Tai Chi and Qi Gong

I started a Tai Chi and Qi Gong class last night!

The exclamation point is there because I'm kind of excited about it. I've been fascinated by Tai Chi for a long time. My wife and I tried to do an online class a few years ago, and some of the moves were just too difficult to imitate when we could not have an instructor there to guide us. I finally gave in and signed up for an adult education class that meets on Monday nights. 

For those of you who aren't familiar with these things, Tai Chi began as a martial art, and it's easy to imagine some of the movements as blocking or parrying an opponent. But these days, it's mostly used as a health practice. It involves lots of slow, flowing movements, and it makes you very aware of your own body. Older folks are sometimes encouraged to try Tai Chi because it is fairly easy on the joints, and it helps improve balance.

Qi Gong is related, and even older. It also involves slow movements, deep breathing, and awareness of your own body. You can learn more about Tai Chi and Qi Gong and their health benefits at the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. And if anyone out there is a serious practitioner of one or both and explain things in better detail, please add to the comments.

The fact that they are often parts of Complementary and Integrative Medicine is certainly something that caught my attention. In fact, after the class was over, the instructor encouraged us to practice by watching videos that he had made for my cancer center's Integrative Medicine office. He does a lot of work with cancer patients in helping them find ways to move their bodies that are not too physically stressful. I didn't sign up for the class because of his cancer connection, though that was really nice to hear about.

 All of this reminded me of an article I had seen recently called "What are the optimal mind-body therapies for cancer-related pain? A network meta-analysis," published in the journal Translation Exercise Biomedicine. The authors looked at previous studies of mind-body therapies, practices like Tai Chi, Yoga, and guided meditation that help people become more aware of their bodies. They were interested in how those practices help cancer patients manage pain. The study found that Qi Gong and Tai Chi were best at helping patients manage pain. 

But perhaps more significantly, they found that many of the studies they looked at really didn't find much difference in the practices. All of them were effective in helping manage pain: Qi Gog, Tai Chi, Yoga, Baduanjin (a type of Qi Gong), Dance, conventional exercise, and health education.

I think the larger point is that some type of movement is helpful, and there are plenty of ways to exercise without going to a gym (Chair Yoga is becoming very popular, I know). It's a matter of finding the thing that speaks to you and trying them out until you find one that makes you feel good.

And really, it's about feeling good. I learned very quickly last night how little I use my shoulders these days. I had shoulder surgery about 10 years ago and can't do the type of weight lifting I used to enjoy. An hour of slow movement was enough to make me very aware of my shoulders. I wasn't ever in pain, but my arms got very tired very quickly. My legs were great -- my wife and I walk a couple of miles every morning. But my arms could use some work. I assume they will feel a little better every week. I know, at this point in my life, that bad things don't last forever.

All of this is, of course, related to Survivorship -- the way we live out lives after diagnosis and treatment. I want to be able to do the things I want to do, for a very long time. When my wife and I went on a river cruise earlier this summer,  we met some very active folks who were 10 or even 20 years older than us. We want to be like them and keep moving forward.

So I encourage you to find the things that get you moving ad make you feel good. It certainly doesn't have to be Tai Chi. That's my thing. Even my wife declines to join me in that -- she signed up for a yoga class instead. Which is good for her. 

Just keep moving forward.

Three Factors to Consider in Choosing R/R Treatment

The website Oncology News Central posted an interview a few days ago with Dr. Ahmit Mehta, a Lymphoma specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. It's called "Three Factors to Consider in Relapsed/Refractory Follicular Lymphoma Care." It runs a s a video, but there is also a transcript if you'd rather read, or you need to translate. The website is mostly aimed at oncologists and other health professionals, but I have to say, Dr. Mehta does a fantastic job of explaining things very clearly. I don't know if anyone out there is a patient of his, but I'd bet he's just as good at explaining things in person. 

I thought it was an interesting interview for two reasons. 

First, it focuses a lot on Tafasitamab, which I talked about in my last post. So it's kind of a timely video that way.

Second, he discusses the factors that he considers when he needs to help a patient make a decision about treating Relapsed or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma. Let's look at that first, since it's the title of the video.

