Podcasts about ADC

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Vamsi Velcheti discuss the evolving treatment landscape in EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer, including landmark trials like FLAURA2, novel drug therapies, and the growing importance of ctDNA and MRD testing. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I'm a medical oncologist and professor and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. Today, I'm truly delighted to introduce Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, who's a professor of medicine and the chief of hematology-oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. We'll be discussing the expanding treatment landscape in EGFR-positive lung cancer and how to navigate the challenges of balancing treatment efficacy, toxicity, and patient quality of life in the EGFR-positive space.  Just FYI, our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Vamsi, it's so great to have you on the podcast. Thank you so much for being here. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thank you, Monty. It's a pleasure to be here with you. It's a really exciting topic and there are a lot of updates in the EGFR space. Dr. Monty Pal: So, I'm going to need your help with this because I'll be honest with you, I see very little lung cancer, if any, in my practice. I'm pretty much exclusively kidney cancer these days. I'm coming on 20 years at City of Hope now, and I still remember when trials like ECOG 1599 were presented with, you know, platinum doublets. And, of course, the field has changed a lot since then. But tell us a little bit about the first-line landscape, and I think just for the sake of time, we're going to stick with EGFR-positive disease here. What does it look like these days? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Monty, the foundation of care remains the third-generation EGFR inhibitors. These are selective EGFR inhibitors, like osimertinib. We've had an evolution of the development of these TKIs. Like, you know, we had the first-generation, second-generation, not-so-selective EGFR inhibitors. Now we have mutant-selective EGFR inhibitors in the clinic, and they're doing a really good job. And these are quite effective in patients who have classical activating mutations. But the reality is that these have not been transformative. These agents have fundamentally changed the response patterns, excellent CNS penetration, and very good tolerability profile. However, we don't see a lot of durability in terms of the response. So, what's different today is now there have been several trials in combination with these third-generation EGFR inhibitors that have really laid the foundation of how we kind of think about EGFR-positive disease. At the high level, there are a lot of challenges to selecting the patients for these combination-based modalities. I'm assuming we'll be talking more about these different trials and different approaches. Some of these combination-based strategies have really moved the needle in terms of improving overall survival and really improving long-term outcomes and durability in our patients. Dr. Monty Pal: And we are going to get into the weeds on this in just a moment. But I did kick off this podcast talking about chemotherapy, ECOG 1599. It does seem as though chemotherapy is still a component of management in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. So, can you tell us about, perhaps first, you mentioned osimertinib, you know, some of these next-generation EGFR inhibitors. Tell us about the role of chemo plus osimertinib. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: That's exactly where I was going with the combination-based strategies. You know, we first started off with our earlier trials in the EGFR space evaluating the question of, are targeted therapies, are these highly effective, third-generation, EGFR-selective inhibitors, superior to platinum-doublet chemotherapy? And we've had multiple trials demonstrating that, like the FLAURA trial and in the past with second-generation EGFR inhibitors like erlotinib and gefitinib and afatinib. So, we know that these TKIs actually perform better than platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Now, we have a large, global, phase 3 trial data from the FLAURA2 trial, which looks at the question, "Hey, you know, osimertinib is better than chemotherapy, platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Can we do even better by combining osimertinib with platinum-doublet chemotherapy?" So, FLAURA2 answered that question. This is a large, phase 3 trial, and it's a positive trial with improved durability of disease control and improving overall survival with combination with chemotherapy. So, it's a very important and landmark trial, and essentially combining osimertinib with a platinum-based chemotherapy improved responses, deepened responses, and improved overall survival and really changing the disease trajectory. And this strategy is definitely compelling, especially in patients who have certain clinical high-risk features like, you know, patients who have high disease burden or patients who are sometimes having rapid disease progression early on osimertinib, especially with patients who have a lot of visceral disease burden. So, intensifying treatments up front could alter the natural trajectory of the disease. Dr. Monty Pal: So, you sort of alluded to this in that last part there, but is that kind of how you in clinical practice select? Is it based on, you know, visceral involvement? Is it based on rapidity of disease where you think about adding chemotherapy to osimertinib? Maybe you can give us the corollary. Which patients do you just use osimertinib alone in, for instance? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Definitely, there are some patients who have low disease burden and they have the classical mutations, like an exon 19 deletion. And these patients, especially if they don't have a lot of disease burden, they don't have CNS involvement, there may be a subset of patients who could just do fine on osimertinib of course, with close monitoring of the disease. I guess we'll get into that later, how do we do that with either ctDNA or like closer imaging or both. So, there may be some opportunity to kind of escalate patients' treatments based on certain clinical characteristics or radiographic characteristics or certain biological characteristics informed by ctDNA or other approaches. Dr. Monty Pal: No, that's interesting. And you're right, we will chat about ctDNA in just a bit. But before we get there, I think one of the big agents that has really sort of come to the fore in advanced non-small cell lung cancer is amivantamab. I've heard a lot about this in the context of even kidney cancer because in certain subsets, I'm interested in MET-directed therapies and so forth, right? So maybe tell us a little bit about the mechanism of amivantamab first, and then maybe tell us about this pivotal MARIPOSA trial where it's combined with lazertinib. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: So, the MARIPOSA trial compared lazertinib alone with amivantamab plus lazertinib. And this trial demonstrated overall survival advantage, and there were key differences in terms of tolerability and the safety of amivantamab, which is an EGFR and MET bispecific, and there were certain kind of unique toxicity profiles that make it a little different than the intensification approach with chemotherapy through the FLAURA2 trial. So, there's a trade-off in terms of the toxicity profile. It's a different agent and a different management protocol in terms of dermatological toxicity management that clinicians need to be comfortable with. And also, there are certain unique issues in terms of amivantamab; there's a higher rate of infusion-related reactions, there's an increased risk for edema and VTEs because of amivantamab. Certainly a different toxicity profile, different management paradigm there in terms of longitudinal care of these patients requiring dermatological care and like, you know, close monitoring and prophylaxis VTEs. But having said that, definitely it's a different strategy, and it kind of changes the biology and the natural history of the cancers, and we do see some durability of responses that we see with the MARIPOSA. So, it's certainly a great alternative, at least for some patients. Dr. Monty Pal: That was a great overview of MARIPOSA. Now comes the really difficult question, which is, how do you choose between the two? You have these two great options, right, for EGFR-positive patients. You've already highlighted some of the distinctions in terms of toxicity. I think the audience is well aware of the side effects of chemo-doublet, perhaps even the EGFR-based therapies. Amivantamab is quite new. Give us a sense of how you in clinical practice decide between the two potential options here. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think that's the big challenge. I think these are two independent strategies that have evolved through the phase 3, and both of them have demonstrated overall survival benefit. So, the way I think about this is in three dimensions, right? Like, the disease biology, the patient priorities, and feasibility of care delivery. So, when I talk about the disease biology, you know, the mechanism is very different, and MET is a very dominant driver of disease in EGFR-altered patients and it's a significant mechanism of resistance, acquired resistance to TKIs. So, certainly I think there's a patient population that could benefit from a MET-directed therapy up front. However, we don't have great data to kind of really demonstrate how using amivantamab in the front line is going to change that. And are there like perhaps like some patients who we could identify who would benefit from such a strategy? Very recently, there have been some approvals in the second-line setting in lung cancer, not in the EGFR space, but like in generally in lung cancer, with the MET ADCs, and those drugs are approved with a companion diagnostic, which requires MET IHC testing. So, what has happened, at least in large academic practices and also I think in the community now, they have been checking for MET IHC expression more routinely in lung cancer. What we have been doing in our institution is we have been doing MET IHC as a reflex for all patients with EGFR, not just EGFR, but all non-small cell lung cancer patients. What that has done is now, like, we have been increasingly testing patients with EGFR for MET. And there's clearly a subset of patients who have de novo MET expression and a high MET expression. And those patients, I've been kind of like preferentially treating them with the MARIPOSA regimen. But again, I have to caution the audience that we still don't have data that MET IHC is going to help us make those decisions, whether it's better than like a FLAURA2 regimen. But however, in the second-line setting in the CHRYSALIS trial, we know that MET is a very powerful predictor of response to amivantamab. We really need more data there, but that's what I have been doing in my practice. But also, there's a lot of patient preference here. Like, there are some patients who don't want chemotherapy, and they want a non-chemotherapy approach. So, certainly there are some patients who prefer to have