- ESMO 2025: A New Era in the Treatment of Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer. Discussant of LBA2 – Perioperative (Periop) Enfortumab Vedotin plus Pembrolizumab in Participants with Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Who Are Cisplatin-Ineligible: KEYNOTE-9 UroToday
- Pfizer and Astellas announce positive results from phase 3ev-303 clinical trial for Padcev in combination with Keytruda TradingView
- Enfortumab Vedotin Plus Pembro Cuts Risk of Disease Progression, Death 60% for Patients With MIBC Who Can’t Have Chemo With Bladder Removal The American Journal of Managed Care® (AJMC®)
- ESMO25: Padcev, Keytruda regimen given before, after surgery shines in bladder cancer FirstWord Pharma
- KEYNOTE-905: EV/pembrolizumab emerges as new option for cisplatin-ineligible MIBC Urology Times
Category: 3. Business
-
ESMO 2025: A New Era in the Treatment of Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer. Discussant of LBA2 – Perioperative (Periop) Enfortumab Vedotin plus Pembrolizumab in Participants with Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Who Are Cisplatin-Ineligible: KEYNOTE-9 – U…
-

This top VC has bet close to 20% of his fund on teenagers — here’s why
Image Credits:Prostock Studio / Getty Images Kevin Hartz tends to be first through the door. In 2001, he co-founded Xoom, back when sending money across borders meant standing in line at Western Union. In 2013, it went public, and in 2015, PayPal paid $1.1 billion for it. Four years after launching Xoom, he co-founded Eventbrite, which went public in 2018 and turned buying event tickets into something you could do without wanting to throw your laptop in the ocean.
After a stint at Founders Fund, Hartz co-founded his own venture firm, A* Capital (a nod to a computer science algorithm), then in 2020, he spotted another trend before the masses: the SPAC boom. His blank-check company, “one,” swallowed up 3D printing outfit Markforged in a $2.1 billion reverse merger in 2021, right as every other financier in Silicon Valley suddenly decided SPACs were the future.
Now Hartz is onto his next thing — teenage founders, not as a social experiment but as an unplanned investment thesis. His firm recently cut a check to Aaru, an AI-powered prediction engine with one founder who was too young to get his driver’s license at the time. Hartz is not alone in this by any stretch. The dropout-and-build movement, made most famous by founders like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg, is becoming a standard lifestyle choice for a certain kind of ambitious kid.
Consider Cory Levy, who was interning at Founders Fund, Union Square Ventures, and Techstars while still in high school, then bailed on the University of Illinois after freshman year. Today he runs Z Fellows, a one-week accelerator that hands technical founders — even high schoolers — $10,000 grants. When Levy dropped out a decade ago, the Thiel Fellowship was a radical new idea. Now, the “community of dropouts is at an all-time high,” he told Business Insider last spring. “At a big group dinner of 15 or 20 people, we’ll look around the table, and no one has a college degree.”
It’s becoming enough of a “thing” that the accelerator Y Combinator, which has quietly reinforced drop-out culture since its outset, recently rolled out a program that’s designed for students who want to start companies but don’t want to drop out. The program allows them to apply while still in school, get accepted and funded immediately, and defer their participation in YC until after they graduate. (For YC, known for being countercultural, the move is very on brand.)
Naturally, TechCrunch has been covering the trend: see here and here and here. But to learn more, I’ll be sitting down with Hartz at the StrictlyVC event inside TechCrunch’s rollicking Disrupt show, kicking off in San Francisco on Monday, October 27. (Hartz is talking on Tuesday, October 28.)
Continue Reading
-

Gold prices soar to record highs, mark biggest weekly gain since 2020
Gold price fell slightly on Friday, October 17, but ended the week with the biggest rise since 2020. Gold futures dropped over 1% to around $4,260 an ounce after hitting an intraday high of $4,380. Despite the dip, gold was up 7% for the week as investors bought the precious metal amid uncertainty, Yahoo Finance reported.
