Category: 3. Business

Despite high response rates and durable outcomes with existing frontline immunotherapy regimens for metastatic melanoma, significant unmet needs remain—namely, improving frontline combinations, identifying predictive biomarkers to better individualize therapy and extend the benefit of current regimens, and developing more effective second-line strategies, according to Douglas B. Johnson, MD, MSCI.

“Frontline therapy may or may not change all that dramatically [in the next few years]…although hopefully, we’ll get a little bit better at biomarkers,” Johnson said in an interview with OncLive®. “What is likely to change is having some of these [novel treatment approaches] either in an adjuvant setting, [in the case of oncolytic vaccines], or in the second and later lines, [in terms of next-generation] cellular therapies.”

During the interview, Johnson highlighted the need for improved frontline strategies, more effective second-line options, and greater biomarker precision in melanoma. He also pointed to investigational platforms such as tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), T-cell receptor (TCR)–based therapies, and neoantigen vaccines as promising modalities that may eventually broaden immunotherapy’s reach within the melanoma treatment paradigm.

“My prognostication is that some of those therapies will potentially be on the cusp of being tested in the frontline setting, but we’re probably not there quite yet,” Johnson added.

Johnson, a professor of medicine and leader of the Melanoma Clinical Research Program at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, expanded on the importance of Cancer Immunotherapy Awareness Month in a concurrent interview.

OncLive: What are some of the most critical unmet needs with immuno-oncology today in your field, and where do current agents fail to provide durable benefit?

Johnson: Melanoma has certainly been at the forefront of immunotherapy advances, so we’ve been very fortunate to have high response rates in the metastatic setting and long-term responses in many cases. Unfortunately, we’re still seeing 10% to 30% response rates in the frontline setting. We’ve come a long way, but there’s still a long way to go.

We still don’t have great biomarkers either, so we’re not able to predict which patients are going to respond ahead of time and which are not. Improving our frontline options so that more patients can respond, as well as developing better options in the second-line setting, is really an unmet need.

There are a number of ways that people are trying to address these challenges. [With] TILs or other cellular therapy options, we’re seeing somewhere between 30% to 50% response rates in patients who have [progressed on] immune checkpoint inhibitors, with either lifileucel [Amtagvi], which is the FDA-approved TIL product, or some newer products. There’s one from a company called Obsidian [called OBX-115], which is sort of the next-generation TIL. [It is] very early, but [the agent appears] very promising, and it doesn’t require high-dose IL-2.

There’s also something called TCR-T therapy, which is sort of a cousin to tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, but the cells can be harvested from the peripheral blood, so patients don’t have to undergo surgery. If that agent pans out—there’s one from a company called [IMA203]—that so far has shown somewhere around a 50% response rate, although it’s only applicable to patients who have HLA-A*02:01 positive [disease].

[Despite these advances], we still have a ways to go in melanoma and in many other tumor types. There are still a lot of challenges.

What are some of the current challenges and considerations with utilizing TIL therapy in clinical practice, and how could these be addressed?

Lifileucel is an incredible step forward. TILs in general are an incredible step forward. [However,] there are some significant downsides to TILs. High-dose IL-2 is required at the moment for TILs; [to tolerate that therapy] patients have to have excellent performance status, excellent cardiac function, lung function. A lot of patients don’t tolerate that.

Patients also have to have a tumor that’s accessible for surgery. Patients with brain-only metastases or bone-only disease are not candidates for treatment.

The patient also has to have time. That is probably the biggest issue at this moment, because in general, it’s going to take several weeks for insurance approval to get done. When centers are just starting out, it could take quite a bit longer. Patients have to have 2 to 3 months for insurance approval, surgery scheduling, and product manufacturing, which takes about 5 weeks. Many patients don’t have the time to wait around for therapy. For some patients, there could be some bridging options—perhaps BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy, as an example.

However, that’s the biggest challenge right now. The key needs going forward are reducing IL-2, reducing lymphodepletion chemotherapy, and then [reducing the overall] turnaround time—not just the manufacturing part, but the insurance plus surgery plus manufacturing part.

What are some of the ongoing clinical trials or emerging treatment approaches that could shift the treatment paradigm for melanoma?

There’s a lot [of exciting research] going on in melanoma. There were some nice data presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting looking at the triplet combination of ipilimumab [Yervoy], nivolumab, and relatlimab-rmbw [Opdalaug].