amivantamab. And now with the amivantamab, the subcutaneous version, the infusion reactions and the logistics of actual administration of amivantamab are more favorable with the subcutaneous approval. So, those are some of the elements that we need to take into account. Dr. Monty Pal: Well, I want to hone in on that because this subcutaneous administration route has been a big debate that I've seen on social media. Tell us, how much easier does it actually make the amivantamab experience? Does it cut down on the rash? Is it just infusion reactions? What's been your clinical experience? Vamsi Velcheti, MD: So, the subcutaneous administration of amivantamab has definitely improved the infusion reaction issue. Very rarely patients have infusion reaction now with the subcutaneous injections. And also, the infusion time is much, much shorter. Like we don't need a lot of infusion time, which is sometimes a challenge in busy infusion clinics. We need to take that into account. As far as the impact of the subcutaneous formulation on dermatological toxicity, we haven't really seen significant difference in terms of the intensity or rates of dermatological toxicity with subcutaneous. The benefits are really with the infusion reaction, the ease of administration. And interestingly, in the PALOMA trial, it also seems to be, even though this was not the primary endpoint of the study, there seems to be some suggestion that the subcutaneous amivantamab seems to have improved OS compared to the IV amivantamab. We don't really understand why, but that's a finding from the trial that's very intriguing. Dr. Monty Pal: That is really fascinating. I'm kind of curious to see how that's going to pan out. I'm going to shift gears a little bit here. And, you know, as we sort of close, I wanted to talk a little bit about biomarkers. I mean, this is obviously not a lung cancer-specific issue. It's something we think about across the board. But what I will say is that there are certain commonalities, and in bladder cancer, we think a lot now about ctDNA. But you've been way ahead of the game in lung cancer. Tell us how you guys use ctDNA, maybe both from the standpoint of monitoring for mutational status, but if you can, maybe offer some insights into some of these new MRD tests that are available too. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, it's rapidly evolving. Certainly, I think in the lung cancer space, you know, this has really kicked off in the lung cancer space with incorporating ctDNA into the workflow. Of course, you know, like baseline evaluation, we still kind of heavily rely on tissue genomic sequencing. But as you know, with targeted therapy, a lot of these patients have disease that evolves over time, and changes in terms of mutational pattern driving acquired resistance is a major issue across different molecular subtypes. And especially so in EGFR, when there are certain actionable opportunities associated with that transformation. So, we need to kind of have like a longitudinal snapshot of how we monitor these patients. So, the ctDNA has come to be like a tool that has now come to the forefront of clinical workflow, and almost all my patients who are having disease progression have ctDNA for kind of evaluating for resistance and informing treatment decisions, especially in EGFR. But having said that, there are a lot of challenges in terms of using ctDNA as a tool for monitoring. There are a lot of different types of assays and different platforms, and being able to use this as a quantitative tool that would be used along with the CT scans that we routinely use in clinical practice has been a challenge. And I think I would love to hear your perspectives as well, Monty, about how you're thinking about that in bladder and other disease contexts. But having said that, I think there's a lot of opportunity to incorporate ctDNA and MRD assays into clinical decision-making. Right now, in terms of clinical trials and clinical development, there have been some very interesting trials that are currently ongoing, especially in the EGFR space. We know that patients who clear ctDNA, based on some retrospective data and also like some retrospective-prospective data from trials that have already read out, that patients who clear ctDNA early with target therapy tend to do much better. They have a longer durability of response. There may be a subset of patients who have, even though they're having radiographic response, they have persistent ctDNA after a certain time point of initiation of targeted therapy. Those patients may require escalation of therapy. We don't yet know. I can't recommend that as a standard right now because we don't have clinical evidence to support that. But however, some of the clinical trials, like the ELIOS trial that's being done right now, that's actually completed enrollment, we'll hopefully see the results very soon. So, there is an emerging thought that instead of intensifying treatment for all patients with EGFR, there may be a population that may be just fine with frontline osimertinib monotherapy and introducing the intensification strategy at the time of emergence of MRD or progression on ctDNA before radiographic progression. So, there are a lot of adaptive molecular response criteria that we are kind of exploring in clinical trials that could inform how the future is going to look like for EGFR and other perhaps targeted therapies as well. So, it's fascinating, and I think there's a lot of opportunity there. Dr. Monty Pal: You know, you asked for my perspective. I actually think that what you highlighted there is the most interesting opportunity for ctDNA: the ability to de-escalate therapy. In terms of drug development, we've done so much to bring new therapies to patients, and now it's a bit of an embarrassment of riches, but the downside is that I feel like we tend to overtreat a lot of patients in the clinic. So, I definitely view MRD, you know, some of these other ctDNA techniques with methylation and so forth that may not be sort of tumor-dependent or bespoke could be incredibly, incredibly helpful. You touched on sort of the future, right, in this last section here with biomarkers. But give us a sense now in terms of novel drug therapies in the EGFR space. What are you most excited about moving forward in 2026 and beyond? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think there's a lot going on in this space, and not just this space, but across lung cancer and others as well. Like looking at the next generation of targets for ADCs. And I think a lot of these have to do with…so far in the drug development space, as you know, the improvements in clinical outcomes has been very incremental. So, we really need to make that big leap. And I think the big leap is not going to come from, in my opinion, from the next ADC, but it's going to come from how we tailor treatments and how we monitor disease better and how do we kind of incorporate the next treatment earlier and not wait for the radiographic progression. So, there's a lot of opportunity there to integrate biomarkers and dynamic biomarkers into clinical trial design and incorporating the recent advances in terms of drug design. You know, we have a lot of assets in the EGFR space, the next-generation EGFR inhibitors that are kind of designed with resistance in mind and rational combination, knowing when to introduce those combinations is also equally important. So, there's a lot going on, really exciting times to be in drug development. The one thing that I really hope will come to the forefront in drug development, not just for lung cancer, but all disease groups, is to kind of really be thoughtful about how we incorporate these really cool molecular monitoring tools and creating a composite score with imaging to be able to like really design the next generation of clinical trials. Dr. Monty Pal: You're so spot-on with that. I definitely think that we're getting to this point where, you know, we could think about the next BiTE, the next CAR-T, the next ADC. But, you know, maybe it's time for us to start really honing in on appropriate applications of these drugs, honing in on the right dose and what have you, because I definitely see some issues there.  Vamsi, this has just been terrific. I really want to thank you so much for sharing your fantastic insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, and I really appreciate all your efforts to move the field of lung cancer forward. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thanks, Monty. I really enjoyed the conversation. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, this was terrific.  And thanks to our listeners as well. If you value the insights that you hear from the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to 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. Monty Pal   @montypal  Dr. Vamsi Velcheti @VamsiVelcheti Follow ASCO on social media:          ASCO on X    ASCO on Bluesky         ASCO on Facebook          ASCO on LinkedIn          Disclosures:       Dr. Monty Pal:      Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview     Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical     Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis   Dr. Vamsi Velcheti:   Honoraria: Galvanize Therapeutics  Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, GSK, Amgen, Taiho Oncology, Novocure, Regeneron, Takeda, Janssen Oncology, Picture Health 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

Editor-in-Chief of the Archives of Disease in Childhood, Dr Nick Brown, and Senior Editor of ADC, Dr Rachel Agbeko, bring you the monthly Atoms - the highlights of the March 2026 issue. Read it on the Archives of Disease in Childhood website: https://adc.bmj.com/content/111/3/i      Please listen to our regular podcasts and subscribe in Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Stitcher and Spotify to get episodes automatically downloaded to your phone and computer. And if you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review at https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/adc-podcast/id333278832 

Welcome to the Oncology Brothers podcast! In this episode we continue our series on breast cancer treatment algorithms, focusing specifically on triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). We welcomed Dr. Tiffany Traina, a breast medical oncologist from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, to discuss the latest advancements in the management of TNBC. We dived deep into the treatment algorithm for early-stage disease, including the criteria for adjuvant chemotherapy, the use of neoadjuvant therapies like KEYNOTE-522, and the importance of balancing risk and benefit in treatment decisions. Listen us on: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/31BXhY9FM4gPWG10WgE11o Follow us on social media: •⁠  ⁠X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers •⁠  ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers •⁠  Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ Key topics covered in this episode included: * Criteria for adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage TNBC * The role of pembrolizumab in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings * Management of residual disease with capecitabine and olaparib * Insights into the latest clinical trials, including ASCENT-03, ASCENT-04, and TROPION-Breast02 * Side effect management strategies for new therapies Don't forget to subscribe for more episodes in our breast cancer series, and feel free to send us your questions and cases! Listen now and stay informed on the evolving landscape of triple negative breast cancer treatment! #TripleNegativeBreastCancer, #TNBC, #Pembrolizumab, #ADC, #OncologyBrothers