Gold futures dropped more than 1% to around $4,260 an ounce after hitting an intraday high of $4,380. (Bloomberg) A ‘perfect storm’ lifts gold
Kyle Rodda, senior financial market analyst, said a “perfect storm” of global factors has pushed gold prices higher. Rising trade tensions between the United States and China, expectations of another Federal Reserve rate cut, and worries about regional banks have all driven investors toward safe-haven assets like gold.
Rodda, who is a market analyst at Capital.com, described the surge as “parabolic,” noting that prices have risen unusually fast. “Gold is sending an ominous message about the future,” he said. “It could be pointing to global instability or a sign of speculation that might burst later.”
Central banks and ETFs fuel demand
Gold’s year-to-date performance has been remarkable, up nearly 59%. Central banks worldwide have been buying gold at record levels, while a weaker US dollar and falling interest rates have made holding gold more attractive than cash or bonds.
At the same time, gold-backed exchange-traded funds (ETFs) saw record inflows last quarter, highlighting strong appetite from both retail and institutional investors.
Why investors are buying gold
A Bank of America Fund Managers Survey recently found that gold is the most crowded trade in the market, beating out the “Magnificent Seven” tech stocks. 39% of fund managers have no gold, 35% have 2-4% of their portfolio in gold.
Also Read: Gold, silver prices hit records on US credit fears and ‘US-China trade war’
Wall Street raises its price forecasts
Several major banks have lifted their gold price targets. BofA analysts reiterated their “long gold” call, predicting prices could reach $6,000 per ounce by mid-2026. Goldman Sachs raised its forecast to $4,900 by the end of next year, and JPMorgan expects prices could climb to $6,000 by 2029.
For now, gold’s upsurge is due to global uncertainty and investor nervousness. Whether it continues or becomes a bubble will depend on how central banks and the world economies react to inflation, rate cuts and geopolitical risks in the coming months.
Also Read: No Kings protests to sweep US as millions plan to march against Trump’s policies
FAQs:
Why did gold prices rise so much this week?
Gold prices rose due to trade tensions, rate-cut expectations, and worries about banks, making investors buy gold as a safe option.
How high did gold prices go?
Gold futures reached an intraday high of around $4,380 an ounce before ending the week near $4,260.
Will gold prices keep rising?
Experts say prices may rise further if global uncertainty, inflation, and interest rate cuts continue, but some warn it could become a bubble.
Continue Reading
-

Pembrolizumab Combo Significantly Improves PFS/OS in Recurrent PROC
Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in combination with weekly paclitaxel, with or without bevacizumab (Avastin), statistically significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) regardless of PD-L1 status and overall survival (OS) in PD-L1–expressing tumors in patients with platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PRROC). These findings came from the phase 3 ENGOT-ov65/KEYNOTE-B96 trial (NCT05116189) and were shared at the
European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2025 .The analysis was broken down between the population of patients with a combined positive score (CPS) of 1 or higher and the intention-to-treat population. Furthermore, data were broken down between interim analysis 1 (IA1), which had a data cutoff date of April 3, 2024, and interim analysis 2 (IA2), which had a data cutoff date of May 5, 2025.
The CPS of 1 or Higher Population
At IA1, the median PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.0-9.4) in the pembrolizumab arm compared with 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.2-8.1) in the placebo arm, with 12-month PFS rates of 35.2% (95% CI, 28.8%-41.7%) vs 22.6% (95% CI, 17.0%-28.7%), respectively (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58-0.89; P = .0014).
At IA2, the median PFS was 8.3 months in the pembrolizumab arm compared with 7.2 months in the placebo arm (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.91); the 12-month PFS rates were 35.9% vs 23.9%, respectively, and the 18-month rates were 18.7% vs 10.5%.
The median OS was 18.2 months (95% CI, 15.3-21.0) in the pembrolizumab arm compared with 14.0 months (95% CI, 12.5-16.1) in the placebo arm, with 12-month OS rates of 69.1% vs 59.3%, and 18-month OS rates of 51.5% vs 38.9%, respectively (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.94; P = .0053).