When he was asked how he makes decisions about treating R/R FL, he said, "When the patient relapses, at that time, there are multiple factors we consider for second-line treatment. Usually, the way I think in my mind, is: Patient-related factors are number one, disease-related factors are number two, and number three (that I’ve added recently) is center-related factors."

I find this really interesting. I've seen lots of general descriptions about the kinds of factors that go into those decisions, but never in quite this way.   

First, the patient-related factors. (It's nice that he puts patients first, and not surprising if you watch the whole video). These factors include things like comorbidities -- the other health problems that a patient might have. Certain problems will mean that particular treatments are not a good idea, since their side effects can be aggressive and create even more new health problems. Second are the disease-related factors. Is the patient POD24 or showing B symptoms? An aggressive relapse might mean a more aggressive treatment recommendation.

And third is "center-related" factors. I thought it was really interesting that he added this consideration recently. Not all treatment centers offer every treatment, and something like a bispecific or CAR-T are only offered at a limited number of centers. If a patient will have a hard time getting to a treatment center, or staying at the center for a couple of weeks to be evaluated, then a different treatment might be considered instead.

Now, any decent doctor would consider all of those factors as well, and I don't think Dr. Mehta came up with all of that on his own. But I do appreciate the way he breaks it down, and how he shows the things that he prioritizes. As we consider our own treatment choices, those same factors are what we should be thinking about, or at least be prepared to ask questions about. 

The second interesting thing that Dr. Mehta talked about was Tafasitamab. As I wrote about in my last post, there are lots of Lymphoma specialists who are very excited about the newly-approved combination of Tafasitamab and R-Squared (Rituxan + Revlimid). Dr. Mehta is one of those specialists. He sees very real possibilities for Tafa-R-squared, as he calls it, becoming a very popular choice for R/R FL.

One thing I thought was interesting was that he said R-Squared was currently the most popular second-line treatment for FL. I haven't seen evidence of that, though I'm also not someone whose job it is to know such a thing. But anecdotally, it seems to me that lots of FL patients are receiving R-CHOP or B-R, especially if they didn't receive chemo as a first line treatment, as well as CAR-T or bispecifics. I wonder sometimes if doctors who work in academic medical centers, where cutting-edge treatments are developed and tested, have a different perspective on things than doctors in community clinics, where old habits tend to rule. 

Or maybe Dr. Mehta is correct, and more and more doctors are using R-squared as a second treatment for R/R FL. And if that's true, then the jump to Tafasitamab shouldn't be hard. (But, as I said last time, I have my doubts, still.) 

Overall, it's a very good video, and those of us who have already had treatment would find it very interesting. The video is about 15 minutes long, and as I said, there's a transcript available as well.

I hope you get a chance to watch or read.

Tafasitamab: New Standard for R/R FL?

I've been seeing some discussion online lately about Tafasitamab, and its promise for treating Follicular Lymphoma. There are a few people who think it could become the standard treatment for Relapsed/Refractory FL, given the success of the clinical trial that led to is approval a couple of months ago.

But all of the positive talk got me thinking more about how certain treatments get to be so popular, and why others never really seem to catch on.

Part of my thinking this ways comes from a conversation I had recently with someone about RIT (RadioImmunoTherapy). This type of treatment involves taking a monoclonal antibody (something like Rituxan) and adding a tiny amount of radiation to it. Because the antibody seeks out a protein on the lymphoma cell, the radiation gets delivered right where it is needed, so there is less damage to cells that don't need the treatment. It was all the rage when I was first diagnosed, and I know a few people who received it many years ago and who a very long remission because of it.

However, it never really caught on the United States. The rules for a treatment like this required that an expert in nuclear medicine administer it, rather than a regular clinical oncologist. To be able administer it, the doctor would need 400 hours of training (if I am remembering this correctly). So very few people received RIT, even though trials showed it was very effective and there were a few different options available.

It's an example of a good treatment not getting to patients who would benefit from it.

So when I see the headlines about Tafasitamab -- that it might be a "game changer," or a "new horizon," or a "new standard," I have to wonder if it's really going to happen. (The "game changer" headline comes from a website that uses that phrase once a week about some new cancer treatment. The articles are generated by Artificial Intelligence. That's a whole different blog post.)