In 1968, Rosemary's Baby arrived in theaters and changed horror forever. A story about a young woman manipulated, isolated, and ultimately betrayed by those closest to her, the film tapped into a cultural moment already steeped in paranoia. America was reeling from assassinations, war, the rise of the occult, and the founding of the Church of Satan. Evil lived next door. But what happened after the film's release is what fuels the legend.Sources:Cursed Films https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/06/the-most-cursed-hit-movie-ever-made-rosemarys-baby?srsltid=AfmBOooydSo-i0JJPAuPxk1-vcQnLhMf89eS5--wPQ1j3DRQwqpMUmJbhttps://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/sammy-davis-jr-satanism-anton-lavey-1235070544/https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/RosemarysBabyhttps://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=cb0b2358a0071c17&rlz=1CAGZLV_enUS1160&sxsrf=ANbL-n5lM8wmBIv6YN-uSyWxalPe4GeMag:1772509245280&udm=7&fbs=ADc_l-aN0CWEZBOHjofHoaMMDiKpaEWjvZ2Py1XXV8d8KvlI3vWUtYx0DZdicpfE1faGYemg2KC4yuMPyQlIvlWqq2At2yMvCZgi_bwXXU0sv2NZz1ci8vvXN7qvH5d5H0L2gzDVa8EQXPOe03G6oWgM1i7mQuRVJZMw63JPM9jizs0p2p0CKnW3p6_iMTGuk3xLMjYD_G_SYUdHsIciM1dHUgViogBHUA&q=victoria+vetri+scene+in+rosemary%27s+baby&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwix87O_54KTAxWVFlkFHRShMjgQtKgLegQIGBAB&biw=1536&bih=719&dpr=1.25#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:4b67af60,vid:4AXjL7ae_io,st:0https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mia-farrow-addresses-vicious-rumors-about-past-deaths-three-children-n1262744https://people.com/remembering-the-tate-labianca-murders-almost-6-decades-later-8692445

After the controversies that followed the 2023 general elections, public trust in Nigeria's electoral system remains delicate.Now, the Independent National Electoral Commission says it will conduct a nationwide mock presidential election ahead of 2027 to test its result transmission system.But will this rehearsal restore confidence or expose deeper political concerns?In this episode of Nigeria Daily, we examine what this mock election means for Nigeria's democracy.

El Dr. Ariel Grajales, hemato-oncólogo y trasplantólogo del Moffitt Cancer Center en Tampa, Florida, participó en esta cápsula de cobertura realizada en el marco del 4.º Simposio de Mieloma y Linfoma organizado por la ACHO, llevado a cabo en febrero en Bogotá, Colombia. En este espacio, abordó la evolución de las terapias celulares e inmunológicas en mieloma múltiple, con especial énfasis en su incorporación a líneas más tempranas de tratamiento. La conversación se centró en cómo los CAR-T y los anticuerpos biespecíficos, inicialmente aprobados para enfermedad avanzada y refractaria, están desplazándose hacia segunda, tercera e incluso primera línea, desafiando paradigmas históricos como el trasplante autólogo y redefiniendo el estándar de cuidado.Durante la conversación se revisaron los estudios que respaldan estos cambios regulatorios y clínicos, destacando la evidencia que permitió adelantar las terapias CAR-T a líneas más tempranas, con tasas de respuesta global sin precedentes y remisiones profundas. Asimismo, se analizó el potencial de los CAR-T en primera línea frente al trasplante autólogo, el papel emergente de los anticuerpos biespecíficos en combinación y como consolidación, y el impacto de datos recientes que podrían transformar el estándar terapéutico actual. Finalmente, se abordó el resurgimiento de los ADC en el algoritmo de tratamiento, reforzando la idea central de la cápsula: llevar las terapias más innovadoras a etapas más tempranas para maximizar la duración de la primera remisión y el beneficio clínico para los pacientes. En colaboración con la Asociación Colombiana de Hematología y Oncología (ACHO) Referencia:Este contenido se basa en la interpretación crítica de la evidencia científica disponible, así como en la experiencia clínica del o los ponentes como profesionales de la salud en instituciones de referencia.Para profundizar en los conceptos discutidos, se recomienda al profesional de la salud consultar literatura científica vigente, guías clínicas internacionales y la normatividad aplicable en su país.Material exclusivo para profesionales de la salud. Este material ha sido desarrollado únicamente con fines educativos e informativos, para uso personal, y no tiene la intención de sustituir el juicio clínico de los profesionales de la salud. El contenido, las opiniones y declaraciones presentadas son responsabilidad exclusiva de los ponentes y no reflejan necesariamente la postura institucional de ScienceLink ni de terceros mencionados. La información presentada se basa en el conocimiento y la experiencia profesional de los ponentes. La veracidad, exactitud y actualidad científica de los datos son de su exclusiva responsabilidad. Así mismo garantizan que el contenido utilizado no infringe derechos de autor de terceros y asumen toda responsabilidad por su uso. ScienceLink y los terceros mencionados no se responsabilizan por daños o consecuencias derivados del uso, interpretación o aplicación de la información, ni por errores u omisiones. Se deberán de revisar las indicaciones aprobadas en el país con estricto apego al marco regulatorio aplicable para cada uno de los tratamientos y medicamentos comentados.

