Blood Cancer Talks

This is a podcast on latest advances in the understanding and management of blood cancers. Here, we will bring a wide range of experts within hematologic malignancies to discuss various topics in depth. Host: Raj Chakraborty, MD from Columbia University, New York, Ashwin Kishtagari, MD, from Vanderbilt University, Nashville, and Edward Cliff, MD, from Harvard University, Boston Tweet your suggestions and feedback to @rajshekharucms @AshKishtagari @Eddie_Cliff @BloodCancerTalk

Blood Cancer Talks is a education podcast hosted by Unknown Host, with 0 episodes on record and a Required Pod Score of 80. PitchCentric scores this show on Booking Probability, Listen Score, and live audience signals refreshed every 24 hours.

Unknown Host hosts Blood Cancer Talks, a education show with 0 episodes published.

Our AI reads these to draft pitches. Use them as grounding for a pitch that cites a real guest and a specific topic.

• 

  Episode #75

  Episode 74. Myeloma Updates from ASCO/EHA 2026 with Dr. Prashant Kapoor

  Sep 3, 202658 min

  Blood Cancer Talks — Show Notes Episode: Best of ASCO/EHA 2026 — Multiple Myeloma & AL Amyloidosis Guest: Dr. Prashant Kapoor, MD Professor of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN Chair, Myeloma, Amyloidosis and Dysproteinemia Group, Mayo Clinic Episode Overview In this episode, the hosts sit down with Dr. Prashant Kapoor to review the highest-impact multiple myeloma and AL amyloidosis data from the 2026 ASCO and EHA annual meetings. The discussion centers on the rapidly shifting relapsed/refractory myeloma landscape, where a wave of phase 3 trials of T-cell engaging immunotherapies (bispecific antibodies and CAR T) have now each demonstrated superiority over traditional triplet regimens. Topics Covered 1. MajesTEC-3 Phase 3, open-label trial of teclistamab + daratumumab SC (n=291) vs. investigator's choice of DPd or DVd (n=296) in 587 patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma and 1–3 prior lines; prior BCMA-directed therapy and anti-CD38-refractory disease were exclusions (only 5% CD38-exposed, none were refractory). Initially presented at ASH 2025, with cytogenetic subgroup data updated at EHA 2026. Key results (34.5-month median follow-up): Median PFS not reached with Tec-Dara vs. 18.1 months with DPd/DVd; 36-month PFS 83.4% vs. 29.7% (HR 0.17) 36-month OS 83.3% vs. 65.0% (HR 0.46) Severe infection rate front-loaded: ~35% → ~17% between the first and second 6-month windows, plateauing at ~10–11%/window beyond 12 months; overall grade 3–4 infection 54%, 4.6% fatal infections (mostly without IVIG prophylaxis) EHA 2026 cytogenetic subgroup: 2-year PFS 90% (0 HRCA), 82% (1 HRCA), 76% (≥2 HRCA) — vs. only 14% with DPd/DVd in patients with ≥2 HRCA Discussion points: Applicability to patients at 1st/2nd relapse seen in clinic today; whether infection risk limits use of Tec-Dara at first relapse; implications of the high-risk cytogenetic subgroup data. 2. MajesTEC-9 Phase 3 trial of teclistamab monotherapy vs. investigator's choice of PVd or Kd in relapsed/refractory myeloma enrolling a heavily anti-CD38-refractory population (100% CD38-exposed, 85% refractory) — the population MajesTEC-3 excluded. Natural comparator: CARTITUDE-4 (phase 