ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by providers and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases, or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based guidance to oncology clinicians, patients, nonprofessional caregivers, and palliative care clinicians to update the 2016 ASCO guideline on the integration of palliative care into standard oncology for all patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical, radiation, hematology-oncology, oncology nursing, palliative care, social work, ethics, advocacy, and psycho-oncology experts. The Panel conducted a literature search, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 2015-2023. Outcomes of interest included quality of life (QOL), patient satisfaction, physical and psychological symptoms, survival, and caregiver burden. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The literature search identified 52 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations address the integration of palliative care in oncology. Oncology clinicians should refer patients with advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies to specialized interdisciplinary palliative care teams that provide outpatient and inpatient care beginning early in the course of the disease, alongside active treatment of their cancer. For patients with cancer with unaddressed physical, psychosocial, or spiritual distress, cancer care programs should provide dedicated specialist palliative care services complementing existing or emerging supportive care interventions. Oncology clinicians from across the interdisciplinary cancer care team may refer the caregivers (eg, family, chosen family, and friends) of patients with cancer to palliative care teams for additional support. The Expert Panel suggests early palliative care involvement, especially for patients with uncontrolled symptoms and QOL concerns. Clinicians caring for patients with solid tumors on phase I cancer trials may also refer them to specialist palliative care. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

Herein, we present the long-term follow-up of the randomized E1912 trial comparing the long-term efficacy of ibrutinib–rituximab (IR) therapy to fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) and describe the tolerability of continuous ibrutinib. The E1912 trial enrolled 529 treatment-naïve patients aged ≤70 years with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Patients were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive IR or 6 cycles of FCR. With a median follow-up of 5.8 years, median progression-free survival (PFS) is superior for IR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; P < .001). IR improved PFS relative to FCR in patients with both immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV) gene mutated CLL (HR: 0.27; P < .001) and IGHV unmutated CLL (HR: 0.27; P < .001). Among the 354 patients randomized to IR, 214 (60.5%) currently remain on ibrutinib. Among the 138 IR-treated patients who discontinued treatment, 37 (10.5% of patients who started IR) discontinued therapy due to disease progression or death, 77 (21.9% of patients who started IR) discontinued therapy for adverse events (AEs)/complications, and 24 (6.8% of patients who started IR) withdrew for other reasons. Progression was uncommon among patients able to remain on ibrutinib. The median time from ibrutinib discontinuation to disease progression or death among those who discontinued treatment for a reason other than progression was 25 months. Sustained improvement in overall survival (OS) was observed for patients in the IR arm (HR, 0.47; P = .018). In conclusion, IR therapy offers superior PFS relative to FCR in patients with IGHV mutated or unmutated CLL, as well as superior OS. Continuous ibrutinib therapy is tolerated beyond 5 years in the majority of CLL patients. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02048813.

T-cell immunophenotype of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) is an uncommon aggressive leukemia that can present with leukemic and/or lymphomatous manifestations. Molecular studies are enhancing our understanding of the pathogenesis of T-ALL, and the discovery of activating mutations of NOTCH1 and FBXW7 in a majority of patients has been a seminal observation. The use of pediatric intensive combination chemotherapy regimens in adolescents and young adults has significantly improved the outcome of patients with T-ALL. The use of nelarabine for relapsed and refractory T-ALL results in responses in a substantial minority of patients. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) still plays a key role in patients with high-risk or relapsed/refractory disease. γ-Secretase inhibitors hold promise for the treatment of patients with NOTCH1 mutations, and the results of clinical trials with these agents are eagerly awaited. It is recommended that younger patients receive a pediatric-intensive regimen. Older and unfit patients can receive suitable multiagent chemotherapy and be allocated to HCT based on their response, risk factors, and comorbidities. Although advances in the treatment of T-ALL have lagged behind those of B-cell ALL, it is hoped that the molecular revolution will enhance our understanding of the pathogenesis and treatment of this aggressive lymphoid malignancy.

