Welcome to The Five Under 5, your go-to roundup of the top 5 videos of the week.
These short videos are designed for busy oncologists to view on the go, and feature expert insights on breaking news, regulatory updates, practice-changing data shared at medical meetings, and other key topics in the realm of oncology.
Here’s what you may have missed:
Implications of the FDA Approval of Daratumumab/Teclistamab in R/R Myeloma: Amrita Krishnan, MD
Amrita Krishnan, MD, of City of Hope, discusses the March 2026 FDA approval of teclistamab-cqyv (Tecvayli) plus daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj (Darzalex Faspro) for use in adult patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma following at least 1 prior line of therapy, supported by findings from the phase 3 MajesTEC-3 trial (NCT05083169). Patients treated with teclistamab plus daratumumab (n = 291) experienced a median progression-free survival (PFS) that was not reached (NR; 95% CI, not evaluable [NE]-NE) vs 18.1 months (95% CI, 14.6-22.8) with investigator’s choice of daratumumab plus pomalidomide (Pomalyst) and dexamethasone or daratumumab plus bortezomib (Velcade) and dexamethasone (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23; P < .0001). The median overall survival was also NR in both arms (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.65; P < .0001). Krishnan noted that this regimen is particularly preferable for patients at first relapse for whom CAR T-cell therapy is not planned, although an important open question remains around those previously exposed to or refractory to anti-CD38 agents, who represented a minority of the MajesTEC-3 population. She concluded that this approval provides another highly potent treatment option at first relapse and underscores the importance of long-term treatment planning in multiple myeloma.
Evolution of HPV-Related Head and Neck Cancer Management: Ranee Mehra, MD
Ranee Mehra, MD, of the Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Maryland Medical System, spotlights the evolving therapeutic paradigm for patients with head and neck cancer, with particular focus on EGFR-directed therapies for non–human papillomavirus (HPV)–related disease. Several EGFR inhibitor–based combinations and bispecific antibodies are currently undergoing rigorous testing in the recurrent and metastatic settings, with early clinical activity proving encouraging for integration into standard disease management. Mehra highlighted the strategic opportunity to move these targeted options into earlier lines of treatment, including the potentially curable locally advanced setting, while also underscoring the ongoing need to develop additional therapies specifically for the HPV-positive patient population. She concluded that continued research and development of emerging agents remains essential for patients with HPV-positive head and neck cancers who have progressed on standard therapies, as tailoring interventions to individual needs remains central to navigating this complex disease landscape.
Medical Oncologist’s Role Within Integrative Breast Oncology: Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS
Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, FASCO, of the Emory University School of Medicine, as well as the Glenn Family Breast Center at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, unpacks the clinical significance of integrative oncology programs and the ongoing establishment of survivorship clinics within modern oncological care. At the Winship Cancer Institute, naturopaths conduct 3 virtual consultations to guide patients on supplements, herbs, nutrition, and diet as part of a broader effort to build comprehensive survivorship clinics that address the multifaceted needs of patients during and following primary treatment. Kalinsky highlighted acupuncture as a particularly well-supported complementary therapy for joint aches, a frequent adverse effect of aromatase inhibitors used in hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. He noted that randomized trials comparing real acupuncture with sham acupuncture have successfully showcased clinical benefit. He concluded that the strength of available evidence for any given integrative oncology modality should guide its adoption, underscoring that all such strategies must be examined in a structured and evidence-based manner.
FDA Approval of Pylarify TruVu for PSMA-PET Imaging in Prostate Cancer: Xiao X. Wei, MD
Xiao Wei, MD, MAS, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, discusses the March 2026 FDA approval of Pylarify TruVu (piflufolastat F 18) for positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive lesions in men with prostate cancer with suspected metastasis or recurrence based on elevated serum prostate-specific antigen. The decision was supported by findings from the phase 2/3 OSPREY (NCT02981368) and phase 3 CONDOR (NCT03739684) trials via the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway. Pylarify TruVu shares the same diagnostic properties and comparable safety and efficacy as piflufolastat F 18 (Pylarify), which was originally cleared in May 2021, and will expand access to this imaging modality beyond what is currently available in the clinic. Wei noted that the approval will be particularly valuable in the event of a shortage of gallium Ga 68 PSMA-11 (Illuccix), the first PSMA-targeted PET imaging agent to receive regulatory approval in the United States in December 2020. She concluded that greater access to piflufolastat F 18 via the Pylarify TruVu formulation will allow for better identification of patients who are candidates for treatments such as lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto).
Indirect Data for Zanubrutinib vs Acalabrutinib/Venetoclax in Treatment-Naive CLL: Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH
Mazyar Shadman, MD, MPH, of Fred Hutch Cancer Center, reports findings from a post hoc indirect comparison of zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) from the phase 3 SEQUOIA trial (NCT03336333) and acalabrutinib (Calquence) plus venetoclax (Venclexta) from the phase 3 AMPLIFY trial (NCT03836261) in treatment-naive patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The analysis compared fit patients from SEQUOIA with the AMPLIFY population and found that zanubrutinib (n = 123) yielded improved PFS vs acalabrutinib plus venetoclax (n = 291; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28-0.77; P = .003), with 3-year investigator-assessed PFS rates of 89.2% vs 78.9%; the respective overall response rates were 97.6% and 96.9%. Shadman acknowledged that these data are not entirely surprising given that continuous therapy with zanubrutinib was compared with a fixed-duration regimen, and he recognized the distinct benefits of fixed-duration approaches, although those were beyond the scope of this analysis. He concluded that despite its indirect nature, this published comparison in Blood Advances serves as a valuable, concrete resource when counseling patients with CLL who prioritize efficacy and are willing to receive continuous BTK inhibition until progressive disease.