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we're diving into some pivotal advancements and strategic shifts within the industry, highlighting how these changes are shaping the future of patient care and drug development.Let's start with Bristol Myers Squibb, which has been making headlines with its latest success in the realm of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). The company's ADC has reached an important milestone in a Phase 3 breast cancer trial conducted in China. This study successfully met its dual primary survival endpoints, affirming the company's significant $800 million investment in this promising drug candidate. The potential of ADCs in oncology cannot be overstated; they offer a remarkable combination of targeted therapy by harnessing the specificity of antibodies alongside the cytotoxic power of traditional chemotherapy. This approach not only enhances precision in treatment but also minimizes collateral damage to healthy tissues, showcasing the transformative potential of ADCs in cancer therapy.On the regulatory front, there are ongoing discussions about the impact of political decisions on drug pricing and innovation. The Trump administration's Most Favored Nation drug pricing policy has stirred significant concern within the biotech sector. In response, ten midsize biotech firms have united to form the Midsized Biotech Alliance of America to challenge this policy. They argue that such pricing strategies could hinder innovation by enforcing restrictive pricing models, potentially stalling the development pipeline for new therapies that address unmet medical needs.In terms of strategic corporate movements, Boehringer Ingelheim has entered into a $500 million partnership with a British biotech firm aimed at developing an oral therapy for autoimmune diseases. This collaboration is part of a broader trend towards precision medicine which focuses on modulating specific immune cells to improve treatment outcomes while minimizing unwanted side effects. It's a clear indication that companies are increasingly investing in targeted therapies that promise better efficacy and patient safety. Additionally, Boehringer Ingelheim's partnership with Sitryx underscores another trend: strategic partnerships aimed at innovative research endeavors with substantial investment commitments—potentially exceeding $500 million—to explore immune response modulation.The acquisition landscape is also seeing dynamic shifts. Asahi Kasei's acquisition of Germany's AiCuris for $920 million marks a strategic move to enhance its R&D capabilities, specifically focusing on antiviral therapies for immunocompromised patients. This acquisition aligns with growing global attention towards infectious disease research, especially in a post-pandemic era where preparedness and rapid response capabilities have become paramount.Meanwhile, Sarepta Therapeutics is undergoing a significant leadership change as CEO Doug Ingram announces his retirement. Ingram's leadership was characterized by notable advancements in treatments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), although it wasn't without its share of challenges regarding regulatory and pricing debates. As Sarepta continues to expand its gene therapy pipeline, this leadership transition comes at a crucial juncture, potentially setting new directions for the company's future.Accent Therapeutics' recent decision to halt its solid tumor trial due to adverse events exemplifies the risks inherent in drug development. The company is now redirecting its focus towards other cancer programs, illustrating how adaptability remains key in navigating clinical setbacks.Protagonist Therapeutics has made a strategic choice by accepting a $400 million payment from Takeda instead of sharing profits from its hematology asset rusfertide. This decision may provideSupport the show

This episode I am reading from Admir Serrano's book 'Nights on the Other Side: How I Discovered My Immortality' Nights on the Other Side” is a book that invites us to look at life from a different perspective: more lucid, more open, and less fearful. Admir describes out-of-body experiences with clarity, combining his personal testimony with scientific references. But above all, he conveys the sense that we are not alone and that we are something more than we believe. Bio I am a Brazilian-American researcher, writer and lecturer on paranormal phenomena such as out-of-body experiences (OBEs), near-death experiences (NDEs), deathbed visions (DBVs), after- death communication (ADC), reincarnation, mediumship and the afterlife. And an unabashed believer in our survival of physical death and the immortality of the spirit. My interest in these subjects was triggered after I began having spontaneous OBEs, back in the year 2000, and I wanted to understand the phenomenon. Since then, I have had hundreds of lucid and amazing experiences which have proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are immortal beings. Aware of the sadness that death of a loved one can cause – and I