All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the Lymphoma Coalition.
The lym Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the lym Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The lym and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out more
Create an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View lymphoma & CLL content recommended for you
Intro for masterclass here to help navigate the exciting content being presented at the 30th European Hematology Association (EHA) Congress, Jun 12–15, 2025, Milan, IT, the Multiple Myeloma Hub Steering Committee have provided their recommendations for the top abstracts to look out for in multiple myeloma and other plasma cell dyscrasias.
In total, 196 patients were included in the study, of which 113 received belumosudil and 83 BAT, resulting in 358 LOTs (113 belumosudil, 245 BAT). There was a higher median age and number of prior LOTs at baseline in the belumosudil group compared with the BAT group (Table 1).
Table 1. Baseline characteristics for patients in the ROCKreal study*
Characteristic | Belumosudil (LOTs N = 113) | BAT (LOTs N = 245) |
|---|---|---|
Median age at LOT start, years | 63.1 | 55.2 |
Male, % | 58.0 | 59.0 |
Median number of prior LOTs | 3 | 2 |
Median number of organs involved at LOT start | 3 | 3 |
PBSCs graft source | 94.0 | 90.0 |
Conditioning regimen |
|
|
RIC/non-myeloablative | 62.0 | 53.0 |
Myeloablative | 38.0 | 47.0 |
Prior cGvHD therapies |
|
|
ECP | 34.0 | 26.0 |
Ruxolitinib | 68.0 | 36.0 |
Ibrutinib | 24.0 | 20.0 |
BAT, best available therapy; cGvHD, chronic graft-versus-host disease; ECP, extracorporeal photopheresis; LOT, line of therapy; PBSC, peripheral blood stem cell; RIC, reduced-intensity conditioning. | ||
More patients treated with belumosudil achieved the primary endpoint of overall response at 6 months (Figure 2) compared with those who received BAT (38.7% vs 26.8%; p = 0.040).
During the 62nd American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition, the Lymphoma Hub spoke to Nicole Lamanna, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, US. We asked, How should we manage toxicities associated with BTK inhibitors in chronic lymphocytic leukemia?
During the 62nd American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition, the Lymphoma Hub spoke to Anthony Mato, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, US. We asked, What data are available to help guide sequencing of therapy for relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)?
During the 62nd American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition, the Lymphoma Hub spoke to Jacqueline Barrientos, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, New York, US, about the challenges faced when selecting frontline treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).
During the 62nd American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition, the Lymphoma Hub spoke to William Wierda, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, US. We asked, Can we improve efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) by combining chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy with targeted drugs?
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content
