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 Lymphoma 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 Lymphoma Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The Lymphoma Hub 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.
The Lymphoma Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Roche, Sobi, AbbVie, BeOne, Miltenyi Biomedicine, Thermo Fisher, Nurix Therapeutics and Caribou Biosciences and supported through independent educational grants from Incyte, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly and Pfizer. Funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
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 to access:
Bookmark & personalize site content
Receive alerts for new content in your areas of interest
View lymphoma & CLL content recommended for you
Results from the safety run-in portion of the global, randomized, open-label phase III SOUNDTRACK-F1 (NCT06549595) trial, evaluating surovatamig + rituximab vs chemotherapy + rituximab in patients with previously untreated follicular lymphoma (FL) and high tumor burden, were presented by Chan Y. Cheah at the European Hematology Association (EHA) 2026 Congress, June 11–14, 2026, Stockholm, SE. Patients were assigned to receive either 2.4 mg (n = 22) or 7.2 mg (n = 21) surovatamig. The safety run-in primary endpoints were safety and tolerability and the selection of the recommended phase III dose (RP3D).
Key data: All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Serious TEAEs were reported in 36.4% of patients in the 2.4 mg group vs 28.6% in the 7.2 mg group, with 18.2% vs 19.0% considered surovatamig-related, respectively. Grade ≥3 surovatamig-related TEAEs were reported in 40.9% vs 38.1% of patients, and Grade 5 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 4.5% vs 0% of patients. Infections were mostly low grade, with Grade ≥3 infections reported in 9.1% vs 14.3% of patients. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was reported in 36% vs 38% of patients and was limited to Grade 1 or 2. Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) occurred in 5% of patients in each group. The overall response rates (ORRs) were 96% vs 100%, with complete responses in 82% vs 95% of patients. Patients receiving 7.2 mg surovatamig demonstrated a 100% measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity rate and a longer duration of response (DoR) vs 2.4 mg, supporting 7.2 mg surovatamig as the RP3D.
Key learning: Surovatamig + rituximab demonstrated deep responses and manageable safety at both dose levels, though 7.2 mg surovatamig achieved greater response rates and attainment of MRD-negativity, supporting further investigation in phase III trials.
References
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
Your opinion matters
In patients with R/R LBCL who progress after CAR‑T, which of the following data would most strengthen your confidence in considering BV+R2?