logo
Full Arvinas, Pfizer data confirm potential and limits of ‘Protac' drug in breast cancer

Full Arvinas, Pfizer data confirm potential and limits of ‘Protac' drug in breast cancer

Yahoo31-05-2025
This story was originally published on BioPharma Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily BioPharma Dive newsletter.
An experimental breast cancer drug from Arvinas and partner Pfizer modestly slowed disease progression in people whose tumors had changes to a specific gene, but did not provide a clear benefit to others who lacked that mutation.
Full study results set to be presented Saturday at the American Society of Clinical Oncology's annual meeting provide a clearer picture of the drug's potential — and its limitations — than were available in March, when the companies shared an overview of trial outcomes.
While the findings suggest the drug, an oral pill called vepdegestrant, may be a new option for a subset of breast cancer patients, they likely mean its use will remain narrow, should it win an approval.
In their Phase 3 trial, Arvinas and Pfizer tested vepdegestrant against the injectable drug fulvestrant in 624 people who had the most common type of advanced breast cancer — tumors positive for estrogen receptors but negative for a protein called HER2. Trial participants had been treated before with hormone therapy and another type of drug known as a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Two-hundred and seventy participants had mutations in the ESR1 gene, which is known to help tumors develop resistance to treatment.
The detailed data unveiled Saturday show vepdegestrant extended progression-free survival in people with ESR1 mutations by a median of five months, compared to 2.1 months for those on fulvestrant.
Among study participants overall, however, median progression-free survival was similar: 3.8 months on vepdegestrant versus 3.6 months on fulvestrant. PFS measures the time from a treatment response to when either disease progression or death.
Speaking in a briefing with reporters ahead of ASCO, Jane Lowe Meisel, co-director of breast medical oncology at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University School of Medicine, described vepdegestrant as an 'exciting option.'
Yet she noted in a statement how 'on average, patients did not have prolonged responses on either agent, highlighting the need for combination therapies and continued development in this space.'
Fulvestrant, the drug Arvinas and Pfizer tested vepdegestrant against, is a common treatment for advanced breast cancers that are hormone receptor positive and HER2 negative. The drug, which has been on the market for over two decades, blocks growth signaling to tumors through those hormone receptors. But the therapy has drawbacks, such as monthly intramuscular injections and a range of side effects.
Vepdegestrant works differently. The oral drug is what's known as a proteolysis-targeting chimera, or PROTAC. It is designed to break down estrogen receptors, thereby cutting off the signals that promote tumor growth. To date, vepdegestrant is the first PROTAC to advance through Phase 3 testing, and the first of its type to tested in people with advanced breast cancer.
Study researchers also measured overall survival but data on that score remain 'immature.' Essentially, too few people have died in the trial to draw conclusions about the statistical differences between the vepdegestrant and fulvestrant groups.
Side effects for both treatments were common. Just over one-fifth of participants taking vepdegestrant experienced side effects that were rated severe or life-threatening, compared to 17.6% on fulvestrant. More participants on vepdegestrant — 2.9% — stopped treatment due to side effects at 2.9%, compared to 0.7% among those on fulvestrant.
While vepdegestrant held no apparent benefit among the overall population, the drug could still hold promise for breast cancer patients with the ESR1 mutation.
Such a role would be valuable as treating ESR1-mutated breast cancer remains challenging. Research led by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center researchers a decade ago found ESR1 mutations change the shape of the estrogen receptor in such a way that keeps pushing the cancer to grow, even in the absence of an estrogen signal. ESR1 mutations are estimated occur in approximately 40% to 50% of patients who undergo first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer.
Testing for the mutation is now done regularly, but typically occurs only after cancer has progressed or returned. It's become more prevalent since the approval of Orserdu, which is cleared for use in people with ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer that is positive for ESR1 mutations.
Pfizer and Arvinas in March said they will share data from their study with health regulators in support of potential drug approval applications. But since then, the companies have scaled back their development of vepdegestrant, removing plans for two other Phase 3 trials. Arvinas also cut one-third of its staff.
Recommended Reading
Arvinas gets positive breast cancer data, but finds differentiation a hard sell
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Pfizer terminates study of CD47 in blood cancer due to low recruitment
Pfizer terminates study of CD47 in blood cancer due to low recruitment