have experienced it myself – I have made it my life's mission to spread the notion that there is no death, that only the body dies, and since we are not our body, we survive death – unscathed. For my own edification regarding the dynamics of physical death, I have worked as a hospice volunteer providing spiritual support to terminally ill patients as they waited for their time to cross over to the other side of life. And this is what death is, a change of worlds, the end of one mode of living, the physical, to the beginning of a spiritual existence. I have bachelor's degrees in psychology and liberal studies, and a master's in theology. I am an avid reader with a broad interest in world and religious history, anthropology, geography, world affairs, and the humanities. I have written five books in my native Portuguese language on death, dying and the afterlife, and two in English on related topics. I write and lecture in both languages, as well as Spanish, the third language I speak. I live in Homestead, Florida, with my wife, two daughters and my lovely grandson. https://www.admirserrano.com/ https://www.pastliveshypnosis.co.uk/https://www.patreon.com/ourparanormalafterlifeMy book 'Verified Near Death Experiences' https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DXKRGDFP Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

 It was hailed as the "Mega-Alliance" that would reshape Nigeria's political future. The African Democratic Congress, ADC, became the unlikely home for former rivals, bringing together the heavyweights of the opposition. But today, the cracks in the foundation are becoming impossible to ignore. Whispers of a fallout between the Atiku Abubakar camp and the Peter Obi movement are growing louder. With ego, ambition, and the 2027 presidential ticket at stake, is this coalition headed for a divorce before the honeymoon even ends?Today on Nigeria Daily, we go inside the ADC to examine the internal friction, the rumors of Peter Obi's exit, and what this misalignment means for the opposition's chances in the next election.

This week I'm talking to Admir Serrano about his book 'Nights on the Other Side: How I Discovered My Immortality' Nights on the Other Side” is a book that invites us to look at life from a different perspective: more lucid, more open, and less fearful. Admir describes out-of-body experiences with clarity, combining his personal testimony with scientific references. But above all, he conveys the sense that we are not alone and that we are something more than we believe. Bio I am a Brazilian-American researcher, writer and lecturer on paranormal phenomena such as out-of-body experiences (OBEs), near-death experiences (NDEs), deathbed visions (DBVs), after- death communication (ADC), reincarnation, mediumship and the afterlife. And an unabashed believer in our survival of physical death and the immortality of the spirit. My interest in these subjects was triggered after I began having spontaneous OBEs, back in the year 2000, and I wanted to understand the phenomenon. Since then, I have had hundreds of lucid and amazing experiences which have proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are immortal beings. Aware of the sadness that death of a loved one can cause – and I have experienced it myself – I have made it my life's mission to spread the notion that there is no death, that only the body dies, and since we are not our body, we survive death – unscathed. For my own edification regarding the dynamics of physical death, I have worked as a hospice volunteer providing spiritual support to terminally ill patients as they waited for their time to cross over to the other side of life. And this is what death is, a change of worlds, the end of one mode of living, the physical, to the beginning of a spiritual existence. I have bachelor's degrees in psychology and liberal studies, and a master's in theology. I am an avid reader with a broad interest in world and religious history, anthropology, geography, world affairs, and the humanities. I have written five books in my native Portuguese language on death, dying and the afterlife, and two in English on related topics. I write and lecture in both languages, as well as Spanish, the third language I speak. I live in Homestead, Florida, with my wife, two daughters and my lovely grandson. https://www.admirserrano.com/ https://www.pastliveshypnosis.co.uk/https://www.patreon.com/ourparanormalafterlifeMy book 'Verified Near Death Experiences' https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DXKRGDFP Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Lauren Coyle, Launch Commissioning Editor, Bioconjugate Insights, speaks with Antoine Yver, Board Chair, Ona Therapeutics, with more than three and a half decades of experience shaping global cancer drug development. In this conversation, they explore what determines whether an ADC successfully crosses the critical threshold and how teams should rethink dose finding, toxicity, and what it truly takes to set a program up for long-term success in the clinic. 