What was interesting is they also combined that with sarilumab [Kevzara], which is the IL-6 blocker, to potentially mitigate some of the toxicities that would be associated with triplet therapy. Interestingly, they saw [an approximately] 60% response rate, which is [typical of] a triplet like that, but only a 12% rate of high-grade toxicities in the first 12 weeks, which is dramatically lower than what we would expect.

That kind of approach, where we’re treating the patient aggressively with multi-agent checkpoint inhibitors, but then potentially having an agent on top of that to mitigate some of the toxicities, is very interesting.

Some of these next-generation cellular therapies are quite interesting, and there are a number of trials going there. As I mentioned, [OBX-115] is quite interesting in that it removes the need for high-dose IL-2, allows for lower-dose lymphodepleting therapy, and allows for TIL harvest based on biopsies.

There is also the TCR-T therapy [IMA203], which recognizes the PRAME antigen expressed in HLA-A*02:01. [For this therapy to be effective, the tumor must] have the PRAME antigen and the right HLA type, which is only about 40% of patients. However, there’s [an approximately] 50% response rate [with this agent] in cutaneous melanoma. [Moreover,] at least among the first 15 patients with uveal melanoma, 10 of those patients responded—[this] is a very challenging subset of melanoma.

The last [emerging therapy of interest to me] is the Moderna-Merck mRNA vaccine that’s being looked at in the adjuvant setting. There are some interesting randomized phase 2 data that showed the vaccine plus pembrolizumab [Keytruda] was significantly better than pembrolizumab alone in terms of decreasing relapse rates in stage III melanoma. A phase 3 study is ongoing.

Novel approaches like TILs, TCR-T therapy, and these neoantigen vaccines are proving grounds in melanoma, but could expand across a variety of cancer types.

How do you expect the melanoma treatment paradigm, and the role of immunotherapy in it, to evolve in the next few years?

Frontline therapy may or may not be all that different. I could see us potentially using a triplet or some sort of other immunomodulator, but we do have a couple of regimens right now that do cure about half of patients, so I kind of see that probably continuing. Hopefully, we’ll get a little bit better at biomarkers and things like that, but so far, that’s been a little bit frustrating.

What is likely to really dramatically change is having some of these therapies that I just mentioned, either in an adjuvant setting, like the vaccine, as well as some of these cellular therapies in the second- and later-lines of therapy. There are other agents [that could fill this role], including oncolytic viruses, like the drug RP1, which is under FDA review.

If some of these cellular therapies show enough activity in the second-line setting, it’s possible they’ll get moved toward the frontline. Thinking about a new patient with newly diagnosed metastatic disease waiting that long to get started—if the data look good enough, that’s certainly possible, and that would be very exciting. However, it’s a high bar in the frontline, especially when you’re dealing with cellular therapies that take weeks and weeks to produce.

My prognostication would be that some of those therapies will potentially be on the cusp of being tested in the frontline setting, but probably not be there quite yet.

Story Continues

The US economy added 147,000 jobs in June, a sign of continuing strength in the labor market amid Donald Trump’s trade war.

The number of jobs added surpassed expectations, as economists largely anticipated a drop in openings. Instead, 8,000 more jobs were added in June compared with May, according to new job figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The unemployment rate actually decreased to 4.1%, down from 4.2% in May.

Job gains were seen in state government and healthcare, which saw increases of 47,000 and 39,000 jobs, respectively. Meanwhile, federal government job losses continued, with another 7,000 roles down in May, as the Trump administration continues to cut jobs. The total job loss in the federal government has been 69,000 since January.

Though the president’s tariffs have rocked the US stock market, which has seen a dramatic rebound after dipping down 15% in the spring, economists have been worrying that the labor market has just been slower to show sensitivity to the tariffs.

New data had shown employers showing signs of hesitancy. Payroll firm ADP found that the private sector lost 33,000 jobs in June, far below the 100,000 increase that was expected, and the first decrease since March 2023.

The dip in job openings doesn’t necessarily mean companies are laying off more workers; rather, they are creating fewer new positions.

“Though layoffs continue to be rare, a hesitancy to hire and a reluctance to replace departing workers led to job losses last month,” said Nela Richardson, chief economist at ADP, in a statement.

Data from BLS that measures job openings and turnovers in the labor market found that while job openings had climbed in May, to its highest level since November, the vast majority of openings were concentrated in the leisure and hospitality industry. Economists with Citigroup said the spike in new jobs could be temporary as companies opened new positions in response to Trump’s crackdown on immigrants, fearing that immigrant employees could lose work permits.