The objective response rate (ORR) was 53.0% (95% CI, 45.8%-60.0%), with a complete response (CR) rate of 9.9% and a partial response (PR) rate of 43.1%, in the pembrolizumab arm; in the placebo arm, the ORR was 46.6% (95% CI, 39.6%-53.7%), with a CR rate of 7.8% and a PR rate of 38.7%. The 12- and 18-month duration of response (DOR) rates in the pembrolizumab arm were 46.7% and 28.4% compared with 29.6% and 16.4% in the placebo arm.
The ITT Population
At IA1, the median PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.2-8.6) with pembrolizumab compared with 6.4 months (95% CI, 6.2-8.1) with placebo, with 12-month PFS rates of 33.1% (95% CI, 27.7%-38.5%) and 21.3% (95% CI, 16.6%-26.4%), respectively (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.84; P <.0001).
At IA2, the median PFS was 8.3 months vs 6.4 months, respectively (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.86); the 12-month PFS rates were 33.7% vs 22.5%, and the 18-month PFS rates were 17.3% vs 9.0%.
The ORR was 50.4% (95% CI, 44.3%-56.4%), with a CR rate of 8.3% and a PR rate of 42.0%, in the pembrolizumab arm; in the placebo arm, the ORR was 40.8% (95% CI, 35.0%-46.8%), with a CR rate of 6.0% and a PR rate of 34.8%.Furthermore, the 12- and 18-month DOR rates in the pembrolizumab arm were 46.6% and 26.5% compared with 28.4% and 14.5% in the placebo arm.
“These data support the use of pembrolizumab plus weekly paclitaxel, with or without bevacizumab, as a new standard of care for patients with PRROC,” presenting author Nicoletta Colombo, MD, PhD, of the Gynecologic Oncology Program at the European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, in Milan, Italy, and the Department of Medicine and Surgery at the University of Milan-Bicocca in Italy, wrote with coauthors in the presentation.
Safety Analyses
Any-grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 97.8% of the pembrolizumab arm and 95.3% of the placebo arm; grade 3 or higher TRAEs occurred in 67.5% and 55.3%, respectively. TRAEs were serious in 33.1% and 19.5%, led to death in 0.9% and 1.6%, and led to discontinuation of any treatment in 35.9% and 28.0%.
Any-grade immune-mediated AEs occurred in 39.1% and 18.9%, and grade 3 or higher events occurred in 11.6% and 3.5%. They were serious events in 10.9% and 2.2%, and led to treatment discontinuation in 6.9% and 2.5%.
The most common TRAEs in both groups included anemia (49.7% vs 42.1%, respectively), peripheral neuropathy (38.8% vs 31.1%), alopecia (37.8% vs 34.0%), fatigue (35.3% vs 33.0%), and nausea (31.3% vs 27.4%). The most common immune-mediated AEs were hypothyroidism (17.8% vs 6.0%), infusion reactions (5.9% vs 4.7%), and hyperthyroidism (5.0% vs 0.6%).
Trial Breakdown
A total of 643 patients with histologically confirmed epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned to either the pembrolizumab arm (n = 322) or the placebo arm (n = 321). Treatment was either pembrolizumab at 400 mg once every 6 weeks for 18 cycles or placebo on the same schedule; all patients received paclitaxel at 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 3-week-long cycle, and they either did or did not receive bevacizumab at 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks.
Patients were enrolled in the trial if they had received 1 or 2 prior lines of therapy with at least 1 platinum-based chemotherapy; prior anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 agents, PARP inhibitors, and bevacizumab were permitted. Additionally, patients had radiographic progression within 6 months after the last dose of platinum-based chemotherapy and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1.
The primary end point of the trial was PFS per RECIST v1.1 by investigator assessment, and a key secondary end point was OS.
The median age of patients was 62 years vs 61 years in the pembrolizumab vs placebo arm, 64.3% and 67.6% of patients were White, 41.3% and 41.1% had a PD-L1 CPS from 1 to less than 10, and 31.4% and 31.2% had a PD-L1 CPS of at least 10.