The reasons for excitement over Tafasitamab are pretty clear. In the InMIND trial, the phase 3 trial that led to its approval, 548 patients were either given R-Squared (Rituxan + Revlimid/Lenolidomide) or R-Squared plus Tafasitamab. The results were great. The Tafasitamab group had an 83.5% Overall Response Rate (versus 72.4% for the R-squared group) including a 49.4% Complete Response (versus 39.8%) and a median Progression Free Survival of 22.4 months (versus 13.9 months for R-Squared). Safety was comparable to R-Squared alone. You can find a good summary of all of the side effects here.

But here's why I'm a little skeptical about Tafasitamab becoming a new standard. One of the very enthusiastic pieces I saw about this said that this new combo would be a potential replacement for patients who would be eligible for R-Squared. This makes sense, given that it was shown to be more effective than R-squared. But how many patients would be given R-Squared in the first place?

About a year ago, the Follicular Lymphoma Foundation conducted a survey of FL patients from 49 different countries. One question asked which treatments the patient had received. In that survey, only 6.2% of respondents had received R-Squared. That's not a huge number. But if that's the ceiling -- if the Tafasitamab combination is going to replace it for some patients -- I'm not sure how much of a "game changer" it's going to be for patients in general.

I want to be clear about a couple of things. 

First, and most importantly, I'm not a doctor. I remind you all of that every now and then because it's really important for you to remember. I have not formal medical training. I'm not an oncologist or a cancer biologist (or a scientist of any kind). I'm a Cancer Nerd -- a patient who reads a lot, and then thinks and rights about what I read. So why listen to me? Good question. The most important person to listen to is your own doctor. 

Second, I want to be clear that I'm not anti-Tafasitamab in any way. Just the opposite. I hope it gets to the patients who would benefit from it. I still have a lot of frustration over RIT. I think it could have helped a lot of people 15 years ago, and it was frustrating t see it not being used. (Search for "RadioImmunoTherapy" on this blog and you can see my long history of frustrated posts.)

But take another look at the FLF survey. The treatment type that most patients have had? Chemotherapy, with 60%.  

And that's not necessarily bad (it can be very effective) and it's also explainable in some ways (FL patients can live for a very long time and treatment types were limited 15-20 years ago).

But I also think it's true that FL patients can be over-treated, given more aggressive treatments than necessary. (I'm getting this from a couple of conversations with oncologists.) People get chemo who don't need chemo, and maybe could do just as well with something like Rituxan.

So why so much chemo? I  read a comment from an oncologist once that doctors are creatures of habit. If they have always recommended chemotherapy, and it has worked well, there's not much reason to change to something else. It's hard to argue with that logic. As a patient, if my doctor said "My previous patients have done really well with Bendamustine," I probably wouldn't argue.

But I think that's ultimately what this is all about. Very few of us patients argue.

And I don't really mean "argue," as in getting mad at the doctor. I mean, few of us know enough to have a conversation with a doctor that might lead to a different option. Why chemo? What are the other alternatives? Why not them? Can you recommend someone else I can talk to for a second opinion? 

It's not really about arguing so much as asking questions. And that can be hard to do when you've just been told you have cancer. 

But it's what I hope you will do, especially with Relapsed/Refractory FL, when we've had some time to think and learn and perhaps plan. We don't all have the opportunity to get a second opinion, or to question the decisions that a doctor or a health plan make for us. But if we can? That's how change comes, and how good treatments get to people who need them.

Stay informed, and stay well.

 

Happy Lymphoma Awareness Month!

September is Lymphoma awareness month. 

It's Blood Cancer Awareness month, so it's also Leukemia and Myeloma Awareness Month, too. But I think most of us are concerned with Lymphoma, so we'll stick with that.

I always struggle with the idea of "awareness" at this time of year. Like most of you, I'm very aware of Lymphoma -- my own, and of the disease in general. But this month isn't really for us. It's about helping others be more aware of it.