The White House has spent the last few months downplaying the impact tariffs have on the domestic economy, despite anxiety from both consumers and businesses over the impact tariffs have on prices.

The deadline for Trump’s 90-day pause on some of his highest tariffs is scheduled to expire next week, as the White House tries to broker deals with dozens of countries that could face high tariffs.

The White House announced on Tuesday a deal with Vietnam, whose products were scheduled to face a 46% tariff. The country agreed to a 20% tariff rate, with no tariffs placed on US exports. The deal with Vietnam follows deals Trump has made with the UK and China, but there are dozens of other countries whose exports could face high tariffs without a deal.

Amid economic uncertainty, Trump has tried to pass blame onto the Federal Reserve and its chair, Jerome Powell. On Monday, Trump sent an open letter to Powell demanding that the Fed lower interest rates.

“He’s costing us a fortune because he keeps the rate way up,” Trump wrote on social media.

Powell, in turn, has said that the Fed has not lowered interest rates because of economic uncertainty caused by Trump’s tariffs.

“In effect, we went on hold when we saw the size of the tariffs,” Powell said. “Essentially all inflation forecasts for the United States went up materially as a consequence of the tariffs.”

We are proud to announce that Baker McKenzie Luxembourg will relocate to the exceptional ekxo building in June 2027.

Developed by IKO Real Estate and located in the vibrant Cloche d’Or district, ekxo is the first timber-structured office building in the area. With its bold architecture, advanced environmental performance and strategic location, ekxo reflects our commitment to sustainability, innovation and the wellbeing of our people.
Designed to meet the highest environmental and wellness standards — including BREEAM® Outstanding and WELL Building Standard® Gold certifications — ekxo offers a forward-thinking and inspiring workplace for the future.

Jean-François Findling, managing partner of Baker McKenzie Luxembourg, remarked:
We chose ekxo for the quality of its environment, its environmental commitment, its representative architecture, and its ability to support our growth in the Luxembourg market. This building perfectly reflects our values and our ambition to offer our people and clients an inspiring, sustainable, and highly professional workplace.

A signature building with strategic and symbolic influence

Designed and developed by IKO Real Estate, ekxo stands as a bold architectural landmark, embodying the alliance of modernity, sustainability and prestige. Its iconic metal exoskeleton, visible from the district’s main thoroughfares, gives it a strong visual identity and a distinctive presence in Luxembourg’s urban landscape.

A strategic location in a forward-looking district

Ideally located on the corner of boulevard Raiffeisen and rue Robert Stumper, ekxo is just a few minutes from the city center, Luxembourg-Gare and the international airport. It benefits from optimal accessibility by public transport and soft mobility.

A model of environmental and technological excellence

Developed by IKO Real Estate and designed by Baumschlager Eberle Architekten, ekxo stands out for its environmental commitment and energy performance, with AAA energy class construction and the following certifications:
• BREEAM® Outstanding certification
• WELL Building Standard® Gold certification
• Carbon Footprint Optimized certification
As the first wood-structured office building in the Cloche d’Or district, ekxo offers a working environment designed for the wellbeing, health and sustainable performance of its users.

The move is the fruit of close collaboration with INOWAI, whose expertise enabled us to align Baker McKenzie’s expectations with ekxo’s distinctive strengths.

July 03, 2025 (MLN): In a significant development for Pakistan’s tech landscape, Microsoft has officially closed its operations in the country, bringing an end to a 25-year chapter for the global software giant.

The last few remaining employees were formally informed of the shutdown, marking a quiet yet emotional close to an era that began in June 2000 with the launch of Microsoft Pakistan.

Jawwad Rehman, the founding Country Manager who led Microsoft’s early journey in Pakistan, shared his reflections in a heartfelt post on X (formerly Twitter), calling it “the most rewarding journey” of his personal and professional life.

“It wasn’t just a job… it was a calling,” Rehman wrote. He led the company for seven years, helping assemble a talented team, serve customers, and build key partnerships that supported Pakistan’s digital transformation.

Rehman described the mission as “bold and hope-filled,” adding that the experience had “shaped me, stretched me, and helped define who I am today.”