Reference
Colombo N, Zsiros E, Sebastianelli A, et al. Pembrolizumab vs placebo plus weekly paclitaxel ± bevacizumab in platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: Results from the randomized double-blind phase 3 ENGOT-ov65/KEYNOTE-B96 study. Presented at: European Society of Medical Oncology Congress 2025; October 17–20, 2025; Berlin, Germany. Abstract LBA3.
Continue Reading
-

EDGE Gastric Study at ESMO 2025: Domvanalimab + Zimberelimab Plus FOLFOX Shows Durable Survival
At the ESMO Congress 2025 in Berlin, Dr. Yelena Y. Janjigian (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA) presented updated long-term results from the Phase II EDGE Gastric study (NCT05329766), sponsored by Arcus Biosciences and Gilead Sciences. The trial evaluated the dual immune checkpoint blockade of domvanalimab (Dom)—an Fc-silent anti-TIGIT antibody developed by Arcus—and zimberelimab (Zim)—an anti–PD-1 antibody—in combination with FOLFOX chemotherapy in the first-line (1L) treatment of HER2-negative advanced gastric (GC), gastroesophageal junction (GEJC), and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).
At a 26-month follow-up, the combination demonstrated durable efficacy, achieving a median overall survival (OS) of 26.7 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) of 13.2 months, reinforcing dual PD-1/TIGIT blockade as a promising next-generation immunotherapy strategy for upper gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas.
Background
Despite advances in immunotherapy, long-term outcomes for patients with advanced gastric and GEJ cancers remain poor. While PD-1 inhibitors have become a mainstay of first-line therapy, resistance and limited response durability remain major challenges.
The TIGIT pathway, a key regulator of T-cell exhaustion, has emerged as a complementary target to PD-1, with potential to deepen and sustain immune responses.
The EDGE-Gastric trial (Arm A1) was designed to assess whether dual inhibition of PD-1 and TIGIT, combined with chemotherapy, could enhance anti-tumor immunity and improve survival outcomes in this population.Methods
Patients received:
- Domvanalimab 1600 mg IV every 4 weeks (Q4W),
- Zimberelimab 480 mg IV Q4W, and
- FOLFOX chemotherapy (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, fluorouracil) every 2 weeks (Q2W).
Primary endpoints included safety and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1, while secondary endpoints assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
A total of 41 patients were enrolled, 63% of whom had gastric cancer.
The median follow-up at data cutoff (March 3, 2025) was 26.4 months.Results
The combination of Dom + Zim + FOLFOX continued to yield durable and consistent efficacy:
- Confirmed ORR: 59% (90% CI: 45–72)
- Median PFS: 13.2 months (90% CI: 9.8–13.8)
- Median OS: 26.7 months (90% CI: 18.4–not estimable)
- 24-month PFS rate: 25.9% (90% CI: 14.8–38.5)
- 24-month OS rate: 50.2% (90% CI: 36.3–62.6)
The benefit was consistent across PD-L1 subgroups:
- PD-L1 positive (TAP ≥1%): ORR 62%, median OS 26.7 months
- PD-L1 high (TAP ≥5%): ORR 69%, median PFS 14.5 months, median OS not yet reached
These findings highlight robust, long-lasting responses, particularly in PD-L1–high tumors, with durable benefit extending beyond two years.
Safety
The safety profile of Dom + Zim + FOLFOX remained manageable and comparable to PD-1–based chemotherapy regimens.
- Immune-mediated TEAEs: 22%
- Infusion-related reactions: 7%
- Grade ≥3 TEAEs: consistent with prior reports
No new safety signals or TIGIT-specific toxicities were observed.
Overall, the regimen was well tolerated, supporting its feasibility in frontline management.Conclusions
At 26 months of follow-up, dual PD-1/TIGIT blockade with domvanalimab and zimberelimab plus FOLFOX achieved prolonged survival outcomes—with a median OS of 26.7 months—and sustained responses in patients with HER2-negative advanced gastric, GEJ, and esophageal adenocarcinoma.
