Category: 3. Business

KARACHI:

The Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) saw a quiet week, with the KSE-100 index edging up 408 points to close at 167,086, as sentiment remained steady amid mixed economic indicators and key developments on the external financing front.

AHL’s weekly review noted that Saudi Arabia rolled over its $3 billion deposit with the State Bank of Pakistan until December 2026, while headline inflation held nearly unchanged at 6.1% in November. However, weakness in trade performance, slower OMC and cement dispatches, and a widening deficit underscored persisting macro pressures, even as reserves and the rupee marked marginal improvement.

On a day-on-day basis, the PSX kicked off Dec’25 on a strong note, with the KSE-100 index closing at 168,062, up 1,385 points, or 0.83%. On Tuesday, the market witnessed profit-taking as the index closed at 167,642, down 420 points, or 0.25%.

As anticipated, the bourse continued its consolidation between the 166-168k range on Wednesday, with the KSE-100 closing at 166,145, down 1,495 points, or 0.89%. The PSX extended its consolidation phase on Thursday and closed flat at 166,284, up 138 points, or 0.08%.

The market ended the week by extending its consolidation phase but the KSE-100 managed to close above the 167k mark at 167,086, posting a gain of 802 points, or 0.48%.

AHL observed that the KSE-100 index increased from 166,677 last week to 167,086 this week, posting a modest increase of 408 points (+0.24% WoW). Saudi Arabia on Thursday rolled over its $3 billion deposit with the State Bank for another year, extending the facility to Dec’26.

Headline inflation for Nov’25 stood at 6.1% YoY, showing little change from October’s reading of 6.2% and broadly aligning with expectations. Oil marketing companies’ sales in Nov’25 came in at 1.4 million tons, reflecting a 5% MoM and 10% YoY decline, whereas cumulative 5MFY26 sales rose by 1% YoY to 6.81 million tons.

Pakistan’s trade deficit widened to $2.9 billion in Nov’25, as exports fell to $2.4 billion (a decline of 15.4% YoY and 15.8% MoM) while imports increased to $5.3 billion (up 5.4% YoY, though down 13.7% MoM). Over 5MFY26, the cumulative deficit expanded by 37.2% YoY to $15.5 billion.

Cement dispatches in Nov’25 stood at 4.14 million tons, marking a 3.2% YoY and 13.1% MoM decline due to softer domestic demand and lower exports. Despite this, 5MFY26 dispatches grew 11.5% YoY to 21.4 million tons.

Urea offtake rose sharply by 25% YoY in Nov’25 to 817k tons, driven by strong Rabi-season demand and increased discounts by manufacturers, although cumulative 11MCY25 urea sales remained 4% lower YoY. DAP offtake, however, declined by 14% YoY to 216k tons.

The central government debt reached Rs77 trillion in Oct’25, reflecting a 0.5% MoM increase and an 11.4% YoY rise from Rs69.1 trillion in Oct’24. The SBP-held reserves rose by $14 million to $14.57 billion during the week, while commercial bank reserves remained broadly stable at $5.01 billion, AHL said.

Danyal Hussain of JS Global wrote that the KSE-100 remained largely range bound during the week, closing at 167,086 points, reflecting a 0.2% WoW increase. Market participation improved, with average daily turnover increasing 21% WoW.

The week commenced with inflation for Nov’25 arriving at 6.1%, taking 5MFY26 average inflation to 5% compared to 7.9% during the same period of last year. Meanwhile, the country’s trade deficit widened by 33% YoY to $2.85 billion, as exports fell 15% YoY while imports rose 5% during the month.

Additionally, the FBR’s tax revenue collection recorded a shortfall of around Rs349 billion in 5MFY26. In governance and reform developments, the finance minister stated that an action plan for implementing 15 priority IMF recommendations will be finalised by the end of December 2025.

In other news, Saudi Arabia extended its $3 billion deposit facility for Pakistan until Dec’26, providing a much-needed external account support. Pakistan’s central government debt rose to Rs77 trillion in Oct’25, driven mainly by domestic borrowings, which climbed 23% YoY to Rs45.49 trillion. On the privatisation front, final bidding for PIA is scheduled for December 23, Hussain said.

A year after being pushed out of Intel, Pat Gelsinger is still waking up at 4 a.m., still in the thick of the semiconductor wars — just on a different battlefield. Now a general partner at venture firm Playground Global, he’s working with 10 startups. But one portfolio company has captured an outsized share of his attention: xLight, a semiconductor startup that last Monday announced it has struck a preliminary deal for up to $150 million from the U.S. Commerce Department, with the government set to become a meaningful shareholder.

It’s a nice feather in the cap of Gelsinger, who spent 35 years across two stints at Intel before the board showed him the door late last year owing to a lack of confidence in his turnaround plans. But the xLight deal is also shining a spotlight on a trend that’s making people in Silicon Valley quietly uncomfortable: the Trump administration taking equity stakes in strategically important companies.

“What the hell happened to free enterprise?” California Governor Gavin Newsom asked at a speaking event this week, capturing the unease that’s rippling through an industry that has long prided itself on its free-market principles.