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Pfizer terminates study of CD47 in blood cancer due to low recruitment

Pfizer has terminated a Phase II study of its CD47 immune checkpoint inhibitor, maplirpacept, due to low recruitment. In an update on the company stated the study (NCT05626322) was terminated due to 'the inability to recruit the planned number of subjects', adding it was not due to any safety or efficacy concerns. The listing states only six patients were enrolled, much lower than the 70 the company had initially hoped to enrol when the study was first recorded on the registry in 2022. The study had hoped to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a combination therapy of maplirpacept with Monjuvi (tafasitamab) and Revlimid (lenalidomide) in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Pfizer acquired maplirpacept during a $2.3bn buyout of Trillium Therapeutics in 2021. Clinical Trials Arena reached out to Pfizer for comment but the company did not respond before publication. This is the second study that Pfizer has terminated, with a Phase I trial of the CD47 in peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL) being terminated in August 2024. The therapy is still being evaluated in a Phase II investigator-led study (NCT05507541) in combination with Keytruda (pembrolizumab) in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL. Other than this, there are no other active studies of the drug in any indication. If approved, GlobalData analysts predict global sales of the drug to reach $120m in 2031. GlobalData is the parent company of Clinical Trials Arena. Pfizer is not the only company to have struggled with the CD47 pathway, with Gilead Sciences also ending all Phase III clinical trials of magrolimab in blood cancers, stating that an 'increased risk of death' had been detected. Gilead acquired magrolimab through a $4.9bn acquisition of its original developer Forty Seven in 2021. AbbVie has also cut ties with its CD47 partner I-Mab, stopping all development of lemzoparlimab, which was being investigated in myelodysplastic syndromes. In April 2025, ALX Oncology's CD47-blocker evorpacept, in combination with MSD's blockbuster Keytruda (pembrolizumab), failed to show benefit in two Phase II trials. "Pfizer terminates study of CD47 in blood cancer due to low recruitment" was originally created and published by Clinical Trials Arena, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Growth Accelerates Amid Rising Awareness, Regulatory Approvals, and Strong Pipeline Advancements
Growth Accelerates Amid Rising Awareness, Regulatory Approvals, and Strong Pipeline Advancements

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Growth Accelerates Amid Rising Awareness, Regulatory Approvals, and Strong Pipeline Advancements

