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

Targeting Metabolic Vulnerability: Fasting Mimicking Diets and TNBC Sensitization

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a challenging subtype to treat due to its aggressive nature and lack of targeted hormonal receptors. However, emerging research suggests that the metabolic landscape of TNBC may be its "Achilles’ heel."

In this interview, Ifeoma Dikeocha, PhD, spoke with CancerNetwork® and discussed the synergistic potential of fasting mimicking diets (FMD) when paired with standard-of-care chemotherapy. Dikeocha explored the mechanistic rationale behind why metabolic restriction—specifically the reduction of circulating glucose, insulin, and IGF-1—sensitizes TNBC cells to cytotoxic agents like doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. By exploiting the inherent metabolic vulnerabilities of this subtype, FMD represents a promising adjunctive strategy to enhance therapeutic index and improve survival outcomes.

Dikeocha is a PhD candidate from the University of Adelaide.

Basically, triple-negative breast cancer, repeatedly, shows strong sensitization signals on the metabolic restriction, and this is very well seen when this metabolic procedure is combined with chemotherapy. In our study, and in the preclinical studies fasting mimicking diet when combined with and agent like doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide, would reduce tumor growth and it improves survival. From the literature, we saw that triple-negative models.

When we think about it mechanistically, the rationale was while triple-negative breast cancer may be more responsive, it also aligns with the other vulnerabilities that dietary interventions, like fasting mimicking diets are designed to exploit. Essentially reducing circulating glucose, also reducing insulin and IGF-1, that’s insulin-like growth factor 1, which basically, reduces apoptosis, and slows down inflammation in the system as well. In summary, we can say that triple-negative breast cancer appears to be a metabolically vulnerable subtype and diets like fasting mimicking diets or calorie restriction, can exploit this vulnerability, and especially when chemotherapy is introduced, this would then enhance the treatment responses.

Dikeocha IJ, Wardill HR, Coller JK, Bowen JM. Dietary interventions and tumor response to chemotherapy in breast cancer: A comprehensive review of preclinical and clinical data. 

. 2024;63:462-475. doi:10.1016/j.clnesp.2024.06.048

Videos

Ifeoma Dikeocha, PhD, explains why triple-negative breast cancer is uniquely sensitive to fasting mimicking diets. 

Deb Schrag, MD, MPH, will assume the role as ASCO president in 2027, and hopes to continue the work of transcending global, political, and geographic barriers in oncology.

Gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, Deb Schrag, MD, MPH, describes as like playing soccer. It’s a team sport, including not just medical oncologists but radiation oncologists, surgeons, and the entire multidisciplinary team. The incoming American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) president for the 2027-28 term began her career at Columbia Presbyterian during the “triple epidemic” of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, and cocaine. Training during that period changed her point of view and career trajectory.

“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 ultimately what the outcomes were,” Schrag, chair in the Department of Medicine, and George J. Bosl Chair at Memorial Sloane Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), said in an interview with CancerNetwork®. “It launched my interest in public health, and I decided to obtain further training in public health, population science, and GI oncology.”

From esophageal cancer to gastric cancer, GI oncology is made up of many diverse diseases, which allowed Schrag to utilize her population science and public health background in her oncology career. She further noted that some diseases are related to environmental exposure and have genetic susceptibility, which piqued her interest.

Schrag is a New Yorker at heart, but she also trained in Boston. Both are major hubs located on the East Coast that come with their own ways to go about life. Part of the reason she loves working in New York City (NYC) is the “diverse life experiences” that she encounters on a daily basis, especially with patients from all over the world who come for treatment at MSKCC. Even though NYC and Boston are urban centers, patients still travel from rural or suburban areas to receive care. 

“…people bring their cultures and traditions and values, and that includes cultures where we don’t use the word cancer, just different coping styles, different traditions. It makes the job of being a clinical oncologist challenging, but also incredibly rewarding, and it has been such a privilege to learn about people’s lives from [different] countries,” Schrag said.

Having worked with ASCO since her early career days, Schrag highlighted that she has made connections from all over the country and the world. These relationships have allowed her to have a community and sounding board whether working on research projects or thinking about tough cases.

