Peter Humphrey, MD, PhD, Talks Multidisciplinary Aspects of Oncology Research

Video

At the 15th Annual Interdisciplinary Prostate Cancer Congress® and Other Genitourinary Malignancies, Peter Humphrey, MD, PhD, spoke about how the conference catered to the multidisciplinary audience, and what he learned from that.

CancerNetwork® spoke with Peter Humphrey, MD, PhD, professor of pathology and director of Genitourinary Pathology at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, about how he felt the multidisciplinary nature of the 15th Annual Interdisciplinary Prostate Cancer Congress® and Other Genitourinary Malignancies, hosted by Physicians’ Education Resource®, LLC (PER®) was useful for future practice. Humphrey also talked about utilizing tumor boards where clinicians from different departments can discuss current topics.

Transcript:

One of the reasons I so enjoy this conference is the multidisciplinary nature. There’s directional learning and I’ve learned so much from my clinical colleagues today about their management based upon our diagnosis, for example. I think the same is true for when we present our diagnostic approach and how that diagnosis would influence them and their patient management. That multidisciplinary nature [for] taking care of patients with cancer, any cancer, is so vital.

I also appreciate that locally at Yale where we have weekly tumor boards, we have interactions amongst all of us including medical oncologists, urologist, interventional radiologists, diagnostic radiologists, and pathologists. Only by all of all of us having an input can we get a complete picture of the patient’s status at that point in time and have a vibrant discussion about treatment options. Depending upon the diagnosis and what radiologists and pathologists see at that point in time and in the patient’s care, it’s [providing] ongoing medical education for everyone while at the same time being practical in care of the patient.

Recent Videos
A third of patients had a response [to lifileucel], and of the patients who have a response, half of them were alive at the 4-year follow-up.
We are seeing that, in those patients who have relapsed/refractory melanoma with survival measured as a few weeks and no effective treatments, about a third of these patients will have a response.
We have the current CAR [T-cell therapies], which target CD19; however, we need others.
“Every patient [with multiple myeloma] should be offered CAR T before they’re offered a bispecific, with some rare exceptions,” said Barry Paul, MD.
Barry Paul, MD, listed cilta-cel, anito-cel, and arlo-cel as 3 of the CAR T-cell therapies with the most promising efficacy in patients with multiple myeloma.
Jose Sandoval Sus, MD, discussed standard CAR T-cell therapies in patients across multiple high-risk lymphoma indications.
Elucidating nonresponses to bispecific T-cell engagers may be an important research consideration in the multiple myeloma field.
Barriers to access and financial toxicities are challenges that must be addressed for CAR T-cell therapies in LBCL, according to Jose Sandoval Sus, MD.
Fixed treatment durations with bispecific antibodies followed by observation may help in mitigating infection-related AEs, according to Shebli Atrash, MD.
Shebli Atrash, MD, stated that MRD should be considered carefully as an end point, given potential recurrence despite MRD negativity.
Related Content