The Semaglutide market is projected to expand from US$ 27.15 billion in 2024 to US$ 61.7 billion by 2033, with a CAGR of 9.55% from 2025. Driven by rising obesity and type 2 diabetes incidences, the market for semaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, is growing due to its efficacy in glycemic control and weight management. Brand names like Ozempic, Rybelsus, and Wegovy underscore its role in improving health outcomes. Increased awareness, approvals, and advanced delivery systems play pivotal roles in its global adoption. However, challenges like high costs and supply constraints persist. Key players include Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. Semaglutide Market Dublin, July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Semaglutide Market Size and Share Analysis - Growth Trends and Forecast Report 2025-2033" report has been added to Semaglutide market will reach US$ 61.7 billion in 2033 from US$ 27.15 billion in 2024 and is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of 9.55% from 2025 to 2033. As the incidence of obesity and type 2 diabetes increases, the efficacy of semaglutide in glycemic control and weight management is driving market demand. Growing awareness, increased approvals, and robust pipeline developments are also driving market growth worldwide. Semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist indicated mainly for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and chronic weight management. Semaglutide acts similarly to the natural hormone GLP-1, triggering insulin secretion, inhibiting glucagon secretion, and reducing gastric emptying, all of which help to improve blood glucose levels and appetite control. Semaglutide is marketed under brand names like Ozempic, Rybelsus, and Wegovy and is administered by subcutaneous injection or oral tablet, depending on the type 2 diabetes, semaglutide reduces blood sugar levels and decreases the risk of severe cardiovascular events such as heart attack and stroke. In obese and overweight patients with at least one condition related to weight, it facilitates meaningful and durable weight loss when used in addition to lifestyle changes. Semaglutide is attracting widespread interest because of its superior efficacy compared to most other antidiabetic and anti-obesity drugs. Its increased popularity and continued clinical development for new indications indicate a bright future for this of Growth in the Semaglutide Market Inceased Type 2 Diabetes and Obesity PrevalenceIncreased worldwide prevalence of type 2 diabetes and obesity are key drivers for the semaglutide market. Sedentary lifestyles, poor diets, and genetics all play a role in causing these conditions. Semaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, has proved effective in glycemic control and weight loss, with it being the treatment of choice. With both benefits lying in tackling hyperglycemia and obesity, it results in better patient outcomes and overall quality of life. As diagnosis and awareness improve, demand for such efficient treatments as semaglutide will increase proportionately. In 2022, 2.5 billion adults aged 18 years and above were overweight, of which more than 890 million adults were obese. This is equal to 43% of adults aged 18 years and above (43% of men and 44% of women) who were overweight; up from 1990, when 25% of adults aged 18 years and above were overweight. Overweight prevalence differed by region, ranging from 31% in the WHO South-East Asia Region and the African Region to 67% in the Region of the Expansions and IndicationsSemaglutide's therapeutic applications go beyond diabetes treatment. Its efficacy in weight loss has been demonstrated through clinical trials, and it has been approved for the treatment of obesity under brand names such as Wegovy. Current research extends its applications in reducing cardiovascular risk and other metabolic diseases. Growing approved uses increase the pool of patients for semaglutide treatment, in turn expanding its market. Regulatory approvals and favorable clinical results strengthen clinician confidence and prescribing rates. May 2025, Novo Nordisk reported that the FDA has accepted its New Drug Application for once-daily oral 25 mg formulation of Wegovy (semaglutide) for chronic weight management in adults with obesity or overweight and associated diseases. If approved, it will be the first oral GLP-1 medication for this in Drug Delivery SystemsBreakthroughs in drug delivery have improved semaglutide's availability and patient compliance. The creation of oral forms, like Rybelsus, provides a solution to injectable administration, responding to patient choice and lowering administration hurdles. Enhanced delivery systems add to enhanced compliance, particularly among injection-phobic populations. Such advancements not only enhance patient experience but also grow the market by appealing to new consumers looking for convenient treatment. September 2024, a new delivery system makes it possible to administer