Copyright Mettis Link News

The long-term disease-free survival (DFS) benefit and numerical overall survival improvement seen with nivolumab (Opdivo) vs placebo in patients with resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer who have residual pathologic disease following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy reinforces the role of adjuvant nivolumab as a standard of care (SOC) in this patient population, according to Ronan J. Kelly, MD, MBA, FASCO.

Findings from the final OS and updated DFS data from the phase 3 CheckMate 577 study (NCT02743494) were presented during the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. With a minimum follow-up of 5 years, the median DFS increased from 10.8 months (95% CI, 8.3-14.3) with placebo (n = 262) to 21.8 months (95% CI, 16.6-29.7) with adjuvant nivolumab (n = 532; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.91). The median OS was also prolonged by 16.4 months with nivolumab vs placebo; however, this difference did not meet the threshold for statistical significance (HR, 0.85; 95.87% CI, 0.70-1.04; P = .1064). The 5-year OS rate was also higher in the nivolumab vs placebo arm. Regarding safety, nivolumab continued to demonstrate a favorable toxicity profile with no new safety signals observed over extended follow-up.

“[The data] suggest a clinically meaningful improvement in OS [with nivolumab], although statistical significance was not met. Looking at the OS subgroup analysis, however, did show that the majority of groups favored nivolumab,” Kelly, the chief of oncology, the W.W. Caruth, Jr. Chair in Immunology, and the founder and director of the Texas Cancer Interception Institute at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas, shared with OncLive®.

In the interview, Kelly provided an in-depth look at the final efficacy and safety outcomes from CheckMate 577, highlighted the role of PD-L1 expression and histology in response, and emphasized evolving treatment paradigms, with perioperative regimens gaining favor for GEJ and gastric cancers while adjuvant nivolumab remains standard for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

OncLive: What were the primary findings previously reported from CheckMate 577?

Kelly: CheckMate 577 was originally presented at the 2020 ESMO Congress, where a statistically significant and clinically meaningful DFS benefit [was demonstrated] with adjuvant nivolumab compared with placebo. The study also showed a well-tolerated safety profile in patients with resected esophageal or GEJ cancers following trimodality therapy.

Based on these findings, which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2021, nivolumab was globally approved for the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected esophageal or GEJ cancer and residual pathologic disease following neoadjuvant chemoradiation. To date, adjuvant nivolumab remains the only approved immuno-oncology agent in operable gastroesophageal cancer. However, OS data have remained an unmet need in this setting.

What was the design of CheckMate 577?

The final analysis of the secondary end point of OS was presented from the CheckMate 577 study, along with 5-year follow-up data for DFS and exploratory end points. This global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled patients with stage II or III esophageal or GEJ cancer, including both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma histologies. All patients were required to have received neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgical resection.

Importantly, patients with a pathologic complete response, [which includes] approximately 25% to 30% of this population, were excluded. The study focused on patients with residual pathologic disease, indicative of more aggressive tumor biology and a lack of response to neoadjuvant therapy. A total of 794 patients were [randomly assigned] in a 2:1 ratio to receive either adjuvant nivolumab or placebo for a total duration of 1 year.

The primary end point was DFS. Secondary end points included OS rates at 1, 2, and 3 years, with exploratory analyses evaluating safety and distant metastasis-free survival. [Notably,] there was an approximate 6-month interval between initiation of chemoradiation and randomization, reflecting the time required for chemoradiation, surgery, and recovery prior to trial enrollment.

What should be known about the baseline characteristics of patients in this study?

In terms of the baseline characteristics for patients enrolled in the study [who received nivolumab], the salient points to highlight [are as follows]: tumor location was esophageal in 59% of patients and gastroesophageal junction in 41%. Adenocarcinoma was the predominant histology, occurring in 71% of patients, while 29% had squamous cell carcinoma. The poor prognostic factor of lymph node–positive disease, specifically ypN1, was present in 58% of patients.

PD-L1 expression [was assessed] using both tumor proportion score (TPS) and combined positive score [CPS]. We know that in this disease setting, CPS is a better assessment of PD-L1 status. For the first time, this analysis showed that approximately 10% of patients had immunologically cold tumors, defined as CPS less than 1. The remaining patients had CPS of 1 or greater, indicating immunologically hotter tumors.

Regarding treatment exposure and discontinuation, no patients [remained] on treatment with the study drug [at the time of this analysis]. [A total of] 49% completed treatment. Among those who discontinued treatment, 29% [did so due to] disease progression in the nivolumab arm, compared with 44% in the placebo arm. The median duration of treatment and the median number of doses were similar between arms. We did see more deaths due to disease progression in the placebo arm compared with the nivolumab arm. There were no on-study treatment-related deaths in the nivolumab arm.