Part of that is encouraging others to be aware of their own bodies. That's a big part of cancer detection -- knowing when something is wrong and then getting it checked out. Lymphoma Canada has a "Know Your Nodes" quiz that's very informative. Take it yourself and encourage others to take it, too.

And if you're comfortable, share your story. You can do that with the people you know, or share it on social media, if that's something you take part in. Or you can share it through the Follicular Lymphoma Foundation's website. 

I think that's very important. There was a time, not too long ago, when people wouldn't even say the word "cancer." It made cancer seem like a shameful thing. That led to all kinds of problems -- people not going to the doctor even if they suspected something was wrong. Isolation after diagnosis and during treatment -- exactly the time when patients needed others. And then the weird gilt that so many of us feel. Silence isn't good, at least in general. But as I said, share your story if you're comfortable doing so. There's no sense in making yourself feel worse by doing something you don't want to do.

And, of course, continue to educate yourself. Learn all you can about the disease. Not everyone wants to do this, and I understand that, too. I had an oncologist who told me that some patients didn't ever want to hear anything about the disease -- just did everything the doctor said. I get that, too. I had a loved one with cancer (not a blood cancer) who just couldn't stand the idea of doing any kind of research, for lots of reasons. But if you're here reading this, you're probably someone who likes to be informed. So keep that up -- keep finding good sources of information about FL and learning what you can. I'm always happy to share what I know on this blog, and to help people be informed, but remember that I'm not a doctor, and the best source of information is your own oncologist.

Still, there's much that we can teach one another, so I always recommend listening to other patients who can provide good information. 

I recommend The FL Community Podcast, which I wrote about last month. Their latest episode is available now. The hosts focus on Managing Treatment Side Effects in this episode, discussing common FL treatments and the typical side effects that come along with each. Nicky, one of the hosts, is a clinical nutritionist, specializing in oncology patients, so she offers some tips on eating well to manage particular side effects. This is a great example of what I mean about awareness -- well-informed patients telling stories and offering advice based on real experience. It's the kind of information that we often forget about when we are planning for future treatments. 

I hope everyone has a great month. Do something extra to increase your own awareness, and to share your knowledge with others. And be sure to do something to treat yourself -- a walk in a favorite place, or a meal that makes you happy, or a day off from work -- something that brings you joy. You deserve it.

Stay well. 

Predicting POD24 in Follicular Lymphoma

 Great research from the journal Blood last week, an article called "Combined PET and ctDNA response as a predictor of POD24 for follicular lymphoma after first-line induction treatment."

Actually, two articles. The second is a commentary on the first, and might be even better, since it gets into why the first one is so important. The second is called "Cracking the POD24 code in follicular lymphoma." 

As you can see from the two titles, this research focuses on POD24, or Progression of Disease within 24 months of receiving immunochemotherapy (like B-R or R-CHOP). When POD24 was first discovered, it was a big deal. There was finally a way to quantify a particular risk, and what that risk was. Basically, a patient labeled as POD24 received immunochemotherapy, responded to it, but had the disease come back within 24 months. (In the way it was originally formulated, POD24 doesn't apply to patients who had other treatments besides immunochemo, but I've seen it used for other treatments anyway.) This matters because POD24 patients have a statistically lower survival rate than the rest of the FL population. About 20% of FL patients are POD24.

The problem is, there is currently no reliable way to predict POD24.  The work I wrote about recently on subtypes might prove useful some day, but for now, there's no way of knowing someone is POD24 until they receive treatment and the disease comes back. Lots of FL researchers say this should be a priority in the FL community (I tend to agree). 

This research is an attempt to predict POD24 after the immunochemotherapy treatment.

As the chart in the second article shows, the tools we have now for predicting POD24 are pretty bad. They're very good at negative prediction, meaning they can tell us which patients are not POD24. But they are bad as positive prediction -- none of them are right more than 50% of the time. It's a flip of the coin. Or a FLIPI of the coin. (I hope at least one of you laughs at that, because it was an excellent joke.)