The regimen demonstrated a favorable safety profile and consistent benefit across PD-L1 subgroups, establishing a strong rationale for phase III validation.
The ongoing STAR-221 trial (NCT05568095) will compare Dom + Zim + chemotherapy directly with nivolumab + chemotherapy in the same setting.You Can Also Raed INTEGRATE IIb Trial at ESMO 2025: Regorafenib Plus Nivolumab vs Chemotherapy in Advanced Gastric and GEJ Cancer by OncoDaily
You can read the full abstract here
Continue Reading
-

Rate of Second Primary Tumors Is Similar Between Adjuvant Cemiplimab and Placebo in High-Risk CSCC
Adjuvant treatment with cemiplimab-rwlc (Libtayo) was associated with a similar incidence of second primary tumors (SPTs) compared with placebo in patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) following surgery and postoperative radiotherapy, according to findings from an analysis of the phase 3 C-POST trial (NCT03969004) presented at the
2025 ESMO Congress .1During the treatment period, the proportion of patients who developed at least one SPT was 11% in the cemiplimab arm (n = 209) compared with 12% in the placebo arm (n = 206); during the study’s follow-up period, these rates were 8% and 7%, respectively. During the treatment period, the cumulative number of SPTs was 32 with cemiplimab vs 82 for placebo, corresponding to annualized, adjusted annualized SPT rates of 1.23 (95% CI, 0.60-2.54) and 2.81 (95% CI, 1.23-6.45), respectively. In the follow-up period, 36 total SPTs occurred in the cemiplimab arm vs 41 in the placebo arm, and the annualized SPT rates were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.30-1.71) and 1.17 (95% CI, 0.40-3.49), respectively.
During the treatment period, 9% of patients in the cemiplimab arm had 1 SPT, 1% had 2 SPTs, less than 1% had 3 SPTs, 0% had 4 SPTs, less than 1% had 5 SPTs, and 0% had 6 or more SPTs. In the placebo arm, these rates were 8%, 2%, less than 1%, less than 1%, 0%, and 1%, respectively. Incidence was similar during the follow-up period, with 4% of patients in each arm experiencing 1 SPT and less than 1% of patients falling into the multiple SPT groups within each arm.
In a post hoc analysis incorporating the first occurrence of SPTs alongside disease-free survival (DFS) events (recurrence or death), efficacy continued to favor cemiplimab over placebo (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.30-0.60). The median DFS in this analysis was not reached (NR; 95% CI, not evaluable [NE]-NE) in the cemiplimab group vs 21.7 months (95% CI, 12.9-39.2) in the placebo group. At 24 months, DFS rates were 81.1% with cemiplimab vs 59.1% with placebo, and this benefit was maintained over time, with rates of 73.4% vs 48.7% at 36 months and 68.4% vs 41.5% at 48 months, respectively.
“The lower number of SPTs in the cemiplimab arm appeared to be driven by a small number of patients with multiple SPTs observed in the placebo arm. The robust [DFS] efficacy signal with cemiplimab vs placebo was maintained in a post hoc analysis in which SPTs were included as [DFS] events,” Danny Rischin, MD, who serves as the director of Medical Oncology at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia, noted in the conclusion of his presentation. “These prospective, randomized data suggest that there may be a subset of patients who experience fewer SPTs with cemiplimab, although further investigation is required.”
What Was Established in the Primary Analysis of the C-POST Trial?
With a median follow-up of 24 months (range, 2-64), previously reported findings from the primary analysis showed that patients who received adjuvant cemiplimab after surgical resection and postoperative radiotherapy achieved a median DFS that was NR (95% CI, NE-NE) compared with 49.4 months (95% CI, 48.5-NE) among those treated with placebo (n = 206; HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.51; P < .001). The estimated 24-month DFS rates were 87.1% (and 64.1%, respectively.
