R-CHOP 15 Year Follow-Up: A Cure for FL?

The big news in the world of Follicular Lymphoma this week is an article in JAMA Oncology describing results of a 15 year follow-up of FL patients who received R-CHOP (or CHOP + Radioimmunotherapy). The study suggests that 42% of the patients in the cohort have been cured of their FL. It's a big deal because it's really the first time anyone had seriously suggested that FL might be curable.

There's a lot going on in this study. It's worth looking into a little further.

The article is called "Treatment of Follicular Lymphoma With CHOP and Anti-CD20 Therapy: 15-Year Follow-Up of the SWOG S0016 Trial." The goal of this analysis was to see how many of the patients in the trial were cured after 15 years. They determined which patients were cured by a statistical method called "cure modeling," which provides an estimate of how many patients were cured.

I think that's important to note here. Part of the problem with determining whether someone is cured has been the nature of FL. With many other cancers (as I'm sure you are aware), if a patient is disease free after 5 years, they are often considered cured. That's harder with FL, since some patients will have the disease return after 6 years, or 10 years, or 15 years. So it's risky to say someone has been "cured" of their FL. 

And it's why many FL experts use the term "functional cure" instead. Someone can be diagnosed at 65, get a Complete Response, and never need treatment again, and die of something unrelated at 85 years old. Were they "cured"? It's hard to say. But they lived a life as if they were cured -- it was a "functional cure."

So this study defined "cure" using statistical methods because it's really difficult to say whether or not someone was cured the way they could for patient with something like colon cancer.

I won't pretend to understand the statistical analysis of the cure modeling, but I will say that since the article was peer-reviewed, it would have been approved by other experts in statistics before it was published, so I don't have any doubts about the analysis.

The SWOG study itself involved 531 patients. They received either R-CHOP or CHOP-RIT between May 2001 and October 2008. I don't write about CHOP much these days, so a reminder: CHOP is a traditional chemotherapy made up of four components (Cyclophosphamide, Hydroxydaunorubicin/doxorubicin, Oncovin, and Prednisone). It's been around for a while, and it's still a very popular treatment. R-CHOP is CHOP combined with Rituxan (rituximab/mabthera). When R was added to CHOP about 30 years ago, it increased its effectiveness. It's pretty standard now to include R with CHOP. RIT, RadioImmunoTherapy, is a treatment like Zevalin. It's essentially something like Rituxan, which can find the CD20 protein on a Lymphoma cell, but with a tiny bit of radiation attached to it, so the radiation can be delivered directly to the cancer cell. 

So of the 531 patients in the study, 267 received R-CHOP and 264 received CHOP-RIT. The 15 year Overall Survival rate was 70%, about the same for each of the two groups, though the RIT group had a better 15 year Progression Free Survival (the cancer didn't come back for 15 years for 47% of the CHOP-RIT patients, versus 34% of the R-CHOP patients). 

The cure modeling estimated that 42% of the patients in the study had been cured. The highest cure rates were in patients with low FLIPI scores and normal β2 microglobulin levels, essentially the patients with the lowest risk. (You can read more about FLIPI levels here, but keep in mind that it doesn't say anything about you as an individual, even though it seems like it does.) This isn't a surprise, really -- we expect less aggressive version of FL to be less problematic and more successful with treatment.

One important finding of the study was that the rate of relapse declined over time. For the first 5 years after treatment, 6.8% of patients in the study relapsed. But between years 15 and 20, just 0.6% of patients relapsed. So the longer the patients went in the study without relapsing, the less likely it was that their disease would come back. 

That's really important. Think back to the idea of "functional cure." It's hard to say someone is "cured" because the disease might come back after 10 or 15 years. But this study shows that it's much less likely to happen, so someone can be more confident after 15 years that the "functional cure" is an actual cure.

Te conclusion to all of this from the researchers is that maybe FL isn't incurable after all. The call this a "paradigm shift" -- a complete change in the way we think and thus the way we act. It could mean that doctors have very different conversations with patients, and that maybe R-CHOP is presented as a possibility for someone who might want a cure. It also has implications for future research.

***************

As I said, there's a lot happening here. This article was published about 4 days ago, and I've been waiting to hear what other FL experts have to say. So far, I haven't seen or heard much, but I think everyone is trying to take some time and digest it all. Paradigm shifts don't happen in 4 days -- they take years for everyone to break out of the way they have been thinking for so long (at least according to Thomas Kuhn).   