Two of the tools used to predict POD24 are PET scans and ctDNA MRD. We're probably all familiar with PET scans. They measure how much of a sugar solution is taken up by hungry cancer cells. If you're a patient with FL, you've probably had at least one. 

ctDNA MRD means circulating tumor DNA Minimal Residual Disease. It measures the presence of cancer differently from a PET scan. Using some very sophisticated tools, the amount of cancer can be measured in the blood. It might be so tiny that a PET scan won't detect it. But if there is ctDNA still in the blood after treatment, it means the cancer was not completely taken care of.

As a predictor of POD24, a PET scan after initial treatment was able to predict POD24 about 45% of the time. ctDNA MRA was better -- it could predict POD24 about 58% of the time.

But the researchers in this article innovated by using both tools. When combined, they predicted POD24 about 85% of the time. Obviously, a huge improvement. And any improvement in predicting POD24 is great for new FL patients.

However, as that second article points out, the practical applications of this knowledge are a little complicated.

The problem comes from when the tests are given -- AFTER treatment. 

If a clinical trial was conducted using this information, it would be run by first having a group of patients receive initial treatment -- let's say Bendamustine + Rituxan (to keep it as immunochemotherapy). If any patients were identified as POD24 with the PET + ctDNA tools, they could then be given a second treatment right away, something like CAR-T or a bispecific, both of which have been shown to work very well on relapsed or refractory FL. This could happen before the disease even came back officially (remember, it could take up to 2 years for the disease to show up again).

The problem is, it would be expensive and complicated to set up a clinical trial that gives that set up something as a comparison. In other words, it might be too complicated to show that the testing is better than what we have now.

Ideally, we'd have a biomarker that shows us POD24 BEFORE that initial treatment. To be clear -- this is a step forward. Anything that predicts POD24 accurately, even at this stage, is an excellent thing. Catching the cancer early might save a lot of lives.

It's another small step forward, and moving forward is what we want. 

Stay well.

Seeing Yourself in Others

A few days ago, I had the wonderful opportunity to be in a Zoom meeting with a bunch of other patients with Follicular Lymphoma. There were about 15 people on the call, and my math might be off, but I think we came from and/or lived in 7 different countries. It's never easy to find a time where people from different parts of the world can conveniently meet, but I'm very glad the meeting happened and very grateful that I was invited.

The meeting was set up by the Follicular Lymphoma Foundation, and the participants were Super Supporters, a group of patients who provide insights and ideas for the foundation. 

I won't get into details of the meeting or who was there, but I do want to share how I felt afterwards.

If you've never had the opportunity to meet with a group of FL patients, or cancer patients or survivors in general, I hope you'll seek out such an opportunity. There's something really wonderful about seeing yourself in others, and hearing their stories. Everyone with cancer has a unique story. And that's especially true for a cancer like Follicular Lymphoma, which is known to be heterogeneous, taking many different forms. Everyone on the Zoom call had a different experience. 

But at the same time, there was so much that we had in common. We share the same fears, sometimes the same guilt. Many of us were surprised by our diagnosis. Many of have dealt with the same short-term and long-term side effects. For all our differences, we have a lot in common.

And it's a strange experience to hear your story mirrored in someone else's.

I remember years ago being part of a face-to-face group of cancer patients and survivors giving some feedback on a cancer-related website. Our meeting started with everyone introducing themselves. The introductions went on for a while, with people sharing lots of details about their stories. I remember one patient in particular who had been diagnosed with a particular cancer (not FL), but the diagnosis took several years to finally settle on cancer. This person was told it was a type of cancer, then told it was a different kind of cancer (a less worrisome type), then told it was a third different type (a more worrisome type), and then told that it wasn't cancer after all, but a different condition, and then finally the cancer diagnosis that proved to be correct.

As they told the story, everyone in the room went on this roller coast ride with them. You could see it in everyone's faces, including mine -- hopeful that the diagnosis was the right one, then frustration and sadness that it wasn't, then anger that they had been given wrong information, and then hopefulness again.

I can't describe accurately what it felt like to hear this person's story. Despite all of those negative emotions -- frustration and sadness and anger -- when they finished, I felt this overwhelming positivity. It wasn't just relief that they finally got an accurate diagnosis. It was a feeling of connection -- of knowing that, even though my story was different, we were connected in ways that other people just couldn't be connected. It's not the same to hear a doctor tell someone else they have cancer as it is to hear it said about yourself.

I felt  similar way after the FLF meeting. Everyone;s story was different, and while we didn't share our stories in the introductions, those details came out as we talked over the course of 90 minutes. Cancer can be isolating sometimes. Connection is a great thing.

At the same time, I was keenly aware of the differences. And that was a great thing, too. I've been living with Follicular Lymphoma for over 17 years. I had a very particular experience when I was diagnosed, watching and waiting for 2 years. I was relatively young -- 40 years old. My kids were 6, 8, and 10 years old. I had 6 rounds of Rituxan as treatment. I've dealt with long-term side effects related to my heart and my skin. I'm a Follicular Lymphoma patient advocate, blogger, and freelance writer. I have thought about FL literally every single day since I was diagnosed. What's more, I actively seek out information about FL -- every day. I don't push it out of my head. I pull it in.

And that's all very different from most other patients' experiences. And hearing those differences reminded me of how important it is for me to recognize, think about, and understand those differences in experience, especially if I am going to call myself a Follicular Lymphoma patient advocate. If my goal is to help lots of people, I need to remember that not everyone thinks like me, or acts like me, or wants the same things.

So, as I said near the beginning of this post -- if you've never had the opportunity to meet with a group of FL patients, or cancer patients or survivors in general, I hope you'll seek out such an opportunity.If feels good to share your story, and it feels good to see yourself in others' stories. Maybe that means finding a face-to-face support group at your cancer center or somewhere else near you. Maybe it means finding an online group, as I did when I was first diagnosed. There are some good ones online, including the Facebook groups Living with Follicular Lymphoma, Linfoma Folicular Grupo, and Young Adults Living with Follicular Lymphoma. The new FL Community Podcast is explicitly about sharing stories, and is going to be an excellent resource for a lot of people.

And if you want to share your own story, I recommend going to the FLF website and providing some details. You can read others' stories, too, and maybe see yourself in others. And with a little luck, you'll capture that same feeling of being connected that I have been able to feel. 

As much as I wish it wasn't true for any of us, we're all kind of in this together. We can help each other out even in the smallest of ways.

Take care of yourselves.

New Research on Follicular Lymphoma Subtypes

The journal Cell Reports Medicine has a very interesting article this month, reporting on some research that might have significant implications for those of us with Follicular Lymphoma.

The article is called "Whole-genome sequencing reveals three follicular lymphoma subtypes with distinct cell of origin and patient outcomes."

Basically, the article is suggesting that Follicular Lymphoma is not one disease, but three different subtypes. Those three subtypes have different outcomes, and would require different treatments. The idea that FL isn't just one thing really is not new. As I wrote in reviewing an ASCO presentation, FL is considered heterogeneous -- it shows up in each of us a little differently. That makes it tough to figure out how to treat it. There have been many attempts (including that ASCO research) at finding biomarkers to help with this -- some kind of biological signal that will help guide treatment decisions. So far, those attempts haven't been completely successful.

That's where we are with this research. It describes an attempt at finding gene-based biomarkers that will guide treatment for Follicular Lymphoma.

First, some more background about where the study is coming from. Cancer research took huge steps forward when the human genome was finally mapped about 25 years ago. The human genome is the complete set of all 62 million or so genes in a person's DNA. Mapping out the genes is a first step. Once researchers knew where they were, they could start to examine what happened when they were damages, or switched places, or did things they weren't supposed to do.

Cancer researchers have been trying to use this knowledge to develop new treatments since that time. A well-known example is HER2-positive breast cancer. HER2 is a protein that is the result of someone having extra copies of a specific gene. It can result in a type of aggressive breast cancer. There are now treatments that can target this type of breast cancer, and the prognosis has greatly improved as a result.

I'm using breast cancer as an example because, so far, we don't really have that kind of success story for FL. There aren't any reliable biomarkers to guide research and treatment. 

And that's what this research is hoping to do -- identify biomarkers that can distinguish different subtypes of Follicular Lymphoma.

The early results of the research look good, hough, as I'll explain, I'm still a little skeptical.

(And this is a good time to give you the reminder that I give to you frequently -- I am not an oncologist or a cancer biologist. I'm just a Cancer Nerd -- a patient who reads a lot. Keep that in mind, always.)

The researchers looked at 131 samples from FL patients from China and conducted Whole-Genome Sequencing (mapping out the entire DNA of each sample so they could be compared to one another to see how they were specifically different from one another). They determined that there were 3 different subtypes, based on differences in the DNA. Recognizing that there are possible differences based on geography, they repeated the same process with 227 samples from outside China, and found the same results.

At the risk of being too general, I'm not going to get too heavily into the details of what they found. Genetics is fascinating, and if you want a deep but understandable introduction, I recommend The Gene: An Intimate History, by the oncologist Siddhartha Mukherjee. If I got too much into the details of the genes, I'd mix up you and me both. Here's a sample from the article: "K1 is related to the activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID) activity and is enriched in activation B cell-like (ABC) DLBCL, whereas K2 is associated with POLH activity and is enriched in GCB-like DLBCL.The majority of the kataegis events were concentrated in specific genomic regions, notably the IGH, IGK, and IGL genes, along with the transcription start site (TSS)-proximal regions of genes such as BCL2, BCL6, BCL7A, CXCR4, and BTG2." I lost track myself of which gene or protein they're talking about.

More important are the results -- the three subtypes that they are proposing.

They call them C1, C2, and C3.

C1 is high grade (fairly aggressive) but has a ow risk of POD24 (the disease returning within 24 months after successful treatment), and has a good Progression Free survival (a long time between treatments). 

C2 is low grade (less aggressive, probably more likely to watch and wait), with low chance of POD24, and moderate PFS. 

C3 is high grade, with a high chance of POD24, and poor PFS.

Looking at those differences on the surface, they seem to capture FL patients pretty well. It's a heterogeneous disease.

The details of how they got to these three categories are interesting, though pretty dense. They provide a very convenient chart in the article (Figure 7, if you want to take a look yourself).

 Each of the three types has its own biomarkers. C1, for example, is more likely to have BCL6, or the B Cell Lymphoma 6 gene (as well as a few others). There seem to be differences in the Tumor Micro-Environment for each type as well (this is what is happening in the area around the cancer cell, which can be just as important as the cancer cell itself). C1, for example, tends to have "hot" tumors, meaning there are lots of immune cells in the tumor. This means it is more likely to respond well to immune therapies, for example.

The summary for all of this is that the researchers did a bunch of different tests on the genome to figure out which genes were different and why that mattered, and then suggested that certain treatments would work on the different subtypes based on those differences. C1 may respond well to PI3K inhibitors, BTK inhibitors, IRF4 inhibitors, and immune therapies. C2 may respond well to BCL2 and EZH2 inhibitors. C3 may respond to PI3K, BTK, IRF4 inhibitors, but not immune therapies.

It's all very encouraging. The testing they did was pretty extensive, and the fact that they tested it on a second cohort helps to make their results more encouraging still. 

But as I said, I'm skeptical. Maybe "skeptical" is the wrong word here. I don't doubt their results. But I've been following the search for FL biomarkers for 15 years, and I haven't seen any real results yet. Maybe this will be the one that gives it to us? Or at least moves us on that path?

As a start, it's going to take a much larger sample with the same results to really get the attention of the Lymphoma community. Then there will have to be actual trials, where a large number of FL patients are divided into subtypes, and then treatments are given to them based on their subtype to see if, for example, the EZH2 inhibitors really do work better than an immune therapy for the C2 patients. 

It's going to take come time to test all of this out. Years.

But that's OK. I can wait.

I am encouraged by it, and hopeful. It all makes sense. Some patients in a trial respond really well to a treatment, and some don't respond at all. They were all put into the trial based on having some things in common. But maybe the traits that they have in common aren't the ones that matter. Maybe this research has identified the things that really do matter.

I'll definitely keep an eye on this one. It's been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so it has been seen by other experts, which means it is less likely to be presented at a conference like ASCO or ASH. But an update to the research cold be presented there. 

I'll keep looking. You keep hoping.