Based on those findings, on October 8, 2025
the FDA approved cemiplimab for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with CSCC at high risk of recurrence after surgery and radiation.2 Following this decision, the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use(CHMP) issued a positive opinion for the agent’s use in the same indication.3What Was the Design of the C-POST Trial and the Post Hoc Analysis?
The phase 3 C-POST trial is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate adjuvant cemiplimab in patients with histologically confirmed CSCC who had undergone complete resection with curative intent and completed postoperative radiotherapy.1 Patients were required to have high-risk features, which included nodal extracapsular extension with at least one lymph node measuring 20 mm or more, or three or more involved lymph nodes; in-transit metastases; perineural invasion; T4 lesions; or recurrent CSCC with 1 or more additional high-risk characteristics.
Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cemiplimab or placebo. In part 1 of the study, patients received cemiplimab at 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for 12 weeks, followed by cemiplimab at 700 mg every 6 weeks for an additional 36 weeks. Those in the control group received matched placebo on the same schedule. Treatment continued until completion of the planned duration, disease recurrence, or unacceptable toxicity.
Patients who experienced recurrence after completing placebo treatment or after at least three months following cemiplimab completion were eligible to enter an optional open-label extension phase (part 2) to receive cemiplimab at 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 96 weeks.
The primary end point of the trial was DFS. Key secondary end points include freedom from locoregional recurrence, freedom from distant recurrence, cumulative occurrence of second primary tumors, overall survival, and safety.
The median age of patients was 71.0 years (range, 33-87) in the cemiplimab group and 70.5 years (range, 36-95) in the placebo group. Most patients were 65 years of age or older, representing 73% and 68% of each respective arm. The majority of participants were male (83% in both arms) and White (90% vs 92%).
Geographically, 43% of patients in the cemiplimab arm and 44% in the placebo arm were enrolled from Australia or New Zealand, 18% and 15% were from North America, and 39% and 41% were from the rest of the world.
Most patients had resected high-risk tumors located in the head and neck region (79% in the cemiplimab group vs 86% in the placebo group), and 21% and 14% had non–head and neck tumors, respectively. Regarding risk classification, 60% of patients in the cemiplimab arm and 57% in the placebo arm were categorized as having nodal high-risk disease; 40% and 43%, respectively, had non-nodal high-risk features.
Disclosures: Rischin reported receiving institutional research funding from ALX Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bicara Therapeutics, Decibel Therapeutics, Erasca, Marck, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and having uncompensated relationships with Eisai, GSK, Merck, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.
References
- Rischin D, Porceddu S, Day F, et al. Analysis of second primary CSCC tumors (SPTs) reported during the C-POST trial, a randomized phase 3 study of adjuvant cemiplimab vs placebo for high-risk CSCC. Presented at: 2025 ESMO Congress; October 17-21, 2025; Berlin, Germany. Abstract 1603MO.
- FDA approves cemiplimab-rwlc for adjuvant treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. FDA. October 8, 2025. Accessed October 18, 2025. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-cemiplimab-rwlc-adjuvant-treatment-cutaneous-squamous-cell-carcinoma
- Libtayo (cemiplimab) recommended for EU approval by the CHMP for adjuvant treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) with a high risk of recurrence after surgery and radiation. News release. Regeneron. October 17, 2025. Accessed October 18, 2025. https://investor.regeneron.com/news-releases/news-release-details/libtayor-cemiplimab-recommended-eu-approval-chmp-adjuvant
Continue Reading
-

Tarlatamab Improves Survival Vs Chemotherapy in Second-Line SCLC Subgroups
Treatment with tarlatamab-dlle (Imdelltra) improved overall survival (OS) vs chemotherapy among patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) regardless of chemotherapy-free intervals (CFIs) or prior receipt of anti–PD-(L)1 therapy, according to data from the phase 3 DeLLphi-304 trial (NCT05740566) presented at the
European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2025 .1The median OS was 10.9 months in the tarlatamab arm vs 6.4 months in the chemotherapy arm among patients with a CFI of less than 90 days (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.84). The 12-month OS rates in this population were 40% vs 24% with tarlatamab and chemotherapy, respectively.