And I absolutely understand that. We (meaning much of the Lymphoma community) get so locked in to the idea that "newer is better" -- that every new CAR-T or bispecific or inhibitor must be an improvement over chemotherapy -- that's it hard to see a study like this and not be skeptical. It's certainly my own reaction to it, and I immediately start with a long list of "Yes, but" statements. "Yes, but it's just a statistical estimate, not an actual look at the patients." Or "Yes, but 42% is hardly a cure for all of us." Or, "Yes, but it's still a fairly small number of patients in the study, compared to the thousands that are diagnosed every year."

Particularly for me as a patient who was diagnosed 18 years ago, and who has been told this is incurable for all of that time, it's pretty tough to suddenly think otherwise, and even tougher to think the cure might be from chemotherapy.

That's why I'm especially impressed with the statement from Dr. Jonathan Friedberg from the University of Rochester Wilmot Cancer Institute. He was one of the authors of the study, and he's the one who is talking about paradigm shift (see the story that came out of the Fred Hutch cancer center where he is quoted). He's a Lymphoma Rock Star, doing cutting edge research on FL, and he's willing to look at the data and say "Maybe it's chemotherapy after all." 

The few comments from Lymphoma specialists that I have seen have been positive. It's clear that no one expects R-CHOP to suddenly replace bispecifics and CAR-T. But it could mean that conversations with patients are different. For some patients with low risk disease, and who are otherwise healthy and can tolerate the side effects, maybe R-CHOP is an option. CHOP contains an anthracycline, a type of drug that can be very effective but can also cause long-term heart issues. That kind of factor will need to be taken into consideration. 

I saw one commentor who said this study will have an effect on future research in a couple of ways. First, long-term studies of FL treatments will be measured against this. It's really interesting that this come out just after a 15 year follow-up of R-Squared. It's a much smaller study -- only 79 patients. But could the same cure analysis be applied to it? Could it be applied to a larger study of 500+ patients? If it was, could we make a direct comparison between the two treatments? It will be hard to look at any long-term study of an FL treatment now and think "Yeah, but....does it have a better cure rate than 42%?"

Another way this might change research is that there might be a greater emphasis on second-line treatments. That emphasis already exists, in some ways -- most new treatments get approved for relapsed/refractory disease first, and then as first-line treatments. But this cut back on the number of treatments that do that second step and get approval as a first-line treatment. In other words, we could possible have something closer to an agreement on how newly diagnosed patients are treated, and that treatment could be traditional chemotherapy. 

That's not to suggest that everyone will be getting chemo from now on. There are and will be lots of options out there, and more to come, for a long time. But I expect those conversations to happen.

I'm going to keep an eye open for more commentary about this. I expect some of the oncology websites to have videos of experts discussing this. I'm hoping for more debate-style videos, with multiple experts arguing for and against using R-CHOP. They would be more enlightening to me.

But I think the main take away for all of us should be the same thing. For at least some FL patients, a cure may be possible. For the first time, people seem willing to say so. 

Exercise Recommendations for Cancer Survivors

I've seen two articles in the last couple of weeks that are focused on the importance of exercise for cancer survivors. As you probably know from reading, I have become more and more focused on the role of survivorship lately -- the things we do after diagnosis and treatment that can improve our Quality of Life. 

The articles about the importance of exercise has especially caught my eye for a few reasons. 

First of all, I've been in Physical Therapy for a knee problem for a few months. I've been strengthening my leg muscles to help stabilize my knee, and I'm remembering how much I used to enjoy those kinds of exercises. I don't go to the gym much these days, but the PT work is a lot like a gym workout.

Second, for the last few weeks, I've been attending a yoga class. I tried a Tai Chi class, which I was excited about, but I had to stop it because of my (unrelated) knee issue.  I'm enjoying the yoga class, which is called "Yoga for Healthy Aging." The movements are gentle, but it's still a workout, and the focus is on things like flexibility and balance that we all need as we age. I'm the youngest person in the class; one man introduced himself by saying "I've been doing yoga since I was 83 years old." How's that for inspiring?

Third, I spent two nights watching the Olympics. I love cheering for the "old" athletes -- anyone over 30. More inspiration to get up and move.

Because I like to move my body, and I find that I feel better when I do.

