The Lymphoma Channel is supported with funding from AstraZeneca (Diamond), BMS (Gold), Johnson & Johnson (Gold), Takeda (Silver) and Galapagos (Bronze).
VJHemOnc is an independent medical education platform. Supporters, including channel supporters, have no influence over the production of content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given to support the channel.
SOHO 2026 | Can biomarkers guide treatment selection in follicular lymphoma?
Gilles Salles, MD, PhD, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, discusses the evolving role of biomarkers in first-line treatment selection and prognostication for follicular lymphoma. Prof. Salles emphasizes that, while new genetic markers continue to be discovered, no gene-based biomarkers have been validated to guide treatment selection in routine clinical practice. He also discusses the value and limitations of measurable residual disease technologies as future tools for treatment adaptation. This interview took place at the 14th Annual Meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO 2026) in Houston, TX.
These works are owned by Magdalen Medical Publishing (MMP) and are protected by copyright laws and treaties around the world. All rights are reserved.
Transcript
The field of molecular markers in follicular lymphoma has been fascinating and at the same time disappointing. Fascinating because we always have discovered new genes, genes that could be involved in the pathogenesis, could be involved as eventually prognosis, although we haven’t been really able to validate gene markers in prognosis with different types of treatments. They were eventually applicable to one treatment or one another...
The field of molecular markers in follicular lymphoma has been fascinating and at the same time disappointing. Fascinating because we always have discovered new genes, genes that could be involved in the pathogenesis, could be involved as eventually prognosis, although we haven’t been really able to validate gene markers in prognosis with different types of treatments. They were eventually applicable to one treatment or one another. Maybe the only exception here is a combination of EZH2 mutation and KRABBP1 mutation, which appears to select a group of patients that may have good results with R-CHOP and maybe may benefit more from R-CHOP than with R-bendamustine while the other groups all benefit from R-bendamustine. These are data presented by our German colleagues at ASH. So it’s possible that in the future, the choice of immunochemotherapy when you want to develop an immunochemotherapy regimen will be like that. At the same time, we are moving away from immunochemotherapy. Maybe R-CHOP and BR are treatments from the past. We have already, not approved but used, and in the NCCN guidelines, the R-squared regimen, and we are moving with many trials assessing the role of bispecific antibodies. And what we have learned from the past is that when a marker was evaluated in a given regimen, unfortunately, it failed. So I think in terms of biological biomarkers based on tumors, tissues, it’s very difficult at this time. Probably the only thing that we will continue to investigate, I mean, we’ll continue to investigate. The thing that appears promising is obviously the new technologies of MRD that may be a little bit more performing than the one in the past and eventually helping us to adapt treatment prolong treatment. Again, a word of caution. There was an Italian trial years ago that said, okay, if patients are MRD negative, I avoid maintenance and it failed. In fact, if it was MRD negative, you needed to apply maintenance. So, you know, difficult to interpret, we continue to have data, we continue to generate data, how to apply them in practice remains very challenging.
This transcript is AI-generated. While we strive for accuracy, please verify this copy with the video.
Read more...