Among patients with a CFI of 90 days or longer, the median OS was 17.1 months compared with 10.6 months in each arm, with respective 12-month OS rates of 64% and 48% (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.93). Regarding patients with disease progression within 2 weeks of their most recent platinum-containing treatment, the Kaplan-Meier estimated 6-month OS rates were 55% with tarlatamab and 35% with chemotherapy.
Among patients with prior receipt of anti–PD-(L)1 agents, the median OS was 14.1 months in the tarlatamab arm and 8.3 months in the chemotherapy arm; the respective 12-month OS rates were 53% vs 36% (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45-0.82). In the group of patients without prior anti–PD-(L)1 therapy, the median OS was 13.6 months vs 8.3 months, and the 12-month OS rates were 53% vs 40% (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.03). Overall, data showed that prior exposure to anti–PD-(L)1 agents did not affect OS benefits with tarlatamab vs chemotherapy.
“In the second line, standard chemotherapies have demonstrated modest survival benefits, especially [in] those patients with platinum-resistant disease, [who] often have a poor prognosis. DeLLphi-304 is the first randomized phase 3 trial to demonstrate superior OS with tarlatamab compared with standard chemotherapy. Importantly, this survival benefit extended to patients with platinum-resistant disease,” presenting author Pedro F. Simoes da Rocha, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital and Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, Spain, stated in the presentation.1 “These findings reinforce the use of tarlatamab as a standard of care in second-line SCLC, including those patients with worse prognosis, such as [those] with platinum-resistant disease.”
In the randomized DeLLphi-304 trial, 509 patients were assigned 1:1 to receive tarlatamab (n = 254) or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (n = 255), which included options of topotecan (n = 185), lurbinectedin (Zepzelca; n = 47), and amrubicin (n = 23). Investigators stratified patients by prior receipt of anti–PD-(L)1 agents, CFI interval, presence of brain metastases, and intended chemotherapy.
The trial’s primary end point was OS. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, patient-reported outcomes, objective response rate, and safety.
Patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed SCLC, disease progression following frontline platinum-based chemotherapy with or without anti–PD-(L)1 therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible for enrollment on the trial. Those with asymptomatic, treated, or untreated brain metastases were able to enroll.
In the tarlatamab and chemotherapy arms, respectively, 43% and 45% of patients had a CFI of less than 90 days, and 57% and 55% had a CFI of 90 days or longer. Additionally, 71% of patients in both arms had prior receipt of anti–PD-(L)1 therapy, while 29% from both arms did not. Investigators noted that subgroup baseline characteristics appeared to be balanced between treatment arms.
Across the different CFI and anti–PD-(L)1 subgroups, rates of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse effects (AEs) ranged from 24% to 30% in the tarlatamab arm and 58% to 69% in the chemotherapy arm. Any-grade events of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 51% to 59% of patients who received tarlatamab across various subgroups, and subgroup status did not impact the risk of CRS.
Previously, the
FDA granted accelerated approval to tarlatamab as a treatment for patients with extensive-stage SCLC following progression on prior platinum-based chemotherapy in May 2024.2 Supporting data for this indication came from the phase 2 DELLphi-301 trial (NCT05060016).References
- Rocha P, Sun L, Cho BC, et al. Tarlatamab as second-line (2L) treatment for small cell lung cancer (SCLC): Outcomes by chemotherapy-free interval (CFI) and prior PD-(L)1 inhibitor use in the phase 3 DeLLphi-304 trial. Presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2025; October 17-21, 2025; Berlin, Germany. LBA101.