The first of the two articles I saw was the JAMA Network from last week, called "Leisure-Time Physical Activity and Cancer Mortality Among Cancer Survivors." This article reported on research that looked at six different large studies from the past. The studies each looked at survivors of bladder, endometrial, kidney, lung, oral cavity, ovarian, and rectal cancer. The participants in the studies completed surveys and had their leisure-time physical activity tracked 1976 through 1997. There were 17,141 cancer survivors in the combined studies.

The researchers found that even low amounts of moderate to vigorous physical activity resulted in lower risk of death from cancer for patients who had been diagnosed with bladder, endometrial, and lung cancer. Doubling the recommended amount of exercise was associated with lower risk of death from cancer for patients diagnosed with oral and rectal cancer. For some patients in the study, their risk of death from cancer improved when they exercised even if they were inactive before they diagnosed. 

Now, there are all kinds of reasons why this doesn't really prove anything for us. There were no blood cancer survivors at all in this study, and it took place many years ago. But it's one of many that show that movement can be beneficial for cancer survivors; the first words of the Introduction the study are "The role of physical activity (PA) in mitigating cancer risk is well recognized." 

At around the same time, I saw a article from last month from Cancer: Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society. It's called "Exercise recommendations for older adults living with and beyond cancer: A consensus statement by the Advancing Capacity to Integrate Exercise Into the Care of Older Cancer Survivors expert panel."

The idea behind this was that there are lots of recommendations for older folks to exercise, but none that take into account the unique needs of cancer survivors over 65. This article presents some guidelines for how that group of folks should consider exercising.

To be clear, it doesn't recommend specific exercises, which is kind of the point. It assumes a few things -- first, that some cancer survivors over 65 do not move as much as they should. Second, that they have specific needs as cancer survivors. And third, that everyone's situation will be a little different. That's important. My exercise needs aren't the same as yours.

So the guidelines are kind of general. They start with the idea that someone who is a recent survivor should get a full medical evaluation before they begin exercising, and should the be evaluated by someone who understands how to make sure someone can handle the exercise they might want to do. They recommend tests for things like mobility and balance -- things that can be affected by the side effects of the disease or by treatments. They also recommend that an expert help design an exercise program, make sure that it is being followed safely and correctly, and that behavioral support is also offered (because it's pretty easy to get discouraged when you start exercising and you can't do everything you wish you could).

The principle guiding all of this is that barriers and risks should be kept as low as possible. The program should be manageable and enjoyable, not creating more mental or physical problems than the person started with.This is ultimately about Quality of Life -- being able to do the things that you want to do. That can be a struggle for some of us, especially as we get older, and especially as we deal with the effects of cancer. 

So, to me, the personal message from all of this is to keep doing what I'm doing. My wife and I still walk about 2 miles every morning with our dog. I'm in physical therapy for my knee, not ignoring problems until they get worse. I wish I had enjoyed Tai Chi as much as I had hoped I would, but that's OK -- I'm trying yoga instead. And if this doesn't work out, I'll try to find something else. But I'll keep trying and keep looking.

As we get older, my wife and I seem to collect doctors. We have a new health condition or  new prescription every six months or so. But we also have goals, like continuing to travel. And so taking care of ourselves physically becomes very important to us. Quality of Life -- doing the things that we want to do. 

So wherever you are physically, I hope you'll take some inspiration from the Olympics and try to start moving more. (And take advice from your doctor first.) I had lots of inspiring Olympic role models from the U.S. to choose from, but I have to say, the most impressive to me was Johannes Høsflot Klæbo, the cross country skier from Norway. He won every cross country event, from a sprint of 1,585 meters (about one mile) to a 50 kilometer race (about 32 miles). At one point, he was running uphill on skis at a pace of a 6 minute mile. Just amazing to be that great in so many different ways.

Take your inspiration where you can. But keep moving forward. 

 

FLF Survey

 A quick post today.

The Follicular Lymphoma Foundation is conducting a survey: "We're Listening - what information you would like about Follicular Lymphoma?"

As you may know, I've been doing some work lately to help support the FLF. I believe strongly in their mission, to educate and inform patients with Follicular Lymphoma, to support those who support us, to help health professionals understand FL, and the provide money for research for a cure. It's hard to be a patient with FL and not support their work.

As part of their mission, they'd like to know more about what FL patients and caregivers want to know more about. They will use the information they gather to do things like develop programs, expand the information on their great website, and find other ways to provide us with more information and support.

