Podcasts about adaura

JCO Editorial Fellow Dr. Ece Cali Daylan and JCO Associate Editor Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe discuss the ASCO 2025 Simultaneous Publication paper "Neoadjuvant Osimertinib for Resectable EGFR-Mutated Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer." Transcript The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Ece Cali: Hello, and welcome to our 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting series, where we cover some of the top JCO papers published simultaneously with their abstract presentation at this year's meeting. I'm your host, Dr. Ece Cali, JCO Editorial Fellow, and I am joined by JCO Associate Editor, Dr. Tom Stinchcombe. In this episode, we will discuss the Journal of Clinical Oncology article and abstract presentation "Neoadjuvant Osimertinib for Resectable EGFR-Mutated Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer.” NeoADAURA is a randomized global phase III study investigating the efficacy of neoadjuvant osimertinib-containing regimens in patients with resectable EGFR-mutated stage II to IIIB non–small-cell lung cancer. 358 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive osimertinib plus chemotherapy, osimertinib monotherapy, or placebo plus chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting. The primary endpoint was major pathological response. Osimertinib plus chemotherapy and osimertinib alone demonstrated MPR rates of 26% and 25%, respectively, compared to 2% in the chemotherapy plus placebo arm with a p-value of less than 0.001. Tom, can you please explain to our listeners how you interpret this data? Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe: Great question. Yeah, I think to give a little context, obviously, chemotherapy and immunotherapies preoperatively is becoming the standard of care. However, patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer generally have not responded to immunotherapy, and many of the trials excluded patients with known EGFR mutation. There have been smaller phase II trials that had looked at EGFR TKIs preoperatively, but none of these were definitive. So I think that this trial is a big trial, and I think some of the strengths are that it has osimertinib alone and chemotherapy with osimertinib arms as compared to the standard of chemotherapy. I think it's going to be really interesting at the meeting to see how this is discussed by the discussant and also what the reaction is to its public presentation. And I think that's largely because there's an alternative paradigm now, surgical resection adjuvant osimertinib, that's available to patients. So I think this will be interesting to see what the reaction is to the induction therapy. For patients with known N2 disease, I've generally given some form of induction therapy prior to surgical resection. So I think that's the subgroup of patients that I'm most likely to employ this approach with based on the results. Dr. Ece Cali: So, in this trial, more than 90% of the patients on the osimertinib-containing regimens underwent curative-intent surgery. So, this speaks to the feasibility of the approach, and the higher MPR rate with osimertinib-containing regimens is encouraging. Event-free survival data is currently immature. You have already touched upon some of the strengths of the trial, but what are the weaknesses and the strengths of this trial? Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe: So, I mean, I think there are some weaknesses. A major pathological response was chosen as an endpoint, and there could be an argument that path CR is more of a prognostic marker. However, the rates of path CR are relatively low, so it would have been very hard to design a trial such as that. And then I think the trial started off as a preoperative trial but effectively became a perioperative trial with preoperative EGFR-TKI, postoperative osimertinib. And so I think it's going to be very hard to determine what the contribution of the components are. And then you've hit on another part that I think is very important when we interpret the data that the maturity on the event-free survival is only 15%, and most people are still on therapy. So the event-free survival, which is an important endpoint, is very immature right now. Dr. Ece Cali: And this trial was designed to compare the neoadjuvant approaches, hence the comparator arm here is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery. So, considering the ADAURA trial results with upfront surgery followed by osimertinib as adjuvant, so how do you see this trial's impact on the current clinical practice? Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe: Well, very good question, I think one that we're still struggling with as we kind of look at this data. I think, for me, stage II patients will most likely go to surgery and then get adjuvant osimertinib, and then maybe the N2 patients will get an osimertinib-containing regimen as an induction therapy. I think one of the questions is does it really matter when you get the osimertinib as long as you get it at some point? And I think that's going to be the critical interpretation of some of the data at this point. Dr. Ece Cali: And how do you think this trial shapes the future research for patients with resectable EGFR-mutated lung cancer? Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe: Well, I mean, I think it shows that chemotherapy was really modestly active with an MPR rate of 2%, no pathological responses. And then I think you're going to have to look at an osimertinib plus another targeted therapy component. I think, you know, when I looked at the osimertinib versus the chemo-osimertinib arm, I also was sort of surprised that the MPR rate and the path CR rate were very, very similar. So I think that the question is would a double targeted therapy approach or some other approach matter? And I think it also sets a safety standard. And you touched on this in your comments, that there was not a disparity in terms of the rate of going to surgery or R0/R1 resections. So patients were not having progressive disease events or toxicities that prevented surgery. So I think it does give us good safety data. Dr. Ece Cali: Tom, thank you so much for sharing your insights on the JCO article, "Neoadjuvant Osimertinib for Resectable EGFR-Mutated Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer." Join us again for the latest simultaneous publications from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, and please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to all ASCO podcast shows at asco.org/podcasts. Until then, enjoy the rest of ASCO 2025. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

In Oncology Unplugged, a podcast series from MedNews Week, host Chandler Park, MD, a genitourinary medical oncologist at the Norton Cancer Institute in Louisville, Kentucky, sits down with Tejas Patil, MD, an assistant professor of medicine-medical oncology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine - Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora. In this episode, Drs Park and Patil discuss key updates from the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including the significance of data from the phase 3 LAURA trial (NCT03521154), where treatment with osimertinib (Tagrisso) following definitive chemoradiotherapy led to an improvement in progression-free survival vs placebo in patients with stage III, EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Drs Park and Patil also explore the implications of minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring in the phase 3 ADAURA trial (NCT02511106) and how liquid biopsy data may influence future treatment timelines. Additionally, they delve into the evolving role of osimertinib in advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC, based on results from the phase 3 FLAURA2 trial (NCT04035486) and its potential impact on the treatment of patients with brain metastases.

In this episode of Lung Cancer Considered, host Dr. Narjust Florez moderates a discussion on the management of early-stage disease, with an eye toward applying conclusions from trials such as the ADAURA and the recent ESMO and ELCC data about perioperative chemo-immunotherapy.

Drs. Balazs Halmos and Lecia Sequist delve into the groundbreaking updates from the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. With Chadi, they reveal game-changing insights on EGFR-mutated lung cancer from the LAURA trial, small-cell lung cancer upgrades from the ADRIATIC trial, important revelations in ALK mutation research, innovative combination therapies, ctDNA results from the ADAURA trial, and conclude with the relevance of the KRYSTAL-12 study. Check out Chadi's website for all Healthcare Unfiltered episodes and other content. www.chadinabhan.com/ Watch all Healthcare Unfiltered episodes on YouTube. www.youtube.com/channel/UCjiJPTpIJdIiukcq0UaMFsA

Drs. Vamsi Velcheti and Nathan Pennell discuss novel approaches and key studies in lung cancer that were showcased at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including the Plenary abstracts LAURA and ADRIATIC.   TRANSCRIPT Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Hello, I am Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of medicine and director of thoracic medical oncology at the Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health. Today, I'm joined by Dr. Nate Pennell, the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and the vice chair of clinical research at the Taussig Cancer Center in Cleveland Clinic. Dr. Pennell is also the editor-in-chief of the ASCO Educational Book. Today, we will be discussing practice-changing abstracts and the exciting advances in lung cancer that were featured at the ASCO 2024 Annual Meeting. You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of the episode. Nate, we're delighted to have you back on the podcast today. Thanks for being here. It was an exciting Annual Meeting with a lot of important updates in lung cancer. Dr. Nate Pennell: Thanks, Vamsi. I'm glad to be back. And yes, it was a huge year for lung. So I'm glad that we got a chance to discuss all of these late-breaking abstracts that we didn't get to talk about during the prelim podcast. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Let's dive in. Nate, it was wonderful to see all the exciting data, and one of the abstracts in the Plenary Session caught my attention, LBA3. In this study, the investigators did a comparative large-scale effectiveness trial of early palliative care delivered via telehealth versus in-person among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. And the study is very promising. Could you tell us a little bit more about the study and your take-home messages? Dr. Nate Pennell: Yes, I think this was a very important study. So just to put things in perspective, it's now been more than a decade since Dr. Jennifer Temel and her group at Massachusetts General Hospital did a randomized study that showed that early interventions with palliative medicine consultation in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer significantly improves quality of life and in her initial study, perhaps even overall survival. And since then, there have been numerous studies that have basically reproduced this effect, showing that getting palliative medicine involved in people with advanced cancer, multiple different cancer types, really, has benefits.  The difficulty in applying this has been that palliative care-trained specialists are few and far between, and many people simply don't have easy access to palliative medicine-trained physicians and providers. So with that in mind, Dr. Temel and her group designed a randomized study called the REACH PC trial, where 1,250 patients were randomized with advanced non-small cell lung cancer to either in-person palliative medicine visits which is sort of the standard, or one in-person assessment followed by monthly telemedicine video visits with palliative medicine. Primary endpoint was essentially to show that it was equivalent in terms of quality of life and patient satisfaction. And what was exciting about this was that it absolutely was. I mean, pretty much across the board in all the metrics that were measured, the quality-of-life, the patient satisfaction, the anxiety and depression scores, all were equivalent between doing telemedicine visits and in-person visits. And this hopefully will now extend the ability to get this kind of benefit to a much larger group of people who don't have to geographically be located near a palliative medicine program. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think it's a great abstract, Nate and I actually was very impressed by the ASCO committee for selecting this for the Plenary. We typically don't see supportive care studies highlighted in such a way at ASCO. This really highlights the need for true interdisciplinary care for our patients. And as you said, this study will clearly address that unmet need in terms of providing access to palliative care for a lot of patients who otherwise wouldn't have access. I'm really glad to see those results. Dr. Nate Pennell: It was. And that really went along with Dr. Schuchter's theme this year of bringing care to patients incorporating supportive care. So I agree with you.  Now, moving to some of the other exciting abstracts in the Plenary Session. So we were talking about how this was a big year for lung cancer. There were actually 3 lung cancer studies in the Plenary Session at the Annual Meeting. And let's move on to the second one, LBA4, the LAURA study. This was the first phase 3 study to assess osimertinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with EGFR mutant, unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer. What are your takeaways from this study?  Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: This is certainly an exciting study, and all of us in the lung community have been kind of eagerly awaiting the results of the study. As you know, for stage III non-small cell lung cancer patients who are unresectable, the standard of care has been really established by the PACIFIC study with the consolidation durvalumab after definitive concurrent chemoradiation. The problem with that study is it doesn't really answer the question of the role of immunotherapy in patients who are never-smokers, and especially in patients who are EGFR positive tumors, where the role of immunotherapy in a metastatic setting has always been questioned. And in fact, there have been several studies as you know, in patients with EGFR mutation positive metastatic lung cancer where immunotherapy has not been that effective. In fact, in the subgroup analysis in the PACIFIC study, patients with EGFR mutation did not really benefit from adding immunotherapy.  So this is an interesting study where they looked at patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage III patients and they randomized the patients 2:1 to osimertinib versus placebo following concurrent or sequential tumor radiation. The primary endpoint for the study was progression free survival, and a total of 216 patients were enrolled and 143 patients received a study treatment, which is osimertinib, and 73 received placebo. And 80% of the patients on the placebo arm crossed over to getting treatment at the time of progression.  So most of us in the lung cancer community were kind of suspecting this would be a positive trial for PFS. But however, I think the magnitude of the difference was truly remarkable. The median PFS in the osimertinib arm was 39.1 months and placebo was 5.6 months and the hazard ratio of 0.16. So it was a pretty striking difference in terms of DFS benefit with the osimertinib consolidation following chemoradiation. So it was truly a positive study for the primary endpoint and the benefit was seen across all the subgroups and the safety was no unexpected safety signals other than a slight increase in the radiation pneumonitis rates in patients receiving osimertinib and other GI and skin tox were kind of as expected. In my opinion, it's truly practice changing and I think patients with EGFR mutation should not be getting immunotherapy consolidation post chemoradiation. Dr. Nate Pennell: I completely agree with you. I think that this really just continues the understanding of the use of osimertinib in EGFR-mutant lung cancer in earlier stages of disease. We know from the ADAURA trial, presented twice in the Plenary at the ASCO Annual Meeting, that for IB, stage II and resectable IIIA, that you prolong progression free or disease free survival. So this is a very similar, comparable situation, but at an even higher risk population or the unresectable stage III patients. I think that the most discussion about this was the fact that the osimertinib is indefinite and that it is distinct from the adjuvant setting where it's being given for three years and then stopped. But I think all of us had some pause when we saw that after three years, especially in the stage III patients from ADAURA, that there were clearly an increase in recurrences after stopping the drug, suggesting that there are patients who are not cured with a time limited treatment, or at least with 3 years of treatment.  The other thing that is sobering from the study, and was pointed out by the discussant, Dr. Lecia Sequist, is if you look at the two-year disease-free survival in the placebo arm, it was only 13%, meaning almost no one was really cured with chemo radiation alone. And that really suggests that this is not that different from a very early stage IV population where indefinite treatment really is the standard of care. I wonder whether you think that's a reasonable approach. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I completely agree with you, Nate, and I don't think we cure a majority of our patients with stage III, and less so in patients who have EGFR-mutant, stage III locally advanced. As you just pointed out, I think very few patients actually make it that far along. And I think there's a very high rate of CNS micrometastatic disease or just systemic micrometastatic disease in this population that an effective systemic therapy of osimertinib can potentially have long term outcomes. But again, we perhaps don't cure a vast majority of them. I think that the next wave of studies should incorporate ctDNA and MRD-based assays to potentially identify those patients who could potentially go off osimertinib at some point. But, again, outside of a trial, I would not be doing that. But I think it's definitely an important question to ask to identify de-escalation strategies with osimertinib. And even immunotherapy for that matter, I think we all know that not all patients really require years and years of immunotherapy. They're still trying to figure out how to use immunotherapy in these post-surgical settings, using the MRD to de-escalate adjuvant therapies. So I think we have to have some sort of strategy here. But outside of a clinical trial, I will not be using those assays here to cite treatments, but certainly an important question to ask.  Moving on to the other exciting late-breaking abstracts, LBA5, the ADRIATIC study. This is another study which was also in the plenary session. This study was designed to address this question of consolidation immunotherapy, post chemo radiation for limited-stage small cell cancer, the treatment arms being durvalumab tremelimumab, and durvalumab observation. So what do you think about the study? This study also received a lot of applause and a lot of attention at the ASCO meeting. Dr. Nate Pennell: It was. It was remarkable to be there and actually watch this study as well as the LAURA study live, because when the disease free survival curves and in the ADRIATIC study, the overall survival curves were shown, the speakers were both interrupted by standing ovation of applause just because there was a recognition that the treatment was changing kind of before our eyes. I thought that was really neat. So in this case, I think this is truly a historic study, not necessarily because it's going to necessarily be an earth shakingly positive study. I mean, it was clearly a positive study, but more simply because of the disease in which it was done, and that is limited-stage small cell lung cancer. We really have not had a change in the way we've treated limited-stage small cell lung cancer, probably 25 years. Maybe the last significant advances in that were the advent of concurrent chemotherapy and radiation and then the use of PCI with a very modest improvement in survival. Both of those, I would say, are still relatively modest advances.  In this case, the addition of immunotherapy, which we know helps patients with small cell lung cancer - it's of course the standard of care in combination chemotherapy for extensive stage small cell lung cancer - in this case, patients who completed concurrent chemo radiation were then randomized to either placebo or durvalumab, as well as the third arm of durvalumab tremelimumab, which is not yet been recorded, and co primary endpoints were overall survival and progression free survival. And extraordinarily, there was an improvement in overall survival seen at the first analysis, with a median overall survival of 55.9 months compared to 33.4 months, hazard ratio of 0.73. So highly clinically and statistically significant, that translates at three years to a difference in overall survival of 56.5%, compared to 47.6%, or almost 10% improvement in survival at three years.  There was also a nearly identical improvement in progression-free survival, also with a hazard ratio of 0.76, suggesting that there's a modest number of patients who benefit. But it seems to be a clear improvement with the curves plateauing out. In my opinion, this is very comparable to what we saw with the PACIFIC study in stage III, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer, which immediately changed practice back when that first was reported. And I expect that this will change practice pretty much immediately for small cell as well. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I completely agree, Nate. I think it's an exciting advance in patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. For sure, it's practice-changing, and I think the results were exciting.  So one thing that really intrigued me was in the extensive-stage setting, the benefit was very mediocre with one-to-two month overall survival benefit in both the PACIFIC and in IMpower trial. Here we are seeing almost two-year of median OS benefit. I was kind of puzzled by that, and I thought it may have to do with patients receiving radiation. And we've seen that with the PACIFIC, and makes you wonder if both the CASPIAN and the IMpower studies actually did not allow consolidation thoracic radiation. Hypothetically, if they had allowed consolidation thoracic radiation, perhaps we would have seen better outcomes. Any thoughts on that? Dr. Nate Pennell: We've been trying to prove that radiation and immunotherapy somehow go together better for a long time. Going back to the first description of the abscopal effect, and I'm not sure if I necessarily believe that to be the case, but in this setting where we truly are trying to cure people rather than merely prolong their survival, maybe this is the situation where it truly is more beneficial. I think what we're seeing is something very similar to what we're seen in PACIFIC, where in the stage IV setting, some people have long term survival with immunotherapy, but it's relatively modest. But perhaps in the curative setting, you're seeing more of an impact. Certainly, looking at these curves, we'll have to see with another couple of years to follow up. But a three-year survival of 56% is pretty extraordinary, and I look forward to seeing if this really maintains over the next couple of years follow up.  Moving beyond the Plenary, there were actually lots of really exciting presentations, even outside the Plenary section. One that I think probably got at least as much attention as the ones that we've already discussed today was actually an update of an old trial that's been presented for several prior years. And I'm curious to get your take on why you thought this was such a remarkable study. And we're talking about the LBA8503, which was the 5-year update from the CROWN study, which looked at previously untreated ALK-positive advanced non-small cell in cancer patients randomly assigned to lorlatinib, the third generation ALK inhibitor, versus crizotinib, the first generation ALK inhibitor. What was so exciting about this study, and why were people talking about it?  Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I agree, Nate. We've seen the data in the past, right? Like on the CROWN data, just first like a quick recap. This is the CROWN study, like the phase 3 study of third generation ALK inhibitor lorlatinib. So global randomized phase 3 study in patients with metastatic disease randomized to lorlatinib versus crizotinib, which is a controller. So the primary endpoint was PFS, and we've seen the results in the past of the CROWN readout quoted, with a positive study and the lorlatinib received FDA approval in the frontline setting. But the current study that was presented at the ASCO annual meeting is a kind of a postdoc analysis of five years. The endpoint for the study with central review stopped at three years, and this is actually a follow up beyond that last readout. Interestingly, in this study, when they looked at the median PFS at five years, the lorlatinib arm did not reach a median PFS even at five years and the hazard ratio is 0.19, which is kind of phenomenal in some ways. At 5 years, the majority of the patients were still on the drug. So that's quite incredible. And the benefit was more profound in patients with brain mets with a hazard ratio of 0.08. And again, speaking to the importance of brain penetrant, small molecule inhibitors, and target therapy, the safety profile, there were no additional safety signals noted in the study. We kind of know about the side effects of lorlatinib already from previous studies readouts. No unusual long-term toxicities.  I should note though, about 40% of patients did have CNS, AEs grade 1, 2 CNS toxicities on the  lorlatinib arm. And the other interesting thing that was also reported in the trial was dose reduction of lorlatinib did not have an impact on the PFS, which is interesting in my opinion. They also did some subgroup analysis, biomarker testing, biomarker populations. Patients who had P53 cooperation did much better with lorlatinib versus crizotinib. So overall, the other thing that they also had shown on the trial was the resistance mechanisms that were seen with lorlatinib were very different than what we are used to seeing with the earlier generation ALK inhibitors. The majority of the patients who develop resistance have bypass mechanisms and alterations in MAP kinase pathway PI3K/MTOR/PTEN pathway, suggesting that lorlatinib is a very potent ALK inhibitor and on target ALK mutations don't happen as frequently as we see with the earlier generation ALK inhibitors.  So I think this really begs the question, should we offer lorlatinib to all our patients with metastatic ALK-positive tumors? I think looking at the long-term data, it's quite tempting to say ‘yes', but I think at the same time we have to take into consideration patient safety tolerability. And again, the competitor arm here is crizotinib. So lorlatinib suddenly seems to be, again, cross trial comparisons, but I think the long-term outcomes here are really phenomenal. But at the same time, I think we've got to kind of think about patient because these patients are on these drugs for years, they have to live with all the toxicities. And I think the patient preferences and safety profile matters in terms of what drug we recommend to patients. Dr. Nate Pennell: I completely agree with you. I think the right answer, is that this has to be an individual discussion with patients. The results are incredibly exciting. I mean, the two-year progression free survival was 70%, and the five-year, three years later is still 60%. Only 10% of people are failing over the subsequent three years. And the line is pretty flat. And as you said, even with brain metastases, the median survival is in reach. It's really extraordinary. Moreover, while we do talk about the significant toxicities of lorlatinib, I thought it was really interesting that only 5% of people were supposedly discontinued the drug because of treatment related AEs, which meant that with dose reduction and management, it seems as though most patients were able to continue on the drug, even though they, as you mentioned, were taking it for several years.  That being said, all of us who've had experience with the second-generation drugs like alectinib and brigatinib, compared to the third-generation drug lorlatinib, can speak to the challenges of some of the unique toxicities that go along with it. I don't think this is going to be a drug for everyone, but I do think it is now worth bringing it up and discussing it with the patients most of the time now. And I do think that there will be many people for whom this is going to be a good choice, which is exciting. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Absolutely, completely agree. And I think there are newer ALK inhibitors in clinical development which have cleaner and better safety profiles. So we'll have to kind of wait and see how those pan out.  Moving on to the other exciting abstract, LBA8509, the KRYSTAL-12 study. LBA8509 is a phase 3 study looking at adagrasib versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced metastatic non-small cell cancer with KRASG12C mutation. Nate, there's been a lot of hype around this trial. You've seen the data. Do you think it's practice-changing? How does it differentiate with the other drug that's already FDA approved, sotorasib?  Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, this is an interesting one. I think we've all been very excited in recent years about the identification of KRASG12C mutations as targetable mutations. We know that this represents about half of KRAS mutations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, adenocarcinoma, and there are two FDA-approved drugs. Sotorasib was the first and adagrasib shortly thereafter. We already had seen the CodeBreaK 200 study, which was a phase 3 study of sotorasib versus docetaxel that did modestly prolong progression free survival compared to docetaxel, although did not seem to necessarily translate to an improvement in overall survival. And so now, coming on the heels of that study, the KRYSTAL-12 study compared adagrasib, also the KRASG12C  inhibitor versus docetaxel and those with previously treated non-small cell with KRASG12C. And it did significantly improve progression free survival with a hazard ratio of 0.58. Although when you look at the median numbers, the median PFS was only 5.5 months with the adagrasib arm compared to 3.8 months with docetaxel. So while it is a significant and potentially clinically significant difference, it is still, I would say a modest improvement.   And there were some pretty broad improvements across all the different subgroups, including those with brain metastases. It did improve response rate significantly. So 32% response rate without adagrasib, compared to only 9% with docetaxel. It's about what you would expect with chemotherapy. And very importantly, in this patient population, there was activity in the brain with an intracranial overall response rate among those who had measurable brain metastases of 40%. So certainly important and probably that would distinguish it from drugs like docetaxel, which we don't expect to have a lot of intracranial toxicity. There is certainly a pattern of side effects that go along with that adagrasib, so it does cause especially GI toxicity, like diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, transaminitis. All of these were actually, at least numerically, somewhat higher in the adagrasib arm than in docetaxel, a lot more hematologic toxicity with the docetaxel. But overall, the number of serious adverse events were actually pretty well matched between the two groups. So it wasn't really a home run in terms of favorable toxicity with that adagrasib.  So the question is: “In the absence of any data yet on overall survival, should this change practice?” And I'm not sure it's going to change practice, because I do think that based on the accelerated approval, most physicians are already offering the G12C inhibitors like sotorasib and adagrasib, probably more often than chemotherapy, I think based on perceived improvement in side effects and higher response rates, modestly longer progression-free survival, so I think most people think that represents a modest improvement over chemotherapy. And so I think that will continue. It will be very interesting, however, when the overall survival report is out, if it is not significantly better, what the FDA is going to do when they look at these drugs.  Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thanks so much. Very well summarized. And I do agree they look more similar than dissimilar. I think CodeBreaK-200 and the KRYSTAL-12, they kind of are very identical. I should say, though I was a little surprised with the toxicity profile of adagrasib. It seemed, I mean, not significantly, but definitely seemed worse than the earlier readouts that we've seen. The GI tox especially seems much worse on this trial. I'm kind of curious why, but if I recall correctly, I think 5% of the patients had grade 3 diarrhea. A significant proportion of patients had grade 3 nausea and vomiting. And the other complicating thing here is you can't use a lot of the antiemetics because of the QT issues. So that's another problem. But I think it's more comparable to sotorasib, in my opinion.  Dr. Nate Pennell: While this is exciting, I like to think of this as the early days of EGFR, when we were using gefitinib and erlotinib. They were certainly advances, but we now have drugs that are much more effective and long lasting in these patients. And I think that the first-generation inhibitors like sotorasib and adagrasib, while they certainly benefit patients, now is just the beginning. There's a lot of research going on, and we're not going to talk about some of the other abstracts presented, but some of the next generation G12C inhibitors, for example, olomorasib, which did have also in the same session, a presentation in combination with pembrolizumab that had a very impressive response rate with potentially fewer side effects, may end up replacing the first generation drugs when they get a little bit farther along. And then moving on to another one, which I think potentially could change practice. I am curious to hear your take on it, was the LBA8505, which was the PALOMA-3 study. This was interesting in that it compared two different versions of the same drug. So amivantamab, the bispecific, EGFR and MET, which is already approved for EGFR exon 20 non-small cell lung cancer, in this case, in more typical EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer in combination with osimertinib with the intravenous amivantamab, compared to the subcutaneous formulation of amivantamab. Why would this be an important study? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I found this study really interesting as well, Nate. And as you know, amivantamab has been FDA approved for patients with exon 20 mutation. And also, we've had, like two positive readouts in patients with classical EGFR mutations. One, the MARIPOSA study in the frontline setting and the MARIPOSA-2, in the second-line post osimertinib setting. For those studies, the intravenous amivantamab was used as a treatment arm, and the intravenous amivantamab had a lot of baggage to go along with it, like the infusion reactions and VTEs and other classic EGFR related toxicity, skin toxicities. So the idea behind developing the subcutaneous formulation of amivantamab was mainly to reduce the burden of infusion, infusion time and most importantly, the infusion related reactions associated with IV formulation.  In a smaller phase 2 study, the PALOMA study, they had looked at various dosing schemas like, subcutaneous formulation, and they found that the infusion related reactions were very, very low with the subcutaneous formulation. So that led to the design of this current study that was presented, the PALOMA-3 study. This was for patients who had classical EGFR mutations like exon 19, L858R. The patients were randomized 1:1 to subcutaneous amivantamab with lazertinib versus IV amivantamab plus lazertinib. The endpoints for the study, it's a non-inferiority study with co primary endpoints of C trough and C2 AUC, Cycle 2 AUC. They were looking at those pharmacological endpoints to kind of demonstrate comparability to the IV formulation. So in this study, they looked at these pharmacokinetic endpoints and they were essentially identical. Both subcutaneous and IV formulations were compatible. And in terms of clinical efficacy as well, the response rate was identical, no significant differences. Duration of response was also identical. The PFS also was comparable to the IV formulation. In fact, numerically, the subcutaneous arm was a little better, though not significant. But it appears like, you know, the overall clinical and pharmacological profile of the subcutaneous amivantamab was comparable. And most interestingly, the AE profile, the skin toxicity was not much different. However, the infusion reactions were substantially lower, 13% with the subcutaneous amivantamab and 66% with IV amivantamab. And also, interestingly, the VTE rates were lower with the subcutaneous version of amivantamab. There was still a substantial proportion of patients, especially those who didn't have prophylactic anticoagulation. 17% of the patients with the subcutaneous amivantamab had VTE versus 26% with IV amivantamab. With prophylaxis, which is lower in both IV and subcutaneous, but still subcutaneous formulation at a lower 7% versus 12% with the IV amivantamab.  So overall, I think this is an interesting study, and also the authors had actually presented some interesting data on administration time. I've never seen this before. Patients reported convenience using a modified score of patient convenience, essentially like patients having to spend a lot of time in the infusion site and convenience of the patient getting the treatment. And it turns out, and no surprise, that subcutaneous amivantamab was found to be more convenient for patients.  So, Nate, I want to ask you your take on this. In a lot of our busy infusion centers, the time it takes for those patients to get the infusion does matter, right? And I think in our clinic where we are kind of fully booked for the infusion, I think having the patients come in and leave in 15, 20 minutes, I think it adds a lot of value to the cancer center operation.  Dr. Nate Pennell: Oh, I completely agree. I think the efficacy results were reassuring. I think the infusion related reaction difference, I think is a huge difference. I mean, I have given a fair amount of amivantamab, and I would say the published IRR rate of 66%, 67% I would say, is maybe even underestimates how many patients get some kind of reaction from that, although it really is a first dose phenomenon. And I think that taking that down to 13% is a tremendous advance. I think fusion share time is not trivial as we get busier and busier. I know our cancer center is also very full and it becomes challenging to schedule people, and being able to do a five-minute treatment versus a five-hour treatment makes a big difference for patients.  It's interesting, there was one slide that was presented from an efficacy standpoint. I'm curious about your take on this. They showed that the overall survival was actually better in the subcu amivantamab arm, hazard ratio of 0.62. Now, this was only an exploratory endpoint. They sort of talk about perhaps some rationale for why this might be the case. But at the very least, I think we can be reassured that it's not less effective to give it and does seem to be more tolerable and so I would expect that this hopefully will be fairly widely adopted. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I agree. I think this is a welcome change. Like, I think the infusion reactions and the resources it takes to get patients through treatments. I think it's definitely a win-win for patients and also the providers.  And with that, we come to the conclusion of the podcast. Nate, thank you so much for the fantastic insights today. Our listeners will find all the abstracts discussed today in the transcripts of the episode. Thank you so much for joining us today, Dr. Pennell.  Dr. Nate Pennell: Oh, thanks for inviting me. It's always fun to talk about all these exciting advances for our patients. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thanks to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to all the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of the episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear from ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcast.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Find out more about today's speakers:    Dr. Vamsi Velcheti  @VamsiVelcheti    Dr. Nathan Pennell  @n8pennell    Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:  Dr. Vamsi Velcheti:  Honoraria: ITeos Therapeutics  Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Foundation Medicine, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Novartis, Lilly, EMD Serono, GSK, Amgen, Elevation Oncology, Taiho Oncology, Merus  Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech, Trovagene, Eisai, OncoPlex Diagnostics, Alkermes, NantOmics, Genoptix, Altor BioScience, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Atreca, Heat Biologics, Leap Therapeutics, RSIP Vision, GlaxoSmithKline  Dr. Nathan Pennell:    Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron   Research Funding (Inst): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi

Title: ASCO 2024 Highlights Part 1 - Plenary Description: ASCO 2024 had so much lung cancer data, two podcast episodes are required to cover all the data presented. In this first episode, hosts Dr. Stephen Liu and Dr. Narjust Florez cover the LAURA trial, the ADAURA trial, the KRYSTAL-12 study, the phase III EVOKE-01 trial, the phase III ADRIATIC trial, and the REACH-PC trial. Guest: Dr. David Spigel is the Chief Scientific Officer at Sarah Cannon Research Institute and recipient of the IASLC Heine H. Hansen Lectureship for SCLC. Guest: Dr. Lecia Sequist is the Program Director for Cancer Early Detection & Diagnostics at Massachusetts General Cancer Center and the Landry Family Professor of Medicine in the Field of Medical Oncology at Harvard Medical School.

Drs. Vamsi Velcheti and Nathan Pennell discuss key lung cancer abstracts from the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including data from LUMINOSITY and ADAURA, novel therapies in KRASG12C-mutant advanced NSCLC, and the need for effective adjuvant therapies for patients with rare mutations. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Hello, I am Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of medicine and director of thoracic medical oncology at Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health. Today, I'm delighted to welcome Dr. Nathan Pennell, the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and vice chair of clinical research at the Taussig Cancer Center. Dr. Pennell is also the editor-in-chief of the ASCO Educational Book. Dr. Pennell is sharing his valuable insights today on key abstracts in lung cancer that will be presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of the episode.  Nate, it's great to have you here on the podcast. Thank you for being here. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Thanks, Vamsi, for inviting me. I'm always excited for the ASCO Annual Meeting, and we have a tremendous amount of exciting lung cancer abstracts. I know we're not going to discuss all of them on this podcast, but even exciting Plenary presentations coming up.  Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: So, one of the abstracts that caught my attention was Abstract 103, the LUMINOSITY trial, which will be presenting the primary analysis at the meeting. So, there's a lot of buzz and excitement around ADCs. Can you comment on this abstract, Nate, and what are your thoughts on key takeaways from this abstract?  Dr. Nathan Pennell: Absolutely, I agree. This is really an exciting new potential target for lung cancer. So historically, when we think about MET and lung cancer, we think about the MET exon 14 skipping mutations which are present in 3% or 4% of adenocarcinoma patients. And we have approved tyrosine kinase inhibitors, small molecule inhibitors that can be very effective for those. What we're talking about here is actually an antibody drug conjugate or ADC telisotuzumab vedotin, which is targeting the MET protein over expression in non-squamous EGFR wild type advanced non-small cell lung cancer. The LUMINOSITY was a single arm, phase 2 study of teliso, and first of all, I think we have to define the patient population. So, these were MET over expressing non-small cell lung cancer by immunohistochemical staining. So, it included both what they considered MET high expression and MET intermediate expression, both of which had to be 3+ IHC positive on 25% to 50% of cells in the intermediate and 50% or higher in the high expressing group. They were treated with the ADC and had pretty promising results, a response rate of 35% in the MET high group and 23% in the intermediate group. Duration of response at nine months and 7.2 months in those two groups, and the PFS was five and a half and six months. So I would say in a previously treated population, this was relatively promising and potentially defines a completely new and unique subgroup of biomarker defined patients. So, Vamsi, I'm curious, though, if this ends up moving forward to further development, what your thoughts are on adding yet another biomarker in non-small cell lung cancer? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think it's certainly exciting. I think for this population, we really don't have a lot of options beyond the second line, and even in the second line, docetaxels are low bar. So,I think having more options for our patients is certainly outcome development. And I think MET IHC is relatively easy to deploy in a clinical setting. I think we already test for MET PD-L1 IHC routinely, and now recently, as you know, HER2 IHC given approval for ADCs, HER2 ADCs there in that space. So, I think from a technical standpoint, I don't see a big barrier in terms of adding an additional IHC marker. And usually, the IHC testing is pretty quick. And I think if you have a therapeutic approval based on IHC positivity, I think certainly from an operational standpoint, it shouldn't be a very complicated issue. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, I agree. This is cheap. It's something that can be done everywhere in the world. And as you said, in addition to diagnostic IHC, we're already looking at PD-L1, and probably moving towards doing that for HER2. This is really wonderful that we're moving into kind of the era of the ADCs, which is opening up a whole new therapeutic group of options for patients. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: So, the other abstract that caught my attention was like, the Abstract 8005. This is the molecular residual disease MRD analysis from the ADAURA trial. The ADAURA trial, as you all know, is the trial that led to the FDA approval of adjuvant use of osimertinib in patients with EGFR mutant stage 1B through 3A non-small cell lung cancer. And in this trial, osimertinib demonstrated significant improvements in DFS and OS. And in this particular study, Abstract 8005, the authors looked at the role of MRD in predicting DFS in the study. And after 682 patients who were randomized, 36% of the patients had samples to look at MRD post- surgery. And in the trial the MRD status predicted DFS or event free survival at 36 months with a hazard ratio of 0.23. And the MRD status had a median lead time of 4.7 months across both the arms, both osimertinib and the placebo arm. So, suggesting that MRD could potentially identify high risk subgroups of patients post-surgery to tailor personalized approaches potentially in this population. So, Nate, in your practice, of course, we don't have a clinically validated approach yet to kind of use MRD in this setting, but if we have an option to use an MRD based assay, do you think that would potentially be an opportunity to perhaps escalate or de-escalate adjuvant strategies with TKIs in the adjuvant setting? Do you see value in using MRI assays post- surgery? Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, I think this is a really important study because this is such an important topic around adjuvant targeted treatment. So, of course, ADAURA really changed how we treated people with EGFR mutant lung cancer who underwent surgical resection, because we know that the three years of osimertinib significantly improved disease-free survival and overall survival. But there's still a lot of questions being asked about, is that affordable? Obviously, we're putting a lot of resources into three years of treatment, and not everyone necessarily needs it. There may well be people who are cured with surgery alone and adjuvant chemotherapy. And then what about duration? Is three years enough? Do we need even longer treatment, or do we need shorter treatment? And up to date, we haven't really been able to tell people at risk of recurrence other than the pure odds-based risk based on their stage.   And the assay that was used in the ADAURA study was a personalized tumor informed assay based on the resected tumor. It's unclear to me whether this was just a subgroup of people that had this done or whether they tried to do it in all 600 patients and only, it looks like they were successful in about 32% of people. Maybe about a third were able to successfully have a tumor informed assay. So, the first question is, “Can you use this to help guide who needs treatment or not?” And I think what they showed was only about 4% of people in osimertinib arm in 12% had MRD positive at baseline after surgery. So probably, upfront testing is not really going to be all that helpful at determining who's at high risk and needs to be treated.   Interestingly, of those who were positive, though, most of them, or 80% of them, did go MRD negative on osimertinib. And what I found really interesting is that of those who did have a recurrence, 65% of them did have the MRD test turn positive. And as you mentioned, that was about five months prior to being picked up radiographically, and so you can pick them up sooner. And it also looks like about two thirds of recurrences can be identified with the blood test. So that potentially could identify people who are recurring earlier that might be eligible for a more intensive treatment. The other thing that was really interesting is of those who recurred in the osimertinib arm, 68% of them happened after stopping the osimertinib, suggesting that for the majority of patients, even those not necessarily cured, they seem to have disease control while on the osimertinib, suggesting that maybe a longer duration of treatment for those patients could be helpful. The problem is it still isn't necessarily helpful at identifying who those people are who need the longer duration of treatment. So, definitely an important study. I think it could be useful in practice if this was available clinically, especially at monitoring those after completion of treatment. I think as the sensitivity of these MRD assays gets better, these will become more and more important. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I think it's a little bit of a challenge in terms of standardizing these assays, and they're like multiple assays, which are currently commercially available. And I think the field is getting really complicated in terms of how you incorporate different assays and different therapeutics in the adjuvant space, especially if you're kind of looking at de-escalating immunotherapeutic strategies at the adjuvant setting, I think, makes it even more challenging. I think exciting times. We definitely need more thoughtful and better studies to really define the role of MRD in the adjuvant space. So, I guess more to come in this space. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Vamsi, I wanted to ask you about another really interesting Abstract 8011. This is a subgroup of the AEGEAN perioperative study for early-stage resected non-small cell lung cancer. This abstract is specifically looking at baseline N2 lymph node involvement in stage 2A-3B with N2 positive patients in an exploratory subgroup analysis. What are your key takeaways from the study?   Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I felt this was a very interesting abstract for a couple of reasons. As you know, this is the AEGEAN trial, the phase 3 trial that was reported earlier last year. This is a perioperative study of durvalumab plus new adjuvant chemotherapy versus new adjuvant chemotherapy alone and adjuvant durvalumab plus placebo. The study obviously met its primary endpoint, as we all saw, like the event-free survival. And here in this abstract, the authors present an exploratory subgroup analysis of patients who had N2 lymph node involvement prior to study enrollment. So, in this study, they were focusing on perioperative outcomes. And one of the issues that has come up multiple times, as you know, in a lot of these preoperative studies, is the impact of neoadjuvant chemo immunotherapy on surgery or surgical outcomes. And consistently, across a lot of these trials, including the CheckMate 816, about 20% of patients don't end up making it to surgery. So in that light, I think this study and the findings are very interesting. In this study, they looked at patients who had N2 nodal involvement and of the patients with N2 nodal involvement, the surgical operability or the number of patients who completed surgery was similar in both the groups. So, there was no significant difference between patients who received durva versus chemotherapy and also among patients who had N2 subgroup who had surgery, similar proportions of durvalumab and placebo arms had open versus minimally invasive versus pneumonectomy. So durvalumab didn't have a negative impact on the type of surgery that the patients had at the time of surgery. So overall, the findings were consistent with other trials, perioperative trials that we have seen. So, the surgical outcomes were not negatively impacted by adding immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant perioperative space. So, this is consistent with other trials that we have seen. And also, the other issue, Nate, I'd like to get your opinion on is, across the board, in all the perioperative trials we have seen that about 20% of the patients actually don't end up making it a surgery. And of course, most of these perioperative trials, a lot of these patients are stage 3 patients. And my take on this was that there's probably a little bit of a patient selection issue. We generally tend to err on the side of operability when we have a stage 3 patient discussed in the tumor board, sometimes feel like the patient may downstage and could potentially go to surgery. But even in the real world, in stage 3 operable patients, what proportion of patients do you think don't end up going to surgery? Dr. Nathan Pennell: That is such an important question that I don't think we have the best answer to. You're right. All of these perioperative studies have a relatively high- sort of 20% to 30% of people who enroll on the studies don't necessarily go to surgery. And I don't think that they've done as great a job as they could in all of these trials describing exactly what happens to these patients. So in the real world, obviously not everyone would be fit enough to go to surgery or might progress in the time between when they were diagnosed and the time as planned for surgery. But probably more of them would go to surgery if they weren't getting neoadjuvant treatment, because that would be their initial treatment. The question is, of course, is that the right choice? If someone gets 12 weeks or nine weeks of neoadjuvant treatment and then a restaging scan shows that they've had progression with metastatic disease, are those really the people that would have been optimally treated with surgery upfront, or would they just have had recurrence on their first postoperative scan? So, it's really an important question to answer. I think the bigger one is, is the treatment preventing them through toxicity from going to treatment? And I think the studies have generally felt that few patients are missing out on the option of surgery because of toxicity being caused by the IO. And in the AEGEAN study, for example, in this subgroup, a slightly numerically higher percentage of patients in the durvalumab arm actually underwent surgery compared to those who got neoadjuvant chemo. So, it doesn't seem like we're necessarily harming people with the neoadjuvant treatment. But I know that this is a concern for patients and doctors who are undergoing this approach. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Definitely, I think having multiple data sets from perioperative trials, looking at the relative impact of IO on the safety and the nature of the surgery is going to be important, and this is a very important study for that reason. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Can I ask you another thing that I thought really interesting about this particular one is they looked at the difference between those with single station N2 and multi station N2. And I know this is one of those, should we be operating on people who have multi station N2 disease? And the AEGEAN study did include people who had multiple N2 stations where perhaps in the pre-IO era, these would have been treated with definitive chemoradiation and not surgery at all. But the disease-free survival hazard ratio was essentially the same for multi station N2 as it was in the overall population. So, has that changed the way we're approaching these patients in these multidisciplinary discussions? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Absolutely, Nate. I think surgical operability is in the eye of the beholder. I think it depends on which surgeon sees the patient or how the discussion goes in the tumor boards, as you know. Certainly, I think with this optionality of having a chemo IO option and potential for downstaging, kind of pushes, at least in our practice, more of these patients who are multistation, who would have otherwise gone down the chemoradiation route are now actually going through neo adjuvant chemo IO and with the hope that they would make it to surgery. So, I think it's an interesting change in paradigm in managing our locally advanced patients. So, I think it's certainly interesting, but I guess to your point, there clearly are some patients who probably should just have chemoradiation upfront, and we may be kind of like delaying that definitive chemoradiation approach for at least a subset of patients. So, at the end of the day, I think it's a lot of clinical decision-making and I think there's going to be a little bit of art to managing these patients and it's going to be really hard to define that population for a clinical trial.  Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, clearly, multidisciplinary discussion, still very important for earliest age non-small cell lung cancer patients. If we move back to metastatic lung cancer, let's talk about Abstract 8510 looking at one of our newer, exciting biomarkers, which are the KRASG12Cmutant non-small cell lung cancer. So this is a study of a second generation KRASG12Cinhibitor, olomorasib, which was combined with pembrolizumab, the anti PD-1 antibody, in patients with advanced KRASG12C mutant non-small cell lung cancer. This is something that has been tried before with first generation G12C inhibitors, with some concerns about how safe it was to do that. So, Vamsi, what did you learn from this abstract? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Definitely, I think one of the concerns that we've had in other trials is like the cumulative toxicity of adding checkpoint inhibition to G12C inhibitors, especially the sotorasib CodeBreaK trial, where we see increased rates of grade 3, 4 transaminitis. So, it is encouraging to see that some of the newer agents have less of those issues when it comes to combining the checkpoint inhibition. So especially with KRASG12C, as you know, these are patients who are smokers, and often these are patients who have high PDL-1 could potentially also benefit from immunotherapy. In order for these KRASG12C inhibitors, in order to move these targeted therapy options for these patients to the front line, I do think we need to have substantial comfort in combining the checkpoint inhibitors, which is a standard treatment approach for patients in the frontline setting. I think this is exciting, and I think they're also like, as you know, there are other KRASG12C inhibitors also looking to combine with checkpoint inhibition in the frontline settings. So, we'll have to kind of wait and see how the other agents will perform in the setting. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, I completely agree. I think this is such an important area to explore specifically because unlike our other targeted oncogenes like EGFR and ALK, we have multiple options for these patients, both immunotherapy and targeted treatments. And if we could think about sequencing them or even combining them and if it could be done safely, I think that would be well worth investigating. There still was significant toxicity in this trial; 30% of people had diarrhea, even at the reduced dose, and there was transaminitis at sort of about 20% or so, although probably at a manageable level. But the response rate was really quite promising. And these are all previously IO and mostly G12C TKI pre-treated patients still had a response rate of 63%. And in those who were naive to IO and TKIs, it was 78% response rate. So, if it could be done safely, I think it's definitely worth pursuing this in further trials. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: And also, there's some data, preclinical data, like looking at G12C inhibition. And also we have known with MET inhibition for a long time that it could potentially augment immune responses and could be having some synergistic effect with IO. So, we'll have to wait and see, I think. But safety is really the top in mind when it comes to combining these agents with checkpoint inhibitors. So, it's really encouraging to see that some of the newer agents may be more combinable IO. Now moving on to the next abstract, and moving on to, again, the early-stage setting. So, Abstract 8052 from our colleagues in Princess Margaret reported outcomes in early-stage non- small cell lung cancer in patients with rare targetable mutation. This is actually becoming increasingly more relevant because we are seeing at least, like with the ALINA data, with the ALK and EGFR, now with ADAURA, we know that these patients don't benefit with adjuvant immunotherapy, especially some of these rare oncogene living mutations, other than like G12C. So I always struggle with this. When you have early-stage patients, with, let's say, a ROS or a RET, where we just don't have data, and we know that those are poor actors because biologically these are aggressive tumors. So, there's a really odd clinical question to ask in terms of, what is the role of adjuvant immunotherapy? Of course, this trial and this abstract are not really addressing that. But what is your take on this abstract? If you could just summarize the abstract for us. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Sure. Well, I think this is incredibly important, and this is an area near and dear to my own heart. And that is, of course, the whole landscape of how we manage early-stage patients has changed with both ADAURA, because we now have effective treatment in the adjuvant setting for EGFR mutant patients, and now more recently with the ALINA trial for adjuvant alectinib for ALK positive patients now being FDA-approved. So, what that means is we actually have to be testing people at diagnosis even before they would be getting adjuvant treatment, and potentially before even surgery to look for these targets. We need the PD-L1 status, we need EGFR and ALK. And if you're going to be looking at these biomarkers, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that you should be doing broad testing for all of the targetable oncogenes in these patients. There are some studies suggesting that there's value to this and identifying them for treatment at the time of recurrence. But we also know that these patients are at high risk of recurrence and probably need to be investigated, at least in trials for the adjuvant setting. So, this particular study looked at 201 resected, mostly adenocarcinoma patients, and then they basically sequenced them for all of the targeted oncogenes. And they were quite common, perhaps even more common than you might expect in an advanced population. So, 43% of them had KRASG12C mutations, 13% had EGFR Exon 20 mutation, ERBB2 or HER2 mutations found in 11%, MET mutations in 10%, ALK in 7%, ROS1 in 6%, BRAF in 5%, and RET in 2%. So quite common to find these targetable oncogenes in this particular population, perhaps a somewhat biased population at Princess Margaret Hospital, but very common. And then they looked at the outcomes of these patients without targeted adjuvant treatment. And what they found was there was a very high rate of recurrence. So, relapse-free survival was pretty high in these patients across different stages, and generally their prognosis was worse than the more common KRASG12C patients. Most of these, in particular the HER2 mutant patients, seem to have a significantly worse relapse free survival. Interestingly enough, though, that did not carry over to overall survival. Overall survival was better in those who had targetable oncogenes. And my guess is that that probably had to do with the availability of targeted treatments at the time of recurrence that may have impacted overall survival. But I do think that this particularly highlights the need, the unmet need for effective adjuvant treatment in these patients. And most of them, with the exception of KRAS and perhaps BRAF, perhaps MET unlikely to benefit from adjuvant immunotherapy, as you mentioned. And so, I think we really need to be investing in trials of adjuvant targeted treatments in these populations.  Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, this is an area that we really don't have a lot of data. But Nate, a question for you. So tomorrow you have a patient with RET fusion, stage 2, N1 disease. What would you do? Would you offer them an adjuvant RET inhibitor? Dr. Nathan Pennell: I think I would search really hard for a trial to give them access. But if you really want to know what I think, and I'm usually willing to tell people what I think, I think the proof of concept is there. I think we know that in the setting of highly effective and very tolerable adjuvant targeted treatment in the EGFR space with osimertinib, in the ALK space with alectinib, if anything, drugs like selpercatinib and pralsetinib in RET fusion positive lung cancer in the advanced setting are just as well tolerated and easily as effective and long lasting. And so, I think if you did a trial and they are doing trials looking at these drugs in the adjuvant space, almost certainly you're going to see the same really dramatic disease-free survival benefit from these treatments, which, at least in the EGFR space, seems to have translated into an improvement in overall survival. And so if I had a stage II or a resected stage 3, especially a RET fusion positive patient today, I would definitely talk to them about off-label use of a RET inhibitor if I could not find a trial. Now, I understand that there are going to be reimbursement issues and whatnot associated with that, but I think the extrapolation is worth discussing. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think it's really challenging because some of these fusions are so rare and it's hard to really do large adjuvant trials for some of these rarer subgroups. Nate, fascinating insights. Our listeners will find links to the abstracts we discussed today in the transcript of the episode. And Nate, I look forward to catching up with you at the Annual Meeting, and again after the meeting for our wrap up podcast to discuss the practice-changing lung cancer abstracts and highlights from the Plenary Session. Thank you so much for joining us and sharing your insights today. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Thanks for inviting me. Vamsi. I look forward to touching base after we get to see all the late-breaking abstracts. Like I said, this is, I think, a year for lung cancer with a lot of exciting data, and I know we'll have a lot to talk about. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti And thank you so much to all our listeners for your time. If you value the insights that you hear from the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate and review and subscribe wherever you get your podcast.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Find out more about today's speakers: Dr. Vamsi Velcheti @VamsiVelcheti   Dr. Nathan Pennell @n8pennell   Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on Twitter   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures: Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Honoraria: ITeos Therapeutics Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Foundation Medicine, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Novartis, Lilly, EMD Serono, GSK, Amgen, Elevation Oncology, Taiho Oncology, Merus Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech, Trovagene, Eisai, OncoPlex Diagnostics, Alkermes, NantOmics, Genoptix, Altor BioScience, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Atreca, Heat Biologics, Leap Therapeutics, RSIP Vision, GlaxoSmithKline   Dr. Nathan Pennell:   Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron  Research Funding (Inst): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi 

Dr. Joshua Reuss discusses the ADAURA trial, which suggested Osimertinib as treatment for EGFR+ NSCLC.

Drs Donington and Stiles discuss how the findings from the ADAURA trial with adjuvant osimertinib have changed thoracic surgery expectations, the potential surgical implications of the ALINA trial with adjuvant alectinib, and the importance of early-stage molecular testing in lung cancer.

Dr. Joshua Reuss examines important details learned during the ADAURA trial, including overall survival, reduced risk of brain mets, and side effects.