Speaking at one of TechCrunch’s StrictlyVC events at Playground Global, Gelsinger — who is xLight’s executive chairman — seemed unbothered by the philosophical debate. He’s more focused on his bet that xLight can solve what he sees as the semiconductor industry’s biggest bottleneck: lithography, the process of etching microscopic patterns onto silicon wafers. The startup is developing massive “free electron lasers” powered by particle accelerators that could revolutionize chip manufacturing. If the technology works at scale, that is.

“You know, I have this long-term mission to continue to see Moore’s law in the semiconductor industry,” Gelsinger said, referencing the decades-old principle that computing power should double every two years. “We think this is the technology that will wake up Moore’s law.”

The xLight deal is the first Chips and Science Act award under Trump’s second term, using funding earmarked for early-stage companies with promising technologies. Notably, the deal is currently at the letter of intent stage, meaning it’s not finalized and details could still change. When pressed on whether the funding could end up being double the announced amount — or potentially not materialize at all — Gelsinger was candid.

“We’ve agreed in principle on the terms, but like any of these contracts, there’s still work to get done,” he said.

The technology xLight is pursuing is pretty serious in both scale and ambition. The company plans to build machines roughly 100 meters by 50 meters — about the size of a football field — that will sit outside semiconductor fabrication plants. These free electron lasers would generate extreme ultraviolet light at wavelengths as precise as 2 nanometers, far more powerful than the 13.5 nanometer wavelengths currently used by ASML, the Dutch giant that utterly dominates the EUV lithography market.

“About half of the capital goes into lithography,” Gelsinger explained of the entire semiconductor industry. “In the middle of a lithography machine is light. . . [and] this ability to keep innovating for shorter wavelength, higher power light is the essence of being able to continue to innovate for more advanced semiconductors.

Leading xLight is Nicholas Kelez, whose background is unusual for the semiconductor world. Before founding xLight, Kelez led quantum computer development efforts at PsiQuantum (a Playground Global portfolio company) and spent two decades building large-scale X-ray science facilities at national labs including SLAC and Lawrence Berkeley, where he was Chief Engineer for the Linac Coherent Light Source.

So why is this viable now when ASML abandoned a similar approach almost a decade ago? “The difference was the technology wasn’t as mature,” explained Kelez, who was speaking at the event alongside Gelsinger. Back then, only a handful of extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUV) machines existed, and the industry had already sunk tens of billions into the incumbent technology. “It just wasn’t the time to take on something completely new and orthogonal.”

Now, with EUV ubiquitous in leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing and existing light source technology hitting its limits, the timing looks better. The key innovation, according to Kelez, is treating light like a utility rather than building it into each machine. “We go away from building an integrated light source with the tool, which is what [ASML does] now and that fundamentally constrains you to make it smaller and less powerful,” he said. And instead, “We treat light the same way you treat electrical power or HVAC. We build outside the fab at utility scale and then distribute in.”

The company is aiming to produce its first silicon wafers by 2028 and have its first commercial system online by 2029.

There are, naturally, hurdles, though right now, competing with ASML directly does not appear to be one of them. “We’re working very closely with them to basically design how we integrate with an ASML scanner,” Kelez said. “So we’re working with both them, as well as their providers, [like] Zeiss, who does their optics.”

When asked whether Intel or other major chipmakers have committed to purchasing xLight’s technology, Gelsinger said they have not. “Nobody has committed yet, but the work is going on with everybody on the list that you would expect, and we’re having intense conversations with all of them.”

Meanwhile, the competitive landscape is heating up. In October, Substrate — a semiconductor manufacturing startup backed by Peter Thiel — announced it raised $100 million to develop U.S. chip fabs, including an EUV tool that sounds awfully similar to xLight’s approach. Gelsinger doesn’t see them as direct competition though. “If Substrate is successful, they could be a customer for us,” he said, offering that Substrate is focused on building a full-stack lithography scanner that would ultimately need a free electron laser, which is exactly what xLight is developing.

Gelsinger’s relationship with the Trump administration adds another layer to the story. He brought up xLight to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick back in February, before Playground funded the startup and before Lutnick was confirmed. At that point, Kelez says, he’d already spent more than a year pitching xLight to the government as a way to bring chip manufacturing back to the U.S., but the new arrangement has drawn criticism from some who view the administration’s approach as overreach.

Gelsinger is unapologetic, framing it as necessary for national competitiveness. “I measure it by the results,” he said. “Does it drive the results that we want and that we need to reinvigorate our industrial policies? Many of our competitive countries don’t have such debates. They’re moving forward with the policies that are necessary to accomplish their competitive outcomes.”

He pointed to energy policy as another example. “How many nuclear reactors are being built in the US today? Zero. How many being built in China today? 39. Energy policy in a digital AI economy equals the economic capacity of the nation.”