The survey should take about 5-10 minutes to complete (it took me about 10 minutes). The information is anonymous, though if you want to include an email address, you'll be entered in a drawing for one of three £20 Amazon vouchers (that's about $27 for us in the U.S.).

Whether or not you put in for the voucher, it's a small time commitment for a big payoff for all of us. 

The survey closes on Tuesday, February 24, so get to it soon.  

You can find the survey here. Definitely worth the 10 minutes. 

Thanks for your help. More Follicular Lymphoma info soon. 

R-Squared 15 Year Follow-Up

A couple of weeks ago, a reader named Johnatan sent me a link to an article from Blood and asked if I'd seen it yet. I had not seen it -- it came out while I was reading all of those ASH abstracts. But it's worth taking a look at.

The article is called "Phase II Trial of lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) in previously untreated follicular lymphoma: 15-year follow up data from MDACC Trial." 

It's an important study for a couple of reasons. 

First, it's always great when we get long-term data about a treatment. And 15 years is a long time. I love the idea that this study was starting when I was just out of treatment, and I had no idea it was even happening. Just think about how many amazing clinical trials are happening right now that we won't even hear much about for a few years.

But that 15 year follow-up is great. We always assume that a new treatment will continue to be good, but it's great to see the actual data that shows it.

Second, a long-term study of R-Squared (Lenalidomide + Rituxin) is especially important because it seems that R-squared is becoming the base treatment for lots of new combinations. In other words, researchers used to say "What would happen if I added thing new thing to CHOP or Bendamustine?" Now they're saying "What would happen of I added this new thing to R-Squared?" Just look at the excitement over Epcoritimab. It's not on its own -- it's in combination with R-Squared.

The original study that the article discusses was a phase 2 clinical trial at MD Anderson Cancer Center. It involved 79 patients with Follicular Lymphoma who had not yet had treatment. The participants were broken into two groups, one receiving six cycles of the combination and one receiving 12 cycles. The participants had a range of risks, based o FLIPI scores. The Overall Response Rate was 99%, with the Complete Response Rate at 87%.  Even with the long-term follow-up, a large number of patients could not be evaluated, with almost half not showing up for clinical visits after a while, particularly during the Covid pandemic.  

Despite that, the long-term follow-up numbers look great. The median Progression-Free Survival (the time it took from diagnosis for the disease to progress) as 16.5 years, with 61% of patients having their disease not progress for 10 years. At 30 months, 76% of the patients were in Complete Response. The patients who were in the group that received 12 cycles of the treatment had a longer median 10 year PFS than the 6 cycle group (75% vs 70%). And while 9 of the patients being followed died during the 15 year follow-up, only one was for a cause related to Lymphoma. The 10 year median Overall Survival was 95%. There were 11 patients who experiences POD24, progressing with 24 months, and 5 whose disease transformed, with the time to transformation ranging from 9 months to 15 years).

I would have loved to tell you that every patients was doing great after 15 years, but that's not how things work, unfortunately. But I can tell you that these 15 year follow-up numbers are excellent. A 10-year median Overall Survival of 95% is kind of amazing. 

So it's easy to see why R-Squared is becoming the base treatment for other combinations. I have still not seen numbers that show that R-Squared has become kind of the default treatment for patients (the most recent one I can think of had R-Squared being given to less than 10% of FL patients).  But things change over time. 

Thanks, Johnatan, for sharing the link to the article. I'm always happy to receive things like this, in comments or by email. Always feel free to contact me if you think I can be helpful, and I'll do my best to help.

 

Oncologist Appointment

I had my six month appointment with the oncologist this morning. Everything looks good.

It was kind of a bad day for the appointment. I felt a head cold coming on last night, and it was worse this morning when I woke up. So I wore a mask to the appointment, something I haven't one in a few years. It was the first of several things that were a little bit off.

Mt GPS took me a different way to the hospital. We're still dealing with piles of snow on the sides of the streets, so traffic was slow. The parking garage at the hospital has open walls, so there was snow everywhere there, too, blocking some spaces. I had to park on a different floor than usual. Whenever anyone called  my name, they said "Robert" instead of "Bob," which is my preferred name in my chart. The room where they take my vitals was blocked off, so I went into a waiting room where other people were sitting, and they did my BP and temperature on a portable machine. 