What efficacy and safety data were presented during the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting?

At the 5-year follow-up, [adjuvant nivolumab] continued to demonstrate a clinically meaningful improvement [in DFS] vs placebo. With this longer follow-up, the median disease-free survival (DFS) was 21.8 months with nivolumab and 10.8 months with placebo, with a HR of 0.76, maintaining the doubling in DFS initially observed. [The Kaplan-Meier curves] separated at approximately 3 to 4 months and remained separated. The 5-year DFS rate was 37% in the nivolumab arm and 29% in the placebo group.

Distant metastasis–free survival [DMFS] was an exploratory end point. Again, we showed that nivolumab prevents distant metastasis. The median [DMFS] was 27.3 months vs 14.6 months for placebo, with a HR of 0.75. The Kaplan-Meier curve separated at the 4-month mark and remained separated. The 5-year DMFS rate was 38% in the nivolumab arm and 29% in the placebo arm.

OS was a secondary end point. For the first time, we showed the final OS results after a minimum follow-up of 5 years. The median OS was 16.4 months longer with nivolumab vs placebo, with a median OS of 35.3 months in the placebo arm vs 51.7 months with nivolumab. The 5-year OS rate was 46% with nivolumab and 41% with placebo, indicating a clinically meaningful improvement, although the difference did not reach statistical significance with a HR of 0.85.

In terms of safety, nivolumab was well tolerated, and the incidence of treatment related adverse effects remains consistent with previous reported results.

What did subgroup analyses reveal about the benefit of adjuvant nivolumab in select patient subgroups, as well as the effect of subsequent systemic therapy on outcomes?

If we look at patients with esophageal cancer, [they derived benefit], with an HR of 0.69. However, we saw limited to no efficacy in patients with GEJ cancer, where the HR was 1.14.

[Patients with] both histologies—adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma—responded, with a HR of 0.72 for squamous histology. [When stratified by] PD-L1 combined positive score [CPS], patients with a CPS of 1 or greater, [defined as] immunologically “hot,” had improved outcomes, with an HR of 0.79. [Conversely,] those with a CPS less than 1, [defined as] immunologically “cold,” had a HR of 1.4, suggesting limited benefit in this subgroup. [However,] this CPS less than 1 group [represented] only approximately 10% of patients. We should have some degree of caution in interpreting these data, because the subgroups are small and were exploratory in nature. The study also wasn’t powered to look at this, although it mirrors what we’ve seen in the metastatic setting, where those patients with cold tumors are not deriving much benefit from immune checkpoint inhibition in esophageal and gastric cancer.

Finally, given that patients were treated with 1 year of nivolumab and followed for a minimum of 5 years, the effect of subsequent systemic therapy was evaluated. In the placebo arm, approximately 60% of patients received subsequent treatment compared with 46% in the nivolumab arm. If we break that down into systemic treatment, which is the most important in this disease setting when patients progress, approximately 50% of placebo-treated patients received systemic therapy vs 37% in the nivolumab arm. This makes it challenging, because now you have an imbalance between the treatment arms moving forward. To account for the impact of the confounding effects of subsequent treatment, a 2-stage adjustment method was used. When we were able to account for the effect of subsequent treatments, and show the effect of nivolumab alone, the median OS was 38.6 months vs 20.2 months with placebo, with an adjusted HR of 0.73. The Kaplan-Meier curves separated early and remained separated, indicating that subsequent treatment does have an effect in terms of trying to interpret OS.

[Overall, adjuvant nivolumab] was well tolerated, and we think these results further support adjuvant as a standard of care in this disease setting. [It’s interesting [to note] that the FDA has approved subcutaneous nivolumab for patients with resected esophageal and GEJ cancer with residual disease after trimodality therapy, so that offers an alternative route for administration.

What do these findings suggest about the role of adjuvant nivolumab and other perioperative immunotherapy regimens more broadly in esophageal and GEJ cancers?

There has been a clear decline in the use of radiation therapy for GEJ and gastric cancers. The current trajectory suggests that these tumor types should not be treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Evidence strongly supports perioperative treatment as the more appropriate strategy in this setting. With durvalumab [Imfinzi] demonstrating benefit over FLOT alone in the phase 3 MATTERHORN [NCT04592913] study, this regimen is anticipated to become a new SOC for GEJ and gastric cancers.