For xLight, the government stake comes with minimal strings attached. The Commerce Department won’t have veto rights or a board seat, says Kelez (pictured above). “No information rights, nothing,” Gelsinger adds. “It’s a minority investment, in a non-governing way, but it also says we need this company to succeed for national interest.”

xLight has raised $40 million from investors including Playground Global and is planning another fundraising round next month, in January. Unlike fusion or quantum computing startups that need billions, Kelez said xLight’s path is more manageable. “This is not fusion or quantum,” he said. “We don’t need billions.”

The company also signed a letter of intent with New York to build its first machine at the New York CREATE site near Albany, though that agreement also needs finalization.

For Gelsinger, xLight is clearly more than just another portfolio company. It’s a chance to cement his relevance in the semiconductor industry that he helped build, even if his methods put him at odds with Silicon Valley’s traditional ethos.

Asked about navigating his principles in the current political environment, Gelsinger retreated to a more technocratic view of corporate leadership — one where the money is from the U.S. government, administrations are temporary, and CEOs must remain above the fray.

“CEOs and companies should neither be Republican or Democrat,” he said. “Your job is to accomplish the business objective, serve your investors, serve your shareholders. That is your objective. And as a result, you need to be able to figure out what policies are beneficial on the R side or what policies are beneficial in the D side, and be able to navigate through them.”

He added separately of that $150 million from the Trump administration, “Taxpayers will do well.”

When asked if working across 10 startups is enough for someone who used to run Intel, Gelsinger was emphatic. “Absolutely. The idea that I can now influence across such a wide range of technologies — I’m a deep tech guy at the core of who I am. My mind is so stretched here, and I’m just grateful that the Playground team would have me to join them and let me make them smarter and be a rookie venture capitalist.”

He paused, then added with a grin: “And I gave my wife back her weekends.”

It’s a nice thought, though anyone who knows Gelsinger’s reputation as a workaholic might wonder how long that arrangement will last.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive and common form of cancer that impacts thousands of individuals globally. In recent years, the treatment landscape of DLBCL has shifted rapidly due to evolutions in molecular profiling, immunotherapy, and response-adapted monitoring. At the 67^th American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting and Exposition, which takes place December 6 through 9 in Orlando, Florida, experts discussed how emerging modalities and novel research insights are powering the next frontier of DLBCL care.¹

Presenters at the session, titled “Now Is the Time to Improve Outcomes in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma,” included Sarah Rutherford, MD, an associate professor of clinical medicine in the division of hematology/oncology at Weill Cornell Medicine; Jennifer Crombie, MD, a senior physician at Dana Farber Cancer Institute; and Franck Morschhauser, PhD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille, Lille, France. Together, the presenters outlined a series of innovations that are helping to inform personalized treatment strategies, in addition to expected challenges as these methods are utilized.¹

Early Response Assessment Could Lead to Treatment Modification, Improved Outcomes in DLBCL

Improving outcomes in patients with DLBCL begins with earlier response assessments that can be analyzed to determine therapy modifications, according to Jennifer Crombie. Her presentation detailed opportunities for improving prognosis and early detection, including using interim positron emission tomography (iPET) scans and measuring circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to detect minimal residual disease (MRD). Crombie explains why utilizing ctDNA could be particularly effective at identifying patients who may benefit from a treatment alteration.¹

After frontline chemotherapy, often consisting of treatment with rituximab (Rituxan; Roche), cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan; Bristol Myers Squibb), doxorubicin (Adriamycin; Pfizer), vincristine (vincristine sulfane injection; Pfizer), and prednisone (R-CHOP) or polatuzumab (Polivy; Genentech) with the R-CHOP regimen, many patients will achieve significant improvements in their disease. For patients who do not exhibit a complete response following cycles of therapy, a PET scan—at the end of treatment—or an iPET scan—in the middle of treatment—determines the state of the cancer and impact of treatment.¹

Crombie described numerous challenges regarding the use of PET scans that could hamper efforts to assess the patient’s cancer. These include imperfections in end-of-treatment PET that, despite predicting progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after first-line (1L) treatment, could miss patients who relapse.1

“There is a high false-positive rate,” Crombie explained. “It makes you worry about potentially changing the therapy of someone who may be driving benefit [from their current regimen.”¹

Moreover, investigators of response-adapted trials have attempted to derive a clinical benefit with intensive chemotherapy using iPET with little results. In a 10-year follow-up of the PETAL trial (NCT00554164), for example, although iPET predicted outcomes in aggressive lymphoma, iPET-based treatment alterations did not improve outcomes.^2-4

Crombie highlights molecular testing using ctDNA assessments as a more productive avenue, asking the crowd, “Can we do better?” She outlined a series of next-generation sequencing assays for MRD, including clonoSEQ (Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation), CAPP-Seq (Roche), and PhasED-Seq (Foresight Diagnostics). Recent studies demonstrate improved personalized cancer profiling and heightened sensitivity with these novel diagnostic assays, especially in Roschewski et al, who demonstrated that PhasED-Seq can be prognostic at both interim and end-of-therapy assessments.^1,5,6