3, cilta-cel vs. DPd/PVd in Len-refractory myeloma, 1–3 prior lines, ~25% CD38-refractory/exposed). Key results (~18-month median follow-up): 18-month PFS 70% vs. 27% (HR 0.29); 18-month OS 79% vs. 69% (HR 0.6), despite ~2/3 of control-arm patients receiving BsAb/CAR T as subsequent therapy Discussion points: Cross-trial comparison with CARTITUDE-4 — comparable 18-month PFS on cross-trial comparison, but differing populations (CARTITUDE-4 required Len-refractory disease; MajesTEC-9 enrolled a more CD38-refractory population) and differing maturity (~3-year vs. ~1.5-year follow-up); how Dr. Kapoor chooses between teclistamab and cilta-cel at earlier-line relapse in Len- and CD38-refractory patients, given the divergent toxicity profiles — ongoing infection risk with continuous BsAb dosing vs. the one-time cilta-cel infusion with its rare but potentially irreversible delayed neurotoxicity, IEC-enterocolitis, and CTTLN risk. 3. MonumenTAL-3 Phase 3 trial — the first phase 3 study of a GPRC5D-targeted bispecific — randomizing 864 patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma (mostly Len-refractory, ~10% CD38-exposed but none refractory) 1:1:1 to Tal-Dara-Pom (n=287), Tal-Dara (n=287), or DPd (n=290), each Talq arm compared against the common DPd control. Presented by Peter Voorhees at EHA 2026 and simultaneously published in NEJM. Key results (24.6-month median follow-up): Both Talq arms significantly improved PFS over DPd: Tal-DP HR 0.28, Tal-D HR 0.33 (both P OS also favored both Talq arms, up to 89.2% vs. 79.1% (DPd) at 24 months Safety reflected regimen composition: more neutropenia/grade 3–4 infection with the Pom-containing arm; Talq arms showed frequent but mostly low-grade CRS, rare ICANS, and expected dysgeusia/skin-nail toxicity with weight loss (up to ~46% in Tal-DP) Discussion points: Not powered for a Tal-Dara vs. Tal-Dara-Pom comparison — did adding pomalidomide meaningfully change efficacy or safety; how to choose between a BCMA-directed and a GPRC5D-directed bispecific at first relapse given overlapping eligible populations with MajesTEC-3. 4. LINKER-AL2 — AL Amyloidosis Phase 1/2, open-label study of single-agent, fixed-duration linvoseltamab in patients with relapsed, refractory, or suboptimally responding systemic AL amyloidosis after ≥1 prior therapy (~60% prior daratumumab-containing regimen). Data presented in 20 patients at 80 mg (n=7) or 240 mg (n=13). Key results: No grade ≥3 CRS at either dose; any-grade CRS in 50% (35% grade 1, 15% grade 2); infusion-related reactions in 45% (mostly during step-up dosing); no DLTs, no notable ICANS Hematologic ORR 100% (80 mg) and ~92% (240 mg); hematologic CR reached 100% at the 240 mg dose in the most recent update Rapid responses — involved FLC often normalized within ~15 days; median time to hematologic CR ~47 days Discussion points: Frames LINKER-AL2 alongside other BCMA-targeting BsAbs in AL amyloidosis (etentamig, elranatamab) as promising options for patients with suboptimal hematologic response to frontline Dara-CyBorD, particularly transplant-ineligible patients; how Dr. Kapoor would choose among BCMA-targeting BsAbs as 2nd-line therapy (trial or off-label) for a transplant-eligible patient with a suboptimal response to Dara-CyBorD

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Episode #74

  Episode 73. ASCO and EHA 2026 Lymphoma Roundup with Dr. Thomas Lew

  Jul 24, 202646 min

  BloodCancerTalks: ASCO/EHA 2026 Lymphoma Round-Up with Dr. Thomas Lew Guest: Dr. Thomas Lew, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (Melbourne, Australia) — hematologist specializing in lymphoid malignancies. In this episode, we break down the biggest lymphoma and CLL data from ASCO and EHA 2026 (Chicago and Stockholm), covering mantle cell lymphoma genomics, bispecific antibodies in DLBCL and follicular lymphoma, a practice-changing (or not) CNS prophylaxis study, transplant-eligible relapsed DLBCL, fixed-duration BTK/BCL2 combinations in CLL, and the first in vivo CAR T data in lymphoma. 1. TRIANGLE: TP53-Mutated MCL Molecular Subgroup Analysis Molecular subgroup data from the practice-shaping TRIANGLE trial presented by Dr. Marta Grau. Discussion: Where TP53-mutated MCL stands today, and whether ibrutinib-containing regimens are changing the natural history of this historically dismal subgroup. 2. EPCORE DLBCL-1: Epcoritamab vs. Chemotherapy in R/R DLBCL Randomized phase 3 trial (n=483) of bispecific antibody epcoritamab vs. investigator's choice chemotherapy (72% R-GemOx, 28% BR) in second-line-or-later, transplant-ineligible R/R DLBCL, presented by Prof. Chris Fox. Discussion: A PFS benefit without an OS signal, set against a meaningfully higher infection-related mortality — what this means for patient selection and infection mitigation strategies. 3. CNS Prophylaxis in Ultra-High-Risk DLBCL: Does HD-MTX Help? Pooled analysis of two large multicenter retrospective cohorts (n=1,923 ultra-high-risk patients — CNS-IPI 5–6, testicular/renal/adrenal/breast involvement, or ≥3 extranodal sites), presented by Dr. Matt Wilson (Glasgow) and simultaneously published in JCO . Discussion: Whether these data close the door on routine HD-MTX in ultra-high-risk DLBCL, and if any subgroup still warrants prophylaxis. 4. Pola-R-ICE: A Negative Trial in Transplant-Eligible R/R DLBCL Randomized phase 3 study (4 European cooperative groups; n=294) of polatuzumab vedotin added to R-ICE in transplant-eligible R/R DLBCL, with ASCT/alloSCT/CAR-T permitted as consolidation. Discussion: Why this trial missed, and what it tells us about the ceiling of intensive salvage chemo-immunotherapy platforms in the CAR-T era. 5. BRUIN-CLL-322: Fixed-Duration Pirtobrutinib + Venetoclax-Rituximab in R/R CLL Randomized phase 3 trial (n=639) of fixed-duration pirtobrutinib (non-covalent BTKi) plus venetoclax-rituximab (PVR) vs. venetoclax-rituximab (VR, the MURANO-based control) in second-line-or-later R/R CLL. 6. SOUNDTRACK-F1: Surovatamig (CD19 Bispecific) Safety Run-In in Untreated Follicular Lymphoma Safety run-in from a randomized trial (surovatamig vs. chemoimmunotherapy) in untreated FL meeting GELF criteria, presented by Prof. Chan Cheah — building on EPCORE-FL-1 data presented at ASH. Discussion: How this CD19-directed bispecific compares to CD20-targeting agents in frontline FL. 7. LB2501: First In Vivo CAR T Data in B-Cell Lymphoma Late-breaking data from Dr. Lei Fan and Legend Biotech on LB2501, an in vivo CD19/CD20 dual-targeted CAR T therapy — a third-generation, self-inactivating, replication-incompetent lentiviral vector that generates CAR T cells directly in vivo, without lymphodepletion. Builds on the in vivo CAR T myeloma data first presented at ASH and updated at EHA. Discussion: What these very early but striking data suggest about the feasibility of in vivo CAR T generation in lymphoma, and how it might reshape access to cellular therapy. BloodCancerTalks is co-hosted by Rajshekhar Chakraborty, Ashwin Kishtagari and Eddie Cliff. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Episode #73

  Episode 72. frontMIND Trial in DLBCL with Dr. Charles Herbaux

  Jun 21, 202641 min

  Episode Overview For the second time in two decades, a phase 3 trial has shown a statistically significant improvement over R-CHOP in newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). In this episode, Eddie, Raj, and Ashwin sit down with Professor Charles Herbaux to unpack the data, debate the clinical implications, and ask the question that's on every hematologist's mind: is this enough to change practice? Background: Setting the Stage for Tafasitamab Before diving into frontMIND, the episode provides context on tafasitamab , a CD19-targeting monoclonal antibody L-MIND (Phase 2 — relapsed/refractory DLBCL): 81 patients with R/R DLBCL ORR 58%, complete response rate 41% Established activity of tafasitamab + lenalidomide in the relapsed setting https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32511983/ First-MIND (Phase 1b — frontline DLBCL, IPI 2–5): 66 patients randomized: tafa-R-CHOP (n=33) vs. tafa-len-R-CHOP (n=33) ORR: 75.8% vs. 81.8%, respectively Serious treatment-emergent adverse events: 42.4% vs. 51.5% Provided the signal (and the safety caution) to move to phase 3 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37369099/ The frontMIND Trial Design: Phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial Intervention: R-CHOP + tafasitamab (12 mg/kg IV days 1, 8, 15 per cycle) + lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 1–10 per cycle) Control: R-CHOP + placebos GCSF mandatory (given double-blind design); VTE prophylaxis (heparin or aspirin) mandatory given lenalidomide Enrollment: May 2021 – March 2023; 899 patients randomized Primary endpoint: Investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) Patient Population: Age 18–80; DLBCL or high-grade B-cell lymphoma, IPI 3–5 Median age: 65 years 96% advanced stage; 54% bulky disease; 31% ECOG PS 2; 82% elevated LDH 55% IPI 3 / aaIPI 2; 43% IPI 4–5 / aaIPI 3 8% double/triple hit — a high-risk subgroup included despite R-CHOP being the control Broad histologic inclusion: transformed lymphoma, grade 3B FL, T-cell/histiocyte-rich LBCL, EBV+ DLBCL, ALK+ LBCL, HHV8+ DLBCL Note: On retrospective central review, ~7% of patients had a different histology (roughly half had FL grade 1–3A), underscoring the diagnostic challenges in DLBCL ~40% received pre-phase steroids; 8% rituximab; 4% vincristine prior to cycle 1 Key Efficacy Results (Primary analysis at median follow-up 35.2 months) | Endpoint | Tafa-Len-R-CHOP | R-CHOP | HR / p-value | 2-year PFS | 71.1% | 62.9% | HR 0.75, p=0.0194 | 3-year PFS | 67.3% | 60.7% | ~6.6% absolute difference | Overall Survival | — | — | HR 0.85, p=0.27 (immature) Points of Discussion: Absolute PFS benefit at 2 years: ~8.2%; at 3 years: ~6.6% — a modest but statistically significant improvement OS curves cross early, then separate slightly from ~18 months; data remain immature Early censoring observed: ~17% (intervention) and ~14% (control) censored by 9 months — raises questions about off-protocol therapy Subgroup consistency: PFS benefit appeared consistent across prespecified subgroups; specific subgroups discussed in the episode Safety Adverse Event | Tafa-Len-R-CHOP | R-CHOP | Fatal treatment-emergent AEs | 6% (26 pts) | 4% (17 pts) | Diarrhea (any grade) | 25% | 17% | Febrile neutropenia | 17% (incl. 1 death) | 13% | Grade ≥3 anemia | 24% | 17% | Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia | 27% | 14% The addition of tafasitamab and lenalidomide to R-CHOP adds meaningful hematologic toxicity, particularly thrombocytopenia and anemia, as well as diarrhea and febrile neutropenia. Key Discussion Points from the Episode Did the early-phase L-MIND and First-MIND data justify bringing tafasitamab into the front-line setting, and was tafa-len-R-CHOP the right intervention arm to take forward? Is R-CHOP the appropriate control for a patient population that includes 8% double/triple hit lymphoma? What are the implications of using investigator-assessed PFS as the primary endpoint — and how critical is effective blinding to the integrity of that endpoint? How do we interpret the early OS curve crossing and currently non-significant OS benefit? Is the ~8% absolute PFS improvement at 2 years clinically meaningful enough to change practice — particularly given the added toxicity? How should we think about patient selection : who would you prioritize for tafa-len-R-CHOP over standard R-CHOP in clinical practice? What does frontMIND mean for the DLBCL treatment landscape alongside polatuzumab-R-CHP (POLARIX)? Resources & Further Reading frontMIND trial: Lenz et al. Lancet. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42217458/ POLARIX: Tilly H, et al. NEJM 2022 About BloodCancerTalks BloodCancerTalks is a medical education podcast hosted by Raj, Ashwin, and Eddie, dedicated to the latest advances in hematologic malignancies. New episodes available wherever you listen to podcasts. Follow us on X/Twitter for episode updates and hematology/oncology content.

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Episode #72

  Episode 71. Management of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma with Dr. Vincent Rajkumar

  May 19, 202652 min

  In this episode, Raj, Ashwin, and Eddie sit down with Dr. Vincent Rajkumar — Professor of Medicine at Mayo Clinic and Chair of the ECOG Myeloma Committee — for a clinically focused conversation on newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Topics span baseline workup, risk stratification, induction selection, transplant timing, MRD-directed decision-making, and maintenance strategy. The episode closes with a discussion of Open Medicine, a new medical education platform, and Dr. Rajkumar's ongoing advocacy on drug pricing reform. KEY TOPICS DISCUSSED Baseline workup: 24-hour urine protein: It is important to obtain 24-hour urine protein with electrophoresis and immunofixation in all newly diagnosed patients — not for diagnosis, but to establish a baseline for long-term management and to distinguish M-protein from albuminuria. In patients where an FLC ratio ≥100 is the sole myeloma-defining criterion, a 24-hour urine Bence Jones protein ≥200 mg is part of the diagnostic threshold for treatment initiation. Myeloma cast nephropathy: when to biopsy: An involved FLC ≥50 mg/dL supports a presumptive diagnosis of cast nephropathy and treatment can begin without a kidney biopsy. Below this threshold — particularly if renal involvement is the sole myeloma-defining event — kidney biopsy is warranted to exclude light chain deposition disease, MPGN, or other unrelated disorders. It warrants aggressive early treatment (Dara-VCD or Dara-VD), starting even before bone marrow results are available when the diagnosis is clinically clear. Solitary plasmacytoma [with or without minimal bone marrow involvement]: Patients with ~10% clonal plasma cells technically meet criteria for myeloma, but management in this borderline zone warrants shared decision-making. Solitary plasmacytoma as sitting between smoldering myeloma and overt myeloma on the disease spectrum. Risk stratification: revised IMWG criteria: The new revision aimed to keep the high-risk designation to ≤15–20% of patients. Del 17p alone confers high-risk status. TP53 mutation without del 17p is exceedingly rare and FISH alone captures the vast majority of cases. All other cytogenetic abnormalities (t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), 1q gain, 1p deletion, biallelic 1p) require at least one co-occurring abnormality to define high risk. Elevated β2-microglobulin with normal renal function is retained as a proxy for high tumor burden. Emergent indications for treatment initiation: The three situations warranting urgent treatment are acute cast nephropathy (days matter for renal recovery), cord compression (surgery vs. radiation vs. systemic therapy determined by acuity), and hypercalcemia. Induction regimen selection: For fit, transplant-eligible patients, the preferred induction is a quadruplet — Dara-VRd or Isa-VRd — with dose adjustment as needed. Triplets (Dara-Rd or Isa-Rd) are reserved for those unable to tolerate a quadruplet even with dose reduction. Carfilzomib-based induction is not favored: head-to-head data show no benefit of KRd over VRd in NDMM, and the cost differential is substantial. Lenalidomide dosing: Starting dose should be individualized: 15 mg for patients over 75, those with small body habitus ( Response depth before transplant: Pursuing deeper response before ASCT by switching induction regimens is not supported by evidence and may result in patients never reaching transplant. All randomized trial data use fixed induction cycles regardless of response depth. In partial responders, high-dose melphalan itself delivers the deeper response — transplant is the treatment! MRD-directed transplant decision-making: We discussed MIDAS trial, and the main limitation being short follow-up thus far, but it does show limited utility of ASCT in patients who are MRD-negative post-induction. Maintenance therapy: Doublet maintenance (Dara-len or bortezomib-len) is recommended for high-risk patients and MRD-positive standard-risk patients. Lenalidomide alone is adequate for MRD-negative standard-risk patients. Duration of maintenance is likely more consequential than drug selection — results from the ECOG (len duration) and SWOG (Dara-len vs. len, dara duration) trials are anticipated. The future of induction therapy: Improving on Dara-VRd (85% PFS at 4 years) will require demonstrating either shorter treatment duration, a potential cure signal (plateau), or replacement of transplant with CAR-T or bispecifics. Trispecific antibodies may eventually replace multi-drug regimens. Trial design must account for the fact that studies starting now may not read out for a decade. Trial inclusion of high-risk subgroups: Cast nephropathy and plasma cell leukemia are frequently excluded from industry trials due to financial and regulatory risk to sponsors. Dr. Rajkumar argues that real-world observational studies and NIH/philanthropy-funded investigator-initiated trials are the most viable path to evidence generation for these high-risk, underserved populations. TRIALS & REFERENCES MENTIONED PERSEUS — Dara-VRd induction + Dara-len maintenance in transplant-eligible NDMM [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38084760/] IMROZ — Isa-VRd vs. VRd in transplant-ineligible NDMM [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38832972/] GRIFFIN — Dara-VRd vs. VRd in transplant-eligible NDMM [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37708911/] MIDAS — MRD-directed transplant decision-making after Isa-KRd induction: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40459097/ ECOG (ongoing) — CybOrD vs. Dara-VD for frontline acute light chain cast nephropathy ECOG (pending readout) — Fixed vs. indefinite lenalidomide maintenance duration SWOG (pending readout; DRAMMATIC Trial) — Dara-len vs. len maintenance; duration of daratumumab Canadian trial — Dara-R(V)D fixed duration vs. indefinite maintenance Rajkumar SV — AJH 2024: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38943315/ Rajkumar SV & Leung N — Cast nephropathy management: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36990996/; IMWG consensus MCN management: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37414019/ Mayo Clinic series on Solitary plasmacytoma (+/- minimal BM involvement): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42018661/ ABOUT OPEN MEDICINE Open Medicine is an independent, open-access medical education platform co-founded by Dr. Simon Chaudhuri with the goal of bridging the gap between academic expertise and community oncology practice. The platform delivers mobile-first, living clinical algorithms and expert-narrated content — free of paywalls — updated in real time as new data emerge. Dr. Rajkumar serves as a founding circle member, contributing myeloma algorithms and commentary. Follow OpenMedicine on X, LinkedIn and Bluesky:

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Episode #71

  Episode 70. ASH 2025 Myeloid Neoplasm Roundup with Dr. Curtis Lachowiez

  Feb 27, 202657 min

  In this episode, we dive deep into ASH 2025 updates on myeloid malignancies with Dr. Curtis Lachowiez. From the plenary halls of ASH 2025 to long-term follow-up of Aza/Ven/Gilteritinib, we unpack what the latest evidence means for the future of AML management. 1. PARADIGM Trial (Plenary Session, Abstract 6) Fathi A, Perl A, Fell G, et al. Results from PARADIGM – a phase 2 randomized multi-center study comparing azacitidine and venetoclax to conventional induction chemotherapy for newly diagnosed fit adults with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 2025;146(Suppl 1):6. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2025-6 ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04801797 2. VICEROY Study – Aza/Ven/Gilteritinib Triplet (Abstract 654) Venetoclax (VEN) and azacitidine (AZA) with gilteritinib (GILT) in patients with newly diagnosed FLT3mut+ AML ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy: Interim results from the phase 1/2 VICEROY study. Blood 2025;146(Suppl 1):654. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05520567 3. Long-Term Follow-Up of Aza/Ven/Gilteritinib in FLT3-Mutated AML (Abstract 45) Azevedo RS, et al. Long-term follow-up of azacitidine, venetoclax, and gilteritinib in patients with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutated acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 2025;146(Suppl 1):45. Original publication: Short NJ, Daver N, DiNardo CD, et al. J Clin Oncol 2024;42:1499–1508. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.01911 ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04140487 4. PRISM-AML Score (Abstract 453) Lachowiez CA, et al. Prognostic risk integration for survival modeling (PRISM) in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia treated with venetoclax: A multinational retrospective cohort study. Blood 2025;146(Suppl 1):453. Interactive Calculator: https://prism-aml.com 5. Additional Studies Referenced in Discussion • VIALE-A Trial: DiNardo CD, et al. Azacitidine and venetoclax in previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med 2020;383:617–629. (NCT02993523) • VERONA Trial: Randomized study of Aza-Ven vs. Aza vs. placebo in MDS (discussed as a negative study) • 4-Gene Classifier (mPRS): Bataller A, et al. Prognostic risk signature in patients with AML treated with HMA and venetoclax. Blood Adv 2024;8(4):927–935. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2023011757 • LACEWING Trial: Azacitidine plus gilteritinib vs. azacitidine plus placebo in FLT3-mutated AML (discussed as a negative study)

  ListenShow Notes

Based on semantic analysis of episode topics and host coverage, this show is a strong guest fit for executives in:

Industry fit is computed by PitchCentric using vector embeddings of the show's episode catalog.