semaglutide, which is used in type 2 diabetes and weight management, just once a month rather than weekly. The long-acting form may make it easier for patients to stick with their medication and increase the effectiveness of the drug by keeping levels optimal. The system uses a hydrogel that is composed of two degradable polymers, which slowly releases semaglutide over a month following a single subcutaneous in Semaglutide Market Limited Accessibility and Steep Treatment PricesThe semaglutide treatment may prove to be financially burdensome to most patients, especially in the low- and middle-income bracket. The available insurance cover or high out-of-pocket costs is a hindrance to mass accessibility. Economic barriers influence access, which translates into uneven health consequences. Measures against cost reduction with generic options or subsidies are pivotal to mitigating this challenge so that treatment will be made freely Chain Limitations and Manufacturing ChallengesSatisfying the increasing demand for semaglutide has put manufacturing capacity under pressure, resulting in supply shortages in certain markets. Production intricacies, regulatory challenges, and quality control problems have the potential to upset supply chains. These limitations not only limit drug availability but also influence market expansion and patient confidence. Investment in manufacturing infrastructure and streamlined regulatory processes is needed to address these Semaglutide MarketOzempic, being the once-weekly injectable semaglutide, is mainly used in type 2 diabetes treatment. Its effectiveness in reducing the level of HbA1c as well as inducing weight loss has made it a preferred option among health practitioners. The fact that it is dosed weekly increases patient compliance over daily drugs. Ozempic's popularity has played a crucial role in boosting Novo Nordisk's revenues, which are a clear indication of its dominance in the market. Ongoing marketing initiatives and favorable clinical results underpin its consistent expansion in the diabetes care Semaglutide MarketWegovy, indicated for chronic weight management, is a major breakthrough in the treatment of obesity. Clinical trials have shown significant weight loss among patients treated with Wegovy, which has been approved and widely adopted in the market. Its availability meets the unmet need for effective pharmacologic therapy in obesity, a disease with few treatment options. The success of Wegovy highlights the growing use of semaglutide in the management of metabolic health beyond glucose control. Key Players Analysis: Overview, Key Persons, Recent Development & Strategies, Revenue Analysis Novo Nordisk A/S Eli Lilly and Company AstraZeneca plc Biocon Ltd Johnson and Johnson fizer Inc AbbVie Inc. Sanofi S.A. Key Attributes: Report Attribute Details No. of Pages 200 Forecast Period 2024 - 2033 Estimated Market Value (USD) in 2024 $27.15 Billion Forecasted Market Value (USD) by 2033 $61.7 Billion Compound Annual Growth Rate 9.5% Regions Covered Global Key Topics Covered: 1. Introduction2. Research Methodology2.1 Data Source2.1.1 Primary Sources2.1.2 Secondary Sources2.2 Research Approach2.2.1 Top-Down Approach2.2.2 Bottom-Up Approach2.3 Forecast Projection Methodology3. Executive Summary4. Market Dynamics4.1 Growth Drivers4.2 Challenges5. Semaglutide Market5.1 Historical Market Trends5.2 Market Forecast6. Semaglutide Market Share Analysis6.1 By Product6.2 By Application6.3 By Distribution Channel6.4 By Countries7. Product7.1 Ozempic7.2 Rybelsus7.3 Wegovy7.4 Others8. Application8.1 Type 2 Diabetes8.2 Obesity8.3 Cardiovascular Risk Reduction9. Distribution Channel9.1 Retail Pharmacies9.2 Hospital Pharmacies9.3 Online Pharmacies10. Countries10.1 North America10.1.1 United States10.1.2 Canada10.2 Europe10.2.1 France10.2.2 Germany10.2.3 Italy10.2.4 Spain10.2.5 United Kingdom10.2.6 Belgium10.2.7 Netherlands10.2.8 Turkey10.3 Asia-Pacific10.3.1 China10.3.2 Japan10.3.3 India10.3.4 South Korea10.3.5 Thailand10.3.6 Malaysia10.3.7 Indonesia10.3.8 Australia10.3.9 New Zealand10.4 Latin America10.4.1 Brazil10.4.2 Mexico10.4.3 Argentina10.5 Middle East & Africa10.5.1 Saudi Arabia10.5.2 UAE10.5.3 South Africa11. Porter's Five Forces Analysis11.1 Bargaining Power of Buyers11.2 Bargaining Power of Suppliers11.3 Degree of Rivalry11.4 Threat of New Entrants11.5 Threat of Substitutes12. SWOT Analysis12.1 Strength12.2 Weakness12.3 Opportunity12.4 Threat13. Key Players Analysis For more information about this report visit About is the world's leading source for international market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest data on international and regional markets, key industries, the top companies, new products and the latest trends. Attachment Semaglutide Market CONTACT: CONTACT: Laura Wood,Senior Press Manager press@ For E.S.T Office Hours Call 1-917-300-0470 For U.S./ CAN Toll Free Call 1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Emerging Themes in GI Oncology from ASCO 2025
Emerging Themes in GI Oncology from ASCO 2025

