“Watch-and-wait” has long been the standard for patients with low tumor burden, asymptomatic follicular lymphoma—but as therapies such as anti-CD20–based regimens and novel agents become more effective and better tolerated, that paradigm is being challenged. Could earlier intervention reshape outcomes, or does observation still offer the greatest long-term benefit? In this lively, case-driven debate, Dr. Carla Casulo and Dr. John Leonard will weigh the evidence, tackling real-world decision points around risk stratification, patient selection, and timing of therapy to help clinicians navigate this common and evolving clinical dilemma.

The treatment paradigm for relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma is rapidly evolving as highly active options such as brentuximab vedotin and PD-1 inhibitors move earlier in the disease course. With many patients achieving deep responses to these agents, the necessity of consolidative autologous stem cell transplant (autoSCT) is increasingly being questioned. Can novel-based approaches safely replace transplant, or does autoSCT still provide unmatched durability for select patients? This interactive session will spotlight contrasting strategies through clinical scenarios, with Dr. Lisa Roth and Dr. Elif Yilmaz dissecting the evidence, sequencing considerations, and key factors that influence decision-making in modern practice.

Frontline treatment for standard-risk CLL has shifted dramatically with the adoption of targeted agents, raising a fundamental question: is a defined course of therapy sufficient, or does ongoing treatment provide more sustained disease control? Fixed-duration regimens—often incorporating venetoclax-based combinations—offer the appeal of treatment-free intervals, while continuous approaches with BTK inhibitors aim to prolong remission. In this engaging debate, Dr. John Allan and Dr. Farrukh Awan will contrast these strategies, examining depth of response, tolerability, resistance patterns, and how to align treatment choice with patient priorities in everyday practice.

Supported by an educational grant from AstraZeneca.

The expanding role of targeted agents in AML—including FLT3, IDH1/2, and other mutation-directed therapies—has introduced new complexity into treatment planning. Should these agents be incorporated upfront to maximize initial disease control, or reserved for later lines to extend therapeutic options over time? As molecular profiling increasingly guides care, the timing of targeted therapy remains a key point of debate. In this spirited exchange, Dr. Naval Daver and Dr. Aditi Shastri will challenge each other’s perspectives in a lively, intellectually charged discussion, highlighting how disease biology, treatment intensity, and sequencing decisions shape outcomes in contemporary AML management.

The addition of venetoclax to hypomethylating agents has generated significant interest in higher-risk MDS, with early data suggesting improved response rates—but questions remain around durability, toxicity, and patient selection. Should venetoclax be incorporated routinely, or reserved for select patients? In this dynamic debate, Dr. Yasmin Abaza and Dr. Anand Patel will examine the evolving evidence and competing perspectives, exploring how risk features, tolerability concerns, and treatment goals influence the decision to include venetoclax in frontline management.

The rapid emergence of CAR T-cell therapy and bispecific antibodies is beginning to challenge the traditional role of transplant in earlier lines of care. With high response rates and evolving durability data, could these immune-based approaches move into the frontline setting, or does transplant remain the most reliable path to long-term remission for eligible patients? In this dynamic debate, Dr. Saad Usmani and Dr. Jonathan Kaufman will take opposing positions, unpacking the data, practical considerations, and patient factors that are redefining how—and when—we deploy these powerful treatment strategies.

BCMA-targeted therapies—including CAR T-cell products and bispecific antibodies—have transformed outcomes in relapsed multiple myeloma, but their optimal placement remains uncertain. Should these highly active options be deployed at first relapse for all eligible patients, or reserved for a more strategic, individualized approach? With considerations around prior exposure, sequencing, access, and long-term disease control, the decision is far from straightforward. In this fast-paced exchange, Dr. Krina Patel and Dr. Prashant Kapoor will take opposing viewpoints, dissecting the evidence and real-world trade-offs that inform when—and for whom—BCMA-directed therapy should enter the treatment pathway.

High-risk smoldering myeloma sits at the intersection of observation and active treatment, with an increasing push to intervene before symptomatic disease develops. Daratumumab has shown promising activity in delaying progression, but whether early intervention should become standard of care remains unsettled. Is it time to redefine the standard, or does watchful waiting still best serve these patients? In this engaging exchange, Dr. Shaji Kumar and Dr. Samer Al Hadidi will explore the data, risk stratification tools, and clinical trade-offs shaping decisions at this evolving boundary in myeloma care.