Barriers remain erected against the use of interim MRD in clinical practice, including workflow and turnaround time considerations, along with a lack of commercial availability of diagnostic assays. However, Crombie envisions a future where frontline induction—whether it be chemotherapy or a novel agent—could be followed by iPET and interim ctDNA assessment, with results that can guide future treatment plans. These interim assessments could play a complementary role in future DLBCL treatment.¹

“We’re not there yet, but this is, I think, an attractive potential strategy to consider for the future,” Crombie explained. “And I hope clinical trials start to answer these types of questions, as to whether or not we can use MRD and PET scans in this fashion.”¹

Optimizing Treatment Sequencing in Second and Third Lines

Novel modalities of response assessments in the form of ctDNA MRD could transform how DLBCL is treated. But how do health care professionals determine exactly which treatments to utilize in each patient in relapsed or refractory disease, especially given the myriad novel therapies and regimens now available? Franck Morschhauser explained how this consideration finds itself at the forefront of a shifting field, which is transitioning from defining patients after the 1L based on their transplant eligibility to defining them on their eligibility for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.¹

CAR T-cell therapies have transformed the paradigm of second-line treatment in DLBCL. In phase 2 trials such as ALYCANTE (NCT04531046) and PILOT (NCT03483103), agents like axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel, Yescarta; Gilead Sciences) and lisacabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel, Breyanzi; Bristol Myers Squibb) have demonstrated strong PFS rates within 1 year. CAR T-cell therapy carries numerous advantages compared with autologous stem cell transplantation, including not requiring a response from a prior line of therapy and not necessitating a referral to a specialty setting. Still, Morschhauser cautions providers that “eligibility for CAR T-cell therapy is a dynamic process,” noting that older adults and patients with comorbidities face a higher risk of neurotoxicities.^1,7-10

While new CAR T-cell therapies are becoming standard of care options, bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) and combination agents with antibody-drug conjugates are pushing treatment capabilities even further. Investigators have tested regimens such as glofitamab (Columvi; Genentech) plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin, mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio; Genentech) plus polatuzumab vedotin, and polatuzumab vedotin, rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin. The sheer number of combinations provides countless new ways to better treat patients with DLBCL in the relapsed or refractory setting, Morschhauser explained.^1,11-13

Still, Morschhauser noted that data on the impacts of prior BsAb exposure on CAR T-cell outcomes remains limited; he told the audience that “we should be very cautious…before making a decision to shift the sequence in the other direction.” Given the unanswered questions that remain in the field, Morschhauser gave his preference in the second line setting towards CAR T-cell therapy. However, in the third line—following the failure of CAR T-cell therapy—Morschhauser discussed the merits of treatment with BsAbs. Research led by Topp et al previously demonstrated the effectiveness of monotherapy with the BsAb odronextamab in patients with disease progression after CAR T-cell therapy.^1,14

“Patients experiencing disease progression after CAR T and bispecifics still have [significant] unmet need, and we should focus our research on those patients,” Morschhauser concluded.¹

REFERENCES

1. Crombie J, Morschhauser F, Rutherford S. “Now Is the Time to Improve Outcomes in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.” Presented: 67^th American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition; December 6, 2025; Orlando, FL; Orange County Convention Center; Tangerine Ballroom. Accessed via ASH Virtual Platform on December 6, 2025.

2. Kostakoglu L, Martelli M, Sehn LH, et al. End-of-treatment PET/CT predicts PFS and OS in DLBCL after first-line treatment: results from GOYA. Blood Adv. 2021;5(5):1283-1290. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002690

3. Dührsen U, Bockisch A, Hertenstein B, et al. Response-guided first-line therapy and treatment of relapse in aggressive lymphoma: 10-year follow-up of the PETAL trial. Blood Neoplasia. 2024;1(3):100018. doi:10.1016/j.bneo.2024.100018

4. Positron emission tomography guided therapy of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas (PETAL). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00554164. Last Updated May 5, 2017. Accessed December 6, 2025. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00554164

5. Falchi L, Jardin F, Haioun C, et al. Glofitamab (Glofit) plus R-CHOP has a favorable safety profile and induces high response rates in patients with previously untreated (1L) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) defined as high risk by circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) dynamics: Preliminary safety and efficacy results. Presented: 65^th A American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition; December 11, 2023; San Diego, CA. Accessed Online December 6, 2025. https://ash.confex.com/ash/2023/webprogram/Paper173953.html

6. Roschewski M, Kurtz DM, Westin JR, et al. Remission assessment by circulating tumor DNA in large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(34):3652-3661. doi:10.1200/JCO-25-01534

7. Houot R, Bachy E, Cartron G, et al. Axicabtagene ciloleucel as second-line therapy in large B cell lymphoma ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation: a phase 2 trial. Nature Medicine. 2023;29:2593-2601. doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02572-5

8. Axi-cel as a 2^nd line therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive B lymphoma ineligible to autologous stem cell transplantation. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04531046. Last Updated October 9, 2024. Accessed December 6, 2025. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04531046