None of this is normally a big deal. Who cares which floor of the garage I park on, you know? But when my goal at an oncologist appointment is to have everything be "stable," even small bits of instability are noticeable. Maybe I'm just superstitious.  But I didn't feel as good as I usually do going into an appointment.

But as I said, everything was OK. Nothing abnormal on the physical exam he always does -- nothing swelling that shouldn't be swelling. He commented on how long it had been since I had a scan, and saw that I'd had some scanning done on my heart recently, so he took a look at that just to check in on the lymph nodes near my collar bones. "They look great," he said. "Nice bonus to see them on the heart CT scan."

Bloodwork was also solid. We're keeping track of one of the numbers that my General Practitioner flagged as a little high. Interesting, she and my oncologist are in two different hospital systems, and hers says the number was just over the normal limit, and his system said it was within normal range. Still, he said it was something we'd keep an eye on, and that I shouldn't worry about it.

We talked a little about the weather, and about the Winter Olympics -- we were both big fans of the 90's music theme in the Ice Dancing Competition yesterday. (I had a hard time deciding which Ice Dancing duo to link a video of, so I went with the Italians skating to Backstreet Boys. You always have to choose the Backstreet Boys.)

So, nothing much interesting to report. 

Which is good, because we like things to be uninteresting when it comes to Lymphoma.

I'm going to take a nap and then hope the day feels a little less off. Having a good report from the oncologist always helps. 

 

Tazemetostat Trial Pulled

 Yesterday (February 4) was World Cancer Day. It's a day to encourage research, prevention, and awareness. The link will give you more information about some of the events that took place around the world yesterday, and some that will continue to take place. I had planned to post something about it, but I've been so busy lately that I never got the chance. I had forgotten all about the day until I saw a notice from the Follicular Lymphoma Foundation last night.

It wouldn't have been much of a post anyway. I mostly would have wished you a good day and encouraged you to eat some ice cream. So I hope it really was a good day for everyone.

*****************

Instead, I want to comment on a news item that I saw a couple of days ago.

It's a post from a pharma investing site called "Ipsen’s Tazemetostat Trial in Tough Lymphoma Group Withdrawn: What Investors Should Know." I've written recently about my feelings about investment and finance with regards to my disease. This is an example of the kind of different perspective that a financial site brings over a medical site. 

It reports on a clinical trial involving Tazemetostat that was withdrawn -- stopped before it was really started.

Tazemetostat is an EZH2 Inhibitor that was given accelerated approval by the FDA in 2020. EZH2 is short for "Enhancer of Zeste Homolog 2," an enzyme that is controlled by the EZH2 gene. The job of EZH2 is to keep tumors from growing, so when it's not doing its job, it needs to be inhibited -- stopped by Tazemetostat. The EZH2 abnormality involves about 20% of FL patients, though it can also be effective on patients that don't have that known mutation. 

But "accelerated approval" really means "approval for now." It is usually given based on data from a smaller trial, and must then go through a confirmatory trial -- a larger trial, with more patients, that can show the same results as the small trial. 

The official web page for Tazemetostat says that the confirmatory trial has not yet been completed.  

The clinical trial that was stopped was called "NCT06068881: A Study to Assess Efficacy and Safety of Oral Tazemetostat in Adult Participants With Relapsed/​Refractory Follicular Lymphoma That Does Not Have an "EZH2 Gain-of-function" Genetic Mutation (Mandolin)."

This is not the confirmatory trial. The title is clear that it is meant to study patients who do not have the EZH2 mutation and who have had previous treatment.

What I find so interesting is that there is so little information about this. And that's true of pretty much every failed clinical trial. It is very rare that a researcher or a company will be brave enough to discuss their failures, which is too bad, because we learn so much from failure. (I'm sure the researchers learned a lot -- they just aren't sharing it with us.)

And failure is certainly common. Of all of the potential cancer treatments that start the process of getting approval (lab tests, then animal tests, them stage 1, stage 2, and stage 3 clinical trials on people), less than 10% ultimately get approved. 

As the article says, there was no announcement about this, just some changes to the official clinical trial page that indicated it had been stopped. Most clearly, there is a red box that says "Withdrawn" where there would normally be a green one that says "Recruiting." It also says "Never Started."