ASCO: You're listening to a podcast from Cancer.Net. This cancer information website is produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, known as ASCO, the voice of the world's oncology professionals. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guests' statements on this podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Cancer research discussed in this podcast is ongoing, so data described here may change as research progresses. The theme of the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting was “Partnering With Patients: The Cornerstone of Cancer Care and Research.” From June 2 to 6 in Chicago, Illinois, and online, cancer researchers and clinicians from around the world gathered to discuss the latest cancer research and how to ensure that all people receive the cancer care they need. In the Research Round Up series, members of the Cancer.Net Editorial Board discuss the most exciting and practice-changing research in their field presented at the meeting and explain what it means for people with cancer. In today's episode, our guests will discuss new research advances in treating non-small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, and mesothelioma.  Dr. Charu Aggarwal is the Leslye Heisler Associate Professor of Medicine in the Hematology-Oncology Division at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She is also the 2023 Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Lung Cancer. Dr. Melina Marmarelis is an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, the Medical Director of the Penn Medicine Mesothelioma Program, and the co-director of the Molecular Tumor Board at the University of Pennsylvania. She is also the 2023 Cancer.Net Specialty Editor for Mesothelioma. Dr. Kristin Higgins is a radiation oncologist, Professor and Vice Chair in Clinical Research in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine and medical director of radiation oncology of The Emory Clinic at Winship Cancer Institute's Clifton campus location. She is also a 2023 Cancer.Net Advisory Panelist for Lung Cancer. You can view disclosures for Dr. Aggarwal, Dr. Marmarelis, and Dr. Higgins at Cancer.Net. Dr. Aggarwal: Hello and welcome to this Cancer.Net Research Round Up podcast. Today, we will be talking about the latest research from the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology from June 2023, and I'm joined today by 2 experts in the field of lung cancer. Before I introduce them, I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Dr. Charu Aggarwal. I'm an associate professor for lung cancer excellence at the University of Pennsylvania's Abramson Cancer Center. I'd now like to introduce Dr. Melina Marmarelis. Dr. Marmarelis: Hi, so happy to be here. I'm Melina Marmarelis. I'm an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the medical director of the Penn mesothelioma program. Dr. Aggarwal: And Dr. Kristin Higgins. Dr. Higgins: Hi, everyone. I'm Kristin Higgins. I am a thoracic radiation oncologist at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University. I'm a professor and vice chair for clinical research for radiation oncology. Dr. Aggarwal: Fantastic. So today, we'll talk about relevant research as it applies to practical implications in the clinic for practitioners, but most importantly, patients with lung cancer. I'd like to start off by discussing 2 key studies, and I would love for perspectives from our faculty here. The first study I want to highlight is the ADAURA trial. This is a trial that has already sort of changed practice in most recent years when the study was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2020, but we have new updates on this study as of 2023. So, in brief, this was a study that looked at the value of administering an oral pill called osimertinib that is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor against the EGFR, or the epidermal growth factor receptor, in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. We know that non-small cell lung cancer is quite a heterogeneous disease with some subsets of patients having mutations that may render them increasingly sensitive to the effects of these tyrosine kinase inhibitors. In fact, these pills have been used in the metastatic setting for several years based on an improvement in overall survival. What the ADAURA study tried to do was ask the question if this pill would add an incremental advantage after receiving curative-intent surgical resection in those with early-stage lung cancer. So this study enrolled patients with stage IB to IIIA non-small cell lung cancer after surgical resection and focused only on those patients that had sensitizing EGFR mutations with EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations. Patients could receive chemotherapy after having the surgery and then were basically randomized into 2 groups, one of whom received osimertinib at a dose of 80 milligrams once daily for a total of 3 years. Patients were followed up for recurrence. We already know from the earlier results that patients who received osimertinib had a better chance of delaying the recurrence of disease. However, what we found at the Annual Meeting this year is that the administration of this osimertinib also improved overall survival, which is really what we all look for in the oncology world. If you're administering a therapy, especially for a long duration, we want to be able to see a survival benefit, and that's what we saw. In fact, in patients who received osimertinib, there was a 49% less likelihood of dying from lung cancer compared to those who did not receive osimertinib. This, I think, is practice-affirming. It may not be practice-changing because some of the practitioners started using osimertinib after its FDA approval in December of 2020, but I think it just confirms our practice as it delivers an overall survival advantage in these patients. One thing that's increasingly important is to identify patients who have this mutation, so now we have efforts underway locally as well as nationally to perform molecular genotyping on all patients with lung cancer so that we can adequately and appropriately treat those with early-stage lung cancer following curative resection or following surgery. Melina and Kristin, what are your thoughts? Dr. Marmarelis: Well, I think these results are really important because it did, as you say, affirm kind of what we're already doing, but I think the most convincing part of this for me is the prevention of spread of disease to the brain. This is not comparing osimertinib after surgery versus osimertinib ever, which I think is a difficult part about interpreting this trial. But I think the fact that it prevented disease from going to the brain is really meaningful to everyone, to patients, to the physicians that are caring for them, so I think that's a really important endpoint. Dr. Higgins: I agree with Melina. I think this is really exciting for our patients. It's exciting to have more treatment options for early-stage lung cancer. I think patients that are diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer are highly motivated to do everything they can to improve their likelihood of being cured. So I tend to have a lot of conversations about side effects and toxicities with patients that have questions and are sort of wondering how it will affect their quality of life, and of course, that is an important piece of it because patients that do have curable lung cancer are probably starting off with a better overall quality of life, but I think generally speaking, our patients have tolerated it well. I'm also kind of excited from a radiation oncology point of view. We treat patients with stereotactic body radiation therapy [SBRT] that are medically inoperable. And we have another trial with a cohort looking at osimertinib for those patients that have EGFR mutations, too, and that's ongoing, again, applying the same concept of trying to really use these SBRTs that work really well in the advanced setting, moving them into earlier stages of disease to help us care for more patients. So overall, I think it's really exciting, and I think it's a huge win for the clinical research community. Dr. Aggarwal: Well, that's wonderful. And I think this certainly advances the field as this is the first targeted therapy approved for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. I should add that AstraZeneca, the company that makes this drug, has provided institutional research funding to my institution, and I also serve as an advisor to them, but I was not involved personally in the research of this clinical trial. I'd like to move on but stay within the field of early-stage lung cancer and talk about another study called the KEYNOTE-671 study, and this is important because it really applies the idea of using immunotherapy before and after surgical resection in patients with early-stage lung cancer. Just to give a little bit of background to our listeners, we now have 3 approvals for the use of immunotherapy in patients with early-stage lung cancer. Two of those are in the adjuvant setting, meaning that if a patient undergoes surgical resection or surgery for early-stage lung cancer, they can receive either atezolizumab or pembrolizumab following that surgery, and that has been shown to improve outcomes in terms of reducing the chances of recurrence. We also have another approval, which is the third approval in early-stage lung cancer, where 3 cycles of chemotherapy and immunotherapy are administered prior to surgery, also called as the neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy approach. This drug that has been approved in combination with chemotherapy is nivolumab, and this approval came from a clinical trial called CheckMate 816 that showed both that patients who received this neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy approach had a higher proportion of patients who had complete response or pathologic complete response in their tumors at the time of surgery and also showed that the chances of the disease coming back after surgical resection was much lower amongst those that had received this intervention. The current study, the KEYNOTE-671 study, builds upon this concept and adds both a before-surgery intervention as well as an after-surgery intervention. So what this study did was it enrolled patients with early-stage, stage II to IIIB non-small cell lung cancer, and patients in the intervention arm received 4 cycles of chemotherapy in combination with pembrolizumab, underwent surgery, and then received immunotherapy with pembrolizumab for up to 13 cycles. Patients in the control arm received only chemotherapy prior to surgery and then placebo for up to 13 cycles after. This was a large study with about 786 patients randomized, and what we found was that those patients that received the intervention had a much higher likelihood of remaining disease-free or event-free following surgical resection as well as in the early analysis, an improvement in overall survival with about a 27% reduction in the risk of death. So I do think that this is the first study that shows us that use of both neoadjuvant as well as adjuvant. So sort of this perioperative approach of using immunotherapy before and after surgical resection can actually lead to improved outcomes. This is ultimately what we want for our patients, improvement in overall survival, improvement in cure rates, etc. The study has been silent on the use of radiation therapy, although it has gone into details in terms of the kinds of surgery that was done. Kristin, what are your views about this? Dr. Higgins: I think postoperative radiation after resection for non-small cell lung cancer has sort of started to fall out of favor because of the Lung ART trial that was published in Europe, a randomized phase III trial that showed no differences in disease-free survival or overall survival. And that's not to say that there aren't more study questions on ways to give it safer and ways to incorporate radiation in with the chemo-IO approach, and there are some novel ways to do that, and we're going to see some data presented at the World Lung Cancer Conference looking at some of those novel approaches. But standardly, when patients receive neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy followed by surgery, we typically would not offer radiation. There are instances, though, when patients have positive margins, for example, and in that situation, it's sort of a discussion on a case-by-case basis. But ideally, we're hoping that most of these patients that go to surgery are able to get a complete resection, and that's really the key component of the decision-making for deciding if patients are eligible for this approach. Dr. Aggarwal: I agree. Melina, any additional thoughts on this trial? Dr. Marmarelis: I think it's an exciting trial for the reasons that you mentioned. I think it does bring up a number of questions about whether both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy are needed. I tend to like the idea of having immunotherapy present when the tumor is present before surgery, so I like kind of having that on board, but I think we still don't know which is more important. Dr. Aggarwal: So it certainly raises many more questions, which hopefully will be answered in the future. KEYNOTE-671 trial was conducted by Merck that produces the drug Keytruda, or pembrolizumab. We have received institutional research funding for other trials. I was not personally involved in this clinical trial. I do serve as an advisor for Merck. I think we'll bring you more research from the ASCO Annual Meeting. And I'll turn it over to Dr. Marmarelis to discuss some more exciting research. Dr. Marmarelis: Thanks, Charu. So perhaps it's not surprising that one of the exciting things I picked from ASCO has to do with mesothelioma. And I just want to put into context a little bit about why this trial was important. This is IND227. It was a cooperative group trial done across Canada, France, and Italy, and this was chemotherapy plus or minus pembrolizumab in patients with pleural mesothelioma that did not undergo surgery. So this was their first treatment, and they were not undergoing surgery. And the reason this trial was important is that in the last few years, we had results from CheckMate 743, which was looking at IPI/NIVO, so a combination of immunotherapies versus chemotherapy. And there was an improvement in survival for those that received double immunotherapy, and that improvement was most pronounced in the non-epithelioid population, which is actually a smaller subset of pleural mesotheliomas. And so as we've seen in the lung when we look at immunotherapy versus chemo, it raises the question of whether combination immunotherapy plus chemotherapy would actually be better for all and, in particular, for all histologies in pleural mesothelioma. So this was looking at that concept. It took the standard chemotherapy, carboplatin-pemetrexed or cisplatin-pemetrexed, and then combined it with one immunotherapy, so slightly less than the combo immunotherapy seen in CheckMate 743, and that was pembrolizumab. And what they saw was that there was a small overall survival improvement in the group that got pembrolizumab. Again, that was most pronounced in patients in the non-epithelioid group, so those with sarcomatoid or biphasic histology. And this is really a prelude to several other trials that are coming out in mesothelioma, namely the DREAM3R trial, which is looking at chemotherapy plus or minus durvalumab. That control arm also includes IPI/NIVO, so that will be really important to be able to compare those, and then also the BEAT-meso trial, which is looking at chemotherapy-immunotherapy but also with an anti-VEGF agent, bevacizumab. So I think this was an important trial. It's a little bit of proof of concept, but there's still a lot that we're looking forward to. It's not quite practice-changing in the clinic, although I think it's certainly an option that people are using, but I'm looking for more data going forward. Dr. Aggarwal: It's incredible to see how far we've come in mesothelioma within the last decade. We are introducing immunotherapy. We're introducing novel agents in the first-line setting. Dr. Marmarelis: The other trial that I was interested in was KEYNOTE-789, which is looking also at patients with EGFR mutations and those that had the original osimertinib as their first-line treatment or another tyrosine kinase inhibitor and then had disease progression on that TKI. And this is an area of huge need. We have patients that do really well on targeted therapies, and then they have disease progression, and we're looking for additional targeted options, but we're also looking for effective chemotherapy options. And one of the questions that has risen from this is whether there's a role for immunotherapy. We know that immunotherapy alone in patients with EGFR mutations is not very effective when you look at a broad population, but in combination with chemotherapy, it's possible that it can add some benefit. So this trial looked at those that had EGFR mutations, had disease progression after a targeted therapy, and then it randomized them to chemotherapy plus or minus pembrolizumab, so chemotherapy plus or minus immunotherapy, and interestingly, it had no difference in the progression-free survival or the overall survival. So the 2 arms were really similar in terms of outcomes. There was also no difference in the overall response rates of the amount that the drug actually shrinks the tumor. So it really doesn't look like immunotherapy is adding much to chemotherapy for these patients. I think we still need to look a little bit closer because there are probably some patients with EGFR mutations that could benefit from immunotherapy, but we're really not very good at identifying those. One of the questions that comes up in this space is whether to add anti-VEGF treatment in addition to chemotherapy and immunotherapy. So there are some upcoming trials looking at that. Dr. Aggarwal: I think this was a trial that was actually very important and again, practice-affirming that this idea of continuing chemotherapy without adding immunotherapy, patients are not losing much. In fact, they're not gaining anything by adding immunotherapy as shown in this clinical trial. I think continuing immunotherapy, so continuing osimertinib, may be important in this setting also because we know that osimertinib can cross the blood-brain barrier. It can provide that CNS [central nervous system] protection. Dr. Marmarelis: Yeah, I think that's a great point that the comparison here is not chemotherapy plus osimertinib. It's chemotherapy alone. So I agree that the control arm is not quite what some of us do. I agree. I do the same as you do. I also just want to mention that the KEYNOTE trial and the previous trial about mesothelioma used pembrolizumab, which is made by Merck. We have received institutional funding, and I've served as an advisor as well as received honorarium from Merck.   Dr. Aggarwal: Melina, those were 2 very important studies and certainly, I think, answer some very relevant questions in clinic in the management of patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer, for example. And then I think we look forward to more practice-changing data in mesothelioma. Kristin, I would love to hear research from ASCO from you. What caught your interest? Dr. Higgins: So I have a special interest in small cell lung cancer. And I think there was one important small cell lung cancer trial that I wanted to review with everyone. It was SWOG S1929. And SWOG is the Southwest Oncology Group, and it's a cooperative group that conducts clinical trials in cancer funded by the National Cancer Institute. And this is a randomized phase II trial of atezolizumab and chemotherapy followed by randomization to continuing the maintenance of atezolizumab with a PARP inhibitor. Now, we know from prior data that PARP inhibition is attractive for small cell lung cancer because PARP is expressed frequently in small cell lung cancer, and there is a biomarker called Schlafen-11 that preclinical data and prior data has shown can predict response to PARP inhibition. And this trial was sort of a proof-of-concept trial, a small, randomized phase II trial testing whether or not that Schlafen-11 biomarker could be used to direct therapy. Now, in this trial, there were 309 patients that were registered. They then had to have their tumor samples sent for central testing for the Schlafen-11 expression. One thing that I think is important to bring up is that in small cell lung cancer, there's this belief that it's really hard to get tissue samples from small cell lung cancer and it's a difficult thing logistically because it's just a lot harder to access these tumors. But interestingly, in this trial, 80% of patients had tumors that were evaluable for the biomarker, and the median time to the test result was only 7 days. So patients were able to get their tumor tested, get it sent out, get results in a rapid manner, and then be randomized based on these results. The primary endpoint for this trial was progression-free survival, and the primary endpoint was met. Progression-free survival was 4.2 months versus 2.8 months. Now, I think many people will say the magnitude of benefit here is not very much, but it's small cell lung cancer, and we don't have a lot of positive trials in this space, and we also don't have many trials that have used a biomarker to direct therapy. So I think for those reasons, it's really exciting to see these results. It was also conducted within a cooperative group with multiple different sites across the United States, and the fact of the matter is that we can do trials like this in small cell lung cancer patients, and I think it will sort of serve as a precedent for future trial design. Now, the overall survival for the trial is still premature. It didn't look that much different with the PARP inhibitor, but that doesn't mean that, again, things could change with more follow-up. And I really like the approach of this trial design, and I'm excited to see biomarker-driven trials in small cell lung cancer. Charu and Melina, what do you guys think about this study? And what do you think about our small cell lung cancer patients and our ability to conduct future trials like this? Dr. Aggarwal: I think this is certainly an advance. As you pointed out, Kristin, it shows us that we can conduct trials in the space. I think it offers a lens into the potential of personalized therapy in small cell lung cancer, which has eluded us for a very long time. The standard of small cell lung cancer has not changed significantly for a very long time, so I think this is very exciting and can't wait to see more things come in the future. Dr. Marmarelis: Yeah, I agree. I think we've always been asking for additional biomarkers, especially in such a difficult disease like small cell. And so this is really exciting to see potential biomarkers and that it was feasible to actually pose that question and study it. So that part's really exciting. Dr. Higgins: Great. And I should also say I was not involved in the study, and I'm not associated with any of the pharmaceutical companies that were involved in the study for S1929. And the final study that we wanted to talk about was the phase III LUNAR study, and this is sort of a different type of trial in the setting of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. It was studying tumor treatment fields with standard of care in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer after progression with platinum-based therapies. And first, I just want to step back and explain what tumor treating fields are. Tumor treating fields are applied to a patient with a transducer that's placed on the skin, and what it does is it applies an electrical field, and that disrupts mitosis when the cancer cells are trying to divide. And the mechanism of cell death is a little bit unclear. There are sort of many mechanisms that are postulated, one of which is immunogenic cell death, but we don't really know, I think, what's happening. But there have been studies that show improved results with tumor treating fields and other diseases. For example, particularly in glioblastoma multiforme, tumor treating fields are used in combination with surgery, radiation, and temozolomide (Temodar). So it's something that's being used in other disease sites, and this is some of the early data that we've seen in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. And so in this trial, 276 patients were randomized to tumor treating fields plus standard of care or standard of care alone. Now, I should mention that this trial began enrolling patients in 2016, and so the standard of care was very different. After platinum-based therapies, the standard was considered docetaxel. Of course, platinum-based therapy alone for frontline treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer is also not the standard of care anymore. And so I think with that in the background, it does make interpretation of these results somewhat difficult, and that's probably the major caveat to this study. But nonetheless, patients were randomized, 276 patients. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival. They were looking at progression-free survival and overall response rates as secondary endpoints as well as overall survival in patients that received immunotherapy versus just chemotherapy alone. And the trial was positive. Overall survival was improved. The median overall survival was 13.2 months for patients that received tumor treating fields with standard of care versus 9.9 months for standard of care alone. If you look at 3-year survival, it was 18% versus 7%. I think this is a new type of therapy for our patients with non-small cell lung cancer. It is somewhat of a difficult thing to wear the transducer, and you have to wear it for many, many hours. So that is one thing that I think can be difficult for patients that are using this treatment, but nonetheless, it is something new for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. I do know that the technology of tumor treating fields is being studied in other settings for non-small cell lung cancer, for stage III non-small cell lung cancer, for example, and also in the frontline setting. I think this trial kind of speaks to the fact that the landscape of advanced non-small cell lung cancer is changing so rapidly, and when we're studying something novel, we have to make sure that we make these trials feasible for enrollment so that we can get them completed rapidly, and we can get a readout and it doesn't become obsolete based on this shift in the standard of care. So I think it just really kind of drives home that we need to make sure that we're taking that into account with trial design. It's not standard of care changing right now, but it'll be interesting to see how the data evolves over time. Melina, I'm interested to hear your point of view because I know that these can be used in mesothelioma, maybe not that frequently. What is your experience with tumor treating fields, if any? Dr. Marmarelis: Tumor treating fields are approved as a device in pleural mesothelioma in the first-line setting in combination with chemotherapy. They have been used off-label in other settings, but that's the device approval. The trial that looked at tumor treating fields in mesothelioma was a single-arm trial, so there was no control arm, and it was really actually just looking at the safety of the device. So I have not used it personally in mesothelioma, although I know of patients and I know of real-world studies looking at its use, and I think it's potentially an interesting modality of treatment, especially in combination with immunotherapy, given that it really doesn't have a lot of additive toxicity. But I think the question is really, which patients are benefiting from it, and which patients are able to actually wear the vest in the case of mesothelioma? Dr. Higgins: Yeah. Any thoughts, Charu? Dr. Aggarwal: I agree, and I think this is going to be largely driven by patient experience. I think this is going to be quite onerous to wear this, carry the suitcase, so I would be very interested in patient reported outcomes as well as patient experiences and stories, which will really drive our use here. Dr. Higgins: Yeah, that's a great point. I should say that this trial was sponsored by Novocure. My institution does have other Novocure studies underway, and we receive research funding, but I was not involved in the study, and I did not personally receive any research funding. Dr. Aggarwal: Thank you, Kristin. This has been a wonderful review of practice-changing and some promising research that came out of the ASCO Annual Meeting. I hope our listeners enjoyed it, and we'll be sure to update you with the next annual research conference. Thank you, everyone. ASCO: Thank you, Dr. Aggarwal, Dr. Marmarelis, and Dr. Higgins. You can find more research from recent scientific meetings at www.cancer.net. Cancer.Net Podcasts feature trusted, timely, and compassionate information for people with cancer, survivors, and their families and loved ones. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts for expert information and tips on coping with cancer, recaps of the latest research advances, and thoughtful discussions on cancer care. And check out other ASCO Podcasts to hear the latest interviews and insights from thought leaders, innovators, experts, and pioneers in oncology. Cancer.Net is supported by Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation, which funds lifesaving research for every type of cancer, helping people with cancer everywhere. To help fund Cancer.Net and programs like it, donate at CONQUER.ORG/Donate.