9. Sehgal A, Hoda D, Riedell PA, et al. Lisocabtagene maraleucel as second-line therapy in adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who were not intended for haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (PILOT): an open-label, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(8):1066-1077. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00339-4

10. Lisocabtagene maraleucel (JCAR017) as second-line therapy (TRANSCEND-PILOT-017006). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03483103. Last Updated December 12, 2023. Accessed December 6, 2025. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03483103

11. Abramson JS, Ku M, Hertzberg M, et al. Glofitamab plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GemOx) versus rituximab-GemOx for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (STARGLO): a global phase 3, randomised, open-label trial. Lancet. 2024;404(10466):1940-1954. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01774-4

12. Westin J, Zhang H, Kim W, et al. Mosunetuzumab plus polatuzumab vedotin is superior to R-GemOx in transplant-ineligible patients with R/R LBCL: primary results of the Phase III SUNMO trial. Presented: 2025 International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma Annual Meeting; June 17 to 21, 2025; Lugano, Switzerland. Accessed Online December 6, 2025. https://medically.gene.com/global/en/unrestricted/haematology/ICML-2025/icml-2025-presentation-westin-mosunetuzumab-plus-polatu.html

13. Matasar M, Li Z, Vassilakopoulos TP, et al. Polatuzumab vedotin, rituximab, gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (Pola-R-GemOX) for relapsed/refractory (r/r) diffuse large b-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): results from the randomized phase III POLARGO trial. Presented: European Hematology Association Congress 2025; June 12 to 15, 2025; Milan, Italy. Accessed Online December 6, 2025. https://library.ehaweb.org/eha/2025/eha2025-congress/4159178/matthew.matasar.polatuzumab.vedotin.rituximab.gemcitabine.and.oxaliplatin.html

14. Topp MS, Matasar M, Allan JN, et al. Odronextamab monotherapy in R/R DLBCL after progression with CAR T-cell therapy: primary analysis of the ELM-1 study. Blood. 2025;145(14):1498-1509. doi:10.1182/blood.2024027044

The presence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) at end of treatment (EOT) was shown to be prognostic of event-free survival (EFS) outcomes for patients with lymphoma regardless of subtype, according to findings from a retrospective, real-world analysis presented at the 2025 ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition.¹

Findings showed that the median EFS was not achieved (NA) in the ctDNA minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative group (n = 49) vs 1.97 months in the ctDNA-MRD-positive group (n = 19; adjusted HR, 22.43; 95% CI, 6.76-74.45; P < .0001). The 12- and 24-month HRs in the ctDNA-MRD-negative population were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71-0.98) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.64-0.96), respectively. The respective HRs in the ctDNA-MRD-positive population were 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01-0.35) and 0.00 (95% CI, NA-NA), respectively.

“EOT ctDNA status can clarify ambiguous imaging results and enables earlier relapse detection,” Natalie Galanina, MD, lead study author and clinician investigator at UPMC Hillman Cancer Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, stated in during the presentation. “ctDNA kinetics offer real-time insights into treatment response during first-line therapy and can further predict response to CAR T-cell treatment,” she added.

Topline Findings From the Real-World Study

• EOT ctDNA-MRD status was a strong prognostic indicator, with MRD negativity linked with significantly longer EFS across lymphoma subtypes.

• ctDNA outperformed PET-CT in detecting residual disease and the likelihood of subsequent relapse.

• Early or delayed ctDNA clearance was associated with improved EFS outcomes, supporting ctDNA’s role in routine management and surveillance.

What served as the foundation for this study?

Personalized, tumor-informed ctDNA assays have shown the ability to capture prognostic and predictive information in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), but its prognostic capability has been understudied in diverse subsets of lymphoma.²

To bridge that gap, investigators prospectively collected real-world data of MRD detection and ctDNA clearance kinetics in patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory lymphoma across 14 subtypes.¹

“[Signatera is a] personalized tumor-informed assay, where both the tumor and a source of matched normal [tissue] is sequenced, either by whole exome or whole-genome sequencing. Based on the somatic mutation profile of a patient, a custom patient-specific assay is designed to track ctDNA in the plasma. This makes the test ultrasensitive while maintaining extremely high specificity,” Galanina said.

How was the trial designed to answer how ctDNA can be applied in various lymphomas?

The schema was such that 1105 prospectively collected plasma samples from 144 patients with lymphoma were subject to ctDNA assessment. Samples included aggressive (n = 123) T-cell (n = 13) and B-cell (n = 110) lymphomas, as well as indolent (n = 21) follicular (n = 10), marginal zone (n = 5), and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (n = 6).

The demographics of the patient cohort were representative of the real-world population, Galanina said. The median age was 61 years (range, 18-84) and most patients were male (n = 77; 53%). Most patients had stage IV disease (n = 75; 56%), although those with stage I (n = 15; 11%), II (n = 29; 21%), and III (n = 16; 12%) were also included. ECOG performance status was predominantly 0 (n = 50; 46%), followed by 1 (n = 35; 32%), 2 (n = 16; 15%), 3 (n = 6; 5.6%), and 4 (n = 1; 0.9%). Revised International Prognostic Index score fell between 0 and 2 in 25.2% (n = 31) of patients and between 3 and 5 in 26.8% (n = 33) of patients; 80 scores were not reported.