N⁶-methyladenosine (m⁶A) on mRNAs is critical for various biological processes, yet whether m⁶A regulates drug resistance remains unknown. Here we show that developing resistant phenotypes during tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy depends on m⁶A reduction resulting from FTO overexpression in leukemia cells. This deregulated FTO-m⁶A axis pre-exists in naïve cell populations that are genetically homogeneous and is inducible/reversible in response to TKI treatment. Cells with mRNA m⁶A hypomethylation and FTO upregulation demonstrate more TKI tolerance and higher growth rates in mice. Either genetic or pharmacological restoration of m⁶A methylation through FTO deactivation renders resistant cells sensitive to TKIs. Mechanistically, the FTO-dependent m⁶A demethylation enhances mRNA stability of proliferation/survival transcripts bearing m⁶A and subsequently leads to increased protein synthesis. Our findings identify a novel function for the m⁶A methylation in regulating cell fate decision and demonstrate that dynamic m⁶A methylome is an additional epigenetic driver of reversible TKI-tolerance state, providing a mechanistic paradigm for drug resistance in cancer.

PURPOSE: The FMS-related tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) inhibitor gilteritinib is standard therapy for relapsed/refractory FLT3-mutated ( FLT3 ^mut) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) but seldom reduces FLT3 ^mut burden or induces sustained efficacy. Gilteritinib combines synergistically with the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax in preclinical models of FLT3 ^mut AML. METHODS: This phase Ib open-label, dose-escalation/dose-expansion study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03625505 ) enrolled patients with FLT3 wild-type and FLT3 ^mut (escalation) or FLT3 ^mut (expansion) relapsed/refractory AML. Patients received 400 mg oral venetoclax once daily and 80 mg or 120 mg oral gilteritinib once daily. The primary objectives were safety, identification of the recommended phase II dose, and the modified composite complete response (mCRc) rate (complete response [CR] + CR with incomplete blood count recovery + CR with incomplete platelet recovery + morphologic leukemia-free state) using ADMIRAL phase III–defined response criteria. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were enrolled (n = 56 FLT3 ^mut); 64% (n = 36 of 56) of FLT3 ^mut patients had received prior FLT3 inhibitor therapy. The recommended phase II dose was 400 mg venetoclax once daily and 120 mg gilteritinib once daily. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were cytopenias (n = 49; 80%). Adverse events prompted venetoclax and gilteritinib dose interruptions in 51% and 48%, respectively. The mCRc rate for FLT3 ^mut patients was 75% (CR, 18%; CR with incomplete blood count recovery, 4%; CR with incomplete platelet recovery, 18%; and morphologic leukemia-free state, 36%) and was similar among patients with or without prior FLT3 inhibitor therapy (80% v 67%, respectively). The median follow-up was 17.5 months. The median time to response was 0.9 months, and the median remission duration was 4.9 months (95% CI, 3.4 to 6.6). FLT3 molecular response (< 10⁻²) was achieved in 60% of evaluable mCRc patients (n = 15 of 25). The median overall survival for FLT3 ^mut patients was 10.0 months. CONCLUSION: The combination of venetoclax and gilteritinib was associated with high mCRc and FLT3 molecular response rates regardless of prior FLT3 inhibitor exposure. Dose interruptions were needed to mitigate myelosuppression.

PURPOSE: Calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) are standard components of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Prior data suggested that CNI-free approaches using donor T-cell depletion, either by ex vivo CD34 selection or in vivo post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) as a single agent, are associated with lower rates of chronic GVHD (cGVHD). METHODS: This multicenter phase III trial randomly assigned patients with acute leukemia or myelodysplasia and an HLA-matched donor to receive CD34-selected peripheral blood stem cell, PTCy after a bone marrow (BM) graft, or tacrolimus and methotrexate after BM graft (control). The primary end point was cGVHD (moderate or severe) or relapse-free survival (CRFS). RESULTS: Among 346 patients enrolled, 327 received HCT, 300 per protocol. Intent-to-treat rates of 2-year CRFS were 50.6% for CD34 selection (hazard ratio [HR] compared with control, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.15; P = .24), 48.1% for PTCy (HR, 0.86; 0.61 to 1.23; P = .41), and 41.0% for control. Corresponding rates of overall survival were 60.1% (HR, 1.74; 1.09 to 2.80; P = .02), 76.2% (HR, 1.02; 0.60 to 1.72; P = .95), and 76.1%. CD34 selection was associated with lower moderate to severe cGVHD (HR, 0.25; 0.12 to 0.52; P = .02) but higher transplant-related mortality (HR, 2.76; 1.26 to 6.06; P = .01). PTCy was associated with comparable cGVHD and survival outcomes to control, and a trend toward lower disease relapse (HR, 0.52; 0.28 to 0.96; P = .037). CONCLUSION: CNI-free interventions as performed herein did not result in superior CRFS compared with tacrolimus and methotrexate with BM. Lower rates of moderate and severe cGVHD did not translate into improved survival.