at Yale Cancer Center and Yale School of Medicine, wrote with coauthors in the poster.

 “Within the RIC/NMA group, pentostatin [Nipent] and low-dose total body irradiation [TBI] demonstrated survival comparable to other RIC/NMA regimens over long-term follow-up.”

According to the study authors, allogeneic transplant represents a potentially curative strategy for adult patients with ALL, with post-transplant outcomes often influenced by relapse, NRM, and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). According to prior literature, the use of hematopoietic cell transplant with RIC yielded a 3-year OS rate of 38% (95% CI, 33%-44%) in a population of patients 55 years and older with B-cell ALL (B-ALL).

However, survival outcomes may vary depending on different conditioning strategies and patient subgroups. Consequently, investigators sought to assess long-term outcomes among adult patients undergoing allogeneic transplantation for ALL. The study assessed how conditioning intensity and key clinical features may have impacted outcomes across 17 years.

The retrospective single-center analysis took place from 2008 to 2025. Conditioning regimens of interest included myeloablative strategies as well as RIC/NMA platforms using fludarabine- or pentostatin-based treatment with low-dose TBI. Additionally, investigators evaluated calcineurin-inhibitor–based GVHD prophylaxis, and 26% of patients underwent post-transplant cyclophosphamide.

The study’s end points included engraftment, NRM at 100 days, acute and chronic GVHD, and OS. Regarding disease subtypes, patients typically had Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)–negative B-ALL (51%) followed by Ph-positive B-ALL (35%) and T-cell ALL (14%).

The median follow-up was 6 years (95% CI, 5.1-8.0). The median patient age was 43 years (range, 18-75), and 58% of the population were male. Additionally, 70% of patients had CR1 at the time of transplant, and 58% underwent myeloablative conditioning. Regarding donor types, the most common included mismatched unrelated donors (51%), matched related donors (30%), matched unrelated donors (14%), and mismatched related donors (5%).

Study data showed that all patients (100%) underwent engraftment, and the 100-day NRM rate was 7.5%. Grade 2 to 4 instances of acute GVHD occurred in 8.3% of patients, while 39% experienced chronic GVHD. Among 52 patients who died, the most common causes of death included relapse (40%), infections (15%), organ failure (11.5%), and GVHD (2%); 31.5% of patients died due to other causes.

Taborda C, Isufi I, Bar N, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a 17-year single-center experience. Presented at: 2026 Transplantation & Cellular Therapy Meetings of ASTCT and CIBMTR; February 4-7, 2026; Salt Lake City, UT. Abstract 138.

Rosko A, Wang HL, de Lima M, et al. Reduced intensity conditioned allograft yields favorable survival for older adults with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. 

. 2017;92(1):42-49. doi:10.1002/ajh.24575

Older age appeared to correlate with worse survival among those undergoing allogenic hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia.