Corrado Zuanelli Brambilla

Hematologist @AouSenese. Views are my own. Love watching the water, eating pasta and CAR T cells.

[Sanam Loghavi, MD صنم لغوی 🔬🧬 @sanamloghavi]

The PRISM AML risk model for HMA+VEN is now out in @JCO_ASCO Congratulations to @CLachowiez & all investigators on this huge accomplishment addressing a much needed clinical gap.
We think it’s the Rolls-Royce Phantom of risk models!!!
Bonus: IT HAS A CALCULATOR
Try it out …. you will love it.

https://t.co/yiQkkQEZDZ

https://t.co/jqXTZ9SZ1R

[Dr Rudra Narayan Swain M.D , D.M @rudra09s025]

What should be the optimal strategy after AZA–VEN–induced remission in younger AML patients not proceeding to allo-HSCT?

Our recent work explores this clinically relevant question.
Read more in @BloodCancerJnl : 👉https://t.co/D2qYE1Vjbm

Grateful to @ArihantDr, @DrGPrakash, and @DrPMPGI Sir, for their invaluable support and conceptual guidance.
@AML_Hub #leusm #Hematology @blood_academy @SOAsocialmedia @ims_sum

[ALESSANDRO Gozzetti @alegozzetti]

British Journal of Haematology | Wiley Online Library https://t.co/OCZmiaMW5P

[Alan Skarbnik @ASkarbnik]

In the US we argue CAR-T vs bispecifics while 36% of Latin America fights for access to rituximab.

Let that sink in.

GELL Survey 2025 — 73 centers, 16 countries:

73% highly restricted access to bispecifics
~0% commercial CAR-T outside Brazil
Only 15% have NGS
Only 35% access to clinical trials

We’re having 2026 debates with early 2000s access.

The real question isn’t CAR-T vs bispecifics. It’s: how do we close this gap?

Sobering data presented by @DrMCanales here in Chile. @LymphomaEx

Colunga-Pedraza et al. Blood 2025;146(Suppl 1):6193

#Lymphoma #DLBCL #LATAM #GlobalOncology #HealthEquity

[Iñigo San Millán @doctorinigo]

For decades, peer review has been treated as the gold standard of scientific validation.

Yet many scientists know the reality: the system is far from perfect. Peer review is broken and sometimes even corrupted.

The process can be slow, inconsistent, and vulnerable to bias. Reviewers are sometimes asked to judge work outside their true expertise. In other cases, they may be evaluating ideas that challenge the very paradigm in which they were trained. And occasionally, reviewers are simply competitors.

Ironically, the most prestigious journals can also be the most conservative. Truly new ideas are often met with skepticism, while safer work that fits the current narrative moves more easily through the system.

Increasingly, papers are judged less by the originality of the idea and more by the volume of data, the sophistication of statistics, and the beauty of the figures. Science risks becoming data-rich but idea-poor.

But there is an important reality to remember: journals do not ultimately decide the impact of scientific work. Impact is decided later, by the community. By the scientists who read it, test it, debate it, and cite it.

In the end, citations and ideas determine the legacy of a paper, not the impact factor of the journal that first published it.

Science has always advanced by questioning assumptions. Perhaps it is time we also question the system that filters scientific ideas.

[Felix Morgenstern @FelixMorgEU]

Iran has now struck six countries in a single day.

A human tragedy.

A regional security disaster.

And, once again, a devastating setback

for our collective emissions targets.

No one ever talks about the carbon cost of escalation.

Missiles.

Interceptors.

Emergency flights.

Burning fuel.

Burning infrastructure.

Burning optimism.

This is why I have always said

war should be subject to environmental permitting.

[ESH (Haematology) @ESHaematology]

📣#ESHAML2025 BREAKING NEWS: On-demand content now available FOR FREE on #ESHELEARNING!
➡ https://t.co/EPPiWEcoZU
7th International Conference on AML "Molecular & Translational": Advances in Biology & Treatment
Chairs: B. Lowënberg, H. Döhner, B. Ebert
#ESHCONFERENCES #LEUSM

[Nico Gagelmann @NicoGagelmann]

Ten rules for the medical resident

1. Be truthful.
Practice medicine the way you would want it practiced on you. Integrity in thought, speech, and action is non-negotiable.