Now, as Schrag prepares to step into the most influential role ASCO has to offer, she’s preparing to do so in a “big picture” way. ASCO’s mission to work with the global cancer community and “join forces to align for the best values that transcend political, geographic, and economic boundaries” is why Schrag has stayed with the organization.

At the conclusion of her presidency, she noted that having an effective team and patient’s or ASCO members knowing their voice matters would be a hallmark of an effective legacy.

At the beginning of Schrag’s career, oncology was more of a general field. However, as the years passed, research and sub-specialties became more prevalent.

“When I started training, there were fewer than 50 drugs to treat cancer, and now there’s more than 1000. It is no longer possible for 1 human being to retain all that knowledge. It used to be that we memorized all the drugs and all their [adverse] effects. That’s not possible [anymore]. How we access information and knowledge has changed, and how we do our work has changed,” Schrag said.

Schrag is especially proud of the work she has done to make cancer care more responsive to patient needs. When we develop new cancer treatments, we now understand what those drugs are like from the patient’s perspective, not just the clinician’s perspective. We are improving outcomes for our patients such that its not just about living longer, its also about living well. To accomplish that, we have to partner with patients to understand their experiences.

“A patient is in a doctor’s office every 2 or 3 weeks noting his or her symptoms, but a patient is living with that nausea all the time. We needed to know from the patient’s perspective, not [just] Tuesday afternoon when you’re in the doctor's office, ‘How bad is the nausea?’ What can we do to help you cope with your treatment better and help you live well? Not just when you are at your oncology visit. Because we know that Tuesday afternoon when you’re in the doctor’s office, the doctor is interested in is the nausea significant enough today that I need to make a change in my treatment plan that’s different than what your experience has been over this 3-week interval coping with this treatment and its [adverse] effects. We developed a system to get from patients the severity of [adverse] effects, the frequency of [adverse] effects and how much they’re interfering with patients day-to-day lives,” Schrag said. “We say patient centered [care], but what does that mean? We developed how to ask it in a reproducible, rigorous way. We developed the right questions, made them accessible, available in [many] languages, and now I’m proud to say that they’re integrated into electronic health records and used in many trials around the world.”

As Schrag looked back at her career, she reminisced on a piece of advice she tries to live up to every day, “Don’t forget to read.”

While she does take this advice literally and tries to find time to read about different aspects of medicine than what she practices in, she also thinks about it from an aspect of always staying curious or wanting to learn something new. In today’s digital age, having that curiosity, the focus, and wanting to learn something new can be hard, but it’s a necessary skill.

“Your attention is a precious gift, and it is a powerful tool. Stay curious. Stay engaged. Keep paying attention. Learn something new,” Schrag concluded.

Dr. Deb Schrag elected ASCO president for 2027-28 term. News release. 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

Articles

Deb Schrag, MD, MPH, will assume the role as ASCO president in 2027, and hopes to continue the work of transcending global, political, and geographic barriers in oncology. 

‘Stay Curious’ Incoming ASCO President Notes Regarding Successes of Career 

Community Centers vs Institutional Centers: The Costs of Cancer Care

Cancer treatment is not inexpensive. As treatments continue to improve and survival rates continue to rise, they continue to become more costly. It is one of many aspects of the conversations surrounding the finances of oncology.

There are different types of oncology centers, however, and in these different centers, there is nuance required in handling the costs associated with cancer care. CancerNetwork® spoke with Loretta Nastoupil, MD, about these differences.

Nastoupil, a practicing oncologist at Southwest Oncology in Durango, Colorado, an affiliate of CommonSpirit Oncology Mercy, but once practiced at MD Anderson Cancer Center, has a unique perspective on how the finances are differently handled at a community cancer center compared with an academic, institutional cancer center.

Firstly, Nastoupil highlighted the differences in resources that were available at MD Anderson. Her ancillary staff of nurses, research coordinators, and administrators were capable of handling the regulatory aspects of oncology, like the paperwork. At Southwest Oncology, she no longer has that experience. She spoke directly about wanting to open a clinical trial; however, the center does not have enough staff to dedicate the necessary resources to filling out the necessary paperwork.

Trials, in her opinion, can not only expand the options of treatment available to patients, but it also helps the care providers become familiar with newer treatments that require practice to become adept with. She referenced bispecific antibodies and CAR T-cell therapy as one example of this.

What are the differences in finances when practicing at an institutional center vs at a local community practice?

MD Anderson was unique in that it was a cancer center that was affiliated with the University of Texas, and so there were probably large state-based academic programs that were part of the university. We were a subsidiary of that. But what I was really accustomed to is [having] a large group of ancillary staff. We had a huge number of research staff in the form of research nurses, research coordinators, and staff who handled all of the regulatory aspects, such as [institutional review board] and making sure we were up to date on all of our paperwork.

Now I’m in a center where I would love to open clinical trials so that I, again, can serve the community where patients want to stay and live. They don’t want to travel most of the time to receive care, so it would behoove me to open trials in a setting like where [I am] now, given I have an understanding and history of how to conduct trials. But there are challenges in terms of who’s going to fund that infrastructure. We don’t have additional staff that can pick up that additional burden in terms of the paperwork aspect of opening trials. [T]hat’s a major difference between a large academic practice that’s affiliated with the university vs a community practice that doesn’t have the resources to fund the research infrastructure, which is important if we’re going to continue to provide good quality care to patients, and also to train our staff on some of the latest developments, because some of these newer therapies, including bispecifics and CAR-Ts, have unique toxicity profiles.

The best way to train everyone that’s going to [engage] with that patient is on a clinical trial, where you have a more controlled environment. You have a protocol that outlines exactly what toxicity to watch for, how to manage it, and you’re usually doing it in a one case at a time situation where you get to learn. That’s a big disservice to [patients with cancer] in the US, not having access to a number of clinical trials so you can view it through the lens of “it’s experimental”, and not “tried and true”. Oftentimes, patients say they don’t want to be our guinea pig. There is a fine balance of trying to provide the infrastructure to do things that are innovative, and provide access to the latest and greatest, while doing that in a center where you don’t have the resources to support it.

While institutional cancer centers boast large amounts of resources, community centers do not always have the resources to initiate clinical trials, according to Loretta Nastoupil, MD.

A PDUFA data of the second quarter of 2026 has been set for Dato-DXd in patients with unresectable or metastatic TNBC.

A supplemental biologics license for datopotamab deruxtecan-dlnk (Dato-DXd; Datroway) has been accepted and granted priority review by the FDA for unresectable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer for patients who are not eligible for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy, according to a press release from AstraZeneca.

This decision was based on results from the 

phase 3 TROPION-Breast02 trial (NCT05374512)

 A Prescription Drug User Fee Act date has been set for the second quarter of 2026.

“[Dato-DXd] is the only medicine to significantly improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy in this patient population as demonstrated in the TROPION-Breast02 trial – the results of which are even more striking considering the trial enrolled a subset of patients with highly aggressive disease. The priority review of our submission underscores the impact of these results and its review under Project Orbis signals a widely shared commitment to bringing [Dato-DXd] to patients around the world as quickly as possible,” Susan Galbraith, executive vice president, Oncology Hematology Research and Development, AstraZeneca, said in the press release.

European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2025

. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.8 months (95% CI, 8.6-13.0) via investigator’s choice of chemotherapy vs 5.6 months (95% CI, 5.0-7.0) for investigator’s choice of chemotherapy; with a 43% reduction in disease progression or death (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.69; 

Additionally, the median overall survival (OS) was 23.7 months (95% CI, 19.8-25.6) in the Dato-DXd arm vs 18.7 months (95% CI, 16.0-21.8) in the chemotherapy arm; this showed a 21% reduction in the risk of death (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.60-0.98; P = .0291). At 12 and 18 months, the OS rates were 75.2% vs 67.8% and 61.2% vs 51.3%, respectively.

The investigator-assessed PFS was 9.6 months (95% CI, 7.4-11.2) in the Dato-DXd arm vs 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.2-5.6) in the chemotherapy arm and was consistent with blinded independent central review (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47-0.67). The 12- and 18-months rates were 40.7% vs 18.5% and 27.5% vs 9.2%, respectively.

The objective response rate (ORR) was 62.5% vs 29.3%, between each arm. This demonstrated a 33.2% difference (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 3.03-5.95). A complete response was achieved by 9.0% of patients as their best overall response, 53.6% had partial responses, and 26.9% had stable disease. Additionally, 8.4% of patients experienced disease progression and 2.2% were not evaluable for response. The median duration of response (DOR) was 12.3 months (95% CI, 9.1-15.9) compared with 7.1 months (95% CI, 5.6-8.9).

“[The trial] met both dual primary end points, [with] first-line Dato-DXd demonstrating statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in OS and PFS over [investigator’s choice of chemotherapy]. TROPION-Breast02 results support Data-DXd as the new first-line standard of care for patients with locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic TNBC for whom immunotherapy is not an option.” Rebecca Dent, MD, MSc, head of the department of Medical Oncology at the National Cancer Center Singapore at SingHealth, said during the presentation of the data.

The TROPION-Breast02 trial randomly assigned patients 1:1 to either receive Dato-DXd at 6 mg/kg on day 1 every 3 weeks (n = 323) or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (n = 321). The dual primary end points were PFS and OS. Key secondary end points included investigator-assessed PFS, ORR, DOR, and safety.

The most common treatment-related adverse effects (TRAEs) in the Dato-DXd arm were dry eye (any grade, 24%; grade ≥3, 1%), stomatitis (57%; 8%), nausea (45%; <1%), constipation (23%; <1%), vomiting (20%; 1%), and decreased appetite (15%; <1%). TRAEs of special interest were oral mucositis or stomatitis (grade 1, 24%; grade 2, 27%; grade ≥3, 8%).

Datroway granted priority review in the US as 1st-line treatment for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who are not candidates for immunotherapy. News release. AstraZeneca. February 3, 2026. February 3, 2026. https://tinyurl.com/2mp7h466

Dent RA, Shao Z, Schmid P, et al. First-line datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) vs chemotherapy in patients with locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) for whom immunotherapy was not an option: primary results from the randomised, phase 3 TROPION-Breast02 trial. Presented at: 2025 ESMO Congress; October 17-21, 2025; Berlin, Germany. Abstract LBA21.

A PDUFA data of the second quarter of 2026 has been set for Dato-DXd in patients with unresectable or metastatic TNBC. 

Dato-DXd Receives Priority Review in Unresectable/Metastatic TNBC

A phase 1/2 trial will evaluate N17350 in patients with pretreated, advanced solid tumors, such as head and neck neoplasms, NSCLC, and melanoma, among others.

N17350, a first-in-class biologic, is the subject of an investigational new drug (IND) application cleared by the FDA for the treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors, according to a press release from the developer, Onchilles Pharma. The clearance enables the company to initiate a first-in-human phase 1/2 trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and preliminary activity of the novel agent, which leverages a previously untapped immune pathway.

“IND clearance for N17350 marks an important milestone for Onchilles and reflects years of rigorous work establishing the ELANE pathway as a clinically actionable mechanism to improve the treatment of cancer,” Lev Becker, PhD, co-founder and chief scientific officer of Onchilles Pharma, stated in the press release.

 “From the beginning, this work was driven by fundamental observations in patients. What emerged was a mechanism that broadly kills cancer cells while preserving and activating immune cells, thereby transforming cancer cell death into long-lasting anti-tumor immunity. We now can evaluate in the clinic a differentiated, cancer-selective mechanism that overcomes limitations of current treatment paradigms.”

As a first-in-human study, clinical efficacy data for N17350 are not yet available; however, preclinical findings supporting the IND application suggest a potent and selective antitumor mechanism. N17350 is designed to mimic the natural immune surveillance ELANE pathway. The ELANE pathway is a unique cancer-selective killing mechanism that leverages elevated histone H1 levels.