Medscape

time17 hours ago

  • Medscape

Emerging Themes in GI Oncology from ASCO 2025

This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello. I'm Dr Mark Lewis, director of gastrointestinal (GI) oncology at Intermountain Health in Utah. I'm speaking from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting in Chicago, where we've seen some interesting new data in GI cancers. I always enjoy doing this kind of on-the-ground reporting, and the real reason I love coming to these meetings is, while it's wonderful to network with colleagues, there is true progress in our field that we can take back almost immediately to our clinics to help our patients. There are three themes in GI oncology that I've seen emerge at this meeting. One is the utility or not of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in affecting treatment decisions. The second is the role of immunotherapy in GI oncology, and the third is, I think, a real triumph for targeted therapy in oncology. Addressing the first, and to be honest, most controversial point: Where are we with ctDNA in GI oncology, and most importantly, where are we with these assays in terms of how we counsel our patients? Sometimes what's most important about ASCO is trials that are arguably negative in their findings. This year, it really caught my attention that DYNAMIC-III sort of turned over the apple carton terms of ctDNA-informed approaches to colon cancer. The design of this study was looking at patients with stage III colon cancer and using a ctDNA-informed approach in a randomized fashion to see if we should be escalating chemotherapy in patients who have a positive ctDNA signal. The randomization was against the standard of care. For years, I think there has been a false binary between using modern ctDNA technology and our traditional clinicopathologic criteria. After all, the whole way we classify stage III colon cancer is based on TNM staging, so that remains the foundation. What we are trying to discern together, and especially together with our patients, is when it is appropriate for this technology to be layered on top of traditional clinicopathologic criteria and thus affect treatment decision-making. The takeaway from this trial for me, especially since recurrence-free survival was worse for the ctDNA-informed cohort vs the standard of care, was that this is a prognostic assay, but not necessarily predictive. Patients who have a ctDNA signal that is positive who had escalation of their adjuvant therapy did not seem to benefit from the addition of, say, irinotecan to a traditional fluoropyrimidine and platinum doublet. Interestingly, also, I think this study validated that roughly one third — maybe no more than 30% — of stage III colon cancer patients have a positive ctDNA signal. My takeaway, again, is we're sort of going back to the future. It was the MOSAIC trial that was published in June 2004 that established the current standard of care for how we approach adjuvant therapy in stage III colon cancer. Now, slightly over two decades later, we really have not made vast improvements in the field, and ctDNA is wonderful, but it is not entirely supplanting the understanding we've had since MOSAIC and since IDEA. Without getting too into the weeds, I'll also point out that I think the statistical design here was ambitious. The hazard ratio in this particular trial, DYNAMIC-III, was frankly suggestive of the fact the study might have been underpowered, enrolling just over 200 patients, whereas MOSAIC had over 2000 to reach its practice-changing conclusions. Watch out for upcoming studies such as CIRCULATE-US and NRG-GI008, which will again use ctDNA negativity to look at de-escalation and ctDNA positivity to look at escalation. Until that trial matures, I don't think this assay is actually going to change the standard-of-care approach to stage III colon cancer in the United States. The second point I'd like to make is about immunotherapy. I love the fact that when patients come to me, and I've been described before our first visit as a chemotherapy doctor, I can tell them that there's more to medical oncology than indiscriminate cytotoxicity. We are truly in the era where immunotherapy has a role to play in a variety of GI cancers. We heard at the ASCO plenary session that immunotherapy has a major role to play now in adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer with mismatch repair deficiency. The ATOMIC trial showed a significant 3-year disease-free survival benefit using atezolizumab along with traditional FOLFOX chemotherapy to help patients in the adjuvant setting. The MATTERHORN study showed the advantage of using durvalumab atop FLOT in the perioperative setting in gastric cancer. So two different GI histologies, but a huge role now for immunotherapy in this space. Finally, dealing with metastatic colorectal cancer, the maturation of CheckMate-8HW shows that the ipilimumab-nivolumab (ipi-nivo) doublet definitely has a role to play in the metastatic setting. This has been interesting because when I think about immunotherapy trials that have changed my practice, the one I keep coming back to is KEYNOTE-177. It was such a triumph at the time of its publication and remains so. What's sobering to realize, though, is that as more time has elapsed since