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:
FDA Approval of Iberdomide Plus Daratumumab/Dexamethasone in R/R Myeloma: Rahul Banerjee, MD
Rahul Banerjee, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and the University of Washington School of Medicine, examines the August 13, 2026 FDA accelerated approval of iberdomide (Zenbexus) in combination with daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj (Darzalex Faspro) plus dexamethasone (IberDd) for adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least 1 prior line of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), supported by the phase 3 EXCALIBER-RRMM trial (NCT04975997). In the primary efficacy population of the first 420 randomized patients, IberDd (n = 207) produced a minimal residual disease–negative complete response rate of 41% (95% CI, 34%-48%) vs 21% (95% CI, 15%-27%) with daratumumab, pomalidomide (Pomalyst), and dexamethasone (n = 213; P < .0001). Banerjee emphasized that cereblon E3 ligase modulators (CELMoDs) like iberdomide are mechanistically distinct from IMiDs—driving more potent Ikaros and Aiolos degradation and far more effective T-cell activation—such that CELMoD-refractory and IMiD-refractory status should be treated as clinically distinct. A key advantage of IberDd is its BCMA-sparing design, preserving BCMA-directed therapies for later lines; Banerjee concluded it is an impressive addition for lenalidomide-refractory patients and those not suited for bispecific antibodies or CAR T-cell therapy.
5-Year Data With Intismeran Plus Pembrolizumab in Resected Melanoma: Matteo S. Carlino, MBBS, PhD, FRACP
Matteo S. Carlino, MBBS, PhD, FRACP, of Westmead and Blacktown Hospitals and Melanoma Institute Australia, reviews 5-year data from the phase 2b KEYNOTE-942 trial (NCT03897881) evaluating intismeran autogene plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in 157 patients with resected high-risk stage III/IV melanoma (2:1 randomization; n = 107 and n = 50, respectively). At a median follow-up of 5 years, the combination reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 49% (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.89; P = .0075) and distant metastasis or death by 59% (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20-0.84) vs pembrolizumab alone. Translational findings further linked mechanism to benefit: T-cell clonal expansion and newly detected clones were greater with the combination, and a subset was confirmed to recognize the patient-specific neoantigens encoded by the vaccine—which targeted up to 34 neoantigens derived from each patient’s own tumor. Carlino concluded that the combined efficacy and translational results support intismeran autogene plus pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy following complete resection in high-risk melanoma, with potential implications for neoantigen vaccine development spanning other tumor types.
PFS Data With TUB-040 in Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer: Toon Van Gorp, MD, PhD
Toon Van Gorp, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Leuven/Leuven Cancer Institute, highlights progression-free survival (PFS) and duration of response (DOR) data from the phase 1/2a NAPISTAR 1-01 trial (NCT06303505) evaluating the NaPi2b-targeting antibody-drug conjugate TUB-040 in 67 heavily pretreated patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC), as presented at the 2026 ASCO Annual Meeting. The agent produced an unconfirmed objective response rate (ORR) of 64.2% (95% CI, 51.5%-75.5%) and a confirmed ORR of 58.2% (95% CI, 45.5%-70.2%), with a median PFS of 11.0 months (95% CI, 7.5-not available [NA]) and 71% and 50% of patients progression free at 6 and 12 months, respectively. By comparison, the phase 3 KEYNOTE-B96 (NCT05116189), ROSELLA (NCT05257408), and MIRASOL (NCT04209855) trials each produced a median PFS below 8.3 months in PROC; the median DOR was not reached (95% CI, 8.5 months-NA) at a median follow-up of 8.7 months, with 79% and 57% of responders maintaining response beyond 6 and 12 months. Van Gorp concluded the data reflected not only a high response rate but sustained responses over time, supporting further development of TUB-040 in a biomarker-unselected PROC population.
Lutetium Lu 177 Vipivotide Tetraxetan Plus an ARPI in PSMA+ mHSPC: Michael J. Morris, MD
Michael J. Morris, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, details findings from the phase 3 PSMAddition trial (NCT04720157) that supported the July 2026 FDA approval of lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto) plus an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) for adult patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). PSMAddition—the first trial of this agent in newly diagnosed androgen pathway modulator–sensitive metastatic disease—enrolled 1,144 patients with PSMA-avid disease on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus an ARPI, randomly assigning them to a triplet of ADT, an ARPI, and lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan given as 6 doses every 6 weeks, or to the doublet of ADT plus an ARPI alone. The triplet reduced the risk of radiographic progression or death by 33% vs the doublet (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.55-0.82), with an updated analysis also showing a positive trend toward improved overall survival (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.01), though this end point had not yet matured. Morris concluded that PSMAddition extended lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan into the mHSPC setting, complementing its prior indications established by the phase 3 PSMAfore (NCT04689828) and VISION (NCT03511664) trials.
Making Second-Line HCC Decisions Without Randomized Data: Erman Akkus, MD
Erman Akkus, MD, medical oncologist of Ankara University, addresses how oncologists should weigh cross-trial comparisons and navigate second-line treatment decisions in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the absence of randomized data. Akkus acknowledged that cross-trial comparison is methodologically imperfect but argued that oncologists must act on the best available evidence—provided its limitations are clearly understood—and that analyses should be driven by clinically meaningful questions rather than conducted for their own sake. For community oncologists managing HCC without an on-site liver tumor board, he advised beginning with patient eligibility (performance status, liver function, decompensation, and toxicity profile), and for eligible patients favoring a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) such as lenvatinib, noting that remote consultation with colleagues constituted a legitimate form of multidisciplinary input. He concluded by identifying the two questions he considered most central: which patients with intermediate-stage disease should receive systemic therapy, and whether dual immunotherapy or an immunotherapy–TKI combination should be the preferred first-line approach.