2. Stay organized.
Your cognitive bandwidth is finite. Use systems (calendars, lists, routines) to reduce chaos and prevent avoidable errors.

3. Learn from mistakes.
You will err. Analyze failures honestly, correct course, and do not repeat them. Reflection is a professional obligation.

4. Ask.
Ignorance concealed is dangerous. Seek input from seniors, peers, nurses, and allied staff early and without embarrassment.

5. Communicate clearly.
Medicine fails when communication fails. Be precise, listen actively, avoid jargon, and confirm understanding.

6. Listen to patients.
Symptoms, fears, and values are data. Attention is not optional; it is diagnostic and therapeutic.

7. Stay sane.
You will encounter suffering, injustice, and death. Remain lucid and mentally intact. Protect time for recovery, burnout helps no one.

8. Stay curious.
Clinical competence decays without inquiry. Read, question, and adapt as evidence evolves.

9. Stand up.
Have principles. Authority does not equal correctness. Advocate for patients and for sound medicine, even when uncomfortable.

10. Be sincere.
Remember why you entered medicine. Let purpose, not convenience or fear, guide your conduct.

"A good doctor in a privileged or shitty hospital is still a good doctor" taken from my good @nihardesai89

[Corrado Zuanelli Brambilla @CZuanelli]

https://t.co/dPi5DVKpBy

[Randall Munroe @xkcd]

Cell Organelles https://t.co/qCcoRjodGO

[Jonathan (Tsoni) Peled @tsonipeled]

@RemyDulery Congratulations to Federico Stella & @corradini_paolo on this important study! I enjoyed writing a commentary about it with @katemarkey for @BloodAdvances

https://t.co/d0rdBSHXz1

[La prima manina @LaPrimaManina]

Gli Emiliani-Romagnoli sono fatti così.
Devono fare una macchina?
Loro ti fanno una Ferrari, una Maserati e una Lamborghini.
Devono fare una moto?
Loro costruiscono una Ducati.
Devono fare un formaggio?
Loro si inventano il Parmigiano Reggiano.
Devono fare due spaghetti?
1/3

[David Steensma, MD @DavidSteensma]

I once met the daughter of a famous cardiologist.

I said: that must have been an interesting home to grow up in.

She looked sad and said, “The main thing I remember about my childhood is that my Dad was never around.”

[Joshua Zeidner MD @LeukDocJZ]

Privileged to be part of this effort @JCO_ASCO investigating Magrolimab in MDS. Eagerly awaiting ENHANCE- Hopeful for a paradigm shift in mgmt of MDS. @Daver_Leukemia @EuniceWangMD @TBradley_MD @DanPollyea @garciamanero @Ramikomrokji @DrHKantarjian https://t.co/QHba1Dsn8N.

[Talal Hilal 🩺 @THilalMD]

I did not expect this piece to resonate with so many people. This is dedicated to all the clinicians in the trenches. https://t.co/BfDLUH5lmq

[Hemalatha Rangarajan MD https @hmgcoa2]

Crowdsourcing a clinical question #bmtsm post inotuzumab, when do you time allogeneic HCT in your transplant recipients from day 1 of last chemo cycle to decrease VOD risk (assuming count has recovered by 4 weeks) @bldcancer @sghmd @bmtdoc63 @TaniaJain11 @MunaQayed

[María José Calasanz @23_Pares]

The ASH Education Book 2022 has been released
https://t.co/42nfkpYkfx
#ASH22 #NewOrleans

[Manni Mohyuddin @ManniMD1]

Two AML questions I struggled with in fellowship answered succinctly in one of my fav trials of #ASH22

DAUNODOUBLE:
⭐️90mg dauno no better than 60
⭐️Second induction leads to no better survival in those responding well to first

https://t.co/cNV8kN3iRP

#ASH22
@AaronGoodman33

[dinosaur @dinosaurcouch]

help

[𝗡𝗶𝗵𝗮𝗿 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗮𝗶 MD, DM @nihardesai7]

Now we know when to SUSPECT HIT, who is at HIGH RISK and WHY !!

Awesome 💪🏼💪🏼

Let's move on to some scoring to strengthen your suspicion, the 4T score✅

Always calculate it, if >3 there is a possibility of HIT, need to test further

10/18