Preclinical models demonstrated that the agent could induce rapid cancer cell death across a broad range of solid tumor types, regardless of the tumor’s underlying genetic mutations or existing resistance to standard-of-care therapies. This broad-spectrum potential position N17350 as a possible treatment for a variety of high-unmet-need cancers.

“The preclinical data supporting N17350 suggest a mechanism that kills tumors and simultaneously primes the immune system,” added Alain P. Algazi, MD, the director and program leader of Head and Neck Medical Oncology at UCSF.

 “If this dual activity translates clinically, it could represent a meaningful advance for patients with tumors that are difficult to treat with existing cytotoxic or immunotherapy approaches.” Algazi is also the Onchilles N17350 Clinical Advisory Board Chair.

The phase 1/2 trial (NCT07339176) is an open-label, dose finding and dose expansion study designed to characterize the safety and preliminary antitumor activity of N17350.

 The trial will be conducted in 2 distinct parts. Part 1, the dose finding phase, focuses on identifying the maximum tolerated dose and the recommended phase 2 dose. Part 2, the expansion phase, will further evaluate the safety and efficacy of the agent at the identified therapeutic dose in specific tumor cohorts.

The treatment regimen involves the administration of N17350 via intravenous infusion, including a dose range from 1 mg/ml to 4 mg/ml, on a standardized schedule, every second week for 8 or 12 weeks.

Eligibility criteria require participants to have advanced or metastatic solid tumors that have progressed despite standard curative or palliative therapies. Tumor types included are melanoma, head and neck neoplasms, squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, non–small cell lung cancer, and triple-negative breast cancer. Patients also had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, adequate recovery from prior therapy, and adequate hematologic, hepatic, and renal function, as defined by laboratory parameters.

Exclusion criteria include patients with history of solid organ transplant, a history of significant cardiovascular disease, or those who have received prior systemic anticancer therapy within 21 days or five half-lives before the first dose.

The primary end points of the study are the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities and the overall safety and tolerability profile of N17350, including the frequency and severity of adverse events. Secondary end points include the characterization of pharmacokinetic parameters, such as the area under the curve, maximum plasma concentration, and half-life. The study will also evaluate preliminary antitumor activity as a secondary objective, utilizing the objective response rate and duration of response according to RECIST v1.1 criteria.

The study will specifically look for infusion-related reactions and potential immune-mediated toxicities, given the agent’s role in modulating innate immune responses. The initiation of this phase 1 study marks the start of a clinical journey to determine if N17350 can translate its promising preclinical activity into a clinical benefit for patients with advanced cancer.

“N17350 is fundamentally different from traditional cytotoxic chemotherapies or immunotherapies,” Court R. Turner, JD, co-founder and chief executive officer of Onchilles Pharma, added.

 “By leveraging the ELANE pathway, we are advancing a cancer-selective therapeutic approach designed to eliminate tumors as well as preserve and train the immune system to respond at the same time. As we move into clinical testing, we believe this approach has the potential to address unmet needs across many different tumor types.”

Onchilles Pharma announces IND clearance for N17350. News release. Onchilles Pharma. January 2, 2026. Accessed February 3, 2026. https://tinyurl.com/mu45az68

Intratumoral N17350 in Advanced Solid Tumors (OP-NEU-101). ClinicalTrials.gov. Updated January 14, 2026. Accessed February 3, 2026. https://tinyurl.com/2mjevj33

FDA Clears IND for Tumor-Directed Therapeutic Candidate in Solid Tumors

The developers engineered CD19 t-haNK as an allogeneic NK-92-based cell therapy genetically engineered to express a CD19-specific chimeric antigen receptor and a high-affinity CD16 receptor.

ResQ215B (NCT07125872), a phase 2 clinical study, was initiated to evaluate an off-the-shelf CD19-targeted high-affinity natural killer (NK) cell therapy, CD19 t-haNK, in combination with nogapendekin-alfa inbakicept-pmln (Anktiva) and rituximab (Rituxan) in patients with indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), including Waldenström Macroglobulinemia, according to a news release from the developer, ImmunityBio, Inc.