In contrast, for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, radiation continues to play an important role. The treatment approach utilized in the CheckMate 577 study, involving neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery and 1 year of adjuvant nivolumab, remains the SOC. Notably, among patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, the trial demonstrated a 19-month improvement in OS with nivolumab, underscoring its efficacy in this subgroup.

For patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma—a group not included in the MATTERHORN study—prior data from the [phase 3] German ESOPEC trial [NCT02509286] showed a benefit for perioperative chemotherapy compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiation. However, this trial did not compare perioperative chemotherapy with chemoradiation followed by adjuvant nivolumab, which is currently the standard in many practices.

As such, treatment decisions in this population must be individualized. For younger, fit patients who can tolerate FLOT, perioperative chemotherapy is expected to become standard. However, older or more frail patients in community settings may not tolerate this regimen well. There is variability in the ability to administer FLOT safely, and treatment decisions must consider the patient’s fitness to proceed to surgery. Avoiding overtreatment that could preclude surgical resection is a critical consideration.

In these cases, oncologists may choose to pursue neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by adjuvant nivolumab, based on the CheckMate 577 data. Ultimately, the treating physician is best positioned to assess patient suitability for intensive therapy. Whether durvalumab will eventually be incorporated into the treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma remains to be determined, pending FDA guidance and updates to National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines, as MATTERHORN did not include this population. For now, the field appears to be coalescing around perioperative chemotherapy for gastric and GEJ tumors, chemoradiation followed by adjuvant nivolumab for squamous histology, and individualized strategies for esophageal adenocarcinoma based on fitness for treatment.

Reference

Kelly RJ, Ajani JA, Kuzdzal J, et al. Adjuvant nivolumab in resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer (EC/GEJC) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT): First results of overall survival (OS) from CheckMate 577. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 16):4000. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.16_suppl.4000

Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) has granted its Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Lisa Su, a significant compensation boost for the upcoming fiscal year. The semiconductor company disclosed on Wednesday that Su will receive an equity award with a target value of $33 million, alongside a raise in her base salary to $1.32 million, up from $1.26 million last year.

The announcement was part of AMD’s annual executive compensation filing, detailing salary and incentive structures for its leadership team. According to the filing, Su earned total compensation of $31 million in 2024, which included $21.7 million in stock awards and $6.2 million in other incentive-based awards.

Among AMD’s top executives, Su is the only one with a base salary exceeding $1 million. Her equity award also stands out as the largest, reflecting her central role in steering AMD through an increasingly competitive semiconductor landscape. Chief Technology Officer Mark Papermaster is second in line, receiving a $10 million target-value equity award and a base salary of $870,000.

All five executives named in the filing will see their base salaries increase by 3% to 5% for the fiscal year. Su’s $33 million equity award is scheduled to convert on August 15 into a combination of performance-based and time-based stock options: 75% of the grant will consist of performance-based restricted stock units (RSUs), while the remaining 25% will be issued as time-based stock options.

The compensation changes underscore AMD’s confidence in Su’s leadership as the company continues to invest in advanced chip designs and competes with industry giants such as Intel and Nvidia.

However, even with the new pay package, Su’s compensation remains notably lower than that of her main industry rival, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang. For fiscal year 2025, Nvidia disclosed that Huang’s total compensation reached nearly $49.9 million, up from $34.2 million the previous year. Huang’s pay package includes a $1.5 million base salary, a target cash bonus of $3 million, and a substantial equity award valued as high as $27.5 million, depending on performance. The jump in Huang’s compensation reflects Nvidia’s record-breaking financial performance in 2025, including $130.5 billion in revenue, $86.8 billion in operating income, and a three-year shareholder return of 384%.

Huang’s package highlights Nvidia’s dominant position in the AI chip sector and its status as one of the most valuable tech companies globally.

I’ve been fascinated by computers, electronics and modern technology since childhood. I started writing IT-news at high school and have been doing it continuously for more than 10 years. During this time, I have worked for many media outlets, and now I am a news editor at 3DNews. Sometimes I also write smartphone reviews. In July 2024, I decided to try my hand at writing news on Notebookcheck. When I’m not working, I like to play videogames, do puzzles, and travel.

MethaneSat

‘Likely not recoverable’