I think it depends on what the future is, where do you set the sort of year mark for that, but I would say that it’s a combination of earlier immunotherapy and new drugs. Because what I do think is that the immunotherapies we have today, approved on the market, not in frontline, but later-line, their non-relapse mortality and their dangerous toxicities in too large a fraction of the patients makes it difficult to put all first-line patients on these treatments, especially if they are standard risk and have a good prognosis...
I think it depends on what the future is, where do you set the sort of year mark for that, but I would say that it’s a combination of earlier immunotherapy and new drugs. Because what I do think is that the immunotherapies we have today, approved on the market, not in frontline, but later-line, their non-relapse mortality and their dangerous toxicities in too large a fraction of the patients makes it difficult to put all first-line patients on these treatments, especially if they are standard risk and have a good prognosis. So what I think the future will be is that some of the newer immunotherapies, which look like they have less toxicity, dosed less frequently, proving that that is not carrying along fatal and very unpopular side effects in frontline. So immunotherapy into frontline, but we need to show that it is safe enough and it doesn’t look safe enough with the drugs we have now in relapse. So I think it’s a combination of getting immunotherapy there but maybe with drugs that are actually not on the market yet.
This transcript is AI-generated. While we strive for accuracy, please verify this copy with the video.