With respect to therapy, patients reported receiving Pola-R-CHP (n = 6; 4.3%), R-CHOP (n = 72; 51%), R-EPOCH (n = 14; 10%), other rituximab (Rituxan; n = 17; 12%), and other (n = 31; 22%).

The median number of ctDNA MRD timepoints was 7 (range, 1-32). Median follow-up for EFS and overall survival (OS) was 20 (range, 1-108) and 21 (range, 1-108) months, respectively.

Pretreatment ctDNA was detectable in 94% of patients with lymphoma. “The median number of tumor molecules per mL was about 100 in aggressive and about 20 in indolent lymphomas, respectively, which may reflect differences in circulating tumor burden,” Galanina stated.

What else was reported on with respect to ctDNA’s validity as a prognostic tool?

Additional data revealed that ctDNA provided a better indication for treatment response than traditional imaging. Patients who had a negative PET-CT at EOT (n = 35) experienced a median EFS that was NA vs 5.16 months in those whose PET-CT was positive at EOT (n = 25; adjusted HR, 8.68; 95% CI, 2.41-31.29; P = .0010). Conversely, patients who had negative ctDNA-MRD at EOT (n = 44) experienced a median EFS that was NA vs 2.04 months in those who had positive ctDNA-MRD at EOT (n = 16; adjusted HR, 49.77; 95% CI, 9.91-250.02; P < .0001).

Furthermore, PET-negative patients with negative ctDNA-MRD (n = 32) had a median EFS that was NA vs 2.76 months in those with positive ctDNA-MRD (n = 3; HR, 45.29; 95% CI, 4.63-443.27; P = .0011). PET-positive patients with negative ctDNA-MRD (n = 12) had a median EFS that was NA vs 1.97 months in those with positive ctDNA-MRD (n = 13; HR, 12.26; 95% CI, 3.23-46.59; P = .0002).

“The clinical significance of this result is that EOD PET-positive patients present a significant clinical challenge, and most of them ultimately proceed to receive additional therapy. However, although the patient numbers are small, our data clearly show that the majority or 75% of PET-positive MRD-negative patients do not progress, and therefore may not require any additional therapy,” Galanina said. “Based on this, it is reasonable to integrate ctDNA as an adjunct to EOT assessment to help further risk stratify patients who are likely to relapse vs those who remain disease free.”

“For patients who are EOD PET negative, if they are ctDNA positive, this may inform post treatment surveillance, as these patients may need to be monitored more closely, and patients who are PET positive, if they’re MRD negative, may be appropriate candidates for observation only, or at the very least require pathologic confirmation of the PET-positive lesions to rule out the non-etiology of the FDG uptake, as those patients have generally good outcomes,” Galanina added.

In multi-variable analysis investigators demonstrated that ctDNA was the most significant predictor of EFS after correcting for all other factors, including age, tumor histology, and stage (P < .001).

ctDNA clearance during frontline therapy was also shown to be prognostic of outcomes in all lymphoma subtypes. The median EFS was NA in patients who cleared their ctDNA (n = 48) vs 2.05 months in those who did not (n = 12; adjusted HR, 8.57; 95% CI, 2.55-28.81; P = .0005). Moreover, the median EFS was NA, NA, and 2.05 months in patients with cycle 1 clearance (n = 14), delayed clearance (n = 34), and no clearance, respectively. The adjusted HRs for patients without clearance vs those with cycle 1 clearance and delayed clearance were 20.95 (95% CI, 2.09-21.11; P = .0097) and 7.45 (95% CI, 2.22-24.98; P = .0011), respectively.

“Early clearance by cycle 1 may have significant implications for potential de-escalation of therapy, especially for older patients and those with comorbidities,” Galanina explained.

Can ctDNA be used to predict response to CAR T-cell therapy?

“Lastly, we also looked at ctDNA clearance in patients undergoing CAR T-cell therapy [and we found that] ctDNA clearance retains its predictive value in this setting as well. Most MRD-positive patients who cleared ctDNA within 3 months post CAR T attained durable remission at 1 year. There was one patient who became ctDNA negative 1 month post CAR T, but then relapsed more than 1 year after, and this patient turned positive prior to recurrence. This suggests that single time point measurement post CAR T may not be sufficient, and longitudinal testing at various time intervals for several years of follow-up may be more optimal to detect patients who may relapse,” Galanina stated.

“MRD assessment supports the integration of ctDNA testing into routine clinical management and surveillance to personalize lymphoma care,” Galanina said in conclusion.

Disclosures: Galanina had no financial relationships to disclose.

References

1. Galanina N, Iqbal M, Nousome D, et al. Real-world evaluation of ctdna for risk stratification across the spectrum of both aggressive and indolent lymphomas. Blood. 2025;146(suppl 1):281. doi:10.1182/blood-2025-281
2. Narkhede M, Tomassetti S, Iqbal M, et al. Tumor-informed ctDNA assessment as a valuable prognostic and predictive biomarker in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Front Oncol. Published online July 29, 2024. doi:10.3389/fonc.2024.1407003

Story continues

The details, discussed by SpaceX’s board of directors on Thursday at its Starbase hub in Texas, could change based on interest from insider sellers and buyers or other factors, said some of the people, who asked not to be identified as the information isn’t public. SpaceX is also exploring a possible initial public offering as soon as late next year, one of the people said. 

Another person briefed on the matter said that the price under discussion for the sale of some employees and investors’ shares is higher than $400 apiece, which would value SpaceX at between $750 billion and $800 billion. The company wouldn’t raise any funds though this planned sale, though a successful offering at such levels would catapult it past the record of $500 billion valuation achieved by OpenAI in October.

Elon Musk on Saturday denied that SpaceX is raising money at a $800 billion valuation without addressing Bloomberg’s reporting on the planned offering of insiders’ shares. 

“SpaceX has been cash flow positive for many years and does periodic stock buybacks twice a year to provide liquidity for employees and investors,” Musk said in a post on his social media platform X. 

The share sale price under discussion would be a substantial increase from the $212 a share set in July, when the company raised money and sold shares at a valuation of $400 billion. The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times earlier reported the $800 billion valuation target.

News of SpaceX’s valuation sent shares of EchoStar Corp., a satellite TV and wireless company, up as much as 18%. Last month, EchoStar had agreed to sell spectrum licenses to SpaceX for $2.6 billion, adding to an earlier agreement to sell about $17 billion in wireless spectrum to Musk’s company.

Subscribe Now: The Business of Space newsletter covers NASA, key industry events and trends.

The world’s most prolific rocket launcher, SpaceX dominates the space industry with its Falcon 9 rocket that lifts satellites and people to orbit.

SpaceX is also the industry leader in providing internet services from low-Earth orbit through Starlink, a system of more than 9,000 satellites that is far ahead of competitors including Amazon.com Inc.’s Amazon Leo.

Elite Group

SpaceX is among an elite group of companies that have the ability to raise funds at $100 billion-plus valuations while delaying or denying they have any plan to go public. 

An IPO of the company at an $800 billion value would vault SpaceX into another rarefied group — the 20 largest public companies, a few notches below Musk’s Tesla Inc. 

If SpaceX sold 5% of the company at that valuation, it would have to sell $40 billion of stock — making it the biggest IPO of all time, well above Saudi Aramco’s $29 billion listing in 2019. The firm sold just 1.5% of the company in that offering, a much smaller slice than the majority of publicly traded firms make available.

A listing would also subject SpaceX to the volatility of being a public company, versus private firms whose valuations are closely guarded secrets. Space and defense company IPOs have had a mixed reception in 2025. Karman Holdings Inc.’s stock has nearly tripled since its debut, while Firefly Aerospace Inc. and Voyager Technologies Inc. have plunged by double-digit percentages since their debuts.

SpaceX executives have repeatedly floated the idea of spinning off SpaceX’s Starlink business into a separate, publicly traded company — a concept President Gwynne Shotwell first suggested in 2020. 

However, Musk cast doubt on the prospect publicly over the years and Chief Financial Officer Bret Johnsen said in 2024 that a Starlink IPO would be something that would take place more likely “in the years to come.”

The Information, citing people familiar with the discussions, separately reported on Friday that SpaceX has told investors and financial institution representatives that it’s aiming for an IPO of the entire company in the second half of next year.

Read More: How to Buy SpaceX: A Guide for the Eager, Pre-IPO

A so-called tender or secondary offering, through which employees and some early shareholders can sell shares, provides investors in closely held companies such as SpaceX a way to generate liquidity.

SpaceX is working to develop its new Starship vehicle, advertised as the most powerful rocket ever developed to loft huge numbers of Starlink satellites as well as carry cargo and people to moon and, eventually, Mars.

This article picked by a teacher with suggested questions is part of the Financial Times free schools access programme. Details/registration here.

Read our full range of US High School economics picks here.

How can young adults build long term wealth even as housing becomes harder to afford, what policies could help make housing more attainable, and how can understanding other investing options give them optimism about their financial future?

Read the FT article and then answer the questions below.

The housing crisis is pushing Gen Z into crypto and economic nihilism

• What economic problem does the article identify as the main force shaping Gen Z’s financial behaviour, and why is this problem especially relevant to young adults today?

• According to the research cited, what three behaviours are more common among young adults who believe home ownership is unrealistic?

• Why do young adults who believe home ownership is still possible tend to behave differently?

• How are incentives and opportunity cost shown in the article in ways that change people’s behaviour as housing affordability changes?

• Imagine you are designing a policy to improve housing affordability. Based on the article, what type of policy would most directly influence young adults’ incentives to save and work? Explain why

• The article mentions the need for greater financial literacy for young adults facing a challenging housing market. What specific financial skills will be most important for students who still hope to become future homeowners?

• Explain why many young adults feel discouraged about saving for a home, and then give and explain three specific policy changes that could increase housing supply and make home ownership more attainable

Joel Miller and James Redelsheimer, Foundation for Economic Education.
Click here for FEE FT Classroom Edition with classroom-ready presentations and suggested answers for teachers.

CSG Systems International (CSGS) has quietly delivered strong long term returns, and its recent pullback could catch the eye of investors looking for steady growth in communications software and services.

See our latest analysis for CSG Systems International.

Despite a modest recent dip in the share price, with CSG Systems International now trading at $77.01, the stock still shows strong momentum, combining a robust year to date share price return with impressive multi year total shareholder returns that point to sustained investor confidence in its growth story.

If CSGS’s steady climb has you rethinking your watchlist, this could be a smart moment to scan other communications and software names through fast growing stocks with high insider ownership.

With shares up strongly over one and three years yet still trading below analysts’ targets and our estimate of intrinsic value, is CSG Systems International an underappreciated compounder, or has the market already priced in its next leg of growth?

With CSG Systems International last closing at $77.01 against a narrative fair value of $80.70, the most widely followed view still sees modest upside and a relatively low risk path to that outcome.

Ongoing strategic migration to asset-light, SaaS and cloud-based platforms is driving improvements in operating leverage, higher gross and operating margins, and robust free cash flow, as demonstrated by operating margin expanding 250 basis points YoY and guidance being raised for margins and free cash flow growth in both 2025 and 2026.

Read the complete narrative.

Curious how steady revenue expectations can still support a richer valuation? The narrative leans on expanding margins, rising earnings power, and a future profit multiple that might surprise you. Want to see which long term assumptions really carry this fair value? Dive in and test whether you agree with the math behind that target.

Result: Fair Value of $80.70 (UNDERVALUED)

Have a read of the narrative in full and understand what’s behind the forecasts.

However, persistent telecom headwinds and heavy reliance on Charter and Comcast could pressure growth and quickly challenge the modest upside implied by this narrative.

Find out about the key risks to this CSG Systems International narrative.

If the market story here does not quite match your view, you can review the numbers yourself and build a tailored narrative in minutes, Do it your way.

A great starting point for your CSG Systems International research is our analysis highlighting 4 key rewards and 2 important warning signs that could impact your investment decision.

Before you log off, you may wish to scan fresh opportunities on Simply Wall St’s screener so the next quiet outperformer does not pass you by.

• Capture early stage potential by reviewing these 3574 penny stocks with strong financials that pair smaller market caps with balance sheets and growth trends that can meaningfully influence your portfolio’s trajectory.

• Position your portfolio for structural change by considering these 30 healthcare AI stocks that are reshaping diagnostics, treatment pathways, and cost efficiency across global health systems.

• Strengthen your income stream with these 15 dividend stocks with yields > 3% that offer yields above 3 percent while aiming to balance payout reliability with underlying business quality.

This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

Companies discussed in this article include CSGS.

Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com

• In recent days, Expeditors International of Washington was highlighted by BofA for stronger-than-expected demand in customs and airfreight, alongside growth in export airfreight tonnage from North and South Asia and deeper penetration into technology, pharmaceutical, and aviation verticals.

• An interesting angle is how Expeditors is benefiting from technology customers’ heavy investments in artificial intelligence infrastructure, which is increasing demand for specialized logistics solutions.

• We’ll now examine how Expeditors’ growing role in AI-related logistics may influence the company’s investment narrative for long-term investors.

We’ve found 15 US stocks that are forecast to pay a dividend yield of over 6% next year. See the full list for free.

To sit comfortably as a shareholder in Expeditors, you really have to believe that its asset-light, tech-enabled freight network can keep turning steady cash generation into disciplined dividends and buybacks, even if headline growth is modest. Recent quarters show incremental revenue and earnings progress rather than a breakout, while the stock has already rerated meaningfully this year and trades on richer multiples than many logistics peers. That is why BofA’s latest commentary on stronger customs and airfreight demand, plus Expeditors’ deeper push into technology, pharma, and aviation, matters: it gives near-term catalysts a clearer AI-related angle, with higher-value shipments and tighter customer relationships potentially reinforcing its high returns on equity. At the same time, it also sharpens the key risk if this AI-driven freight cycle cools faster than the market currently expects.

However, investors also need to watch how much they are paying for that AI-linked growth optionality. Expeditors International of Washington’s shares have been on the rise but are still potentially undervalued by 19%. Find out what it’s worth.

Three Simply Wall St Community fair value views span roughly US$104 to about US$188, underscoring how far apart private investors can be. Set that against Expeditors’ richer earnings multiple and the AI freight demand story, and you can see why it pays to weigh several risk and reward angles before forming your own view.

Explore 3 other fair value estimates on Expeditors International of Washington – why the stock might be worth as much as 24% more than the current price!

Disagree with this assessment? Create your own narrative in under 3 minutes – extraordinary investment returns rarely come from following the herd.

Our daily scans reveal stocks with breakout potential. Don’t miss this chance:

This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

Companies discussed in this article include EXPD.

Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com