There are many reasons why this could have been the case. It's possible that some issues with Tazemetostat have come up that we don't know about yet. I'm not saying that's true, just that it's a reason -- but it does seem unlikely, since the trial was supposed to have started last September. It's also possible that funding was pulled and there was just not enough money to complete the trial in the way they wanted. It's also possible that they just had trouble getting participants (there is no information about locations for the study) -- with so many other exciting possible treatments, maybe there just weren't enough folks for this one. 

My big point here is that this is an example of how much we don't know as patients. There is so much to be excited about, especially around ASH and ASCO, as early research gets discussed. And much of that just never finds success. No one has to tell us about failures, even though I wish they would. 

The other pint is, sometimes those folks who look at this from a financial perspective can give us something good. I can imagine someone who is invested in the company that makes Tazemetostat, looking a couple of times a week at the clinical trials site, trying to get some insight as to whether it's a good investment. their financial incentive makes it worth talking about, even if someone with a medical interest doesn't pay any attention to it.

Perhas we'll get some updated information about Tazemetostat's confirmatory trial soon. In the meantime, the good news is, we have lots of options, and lots of reasons to be hopeful, even when the failures are invisible (or perhaps because they are invisible). 

Clinical Trial on Resilience in Lymphoma Patients

I got a notice from the Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami about a clinical trial that they are participating in. It's for Follicular Lymphoma patients, but it's not for a new treatment. It's for survivorship.

The trial is called "SMART 3RP Lymphoma: Increasing Resiliency Among Early Post-Treatment Lymphoma Survivors" (the official write up at ClinicalTrials.gov is here).

The article from the Miller School gives a nice description of the trial and what it hopes to accomplish. The .gov site gives a summary: "The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if a mind body resilience group program can help increase lymphoma survivors' ability to cope with and manage the challenges that come with the transition into early post treatment survivorship."

So I suppose, in a way, this is about "treatment," but it treating the emotional side effects of the disease rather than the disease itself. It will teach some ways to deal with being a survivor, not a patient. It will help the study participants "manage stress, strengthen coping and improve day-to-day quality of life."

"Resilience" is an interesting thing. One of the HealtheVoices conferences I went to a few years ago featured a talk about resilience. It's the ability to 'bounce back" after encountering problems, and it's a skill that can be learned (rather than a part of one's personality). As one of the survivorship experts at Miller says in the article, "“Resilience isn’t a trait you either have or don’t,” said Frank Penedo, Ph.D., associate director for population sciences, the Sylvester DCC Living Proof Endowed Chair in Cancer Survivorship and director of the Sylvester Survivorship and Supportive Care Institute. Dr. Penedo is site principal investigator at Sylvester. “It’s a skill set, like learning to play a musical instrument. With guided education and practice, survivors can make everyday stress more manageable and restore confidence in their ability to manage their recovery.”

The trial will involve 250 patients who have had treatment for lymphoma within 5 years. (It doesn't specify particular types, so I am assuming FL is included.) Half of the participants will take part in eight videoconferences lasting 90 minutes each, where they will learn about three different resilience practices: Mind–body practices like guided imagery, mindfulness, and yoga, bring about a “relaxation response”; cognitive behavioral strategies to identify and reframe negative thoughts; and positive psychology to help with personal growth, social support and healthy behaviors. To compare the results of this practice, the other half of the group will also get some help -- a Health Education Program (HEP) that focuses on health behavior education and self-monitoring. The researchers who designed the study think the SMART 3RP folks will have an even greater Quality of Life than the other group, though both should get some benefit.

The official .gov site says that recruiting would begin on January 1, 2026, though it also says that recruiting hasn't started yet. It also says that the study will only take place at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. However, the Miller School article says it will take place at 3 sites -- Mass General, The Miller School/Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Institute in Miami, and the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City. (It also says the participants should be within 2 years of treatment, not 5 years.)

So if you live near one of those three sites, consider looking into the trial. The Hospital of Cancer Center website probably has a page devoted to clinical trials, and you can find out more there. Or ask your oncologist. I know some patients are hesitant to go into a trial, and that's OK. But this one seems like the potential benefits are far greater than the risks.

I'm excited about this trial because it recognizes the importance of survivorship, something I have been more and more interested in the farther I get from my own treatment experience. For a disease like FL, where we might live for decades after treatment, or we might need multiple treatments over the years, or we might just need to learn to live with cancer in our bodies, a focus on survivorship is crucial, and a trial that takes it seriously is a wonderful thing.