Making their return to the show are Drs. Jack West and Nathan Pennell, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic, respectively, this time to use the ADAURA trial as a springboard to discussing pitfalls and shortcomings of modern clinical trial designs. The trio go back and forth on control arms keeping pace with standards of care, studies mandating the ability for crossovers, and appropriate endpoints for adjuvant studies. Then, they highlight underwhelming clinical trial data that have led to FDA approvals, whether ADAURA featured a “known inferior agent” and an “inferior crossover design,” and whether ADAURA proved to be an “unethical” trial, among many other points of contention. Listen to Drs. West and Pennell's previous episode on the ADAURA trial from 20121. https://on.soundcloud.com/VQ4vb Check out Chadi's website for all Healthcare Unfiltered episodes and other content. www.chadinabhan.com/ Watch all Healthcare Unfiltered episodes on Youtube. www.youtube.com/channel/UCjiJPTpIJdIiukcq0UaMFsA

Dr. Navneet Singh joins us again, this time to discuss the rapid recommendation update for stage III non-small cell lung cancer, incorporating updated data presented at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. He discusses the new trials that prompted the guideline update and updated recommendations on adjuvant osimertinib for patients with EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R mutation, and the option of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for patients with stage III NSCLC. Read the update, "Management of Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update" at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest disclosures in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.23.01261 Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts.  My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Navneet Singh from the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in Chandigarh, India, Co-chair on “Management of Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update.”  Thank you for being here, Dr. Singh. Dr. Navneet Singh: Thank you for having me. Brittany Harvey: Then, before we discuss this guideline, I'd just like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Singh, who is joining us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes.  So then, to dive into the content of this guideline, first, Dr. Singh, what prompted this rapid update to the ASCO management of stage III non-small cell lung cancer, which was initially published in 2021? Dr. Navneet Singh: There have been a number of studies that have involved patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer since the publication of the stage III NSCLC management guidelines. Of note, three trials deserve special recognition and have actually formed the basis for this rapid update. These include the ADAURA trial for use of osimertinib as adjuvant treatment for completely resected stages Ib to IIIa NSCLC and harboring a sensitizing EGFR mutation. The other two trials have explored the use of PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in combination with chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment of potentially resectable stages I to III NSCLC. And these are the CheckMate 816 trial with nivolumab and the KEYNOTE-671 trial with pembrolizumab. Brittany Harvey: Great, thank you for that background. So then, based off these three new trials that you just mentioned, what are the updated recommendations issued in this rapid recommendation update? Dr. Navneet Singh: The first updated recommendation is based on the overall survival benefit observed in the ADAURA trial. And this recommendation is that patients with dissected stage III NSCLC and harboring an EGFR exon 19 deletion or an exon 21 L858R mutation should be offered adjuvant osimertinib after platinum-based chemotherapy. The second important update is that in the absence of contraindications, patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer who are planned for surgical resection should receive a neoadjuvant combination of a platinum doublet chemotherapy, and immunotherapy. Now, both of these are based on high-quality evidence and have a strong strength of recommendation. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you reviewing both the level of evidence and the strength of the recommendation for those as well. So then, what should clinicians know as these new recommendations are implemented? Dr. Navneet Singh: Now, it's very important for clinicians involved in the management of lung cancer to realize the importance of biomarker testing, something that was initially believed to have relevance only for metastatic disease. But now, with the availability of data indicating the benefit of immunotherapy and targeted therapy not just in metastatic disease but also in early-stage as well as locally advanced disease, clinicians need to ensure that biomarker testing, especially EGFR mutation and PD-L1 expression by approved and validated methods is performed in all patients with stages I to  III non-small cell lung cancer. This is important to decide and select patients for the appropriate biological therapy, which is either targeted therapy or immunotherapy that can be used in conjunction with or following chemotherapy. I need to clarify here that the spectrum of biomarker testing that is recommended for metastatic disease is much larger than what is currently being advocated for early or locally advanced NSCLC. Brittany Harvey: Great, and I appreciate that clarification. So then you've just described what this guideline means for clinicians, but how does this rapid update impact patients diagnosed with stage III non-small cell lung cancer? Dr. Navneet Singh: Well, for patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer, all the three trials that form the basis for this rapid update indicate very encouraging developments. The neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy approach is now the standard of care for potentially resectable stage III disease, as this combination has been shown to be superior to chemotherapy alone in terms of higher probability of achieving a complete or major pathological tumor response, as well as improving recurrence or event-free survival following surgical resection. Similarly, adjuvant osimertinib for resected stage III NSCLC patients having a sensitizing EGFR mutation has been shown to significantly improve overall survival compared to placebo. It is important to highlight here that osimertinib treatment in stage III NSCLC should be initiated following the completion of adjuvant chemotherapy. Brittany Harvey: Understood. So then this panel works to rapidly update this guideline, turning it around after the ASCO Annual Meeting. But what are the ongoing research developments that the panel is monitoring for future guideline updates? Dr. Navneet Singh: Well, the expert panel is eagerly awaiting overall survival data from the neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy trials. We have several unanswered questions which ongoing research will attempt to answer. And some of these questions include number one, whether adjuvant immunotherapy is beneficial for patients who have already received neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy, and if so, what is the optimal duration for the same? Second, is the three-year adjuvant osimertinib duration appropriate? Can lesser duration of treatment suffice for a subgroup of patients? And if so, it would lead to a reduction in both treatment costs as well as a reduction in potential treatment-related adverse effects. On the other hand, other patients in whom stopping at three years may not be warranted, and should patients with exon 19 deletion be treated differently from those with exon 21 L858R mutation? Third, does a similar adjuvant targeted therapy approach be warranted for ALK-rearranged NSCLC that has been surgically resected? And fourth, are there specific subgroups of patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment in whom immunotherapy as a neoadjuvant treatment may not be effective? Examples are those with EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements, or even those with no PD-L1 expression. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. We'll look forward to finding the answer to those questions for future guideline updates. So I want to thank you so much for your work to rapidly update this guideline and thank you for your time today, Dr. Singh. Dr. Navneet Singh: Pleasure. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store.  If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Caris Precision Oncology Alliance™ Chairman, Dr. Chadi Nabhan, sits down with Dr. Stephen Liu, Associate Professor of Medicine at Georgetown University and Director of Thoracic Oncology and Head of Developmental Therapeutics at the Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center. Together they discuss the updated results of the ADAURA Trial presented at this year's ASCO meeting which demonstrated the overall survival benefit when adding osimertinib versus placebo in patients with completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC, with/without adjuvant chemotherapy. For more information, please visit: www.CarisLifeSciences.com/POA-Intro/

Avec plus 40 000 participants venus des quatre coins du monde chaque année, une cinquantaine de conférences de pointe, réparties sur 4 jours , le congrès de l'ASCO à  Chicago est LE grand événement du monde de la cancérologie. Cette année encore, la programmation promettait d'être forte en innovations cliniques, en avancées thérapeutiques et en résultats de recherche. C'est avec des étoiles plein la voix, la tête remplie de nouvelles connaissances et à peine remis de son jet-lag que nous retrouvons Hubert, notre jeune oncologue médical pour qu'il nous raconte tout de ce moment hors du temps. “La séance plénière, c'est un véritable show à l'américaine, avec les publicités pour l'ASCO, des grandes accolades et des standing ovation.” De son arrivée au coeur de la ville de Chicago à ses premières impressions sur l'événement, Hubert nous partage dans cet épisode son retour, notamment sur la présentation “survie globale” d'ADAURA, qui promet de très belles avancées. Nous raconte l'émotion palpable lors de la conférence autour des tumeurs cérébrales et de leur traitement mais aussi son état d'esprit dans ce palais des congrès surdimensionné. “Il y avait beaucoup d'attentes autour de la présentation survie globale d'ADAURA. Tout le monde se demandait si on allait être déçu ou non. Ça n'a pas du tout été le cas ! Les résultats sont très positifs.” Il en profite également pour nous raconter cette première rencontre avec ses consoeurs, Alexandra, Julia, Camille et Laura, du club des 5 ainsi que son impression sur la ville de Chicago. Enfin, il nous explique comment les conférences de l'ASCO ont permis de nourrir son sujet de recherche pour le GFPC : les altérations de l'EGFR. Bonne écoute ! Pour suivre toutes les aventures du club des 5, c'est par ici. Le club des 5 est un podcast du GFPC, le Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie, produit par l'agence Intuiti.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

40 000 participants venus des quatre coins du monde. 50 conférences. 4 jours. Des idées plein la tête. Voilà la promesse de l'ASCO, le plus grand événement du monde de la cancérologie, où se retrouvent chaque année des milliers d'oncologues, cancérologues, pneumologues et chercheurs pour partager leurs avancées thérapeutiques, le résultat de leurs recherches et leurs pistes de travail. Un grand événement que notre seconde promotion du Club des 5 a pu vivre en live, depuis Chicago. Une semaine plus tard, c'est pleine d'un enthousiasme contagieux que Camille Simon, notre Assistante spécialiste de pneumologie fait le point sur ces 4 jours bien remplis. “Les grands temps forts de l'ASCO ce sont les séances plénières. Celles où les études qui font changer les choses et bouger les lignes sont présentées.” Avant toute chose, elle prévient : avec plus de 50 conférences et jusqu'à 15 minutes de marche entre deux salles, il est tout simplement impossible de tout voir. Autrement dit, pour pouvoir profiter pleinement (et sereinement !) de l'expérience ASCO, il faut se préparer et définir son planning. Pour cela : lecture de la bibliographie et des abstracts conseillée ! C'est justement cette organisation qui a permis à Camille de profiter autant de ce moment. À notre micro, elle revient sur les différentes conférences auxquelles elle a pu assister, notamment l'étude ADAURA, particulièrement attendue. Et si le congrès n'a pas permis de faire un bond sur son sujet de recherche, le carcinome bronchique à petites cellules, elle relativise. Ce sont les petites avancées qui permettront d'en faire une très très grande ! Enfin, sur une note plus personnelle, la jeune médecin nous parle de la ville de Chicago, de ses clubs de jazz, de son Millenium Park et du lac Michigan. Surtout, elle  nous raconte sa rencontre avec le club des 5 : Hubert, Laura, Julia et… Alexandra qui fût, le temps d'un court mois, son interne ! Bonne écoute Pour suivre toutes les aventures du club des 5, c'est par ici. Le club des 5 est un podcast du GFPC, le Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie, produit par l'agence Intuiti.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Nesse episódio especial com apoio científico da Astra Zeneca, o Dr. Adriano Silva conversa com os especialistas convidados, Dra. Tércia Reis e Dr. Marcelo Corassa, oncologistas clínicos e membros do GBOT (Grupo Brasileiro de Oncologia Clínica), sobre a atualização dos dados de sobrevida do estudo ADAURA que foi apresentado na sessão plenária do Congresso Americano de Oncologia de 2023. Mandem suas críticas, elogios e/ou sugestões: bioeducation@bioeducation.com.br Siga a BIO no Instagram: @bioeducation Siga a BIO no Twitter: @OncologyBio Siga a BIO no Facebook: BIO - Brazilian Information Oncology Visite o site da BIO: https://www.bioeducation.com.br

Although findings have suggested that adjuvant osimertinib is beneficial in early-stage non-smallcell lung cancer (NSCLC), some concerns have persisted. Balazs Halmos, MD, MS, associate director of clinical science, and director of both thoracic oncology and clinical cancer genomics at Montefiore Einstein Cancer Center in New York, says that “all these doubts have been shifted away,” given recent data presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting. Dr. Halmos speaks with Bob Figlin, MD, the Steven Spielberg Family Chair in Hematology-Oncology at Cedars-Sinai Cancer in Los Angeles, about data from the ADAURA trial and other studies. Dr. Halmos says that the new evidence is “not just practice-affirming” butcan be considered “practice-expanding,” resulting in complicated questions that necessitate morethorough collaborations among oncologists, surgeons, pathologists, and radiologists.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting 2023 brought together thousands of experts in oncology to hear new data... The post ASCO 2023 Highlights: THOR, INDIGO and ADAURA appeared first on VJOncology.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting 2023 brought together thousands of experts in oncology to hear new data... The post ASCO 2023 Highlights: THOR, INDIGO and ADAURA appeared first on VJOncology.

Discussing Lung Cancer ASCO 2023 Highlights, focusing on practice-changing studies with Dr. Charu Aggarwal, Director, Precision Oncology Innovation, Associate Professor of Lung Cancer Excellence at Penn Medicine. Covering three important studies: - ADAURA trial update with increased OS with adjuvant Osimertinib - KEYNOTE 789 - Pemetrexed and platinum with or without pembrolizumab for tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-resistant, EGFR-mutant - KEYNOTE 671 - Randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of pembrolizumab or placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy followed by resection and pembrolizumab or placebo for early stage NSCLC

Drs. Vamsi Velcheti and Jack West discuss ADAURA, KEYNOTE-671, and KEYNOTE-789 trials in NSCLC and the first pivotal study of sunvozertinib for the treatment of NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Hello, I'm Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm a professor of medicine and director of thoracic medical oncology at the Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health. My guest today is Dr. Jack West, a thoracic oncologist and associate professor in medical oncology at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center. Today, we'll be discussing practice-changing studies and other key advances in lung cancer that were featured at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting.   Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode and disclosures of all guests on the ASCO Daily News podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod.   Jack, there was a lot of exciting new data that emerged from the ASCO Annual Meeting, and it's great to have you back on our podcast today to talk about all the key updates in lung cancer.   Dr. Jack West: Absolutely. Thanks so much. It's always a high-energy meeting, and there was a lot to talk about in the lung cancer sessions this year for sure.  Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Let's begin with LBA3, the ADAURA trial. This was presented in the Plenary Session at ASCO; we've heard previously the DFS updates from previous meetings, and overall survival updates were presented at the ASCO 2023 Annual Meeting. So, Jack, what was the highlight of the presentation for you? And could you put things in context for us? We have known about the DFS data for a while now. What gets you so excited about this study?  Dr. Jack West: Well, we've actually been focused on this trial for literally 3 years, since Dr. Herbst presented it at another Plenary presentation back in the ASCO Meeting in 2020 when we saw tremendous differences in the DFS data. Again, this was a trial of patients with resected stage 1b to 3a EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Nearly 700 patients were randomized to after-surgery, and for many, but not all, patients undergoing chemotherapy, it wasn't mandated. But after that, they were randomized to get adjuvant, placebo, or osimertinib for up to 3 years. And we saw huge differences in the disease-free survival from the first presentation, with a hazard ratio in the range of 0.2.   We have notably seen significant improvements in disease-free survival before with other EGFR TKIs for this population after surgery, but nothing in this range. And it's also notable that in the various other trials of other EGFR inhibitors in the postoperative setting, we've seen a DFS benefit, but that didn't translate to an improvement in overall survival. So, seeing a press release that this was associated with a significant and, in fact, highly significant by report, improvement in overall survival, as well as DFS, was really notable.   What's also, I think, particularly important as a focus of this is that in the later presentations of this work, with longer follow-up last year, we saw that the DFS curves showed a drop in the DFS starting after these patients had completed 3 years of treatment. So, really suggesting that at least some, if not many or most of these patients who had been on adjuvant osimertinib were subject to a higher risk of relapse once they completed that. So, again, making the endpoint of overall survival particularly important. It's always been to me the endpoint we should care about most in a curative setting. Although the DFS was the primary endpoint of the study and it was powered and built around specifically focusing on the DFS difference, so overall survival was reassuring, I think, when we actually saw it, but not what the trial was centered around.    And what we saw was a very dramatic improvement in overall survival with a hazard ratio of 0.49. That was essentially the same for the patients with stage 2 to 3a disease, as well as the broader population with stage 1b to 3a disease. When we look at the absolute numbers for overall survival at 5 years, there was an improvement from 73% to 85% with osimertinib, and in the population from 1b to 3a, an improvement from 78% to 88%. So, many things to comment on here. Really remarkable to see an 88% 5-year survival in the osimertinib arm that includes patients with stage 3a disease.    I would say that there's still some controversy, some questions about this, and it really centers around a few things. One is, like many global trials, this one enrolled patients from many places that did not have the same standard of care staging that we follow in the U.S. There wasn't any specification or mandate for PET scans, which would be very routine in the U.S. And brain MRIs were not mandated either. And so there were almost certainly some patients with more advanced disease that was not detected that would be a big advantage for the osimertinib arm, but really not characterized. And also, the crossover was made possible to osimertinib starting in April of 2020, but only 38.5% of the patients on the control arm actually received osimertinib at the time of relapse. And even though many of the other patients who had a relapse did get another EGFR inhibitor, I don't think there's much question that osimertinib is the preferred and optimal EGFR TKI.   And so there were a couple of important factors kind of going for this trial. One is the long, long, long duration of treatment at 3 years, though with a drop-off, I think some questions about whether even that is enough, and we might be tempted to treat beyond 3 years. And then how much did the inability of most of the patients on the control arm to get osimertinib later contribute? My personal view is that it is a troubling aspect of this trial. But also so many other trials that they're run globally in places where we arguably perpetuate these disparities by running these trials that, in part, magnify the differences between the two arms because some patients just will not have access to what is our best standard of care in the U.S., or many other parts of the world, but weren't necessarily available to many of the patients on the control arm where it was conducted. So, I think that's always a concern. It's definitely an issue of this trial, but I would not say it's unique to this one.  Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Very good points, Jack, and I completely agree with you. I think those certainly are concerns. But on the other hand, this is a pragmatic trial and that's the real-world scenario in terms of access issues, in terms of osimertinib globally, correct, in the stage 4 setting, even though we all agree that osimertinib is the best option for patients with metastatic EGFR-mutated lung cancer, I think that's obviously a reflection of global access issues and global disparities and changes in standard of care in terms of workup as well. So, it's somewhat of a pragmatic trial in some ways and I completely agree with you, I think that may have potentially had some impact on the overall survival.  Dr. Jack West: Well, I would clarify that I don't think that this really highly significant difference in overall survival is undermined completely by this. There's no question in my mind that with the huge difference in disease-free survival that we'd already seen for 3 years, it has become our standard of care really for this population at least to offer it, if not to strongly recommend it. But I would say that most of us have been quite inclined to recommend it, perhaps with caveats. And I would say that this overall survival benefit mostly corroborates that, even if there are some concerns about how these trials are done, but it's still an impressive difference that would lead me to only cement my practice of pursuing it in this setting. I just would love to re-examine how we conduct these trials and potentially potentiate disparities that exist and don't want to have our trials be more positive by capitalizing on that.   Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Let's move on to the next abstract, LBA100; this is the KEYNOTE-671 trial. This was featured during the meeting's Clinical Science Symposium. This is a study of pembrolizumab or placebo plus platinum doublet followed by surgical resection and pembrolizumab or placebo for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Jack, what was the key message from this trial, and do you consider this as practice-changing?  Dr. Jack West: This has been an area where we've seen really dramatic evolution in our practice patterns, specifically, at least for patients who don't have a tumor harboring an EGFR mutation or ALK rearrangement. I would say that there has been some momentum toward preoperative neoadjuvant therapy, specifically based on the CheckMate-816 trial that gave chemo with nivolumab versus placebo and showed a significant improvement in the pathologic complete response rate at surgery as well as event-free survival. The overall survival looks encouraging but is still early and hasn't met the threshold for statistical significance, and that's FDA-approved.   But we still question whether there's a value to doing anything in the postoperative setting. And the CheckMate-816 trial did not include that as part of the trial. It allowed postoperative management at the judgment of the treating physician but didn't really prescribe anything. We now have the results of several trials in the last few months that have added a component in the postoperative setting in addition to three or four cycles of preoperative chemoimmunotherapy. And the first one that gave us a glimpse was the AEGEAN trial presented by Dr. John Heymach at AACR in April of this year that looked at chemo and durvalumab versus chemo placebo and then followed by a year of durvalumab versus placebo after surgery. That showed results in terms of major pathologic response and event-free survival that are significantly better with immunotherapy. Not clearly superior to what we would see with CheckMate-816.   And then even more recently, we saw a monthly Plenary presentation from ASCO with the Neotorch trial presented by Dr. Shun Lu of China. This was a Chinese trial only that presented results just for patients with stage 3 disease thus far. This included patients with stage 2 or stage 3, but what we saw is stage 3 results and that looked at chemo with toripalimab for 3 cycles versus placebo and then a year of checkpoint inhibitor or placebo. This also shows a benefit with the addition of immunotherapy, but not clear if that's better than what we can already achieve with neoadjuvant alone with the Checkmate-816 approach.   And then what we have now is a presentation and simultaneous publication by Dr. Heather Wakelee of KEYNOTE-671. And this is really almost the exact same trial design as AEGEAN. It's 4 cycles of platinum doublet chemotherapy and it is for patients with stage 2 to 3a disease. And this gave 4 cycles of chemotherapy with placebo or pembrolizumab. And then after surgery, patients would go on in the investigation arm to a year of pembrolizumab or to the additional year with placebo. And this shows a significant improvement in event-free survival with a hazard ratio of 0.58. It's most prominent in patients with high PD-L1, where the hazard ratio is 0.42. But there's still a benefit in patients with PD-L1 less than 1%, where it's 0.77. And there was a trend toward better overall survival here, hazard ratio of 0.73. It does not reach statistical significance at this early point. It's still preliminary but certainly looks encouraging. And there are also significant improvements in major pathologic response, where less than 10%, about a threefold difference from 30.2% with immunotherapy compared to 11% with placebo. And a very impressive improvement in pCR rate, which is 18.1% with the chemo and pembro compared to 4% with chemotherapy alone. Not surprisingly, when we look at event-free survival, it's best in the patients who achieve a pathologic complete response, but pembrolizumab improved outcomes in event-free survival even for those who didn't achieve a pCR.   The real question I would say is does the addition of a year of checkpoint inhibitor therapy postoperatively add to what we already achieve with those first three cycles with chemo-neo or 4 cycles with maybe one of these other options? And these trials can't answer that question because they just include them as a package deal. There's no way to tease apart right now the component of what incremental benefits you get from that. And it certainly adds a year of time coming in for every 3-week infusions. Even if you space that out, it's still a year of coming in and getting infusions, potential cumulative immune-related toxicities, and a lot of cost versus potentially being done. And I think that really is the big question at this point of do you want to recommend something when we don't really have a precedent for much benefit beyond the first 4 cycles? Perhaps. Certainly, we give maintenance pemetrexed and other immunotherapies and there can be benefit there. So, I wouldn't say you necessarily cap that. But if there is resistant disease after the first 4 cycles you've already given 3 cycles, how much benefit is there? How likely is it that you're going to eradicate the last cancer cells with more?   That said, I think many patients, and oncologists myself perhaps included, are going to be inclined to err on the side of possibly over-treating, but at least trying to give everything that is part of a widely studied, FDA-approved approach once these options become available. I just think it's going to end up as a careful discussion with each patient about whether they'd prefer to just say they're done or do that extra year and really feel that even if it comes back, they've done everything that made sense to try.  Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Very good points, Jack. So let's move on to another abstract, which is the LBA9000. This is the KEYNOTE-789 trial. In my opinion, this is the most important negative phase 3 trial in lung cancer in a while. This is a trial looking at pemetrexed platinum with or without pembrolizumab in patients who have EGFR mutation-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. So, what are your key takeaways, Jack?  Dr. Jack West: Well, I would say essentially we've been waiting to figure out what is the best treatment approach for patients with acquired resistance after osimertinib. And most of the patients had received osimertinib for their EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell. This is essentially KEYNOTE-189 being run in the EGFR mutation-positive patients after they've exhausted at least the major benefit of EGFR TKI therapy.   What we saw was a hazard ratio for progression-free survival of 0.8. It didn't quite make it across the threshold for efficacy, a significant difference. And so it missed that efficacy boundary. And overall survival, the hazard ratio is 0.84, also missing the efficacy boundary. When you look at the actual curves, they show modest separation, nothing eye-popping, certainly compared to some of the other trials we're talking about. But I wouldn't say they show no benefit. And I think that's, to me, why there's really still a role for a nuanced thought process and maybe some discussion about how negative this is. This is not, in my mind, stone-cold negative with no patients benefiting from immunotherapy. This is a trial that really suggests that there's a subset of patients who are benefiting from immunotherapy.   And we've also seen going back to subset analysis of the IMpower150 trial and also the ORIENT-31 trial with sintilimab and a bevacizumab biosimilar, another anti-VEGF inhibitor. These trials both really indicated a benefit in this population after EGFR TKI therapy of immunotherapy combined with VEGF. I think there could still be a value in there. I don't want to be a Pollyanna or too open-minded, but I think that there was at least a suggestion that this could still be a fruitful avenue. I think that this is still something we should do additional studies on that could bear fruit. I wouldn't close the door and categorically say this is just never going to translate to any benefit for any of these patients.   Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: The key thing, though, is, like in EGFR mutant patients I think in the previous studies as well, the response rates with single-agent PD-1 have been very minimal. And I think one of the things that's actually very important to highlight is in the operative setting, the early-stage setting, unfortunately, some of the trials with immunotherapy have included patients with an EGFR mutation. And now we have a treatment option for those patients within the adjuvant setting, especially osimertinib. We just heard from the ADAURA trial, which has a clear significant overall survival benefit. So I think it's really important to test for EGFR mutation in all stages. And if somebody with the early stage has an EGFR mutation, adjuvant immunotherapy, or perioperative immunotherapy may not be the best option for those patients.  Dr. Jack West: Right. I agree with that, although it is interesting that the KEYNOTE-671 trial did have some small population of patients with an EGFR mutation, and in that subset analysis, they seem to benefit from the pembrolizumab. I would not say that we should divert from ADAURA, but I'm just not as sure that our previous statement and mindset that immunotherapy just categorically doesn't work for patients with driver mutations is that simple.   First of all, there is some heterogeneity about which driver mutation, and the ALK-positive patients seem to really get no benefit. But I think there's still some questions about immunotherapy for EGFR. Certainly, patients with KRAS or BRAF V600E seem to benefit like the broader range of patients. And I would also say maybe it's different whether you're giving immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy versus as monotherapy. So that's why I'm just not that sure we really can characterize this that well yet.   The one additional point I would make about KEYNOTE-789 and the potential role of immunotherapy is that some experts in thoracic oncology and general oncologists alike may prefer to introduce chemotherapy at a time of progression, but keep the osimertinib going, maybe particularly for patients with brain metastases, whether current or a history of them, where we really feel that the osimertinib adds a critical component to CNS control. We don't want to ever give osimertinib or probably other EGFR TKIs concurrently with immunotherapy. So that's just a factor that we'd really want to consider when we're prioritizing where to fit in immunotherapy, if at all.  Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thank you, Jack. And let's move on to the next abstract, Abstract 9002. This is a pivotal study of results from the sunvozertinib, which is an EGFR exon 20 insertion site mutation drug. There's some very promising data. Jack, how do you feel this study is going to influence practice?  Dr. Jack West: Well, this is not an agent we have access to broadly yet, but I was quite impressed by it overall. I didn't mention it. We talked about it in the pre-ASCO discussion, and it was really one that I would mark as potentially practice-changing when we can get it. DZD 9008 or sunvozertinib is a potent inhibitor of exon 20 insertion mutations, and this was 97 patients, and the majority had had a couple of lines of prior therapy. They had to have gotten chemo, and the response rate was 60%, and it was really comparable efficacy with the different mutation subtypes.   I think that the main thing that I would want to clarify a little better in my own patient population is how well the drug is really tolerated. We talked about that there was not really much grade 3 toxicity and that's true, but diarrhea rates were 67%, even though it was grade 3 and just about 8%. But grade 2 diarrhea or grade 2 rash in patients who are on this therapy, we hope for a long time, I think is something we shouldn't minimize. And I think that particularly our mindset about toxicity needs to be different when we're talking about giving a treatment for 2 or 4 cycles and then being done with it versus something we hope we're going to be giving longitudinally. And we really don't want to minimize the potential impact on the quality of life of patients who are experiencing grade 2 rash, diarrhea, or paronychia for months and months, maybe more than a year at a time.   But that said, this is twice the response rate if not more than that of what we have already had for patients with this molecular aberration with an exon 20 insertion. So I think it's compelling and I think that it's going to be really valuable to offer to our patients. I just would like to clarify better how well patients who are actually on it are feeling when you incorporate the potentially chronic toxicity issues.  Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thank you, Jack. And let's move on to the last abstract. This the LUNAR study, LBA9005. This is a positive phase 3 study that looked at tumor-treating fields or TTF therapy with standard of care treatments in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer following platinum failure. This has been talked about a lot at ASCO, and Jack I'm eager to hear your key takeaways about this study.  Dr. Jack West: Well, we knew from a press release several months ago, I think back in February, that there was a significant improvement in overall survival with the addition of tumor-treated fields. Again, this concept that electric fields can lead to antimitotic effect and potentially downstream induction of immunogenic cell death and enhanced immune response, that's at least the concept. And it's of course established, has utility in patients with glioblastoma, although kind of, I would say underutilized because it can be cumbersome. And I think that's one of the things we need to factor in is that this is not the easiest approach to pursue.   But we don't have that many therapies that improve overall survival significantly in previously treated patients with non-small cell lung cancer. So, I think there's good reason to focus on this and ask how beneficial it is. It was notable, it was pretty much an even split of patients enrolled on the trial, 276 patients total, but about half had gotten chemo but not gotten immunotherapy before. And then the other half, I would say the clear majority, had gotten immunotherapy as well as chemo and got docetaxel-based treatment.     And the overall survival benefit was significant for the intent to treat total population with a hazard ratio of 0.74 and a difference in 3-year survival of 18% favoring the addition of tumor-treating fields on the chest versus 7% in the patients who didn't. It really seemed to separate between the patients who had not had an immune checkpoint inhibitor and got tumor-treating fields with the checkpoint inhibitor where the hazard ratio is 0.63 and those who got tumor-treating fields with docetaxel where the hazard ratio was 0.81. So it really wasn't significant in this population.  Toxicity, no real surprises compared to what we already knew about tumor-treating fields. Mostly dermatitis, but I would say that one of the kind of unmeasured issues is that this is a device that people have to wear on their chest carrying a battery pack with them all day long. It's essentially all the waking day, and so I think that's at least cumbersome. I wouldn't call it prohibitive, but it's a challenge. And I think we need to really ask whether the juice is worth the squeeze, whether the benefit is that compelling. And I question that when we're talking about an agent that doesn't significantly move the needle against docetaxel alone.   Again, this is a population where in the U.S. we have ramucirumab to add to docetaxel. Not everyone does that. It's not uniform, but that has a statistically significant, though modest survival benefit associated with that. We don't do better than that with tumor treating fields. And so, I think that this is an option that merits discussion and some patients may opt for it, but I suspect that most of my patients would not find the absolute difference to be that compelling for the challenges it incurs. I don't know what your perspective is here.  Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I completely agree, Jack. And I think the study design and just the fact that the standard of care has changed over the last 5, actually 6 years since the study has been open. And I'm not really so sure I could really make much sense of the data in terms of the standard of care combination with TTF providing more benefit. And I think there are more questions than answers here and I'm not so sure which populations would benefit the most. And I think, I hate to say this, but this is a nice proof of concept. I hate to say this because it's a phase 3 study and it's a positive phase 3 study, but it's clinical relevance with the current standard of care, I think, I'm not really sure how much of an impact this would really have.    Well, Jack, I've really enjoyed speaking with you about these key advances in lung cancer that were featured at the 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our listeners will find links to all the studies discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Thank you so much, Jack, for joining us today.  Dr. Jack West: Always a pleasure. Thanks so much.  Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: And just like that, we've reached the end of another enriching episode. But remember, like all good things, this too must come to an end, but only until we meet again. We really would like your feedback on the podcast. If you enjoyed the podcast, please rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.  Disclaimer:    The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow today's speakers:   Dr. Vamsidhar Velcheti   @VamsiVelcheti   Dr. H. Jack West   @JackWestMD   Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:    Dr. Vamsidhar Velcheti:   Honoraria: ITeos Therapeutics   Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Foundation Medicine, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Novartis, Lilly, EMD Serono, GSK, Amgen, Elevation Oncology, Taiho Oncology, Merus   Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech, Trovagene, Eisai, OncoPlex Diagnostics, Alkermes, NantOmics, Genoptix, Altor BioScience, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Atreca, Heat Biologics, Leap Therapeutics, RSIP Vision, GlaxoSmithKline     Dr. Jack West:   Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Takeda, Mirati, Regneron, Amgen, Abbvie   Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Takeda, Mirati Therapeutics, Regneron, Amgen, Abbvie, Summit Therapeutics   Speakers' Bureau: Takeda, Merck, AstraZeneca        

Check out this week's QuadCast as we summarize the most important results from ASCO 2023. This includes the PROSPECT trial for rectal cancer, final reporting of the ADAURA trial for NSCLC, a targeted therapeutic for IDH mutated gliomas, and much more. Quadshotnews@gmail.com

In this episode of Lung Cancer Considered, hosts Dr. Narjust Florez and Dr. Stephen Liu lead a discussion on the recently completed ASCO 2023 meeting that included presentation of the new overall survival data from the ADAURA trial as well as the New England Journal of Medicine publication on data from KEYNOTE 671.

Researchers were too busy counting dead bodies to give the control arm appropriate therapy when their cancer recurred. Disgusting conduct. I break down ADAURA

Der reisende Onkologe Harald Müller-Huesmann begrüßt in der heutigen Podcast-Folge Jens Kisro aus Lübeck. Ausgehend von beeindruckenden Ergebnissen der ADAURA-Studie zur Therapie des nicht-kleinzelligen Lungenkarzinoms (NSCLC) sprechen die beiden Onkologen über den Einsatz von Tyrosinkinase-Inhibitoren in der ärztlichen Praxis. Die Durchführung adjuvanter Therapien bleibe häufig Aufgabe niedergelassener Onkologinnen und Onkologen, was deren Arbeitsbelastung zusätzlich erhöhe. Die Nachsorge nicht mehr aktiv zu behandelnder Krebspatienten sieht Kisro zunehmend in der Hand von Hausärztinnen und Hausärzten.Im Laufe der Unterhaltung werden zudem Fragen zum Personalwesen und zur Nachwuchsförderung aufgeworfen. Der aktuelle Ärztemangel in Deutschland mag besorgniserregend sein, doch gleichzeitig besteht die Chance, die Work-Life-Balance für zukünftige Ärztegenerationen zu verbessern und ihnen attraktivere Perspektiven zu bieten.Abschließend wird in Chicago ein Blick auf die Hämatologie geworfen: Auch hier werden in Zukunft Checkpoint-Inhibitoren in der First-Line-Therapie des Hodgkin-Lymphoms erwartet.Melden Sie sich für E-Mail-Benachrichtigungen an, um keine neue Folge zu verpassen. Klicken Sie hier und gelangen Sie zum Roche-Podcast-Portal. Das Fachportal von Roche finden Sie hier.

Through its participation in several stage III and IV lung cancer clinical trials, RUSH is a leader in identifying future treatments for patients with early and late-stage non-small cell lung cancer. By studying genetic mutations and analyzing genetic sequencing, RUSH is also developing new hypotheses about lung cancer progression through its partnership with Tempus. Mary Jo Fidler, MD, is a thoracic oncologist and professor of Internal Medicine at RUSH University Medical Center. She is the Medical Oncology Section Chief in the RUSH Cancer Center and is the national principal investigator for the ADAURA trial, which is studying the effects of postoperative Osimertinib in resected EGFR+ lung cancer patients. “We have at our fingertips an enormous amount of data [on non-small cell lung cancer]. When we generate hypotheses for tumor resistance and cancer cachexia, it is really helpful to have this large data set as we try to make sense out of the multitude of gene rearrangements, amplifications and RNA sequencing changes.”   CME Link: https://cmetracker.net/RUSH/Publisher?page=pubOpenSub#/event/489638/

On this episode, we're joined by Peace River North MLA Dan Davies to talk about the end of the legislature session -- what he liked, what he didn't like, and what he's looking forward to in the summer and into the fall session. Then, we catch up with Isabelle Cayford, a local advocate for a federal DIPG Awareness Day. Her daughter, Adaura, passed away three years ago from an inoperable brain tumour, and her family has been advocating for more awareness about the disease. Tune in to Moose Talks every Friday morning a 10 on Moose FM and live on the Moose FM and Energeticcity.ca Facebook pages. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lung Cancer Considered hosts Dr. Narjust Flores and Dr. Stephen Liu talk with Dr. Roy Herbst about the ADAURA Trial. ADAURA introduced targeted therapy in the adjuvant setting for early-stage EGFR positive NSCLC. While we have seen targeted therapy in this space ADAURA showed DFS rates never seen before and changed the treatment of early-stage lung cancer.

In this podcast, Thomas John from the Department of Medical Oncology at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Margarita Majem from the Department of Medical Oncology at the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau in Barcelona, Diane Legg, founder of LUNGSTRONG, and Jonathan Goldman from the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California in Los Angeles discuss health-related quality of life in resectable EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer. This podcast is published open access in Targeted Oncology and is fully citeable. You can access the original published podcast article through the Targeted Oncology website and by using this link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11523-022-00927-5. All conflicts of interest can be found online.   Open Access This podcast is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The material in this podcast is included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

ASCO: You're listening to a podcast from Cancer.Net. This cancer information website is produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, known as ASCO, the voice of the world's oncology professionals. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guests' statements on this podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Cancer research discussed in this podcast is ongoing, so data described here may change as research progresses. In this podcast, Dr. Xiuning Le discusses new research on targeted therapy for non-small cell lung cancer presented at the 2022 North America Conference on Lung Cancer, held September 23-25 in Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Le is an assistant professor in the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. She is also a 2022 Lung Cancer Advisory Panelist on the Cancer.Net Editorial Board. You can view Dr. Le's disclosures at Cancer.Net. Dr. Le: Hi everyone. This is Xiuning Le. I'm an assistant professor here at MD Anderson in the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology department. I am a medical oncologist. I am a clinical investigator and also translational researcher. So today is a great opportunity to discuss some of the new meeting updates from 2022 North America Conference on Lung Cancer. Let me begin with the information about the meeting itself. So this conference, North America Conference on Lung Cancer, is organized by an organization called the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. As reflected in the name, this is an international organization for all the lung cancer researchers to get together to share our research, experience, and also patient advocates as well as patients participate in this fantastic organization. This organization also has meetings every year, including a World Lung Conference as well as the meeting we're going to talk a little bit about today, focusing on the progress we made in the North America. Therefore, it's called North America Conference on Lung Cancer. In this year's meeting, we had a very active agenda with multiple presenters from different parts of the U.S. And we also had international participants as well. We had exciting updates on some of the targeted therapy trials as well as updates from immunotherapy trials. So it was a very productive meeting. Let me start with some of the updates from the targeted therapy space. During the meeting oral presentation, there were 3 abstracts selected for oral presentations. The first talk I would briefly discuss today is an update study for ADAURA trial using osimertinib as an adjuvant therapy for resected lung cancer patients whose tumor has EGFR mutation. This was presented by Dr. Roy Herbst, key investigator on the trial from Yale Cancer Center. So ADAURA trial is a multicenter international trial taking patients whose lung cancer have EGFR classical mutation at the diagnosis, or stage 1B to 3A, and then undergoing chemotherapy as the initial adjuvant treatment. But after completion of those treatments, patients were offered opportunities to go on to the trial receiving either osimertinib for 3 years or best supportive care placebo. The primary report of this trial became available in year 2021, where the osimertinib-treated patient had a significant clinical benefit reflected as the disease-free survival was much higher in the patient population who received osimertinib. The results of the ADAURA trial led to the FDA approval of using osimertinib in the surgically resected EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer. So that's the background of this year's update and presentation. Now, in the fall of 2022, after additional long follow-up, the data become more mature because although we still don't have overall survival results, we start to have 3-year disease-free survival. So in the study population, each is over 300 patients each arm, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 84% for patients who receive osimertinib and then for placebo group is 34%. As you can see, this is a 2.5-fold significant benefit in the patient who received the treatment. The presentation was also a breakdown the patient population by their stage by different subgroup analysis across the board. The patient who received osimertinib derived benefit and then the hazard ratio remained to be between 0.2 to 0.3, depending which population we're looking at. Really, this data validated and confirmed the prior knowledge of this approach of offering adjuvant osimertinib really works and really should be offered to every single patient who qualifies for this study. One update on the subgroup analysis is the benefit for preventing brain metastasis to happen in the patients. Very impressive. We observe a hazard ratio of 0.24, meaning that if a patient goes on to osimertinib has a 4-fold benefit of not to develop brain metastasis. Overall, the conclusion of this presentation is that this data becoming more mature, and then the mature data reinforced that adjuvant osimertinib really should be the standard of care which we have been using pretty widely in the clinic. The second abstract I want to talk about is a presentation that's presented by Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova from University of California, San Diego. So she presented a pooled updated analysis on a novel EGFR exon 20 insertion medication. And then this medication currently is under U.S. FDA evaluation with breakthrough therapy designation. The drug's chemical name is called DZD9008, and then the drug's brand name is sunvozertinib. This is a great addition to the treatment option that we already start to see for EGFR exon 20 as a new inhibitor coming at the horizon. EGFR, we now start to classify all the mutations into classical mutation versus exon 20 mutation, as we are using different targeted therapy for different patients. For EGFR exon 20 insertion, we have already 2 FDA-approved drugs. One is amivantamab, the other is mobocertinib. But we still need more options for our patients. And this new medication, DZD9008, is having a great potential of becoming the next-generation EGFR exon 20 drug, as it showed good efficacy and pretty low toxicity. So let's review the data that's presented here. In this meeting abstract, the authors combined 2 studies. One is called WU-KONG1. The other is called WU-KONG2. The first one was conducted in the U.S., and the second one was conducted in China. So there is a value of pooling different patient populations together and then not just getting the sample size greater but also understand different patient population, are they all having very similar benefit? Here the focus on analyzing the patient population that EGFR exon 20 lung cancer who have already received the chemotherapy. In the total of 71 patients analyzed here, in the subgroup of receiving 300 mg daily dose, the response rate was observed to be 40% to 45% depending on if you're using the central review system or you're using the investigator evaluation. But again, showing a very promising response. I want to put those numbers in the reference. For example, the currently FDA approved, the mobocertinib, in their population also had prior treatment. The response for mobocertinib was 28%. In the over 100 patient population, in these 71 patients, they see a 40% to 45% response. So potentially this one is having an even better efficacy really translate into clinic can be a great opportunity for the patients who had chemotherapy and needs something else. Also, we reviewed the toxicity profile. This drug is overall pretty well tolerated. We have to say that the population is relatively small. In order to truly understand toxicity, we usually want to look at the multi-hundred patients' experience, but I believe the data will mature over time. I would have to say the result here is very exciting. The third abstract I will be talking about today is presented by myself, Xiuning Le from MD Anderson. In this abstract, we evaluated tepotinib, which is a MET inhibitor, their efficacy and safety in MET amplified non-small cell lung cancer patients. As we already know, MET exon 14 skipping represents a molecular subgroup that can benefit from MET TKI, including tepotinib. But MET amplification without MET exon 14 is another patient subgroup that could potentially benefit from MET inhibition. As in those cancers, MET not using exon 14 skipping as driving events rather than amplify. So the gene makes many copies of itself, so that drives the tumor growth that way. In this abstract, in this analysis, MET amplified non-small cell lung cancer patients were identified and offered tepotinib. So in this group, there are 24 patients who were treated on the VISION trial cohort B, and we observe a response rate of 42%. For a targeted therapy, having a 42% of response is really pretty encouraging. And the duration of response also is expected at multiple months. We showed that the therapy was particularly beneficial for patients who are treatment-naive. In that setting, the response rate can be as high as 70%. This time, this year, we updated our molecular analysis for this patient cohort trying to understand deeper, do we have other signals to help us to decide which patient could benefit more and which patient might benefit less and then need something else? In the molecular analysis, we find that focal MET amplification is quite important. In another word, if MET amplification is the only event, then more likely this MET TKI will work in that patient population. However, if the tumor also has p53 or RB loss or certain other genetic alterations, then the response rate can be more inferior. So I think we are starting to understand each of the molecular-driven patient population group into even more molecular detail, understanding the co-mutations' impact to the clinical outcome. So I think this abstract is interesting in pointing directions of how to use an existing medication to patients to magnify the benefits that we can potentially achieve. So this year's North America Lung Conference was really productive. We had a lot of stimulating presentations and a lot of discussions. Other than the targeted therapy session, we have seen 2 exciting abstract on the immunotherapy updates. Other than that, we start to have more opportunities to learn about cancer screening, cancer prevention, smoking addiction, and then the cancer survivorship. There are 2 abstracts presented at the oral section for that topic as well. So this meeting is particularly interesting opportunity for North America investigators, especially in their junior stage, to network, to present their work, and then to have exposure to major investigators in the field as well. Dr. Le: Thank you, Dr. Le. You can find more research from recent scientific meetings at www.cancer.net. Cancer.Net Podcasts feature trusted, timely, and compassionate information for people with cancer, survivors, and their families and loved ones. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts for expert information and tips on coping with cancer, recaps of the latest research advances, and thoughtful discussions on cancer care. And check out other ASCO Podcasts to hear the latest interviews and insights from thought leaders, innovators, experts, and pioneers in oncology. Cancer.Net is supported by Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation, which funds lifesaving research for every type of cancer, helping people with cancer everywhere. To help fund Cancer.Net and programs like it, donate at CONQUER.ORG/Donate.

Durante a ESMO 2022, os dados atualizados do objetivo primário do estudo ADAURA demonstram redução de 77% no risco de recidiva de doença ou morte em pacientes com câncer de pulmão de células não pequenas, tumores estádios II/IIIA, após tratamento adjuvante com osimertinibe por 3 anos. Neste episódio, o Drs. William William e Antonio Carlos Buzaid discutem sobre os impactos deste tratamento na prática clínica. Assista também ao Vídeo-MOC, com a revisão completa. mocbrasil.com/blog/videos-moc/vol13num31/

In this episode, Ryan D. Gentzler, MD, MS, and Jonathan Riess, MD, MS, answer audience questions on managing EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a live meeting series. The episode includes expert insights on:• Identifying patients who may benefit the most from adjuvant osimertinib  • Testing for EGFR mutations in early-stage NSCLC• Critical importance of getting molecular test results before starting immunotherapy• Monitoring cardiac toxicity in patients receiving osimertinib• Key ongoing trials in EGFR-mutated NSCLC for patients with newly diagnosed disease and following progression on osimertinibPresenters:Ryan D. Gentzler, MD, MSAssociate ProfessorDivision of Hematology/OncologyDepartment of MedicineUniversity of VirginiaThoracic Medical OncologistUniversity of Virginia Comprehensive Cancer CenterCharlottesville, VirginiaJonathan Riess, MD, MSAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Internal Medicine/Hematology-OncologyUniversity of California, DavisMedical Director, Thoracic OncologyUniversity of California, Davis Comprehensive Cancer CenterSacramento, CaliforniaLink to full program: https://bit.ly/3DZGzSO  

Em 2020 o estudo ADAURA avaliou o osimertinibe como tratamento adjuvante, após a cirurgia, para pacientes com câncer de pulmão não pequenas células EGFR mutados. Esse grande e importante Estudo mostrou, em sua primeira análise, que o osimertinib adjuvante obteve um benefício significativo de sobrevida livre de doença (SLD) quando comparado com o placebo em pacientes com câncer de pulmão EGFRm completamente ressecado, ± quimioterapia adjuvante (QT). O estudo incluiu pacientes estágio II-IIIA com Hazard Ratio (HR) pra SLD de 0,17 (p

Featuring an interview with Dr Joshua Sabari, including the following topics: Updates in the use of adjuvant targeted therapy for localized and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); impact of the ADAURA trial (0:00) Factors in the selection of second-line therapy for patients with and without driver mutations (10:30) Role of immunotherapy for patients with driver mutations (14:26) Recent updates in the use of antibody-drug conjugates for NSCLC (17:01) Combining VEGF inhibition with other therapies for previously treated NSCLC (20:10) Factors affecting response to immunotherapy in patients with lung cancer (23:19) CME information and select publications

I sit down with H Jack West. City of Hope. Thoracic Oncology and we have a long discussion about trials; staging; PDL1 thresholds; Driver mutations and post protocol care; ADAURA; Adjuvant; & More

ASCO: You're listening to a podcast from Cancer.Net. This cancer information website is produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, known as ASCO, the voice of the world's oncology professionals. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guests' statements on this podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Cancer research discussed in this podcast is ongoing, so data described here may change as research progresses. In this podcast, members of the Cancer.Net Editorial Board discuss new research in molecular testing, also known as biomarker testing or tumor marker testing, to help guide treatment for people with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. This podcast is led by Dr. Ryan Gentzler, Dr. Xiuning Le, Dr. Brendan Stiles, and Dr. Vamsidhar Velcheti. Dr. Gentzler is the director of the Thoracic Oncology Clinical Research Program at the University of Virginia (UVA) and chairs the UVA Cancer Center's Lung Cancer Translational Research Team.  Dr. Le is an assistant professor in the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology in the Division of Internal Medicine at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Dr. Stiles is chief of thoracic surgery and surgical oncology at Montefiore and Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Dr. Velcheti is the director of thoracic medical oncology at New York University Langone's Perlmutter Cancer Center. View disclosures for Dr. Gentzler, Dr. Le, Dr. Stiles, and Dr. Velcheti on Cancer.Net. Dr. Gentzler: Thank you, everyone, for joining us. We've got a great group here today, and we're really going to focus on talking about molecular testing in lung cancer. This is a very hot topic. My name is Ryan Gentzler from the University of Virginia. I'm a thoracic medical oncologist. We have Drs. Le, Stiles, and Velcheti with us today. I'd like them to go ahead and introduce themselves, starting with Dr. Le. Dr. Le: My name is Xiuning Le. I'm an assistant professor. I'm at the MD Anderson Cancer Center here in Houston, Texas. I'm also a medical oncologist. Thank you, Ryan, for inviting us today. Dr. Stiles: Hey, everybody. I'm Brendan Stiles. I'm a thoracic surgeon. I'm chief of thoracic surgery at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in Montefiore Health System here in the Bronx in New York. Dr. Gentzler: All right, thanks for joining us. And Dr. Velcheti. Dr. Velcheti: Thank you, Ryan. I'm Vamsidhar Velcheti. I'm the director of the thoracic oncology program at NYU. Dr. Gentzler: All right, great. We hear a lot of terms thrown around about molecular testing, genomic testing, biomarkers, oncogenic drivers, and I thought it would be good to just define what exactly is molecular testing, so all of our listeners are aware of what we're talking about. Dr. Le, do you want to take this question? Dr. Le: Yeah. So we have many terms, as you described. In my eyes, there are 2 sets of testing, and then some of them also classify into actionable versus not actionable. So for clinical use, we usually ask the tumor to be tested for both the mutations as well as the immune marker. Usually, the panel of mutational testing is more than a field. Usually, it's depending on the platform we're using, oftentimes in the hundreds of things. And then the immune markers, usually, we refer to PD-L1 and the tumor mutational burden. Those are the 2 commonly used markers now in the clinic. Some of those markers, especially the hundreds in gene testing, not all of them can lead to a clinical decision because we're still in the phase of understanding the interactions of different genes. However, there is a subgroup of those mutations. Nowadays, we have targeted therapy for, we call those actionable mutations. So in the clinic, we push for testing for a panel of mutations as well as immune markers, hoping to look at the tumor comprehensively so that we can recommend a good treatment regimen precise to that particular tumor, precise to that particular patient. Dr. Gentzler: Yeah. Wonderful. This has also been termed precision medicine, where we really match a therapy to a specific genomic abnormality identified on these tests and maybe, Dr. Velcheti, if you could maybe elaborate on some of the different ways that these tests are performed and how we're using these in clinic today? Dr. Velcheti: Yeah, definitely. I think our understanding of the biology of lung cancer has evolved quite dramatically over the past several years and obviously it's led to a lot of advancements in terms of treatment opportunities for patients. Broadly, the way I look at biomarkers in lung cancer or, for that matter, any cancer, it's like you have biomarkers that actually kind of give us very deep insights into the biology of the cancer and giving us insights into how aggressive somebody's cancer is. Those are called prognostic biomarkers, kind of predicting outcome. And there are predictive biomarkers where there are certain biomarkers. If you do have some of these biomarkers in the tumor, then you could potentially use certain treatments that might work better for patients who have those biomarkers. So now we have a lot of different approaches in terms of how we kind of test for these biomarkers. Especially in lung cancer, now we have a lot of new therapeutics for certain genomically categorized types of lung cancer. And the challenge now is that we have so many different mutations we absolutely need that information to decide on treatment. So how do we test that? Until a few years ago, we've been doing a single gene testing. The problem with those approaches is that we have so many different genes we need to test and we kind of do sequential gene testing, a single gene testing, we won't get all the information we need to make the right decision for our patients. So the standard approach in most oncology practices, especially larger cancer centers and academic medical centers, is do comprehensive genomic profiling, and that's being widely accepted as a standard approach right now. Dr. Gentzler: Wonderful. And this has really been something that has fallen on the laps of thoracic medical oncologists as we've treated patients with advanced stage or stage 4 disease. And this is starting to become more and more important and relevant for surgeons. And Dr. Stiles, I just wanted to bring you into the conversation and see if this is something that, prior to some of the more recent data, which we'll discuss in a minute, is this something that as a surgeon, you've kept up with and think it's important in a surgical practice? Dr. Stiles: Yeah, definitely, Ryan. And I think now is probably the most exciting time for that, right? We used to just be sort of in the prognostic side, like Vamsi said, but now we really are in the predictive side in the early-stage disease. And I think that's why everybody is so excited. But that's why there's now this pressure about the timing of biomarker testing. What do you get? Do you get a whole panel? As we'll talk about some of the trials that have made their way into earlier stage disease, but it becomes inherent upon surgeons to really think about this and understand this, from the first time that they meet the patient I think, as we increasingly get better therapies in earlier stage disease. Dr. Gentzler: So as this has moved into earlier stage disease, a lot of this has been driven by some new data from clinical trials, and Dr. Velcheti, I thought maybe you could comment on the IMpower010 trial and its relevance and why molecular testing is important in the context of that trial. Dr. Velcheti: Yes, absolutely. I think the IMpower010 Trial is certainly a new shift in our approach to treating stage I, II curable non-small cell lung cancers. So we haven't had an approval in the adjuvant setting in a while. I mean, of course, we had approval with the osimertinib result of the ADAURA trial, but that's only for EGFR patients. Now we have approval for using immunotherapy in the postoperative adjuvant setting for patients with any level of PD-L1 expression. So this is a large randomized study looking at the role of adjuvant atezolizumab, which is a PD-L1 inhibitor in patients who have PD-L1 expression greater than 1%. Patients were randomized getting platinum doublet alone, which is a standard-of-care adjuvant assistant therapy for patients at stage I, II lung cancer. It is atezolizumab at a dose of 1,200 milligrams given every 3 weeks. Patients who received atezolizumab had significantly improved outcomes in disease-free survival. And the benefit was actually really striking for patients who had high PD-L1, patients with PD-L1 testing TPS score of greater than 50%. They had a really remarkable increase in terms of disease-free survival for those patients. So this is certainly very encouraging. And of course, we know it's now approved. We are still awaiting some overall survival results to mature. But given the extent of the benefits we're seeing with the disease-free survival, I think it's a very promising approach. Dr. Gentzler: Yeah, so obviously, immune therapy has had a tremendous benefit in the adjuvant setting from this trial and still some longer-term follow-up that's needed. But I think the important point here is that molecular testing may identify certain mutations that may make patients less likely to benefit or respond, or perhaps there's more appropriate treatments than immunotherapy within this group. And that brings us to the next trial that I think really shifted this discussion stage with the ADAURA trial. Maybe Dr. Le, if you could summarize this trial and give us your thoughts on why molecular testing is so important in the era of ADAURA. Dr. Le: Yeah. So ADAURA trial is also an adjuvant trial, meaning that the patient received additional treatment after the completion of surgery. So ADAURA trial looked at patients who have EGFR mutations. So it's a different biomarker. It's a gene biomarker, not the immune biomarker. So this is a large international trial, enrolled almost 700 patients and then randomized the patients after surgery, after standard chemo, the patient can go on to either receive 3 years of osimertinib, which is the standard-of-care therapy for EGFR mutant patients for metastatic setting, or the control group if the patient just received standard of care, which is to continue the monitoring. The trial actually showed that for people who had osimertinib before that prolonged time of 3 years, the risk of the disease coming back is almost 5 times lower than the patient who did not receive therapy. So based on that really striking benefit of after surgery, after chemotherapy, continue osimertinib in EGFR patients, FDA approved after the surgical resection and all the standard care patient can go on for osimertinib for a prolonged time, which we think currently the data is saying the disease is more likely not to come back. And hopefully, in the future, that result will translate into overall survival benefit. Dr. Gentzler: Okay, wonderful. And I think both of these trials, both the ADAURA and the IMpower010, are adjuvant trials. So these are trials that allow us adequate time to do molecular testing on a large surgical specimen, formulate our plans, and implement those plans up to a month or longer after surgery. Obviously, there's some new data that we've seen in a press release from the CheckMate 816 trial. This is a neoadjuvant trial of chemotherapy plus nivolumab. We've seen previous data from this trial showing some results, but this moves the conversation into the neoadjuvant space, and Dr. Stiles, I wonder if you could give us a summary of your thoughts on the CheckMate 816 and the relevance for molecular testing in that context of neoadjuvant therapy. Dr. Stiles: Yeah. Thanks, Ryan. I think, first of all, those are incredibly important adjuvant trials. I saw 2 patients each this week on adjuvant osimertinib and adjuvant atezo [atezolizumab], so it's real-life practice. Every day, it's going to benefit patients. But I think that's easy, like you said, these are big specimens that are taken out. You've got time to decide while the patient gets better. Now, we have to shift all this even earlier because CheckMate 816 really has some pretty impressive results. We, unfortunately, don't have the paper yet. I'm told it's going to be coming out soon, but the primary endpoint pathologic complete response 24% versus 2.2%. That's with chemo-nivo versus chemo alone. Obviously, people are questioning, does pathologic complete response correlate with outcomes? Certainly, we got a signal on a press release that the event-free survival is going to be the hazard ratio is 0.63, so it sounds like it does, and I think we'll see more data on that in the next couple of months. A difference in median event-free survival of 32 months versus 21 months in the report. So everybody is excited to see this. And I think it has some advantages over the adjuvant strategy. First of all, more patients are able to tolerate it. It's just 3 cycles, and so it's not given indeterminately for a year. And it worked across different subgroups. And we can talk about some of the nuances, but as where atezo [atezolizumab] was only looking good in the PD-L1-high. This sort of worked across different groups. The caveat to that is we don't really know what happens with these EGFR patients who are eligible and sort of, how do we then move that test? And all of a sudden, we've got to make a decision on neoadjuvant therapy. Now we need to know. It helps to know the PD-L1 maybe preoperatively, with the high PD-L1, maybe you could wait until adjuvant therapy, with the low to sort of medium PD-L1, maybe you want to give them their shot in the neoadjuvant space. But if they have an EGFR mutation, it's probably not the right thing. We don't really know the data on that and CheckMate 816 yet, but certainly, I'd be sort of hesitant to give them neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy. So then you have to teach surgeons all this too, and teach them to think about this and teach them to hold their horses on taking patients to the operating room while they wait for molecular testing. But that probably means we need to speed up the process somewhat either with sort of more rapid turnaround test, with consideration of liquid tests in some instances. It's just an incredibly fast-changing place that here we are speaking about a trial that hasn't even been published yet, so that tells you how fast things are happening. Dr. Gentzler: One last question. How can the results of these tests guide therapy after surgery? Do we incorporate a full NGS [next-generation sequencing] panel at the time of surgery? And we don't have data on adjuvant therapy for ALK or ROS1, or RET. Do we factor that into how we think about adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant immunotherapy, do we employ targeted therapies for some of these mutations? Any thoughts on that? Dr. Le: Ryan, I think you bring an important point in that EGFR is 1 of the 8 actionable mutations we have nowadays based on FDA and NCCN. The tumor biology between EGFR and ALK-fusion oncogenesis and potential response and benefits probably share some similarities. So we look forward to seeing trials reporting out the adjuvant setting with ALK inhibitors with ROS1. And the smaller target might require a multi-institutional or co-op group effort to really achieve the sample size for us to see. But as of now, we don't have the approval. We try to enroll patients to the oncogene trials, but I think currently we're practicing based on EGFR and PD-L1. Dr. Stiles: Yes, and I agree. I'm excited to see what comes out of some of those trials. They're slow to grow, but we'll eventually get some readouts. I think an interesting question sometimes is PD-L1. And we had an example recently where in the pre-op biopsy, the patient had a low PD-L1, and so not particularly enthusiastic. And the question sometimes arises, do you test that whole tumor to consider them as kind of an adjuvant to atezo [atezolizumab]and then the fully resected tumor, the PD-L1 was greater than 50%. And so I would sort of sound a caution that the small biopsy sample, they're incredibly helpful for many things, incredibly helpful for moleculars. It may not always be totally representative of the PD-L1 staining. Dr. Gentzler: And I think that's a good point. Even for molecular testing, sometimes if you have smaller biopsies, you may get a result that's negative, but it could be low levels of DNA and not sufficient to complete the full panel with high quality. So you really have to pay attention to the report and make sure that there's some confidence in the amount of DNA in some of these results. Well, I think that's all the time we have here, so I appreciate everyone's participation, and hopefully we're able to learn a little bit about genomic testing today. ASCO: Thank you, Dr. Gentzler, Dr. Le, Dr. Stiles, and Dr. Velcheti. Learn more about treating lung cancer at www.cancer.net/lung.  Cancer.Net Podcasts feature trusted, timely, and compassionate information for people with cancer, survivors, and their families and loved ones. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts for expert information and tips on coping with cancer, recaps of the latest research advances, and thoughtful discussions on cancer care. And check out other ASCO Podcasts to hear the latest interviews and insights from thought leaders, innovators, experts, and pioneers in oncology. Cancer.Net is supported by Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation, which funds lifesaving research for every type of cancer, helping people with cancer everywhere. To help fund Cancer.Net and programs like it, donate at CONQUER.ORG/Donate.

This week on Moose Talks, I'll be chatting with Isabelle Cayford, whose daughter Adaura passed away in July of 2020 after battling DIPG, a terminal brain tumour. Her family is still lobbying to have Canada institute May 17th as a National Day of Awareness for DIPG, and Isabelle has some new initiatives and fundraising drives in Adaura's name to announce. Then, I'll sit down with activist and former political Arthur Hadland who attended an Electoral Boundary Commission town hall in Dawson Creek earlier this week. We'll hear his take on the importance of representation of the north in the Legislature. Tune in to Moose Talks, every Friday morning at 10 on Moose FM and on the Moose FM and Energeticcity.ca Facebook pages. Support the show: https://www.moosefm.ca See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listen in as Roy Herbst, MD, PhD, shares with Robert Figlin, MD, how he approaches treatment for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer after the ADAURA and CHECKMATE-816 trials. They discuss different factors that influence use of adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments, including stage, EGFR mutation status, and PD-L1 status.

An interview with Dr. Megan Daly from University of California in Davis, California and Dr. Navneet Singh from the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research in Chandigarh, India, co-chairs on “Management of Stage III Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: ASCO Guideline.” They summarize guideline recommendations on five subtopics – evaluation & staging, surgery, neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, and unresectable disease. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.   TRANSCRIPT [MUSIC PLAYING]   ANNOUNCER: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. BRITTANY HARVEY: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at ASCO.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today, I'm interviewing Dr. Megan Daley from University of California in Davis, California, and Dr. Navneet Singh from the Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in Chandigarh, India, co-chairs on management of stage III non-small cell lung cancer ASCO guideline. Thank you for being here, Dr. Daley and Dr. Singh. MEGAN DALEY: Thank you for having us. NAVNEET SINGH: Thank you for having us, too. BRITTANY HARVEY: First, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Daley, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic? MEGAN DALEY: I have research funding from EMD Serono, Merck, and Genentech. BRITTANY HARVEY: Thank you for those disclosures. Then Dr. Singh, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline? NAVNEET SINGH: No, I have no financial conflicts of interest. BRITTANY HARVEY: Thank you. Getting into the content of this guideline, Dr. Singh, can you give us an overview of both the scope and the purpose of this guideline? NAVNEET SINGH: Yes, absolutely. So this guideline has been developed to assist clinicians involved in the management of patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, or NSCLC, as we call it briefly. Now, stage III NSCLC represents one of the most heterogeneous subgroups of lung cancer. Consequently, it is also the subgroup in which the choice of multimodality treatment and the sequence of multimodality treatment varies significantly amongst clinicians, with variations being observed across institutes, as well as within an institute. And we sincerely hope that, with the help of this guideline, clinicians can accurately confirm the presence of stage III disease and offer the most appropriate treatment based on clinical and radiographic characteristics, as well as other medical factors that influence treatment decision-making. This evidence-based guidance also seeks to provide clarification on the common clinical dilemmas that clinicians may have while evaluating a patient with suspected or known stage III NSCLC. BRITTANY HARVEY: Thank you for that background information, Dr. Singh. Then, Dr. Daley, this guideline addresses five main sections, evaluation and staging, surgery, neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, and unresectable disease. So starting with evaluation and staging, what are the key recommendations for workup for patients with suspected stage III non-small cell lung cancer? MEGAN DALEY: Our first recommendation for such patients is that they should undergo a history and physical exam and a CT scan of the chest and upper abdomen with contrast, unless it's contraindicated. If metastatic disease is not identified on CT, those patients should go on to a PET CT scan and MRI of the brain. If the patients are being considered for curative intent treatment, the guideline recommends pathologic mediastinal lymph node assessment. And we recommend that endoscopic techniques should be offered as the initial staging modality, if available. If not available, invasive surgical mediastinal staging should be offered. And finally, for patients who have suspected or confirmed stage III lung cancer, we recommend that multidisciplinary discussion should occur prior to any initiation of a treatment plan. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great, I appreciate your reviewing those recommendations. So following that, Dr. Singh, what does the guideline recommend regarding which patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer should be considered for surgical resection? NAVNEET SINGH: So in this guideline, the recommendation which has come forth is that for patients with stage IIIA, basically N2 disease, induction therapy should be followed by surgery with or without adjuvant therapy if several conditions are met. Basically, a complete resection of the primary tumor and the involved lymph nodes is deemed feasible, and three nodes or contralateral lymph nodes are deemed to be not involved, and the expected perioperative 90-day mortality is low, typically 5% or less. Another recommendation is that for selected patients with the P4N0 disease, surgical resection may be offered if medically and surgically feasible following multidisciplinary review. We would like to emphasize here that surgeons should always be involved in decisions regarding the feasibility of surgical resection. And they are an integral part of a multidisciplinary evaluation for surgical resection for stage III NSCLC patients. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Then Dr. Singh just reviewed who should be considered for surgical resection. So Dr. Daley, for patients with potentially resectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, what are the key recommendations for neoadjuvant therapy? MEGAN DALEY: Our first recommendation is that patients who are planned for a multimodality approach that will incorporate surgery should receive systemic neoadjuvant therapy. Second, that those patients with N2 disease who are planned for surgical resection should receive either neoadjuvant chemotherapy or neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation. And finally, for patients with a resectable superior sulcus tumor, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation should be administered. BRITTANY HARVEY: Understood. Then in addition, Dr. Singh, for patients with resected stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, what are the key recommendations for adjuvant therapy? NAVNEET SINGH: So the panel came up with three recommendations for adjuvant treatment. The first is that patients with resected stage III NSCLC who did not receive neoadjuvant systemic therapy should be offered adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. The second recommendation which we came up was that for patients with resected stage III disease and presence of a sensitizing EGFR mutation-- classically, exon 19 deletion or the L858R exon 21 point mutation-- they may be offered adjuvant osimertinib, which is an EGFR inhibitor, after platinum-based chemotherapy. And this is based upon the ADAURA trial, which was published last year. And the third recommendation was that for patients with completely resected NSCLC and mediastinal involvement N2 disease, but without extracapsular extension, post-operative radiotherapy should not be routinely offered. BRITTANY HARVEY: OK. And then the last section of recommendations covers unresectable disease. So Dr. Daley, what does the guideline recommend regarding the management of unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer? MEGAN DALEY: The guideline first recommends that these patients who have a good performance status should be offered concurrent, rather than sequential, chemoradiation, that concurrent chemotherapy delivered with radiation should include a platinum-based doublet, preferably cisplatin-etoposide, carboplatin-paclitaxel, or cisplatin-pemetrexed or cisplatin-vinorelbine. The patients who are not candidates for concurrent chemoradiation, but who are potentially candidates for chemotherapy, should be offered sequential chemoradiation, rather than radiation alone, that patients receiving concurrent chemoradiation should be treated to 60 gray. And that's based on the results of RTOG 0617. We also recommend within the guideline that doses higher than 60 gray and up to 70 gray could be considered for selected patients, with careful attention to doses to the heart, lung, and esophagus, among other organs. The guideline also recommends that patients receiving definitive radiation without chemotherapy, that hypofractionation using slightly larger doses could be considered-- over 2 gray per fraction, and up to 4 gray per fraction, and that patients without disease progression during concurrent chemoradiation should be offered consolidation durvalumab, based on the PACIFIC trial. BRITTANY HARVEY: Thank you both, then, for reviewing the key recommendations of this guideline. So, Dr. Singh, in your view, what is the importance of this guideline, and how does it impact clinicians? NAVNEET SINGH: I think this guideline will go a long way in helping clinicians who are involved in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer, especially stage III NSCLC. As mentioned earlier, this is a very heterogeneous disease. And there are several challenging situations, both in the context of diagnosis, as well as treatment. And using this guideline, which has an extensive evidence review, as well as the development of two very helpful algorithms, we sincerely hope that clinicians who are both in academic centers as well as in practice in the community are able to accurately diagnose stage III, appropriately stage it, and offer the best treatment, given the patient characteristics and the disease characteristics and available resources. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Those are important points. So then, finally, Dr. Daley, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? MEGAN DALEY: Well, we hope very much that these guidelines will help patients consistently receive high-quality care for their stage III lung cancer. In particular, we're hoping that the recommendation from multidisciplinary assessment of patients prior to treatment is carefully followed. We're hoping that some of the recommendations surrounding the appropriate workup for patients may help ensure that all patients receive a thorough and complete workup prior to initiation of treatment. And the guideline, in particular, is highlighting some of the more recent developments in stage III lung cancer, such as the use of consolidation durvalumab based on the PACIFIC trial, the use of osimertinib in resectable disease based on the ADAURA trial. And we're hoping to make sure that these results are disseminated to practitioners everywhere so that patients can receive the latest and best care for their stage III lung cancer. BRITTANY HARVEY: Understood. Yeah, as you both mentioned, we hope that this has a positive impact for both clinicians and patients. So I want to thank you both for all of your hard work to develop this guideline and the evidence-based recommendations along with it. And thank you for taking the time to speak with me today, Dr. Daley and Dr. Singh. MEGAN DALEY: Thank you so much for having us. NAVNEET SINGH: Thank you. BRITTANY HARVEY: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO guidelines app, available in iTunes or the Google Play store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. [MUSIC PLAYING]

In this episode, Nathan Pennell, MD, PhD; Jamie E. Chaft, MD; and Stephen V. Liu, MD, answer questions asked by an audience of healthcare professionals during a live CCO webinar on biomarker-driven therapies for NSCLC. Topics include:Choosing between immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy and combination therapy with an immune checkpoint inhibitor plus chemotherapy for newly diagnosed NSCLCIncorporating newly approved immunotherapies into practiceEvolving guidelines and recommendations for biomarker testing  RNA- vs DNA-based next-generation sequencingInterpretation of NGS resultsUse of frontline TKI therapy for patients with CNS metastasesFuture role of KRAS inhibitors in the treatment of advanced NSCLCImproving rates of biomarker testing in lung cancerPresenters:Nathan Pennell, MD, PhDProfessorDirector, Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Medical Oncology ProgramDepartment of Hematology and Medical OncologyCleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer InstituteCleveland, OhioJamie E. Chaft, MDAssociate Attending PhysicianThoracic Oncology ServiceMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew York, New YorkStephen V. Liu, MDAssociate Professor of MedicineDepartment of Medical OncologyLombardi Comprehensive Cancer CenterGeorgetown UniversityWashington, DCSupported by educational grants from Amgen; Lilly; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Sanofi Genzyme. For further information concerning Lilly grant funding, visit www.lillygrantoffice.com.Link to full program, including an downloadable slidesets and an on-demand webcast:https://bit.ly/3npjyyb 

The Oncology Journal Club - Delivering Oncology News DifferentlyThe Oncology Podcast, brought to you by Oncology News Australia, is proud to present Episode 25 in our series The Oncology Journal Club.This week we have the first of two episodes dedicated to the recent IASLC World Conference on Lung Cancer. We've incredible analysis and some very unique interviews that I promise you won't hear anywhere else! We open this first episode with the marvellous musical stylings of MayhemTom, an International Rockstar by night, who happens to moonlight as a Medical Oncologist by day… Welcome Tom John who chats with Craig Underhill about DESTINY.We also have the wonderful Bishal Gyawali talking us through what he doesn't adore about ADAURA. Nick Pavlakis introduces us to about the newly formed TOGA group and we wrap up with an update from Christian Rolfo on ctDNA in lung.In Part 2, you'll hear from Tim Clay, Ben Solomon, Anna Nowak and Gilberto Lopes so look out for Episode 26.With the usual top quality banter, papers you won't hear of anywhere else and expert analysis from our Hosts, you are in for another great episode of The Oncology Journal Club!Full bios and the list of all papers discussed are available on our website.For the latest oncology news visit www.oncologynews.com.au and for regular oncology updates for healthcare professionals, subscribe for free to get the weekly The Oncology Newsletter.The Oncology Podcast - An Australian Oncology Perspective

This week, we're hearing from two thoracic oncologists on research presented at the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer Singapore, which was moved to a virtual format and held January 28 to 31, 2021, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.To listen to more podcasts from ASCO, visit asco.org/podcasts.

Co-hosts Charu Aggarwal and Jack West are joined by guest expert Sanjay Popat to discuss how practice should change & open questions on molecular testing & adjuvant EGFR inhibitor osimertinib for resected early stage EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.

Dr. Jared Weiss, Vice President of the GRACE Board of Directors and GRACE faculty, discusses the ADAURA trial; the first global trial for an EGFR inhibitor to show statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in adjuvant treatment of lung cancer.

Jack West (@JackWestMD), MD, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Nathan Pennell (@n8pennell), MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, debate the results of the ADAURA trial presented as a plenary session at the 2020 ASCO virtual meeting, especially the extrapolation from DFS to OS, balance of chemotherapy administration in the treatment arms, lumping of varying disease stages in treatment arms, and severity of toxicity issues.

Roy Herbst, MD, and Robert Figlin, MD, discuss the implications of the ADAURA study investigating the use of Tagrisso (osimertinib) in stage I-III EGFR+ NSCLC patients

The Oncology Journal Club - Delivering Oncology News DifferentlyThe Oncology Podcast, brought to you by www.oncologynews.com.au, is proud to present the next episode of The Oncology Journal Club.This week we have our first post ASCO 2020 Review episode, hosted by the brilliant Professor Eva Segelov from Monash University. She is joined by Dr Craig Underhill from Albury-Wodonga who interviews one of the presenters from ASCO 2020 – Professor Natasha Leighl from the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto.Eva gives us expert analysis of KEYNOTE 355 and tells us why you need to watch out for monoclonal payloads.  Also this week, Eva and Professor Hans Prenen from Belgium, present some of their ‘Winners and Losers from ASCO 2020'.With the usual knock-about banter between our awesome presenters you are in for a great episode of The Oncology Journal Club. As ever, the links to all the papers discussed today are available on our website.About The Oncology Journal ClubWe have taken an old concept and updated it with a new format. In each episode a team of expert contributors will review topical journal papers and studies presented at key meetings to help keep you informed of the latest developments on the go.For the latest oncology news visit www.oncologynews.com.au and for regular oncology updates for healthcare professionals, please subscribe to The Oncology Newsletter.The Oncology Podcast - An Australian Oncology Perspective