- FDA grants accelerated approval to tarlatamab-dlle for extensive stage small cell lung cancer. News release. FDA. May 16, 2024. Accessed October 18, 2024. https://tinyurl.com/48k34rw5
Continue Reading
-
ESMO 2025: Perioperative Enfortumab Vedotin (EV) plus Pembrolizumab (Pembro) in Participants with Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer (MIBC) Who Are Cisplatin-Ineligible: The Phase 3 KEYNOTE-905 Study – UroToday
- ESMO 2025: Perioperative Enfortumab Vedotin (EV) plus Pembrolizumab (Pembro) in Participants with Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer (MIBC) Who Are Cisplatin-Ineligible: The Phase 3 KEYNOTE-905 Study UroToday
- Pfizer and Astellas announce positive results from phase 3ev-303 clinical trial for Padcev in combination with Keytruda TradingView
- Enfortumab Vedotin Plus Pembro Cuts Risk of Disease Progression, Death 60% for Patients With MIBC Who Can’t Have Chemo With Bladder Removal The American Journal of Managed Care® (AJMC®)
- ESMO25: Padcev, Keytruda regimen given before, after surgery shines in bladder cancer FirstWord Pharma
- KEYNOTE-905: EV/pembrolizumab emerges as new option for cisplatin-ineligible MIBC Urology Times
Continue Reading
-

Where Will Nvidia Be 24 Months After the Blackwell Launch? Here’s What History Says.
-
The AI chip leader released its much-anticipated Blackwell platform late last year.
-
The previous big release was the Hopper architecture, launched two years earlier, and the system drove major revenue gains.
-
10 stocks we like better than Nvidia ›
About a year ago, Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) was facing one of its biggest moments ever. The artificial intelligence (AI) chip giant was launching its new Blackwell architecture, a system that was being met with “insane” demand as CEO Jensen Huang told CNBC at the time. The company announced Blackwell in March 2024 and the fourth quarter of the year was the first to include Blackwell revenue.
Blackwell was to be the first release of a new routine for Nvidia: launching chip or entire platform updates on an annual basis. Since that time, this new architecture has helped Nvidia’s earnings roar higher, with Blackwell data center revenue climbing 17% in the most recent quarter from the previous one. In the report, Huang said, “The AI race is on, and Blackwell is the platform at its center.” Meanwhile, Nvidia stock has reflected all of this, advancing 40% so far this year.
Now, it’s logical to wonder where Nvidia will be as this story progresses, for example, 24 months after the Blackwell launch. Here’s what history says.
Image source: Nvidia. First, though, let’s consider Nvidia’s path in the AI market so far. The company has always been a graphics processing unit (GPU) powerhouse, but in its earlier days, it mainly sold these high-performance chips to the gaming market. As it became clear that their uses could be much broader, Nvidia developed the CUDA parallel computing platform to make that happen — and then, as the potential of AI emerged, Nvidia didn’t hesitate to put its focus on this exciting market.
That proved to be a fantastic move as it helped Nvidia secure the top spot in the AI chip market — and the quality and speed of its GPUs has kept it there. All of this has resulted in several quarters of double- and triple-digit revenue growth as well as high profitability on sales — gross margin has generally surpassed 70% in recent times.
To keep this leadership going, Nvidia committed to ongoing innovation, with the promise of updating its chips once a year. The company kicked this off with the launch of Blackwell about a year ago, then released update Blackwell Ultra a few months ago. Next up on the agenda is the Vera Rubin system, set for release late next year.
All of these platforms operate together seamlessly, so customers don’t have to wait for a specific one and instead can get in on Nvidia’s current system and easily move forward with the latest innovations when needed. Still, as mentioned earlier, demand from big tech customers for the latest systems has been great — they want to win in the AI race and to do so aim to get their hands on the best tools as soon as possible.
Continue Reading
-
-
Jetson Air Games Have Officially Taken Off and Are Wildly Inspiring, To Say the Least – autoevolution
- Jetson Air Games Have Officially Taken Off and Are Wildly Inspiring, To Say the Least autoevolution
- Jetson showcases eVTOL racing concept called the Jetson Air Games [Video] Electrek
- Flying Cars Are Officially Advanced Enough To Pilot In Shockingly Casual Attire OutKick
- Jetson Personal Electric Aerial Vehicles Race Against Each Other in an ‘Air Games’ Showcase Laughing Squid
- ‘Formula One of skies’: Jetson hosts world’s first flying car race in Texas The News International
Continue Reading