Vol. 17/No. 1

Denise Yardley, MD, and Linda Vahdat, MD, explain the phase III METRIC trial and the potential importance of glembatumumab in triple-negative breast cancer.

Thomas F. Gajewski, MD, PhD, discusses how the field of immune checkpoints is expanding beyond PD-1 and CTLA-4.

Keith T. Flaherty, MD, discusses molecular testing issues and the use of combined BRAF/ MEK inhibition in patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma.

It is becoming increasingly clear that PD-1/ PD-L1 and CTLA-4 represent just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to manipulating the immune system to fight cancer, and the number of known checkpoints—and with it the list of potential drug targets—has expanded in recent years.

As clinical experience grows with new agents, combinations, and sequences of therapy, the use of molecular profiling in metastatic melanoma is likely to become an essential means of choosing among treatment options.

Philip W. Kantoff, MD, who has made many contributions in prostate cancer research at the laboratory and leadership levels, was honored in the Genitourinary Cancer category with a 2014 Giants of Cancer Care® award, a program that the Intellisphere® Oncology Specialty Group launched to honor leaders in the field.

One of the central reasons that curing cancer has been so problematic is the dysfunction of TP53, the single most common genetic alteration in cancer.

While major accomplishments in blood and marrow transplantation (BMT) were being made around the country, the first BMT program at Wake Forest Baptist came into view, a vision brought to life by David D. Hurd, MD.

Howard A. “Skip” Burris III, MD, offers his views on key developments in the oncology field.

In the three years since the FDA launched its breakthrough therapy program, the designation has become a coveted status for emerging agents as biopharmaceutical companies scramble to make their mark in an increasing competitive environment.

We’re always talking about the rapid pace of oncology drug development in this era, but perhaps nothing illustrates that trend so clearly as the events of one 15-day period in November.

It is simply unrealistic and highly counterproductive to the future of cancer care to believe that the only acceptable approach to determining the absolute or relative clinical utility of a specific drug, regimen, device, or procedure, is through the conduct of a so-called evidence-based randomized trial.

Although ovarian cancer remains a formidable challenge in the United States, therapeutic advances achieved during the past several years have provided specialists in gynecologic malignancies with more options than ever for treating patients.