KEYNOTE-177 matured, the 5-year survival rate of the pembrolizumab arm remains about 60%. Also, you might remember that the initial survival curve dipped below the chemotherapy arm before it plateaued and improved for immunotherapy. There are certainly some patients who need an earlier, more aggressive response. Enter ipi-nivo. What I like about this trial is that the ipilimumab dosing seems quite conservative, at 1 mg/kg, with four exposures to that agent before nivolumab continues by itself. That's appealing to those of us who have always had some reservations about using an anti-CTLA-4 approach. The very first time I ever used immunotherapy in any setting was during fellowship. It was 2011, and it was ipilimumab in the setting of metastatic melanoma. I watched in amazement as this patient's disease melted away, but at a dose then of 10 mg/kg, the endocrinopathy was significant. I also watched as my patient suffered from pan-hypopituitarism. For medical oncologists who are understandably tentative about anti-CTLA-4 as a mechanism, the question is always, is the juice worth the squeeze? Here, you do get a higher response rate from ipi-nivo than you would with nivolumab alone for patients who, say, might be on the verge of visceral crisis and need a faster initial response. Finally, I want to talk about targeted therapy. I think what was incredible about ASCO this year is realizing just how much progress we're making with BRAF -mutant colon cancer. We have known for a very long time that this mutation confers a worse prognosis, and we've often wondered whether it's appropriate to treat these patients sequentially or should we take the BREAKWATER-informed approach of giving them encorafenib, cetuximab, a fluoropyrimidine, and a platinum upfront — arguably a quadruplet. I think the answer from this meeting is a resounding yes— a doubling of median overall survival from 15 to 30 months by essentially frontloading all of the effective treatment and not trying to do it in sequential lines of therapy. You never get a second chance to make a first impression. Really, what this means is we have to know as soon as possible that we're dealing with a BRAF mutation. There are certain clinical phenotypes that we look for — more aggressive disease, carcinoembryonic antigen rising in the right colon — but this is proof, once again, that the oncologist without the pathologist is blind. I cannot take proper care of my patients without a fully biomarker informed approach, and I can't wait for these test results to come back. This study allowed for at least early exposure to FOLFOX alone while BRAF mutation results were maturing, but we really need to partner with a pathologist and understand metastatic disease in GI the same way we would understand it in metastatic breast cancer. There is not a single breast cancer oncologist I know who would try treating their patients without knowing estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status. I think we are absolutely at the point in GI oncology where it should be unacceptable to treat our patients without knowing KRAS , NRAS , BRAF , and arguably HER2 status, and certainly mismatch repair or microsatellite instability status. The final targeted therapy triumph at this ASCO looked at DESTINY-Gastric04. DESTINY has been an interesting suite of trials looking at the role of trastuzumab deruxtecan in a variety of HER2-positive cancers. I vividly remember the plenary session several years ago where the data for DESTINY-Breast04 earned a standing ovation. I was one of those people who stood up as a GI oncologist because I could see how this was going to help patients with HER2-positive disease across various primary sites. What we learned at this meeting with the maturation of DESTINY-Gastric04 is this drug particularly seems to outperform traditional second-line therapies such as ramucirumab-paclitaxel. There are downsides. This drug famously (or infamously) causes interstitial lung disease in about 1 in 7 patients. It's also absolutely vital to re-biopsy at time of progression to ensure that the HER2 target for this antibody-drug conjugate is still there. HER2 heterogeneity remains something we haven't fully grappled with, but I find that my patients, when I explain the role of a targeted therapy, are generally willing to undergo another liver biopsy —if they understand the lock and key hypothesis between the HER2 mutation and a drug such as trastuzumab deruxtecan. To sum up, from ASCO 2025 for GI oncology, the three main areas I see of progress, at least in our understanding, are number one, circulating tumor DNA remaining prognostic, but likely not predictive at this point; number two, immunotherapy having a major role to play now in the adjuvant colon cancer setting as well as in perioperative gastric cancer management; and number three, targeted therapy with BREAKWATER really becoming, I think, the standard of care in the first line for BRAF V600E-mutant colon cancer and trastuzumab deruxtecan making a strong play for second-line therapy in HER2-positive gastric cancer. This has been Mark Lewis, the director of medical oncology for gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare, reporting for Medscape from ASCO 2025. Thank you.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store