The trial was designed to investigate the efficacy of the interleukin-15 (IL-15) superagonist in combination with an off-the-shelf CD19-targeted natural killer (NK) cell therapy and rituximab for individuals who experienced disease progression after prior treatment. Investigators initiated this study to establish a more outpatient treatment paradigm that may avoid the toxicities associated with conventional lymphodepleting chemotherapy. By stimulating both the innate and adaptive branches of the immune system, the research team aims to improve the depth and durability of anti-tumor activity in individuals with relapsed or refractory disease.

Efficacy findings from the Phase 1 QUILT-106 study (NCT06334991), which evaluated the combination of CD19 CAR-NK cells and rituximab without the addition of nogapendekin-alfa inbakicept or chemotherapy, supported the start of the phase 2 ResQ215B trial. In the phase 1 study, a disease control rate (DCR) of 100% was observed among the first 4 patients treated for Waldenström Macroglobulinemia. Additionally, complete remissions (CRs) were reported in 2 patients, which were ongoing at 7 and 15 months of follow-up, respectively, and no subsequent treatment was delivered.

Furthermore, investigators noted results from the previously published phase 1 QUILT-3.002 trial (NCT02384954), which demonstrated that nogapendekin-alfa inbakicept combined with rituximab achieved a 78% CR rate in patients with relapsed indolent NHL who had previously experienced progression following rituximab monotherapy.

“Our BioShield platform, which combines cell therapy, our IL-15 superagonist, and a monoclonal antibody in an outpatient, chemotherapy-free setting, represents our vision for Immunotherapy 2.0,” Patrick Soon-Shiong, MD, founder, executive chairman, and global chief medical and scientific officer of ImmunityBio, said in the news release. “Building on the durable [CRs] observed with our CD19 CAR-NK cell therapy plus rituximab in Waldenström Macroglobulinemia, we are now adding [nogapendekin-alfa inbakicept] to further arm the immune system. We believe this off-the-shelf immunotherapy platform can trigger powerful anti-tumor activity without the toxicities of traditional treatments, potentially transforming the treatment paradigm for patients with indolent B-cell malignancies.”

The ResQ215B phase 2 study is an open-label trial enrolling adults with CD19-positive and CD20-positive indolent NHL. Eligible subtypes for the study include follicular lymphoma and Waldenström Macroglobulinemia. Patients are required to have relapsed or refractory disease following at least 2 prior lines of therapy. Treatment will be given in 21-day cycles in the outpatient setting without preconditioning chemotherapy.

The developers engineered CD19 t-haNK as an allogeneic NK-92-based cell therapy genetically engineered to express a CD19-specific chimeric antigen receptor and a high-affinity CD16 receptor. This dual engineering allows the cells to target CD19-expressing malignant B cells directly through CAR-mediated cytotoxicity while augmenting antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity when paired with the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab.

“A therapy that does not require apheresis, individualized manufacturing, chemotherapy, or inpatient hospitalization would represent an important advance for patients with [indolent] NHL, who are regarded as having incurable lymphomas,” Lennie Sender, MD, chief medical officer for Cell Therapy and Liquid Tumors at ImmunityBio, stated in the release. “To date, all treated patients have received the therapy in an outpatient setting without significant immune-related toxicities, demonstrating the feasibility of delivering potent cellular therapy without hospital admission. With ResQ215B, we will evaluate whether adding [nogapendekin-alfa inbakicept] can further improve response rates and durability while maintaining this favorable safety profile.”

ImmunityBio launches phase 2 chemotherapy-free CAR-NK cell therapy trial with ANKTIVA® (ResQ215B) in indolent lymphomas. News release. ImmunityBio. February 2, 2026. Accessed February 2, 2026. https://tinyurl.com/yckfyj5h

Phase 1 QUILT-3.002 data showed that combining an IL-15 superagonist with rituximab achieved a 78% CR rate in those with rituximab-refractory disease. 