This weekend's 1 in 31: Autism Today guest is Alan Day. Alan is the founder and CEO of Autism Double Checked (ADC), an innovative organization committed to making travel more accessible and inclusive for individuals on the autism spectrum. ADC classifies travel companies into three levels of "autism readiness": Autism Aware, Autism Ready, and Autism Double-Checked. At each level, the commitment to inclusivity deepens, and every participant is actively working to welcome guests traveling with autistic family members. Recently, ADC certified Bradley International Airport in Connecticut (the first in the U.S) as Autism Double Checked. Tune in to learn more about their certification process. You can also visit the ADC website to learn more about their service offerings including Autism Passport, Autism Concierge, Autism Stays, and Autism Flies, or see their directory of certified providers: https://autismchecked.com/     

In this episode of the Oncology Brothers podcast we navigated the rapidly evolving treatment landscape of Metastatic Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer. We were joined by Dr. Kevin Kalinsky, Director of the Breast Cancer Program at the Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, to discuss the implications of new targeted therapies, optimal sequencing strategies, and practical toxicity management. Listen us on: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/31BXhY9FM4gPWG10WgE11o Follow us on social media: •⁠  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@oncologybrothers •⁠  ⁠X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers •⁠  ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers •⁠  Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ The discussion covered: • The critical role of NGS testing (tissue vs. liquid biopsy) in identifying PIK3CA, ESR1, AKT1 and PTEN alterations. • Frontline management of high-risk, endocrine-resistant disease with the inavolisib triplet (INAVO120) and its overall survival benefit. • Choosing between CDK4/6 inhibitors (abemaciclib vs. ribociclib) in de novo metastatic disease. • Post-CDK4/6 inhibitors on progression we covered, the use of oral SERDs (imlunestrant) and AKT inhibitors (capivasertib). • The "ADC explosion", sequencing T-DXd (DESTINY-Breast06), sacituzumab govitecan (TROPiCS-02), and datopotamab deruxtecan (TROPION-Breast01). • Clinical pearls for managing toxicities: stomatitis, hyperglycemia, rash, neutropenia, and ILD. Join us as we break down the latest data and provide actionable insights for the practicing oncologist. Don't forget to subscribe for more episodes in our breast cancer algorithm series! #MetastaticBreastCancer, #HRPositive, #ADCsequencing, #PIK3CA-AKT, #OncologyPodcast, #OncologyBrothers

From new cancer drugs to batteries and robotics – China's top-tier growth companies are forging paths of their own rather than following in the west's footsteps. Investment manager Sophie Earnshaw names companies that have caught her eye and explains why being a long-term stock picker differs in China from elsewhere. Background:Sophie Earnshaw is a decision-maker on our China Equities Strategy and joint manager of the Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust. In this conversation, she tells Short Briefings… host Leo Kelion about a select group of Chinese companies breaking new ground, supported by the state's efforts to become self-sufficient in more of today's critical technologies and a leader in some of those of the future. Earnshaw also details how the “phenomenal rate” at which companies are born, scale and die in the country makes stock-picking a challenging task – making the access we have to company leaders, academics and other local expertise core to our mission of finding the best firms to invest in on behalf of our clients. Portfolio companies discussed include:- CATL – the battery maker whose products power electric vehicles worldwide and increasingly support the renewable energy sector- BeOne and Innovent Biologics – pharmaceutical firms developing the next generation of cancer drugs - AMEC and NAURA – semiconductor equipment makers enabling China to develop increased self-reliance in computer chips - Alibaba, ByteDance and Tencent – China's ‘big tech' companies, whose artificial intelligence tools are becoming embedded into people's daily lives- MiniMax – the AI startup rolling out video and agentic tools at a fraction of the cost of western counterparts- Horizon Robotics – the automated driving tech provider with its eye on an even bigger opportunity. Resources:Baillie Gifford podcastsChina: a tale of two storiesChina investment strategy hub (institutional clients only)House of HuaweiPrivate investor forum 2025: investing in great growth companiesTrip notes: on the road with Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust  Companies mentioned include:AlibabaAMECASMLBeOneByteDanceCATLHorizon RoboticsInnovent BiologicsJiangsu HengruiHuaweiMiniMaxSamsungNAURATencentTSMCXiaohongshu Timecodes:00:00  Introduction01:55   Joining the China Equities Strategy02:40  Intense competition04:00  The government's influence06:10   CATL, the electrification champion08:45  Investing with a 5-year time horizon10:25   Shanghai office, local expertise11:45   Regulations and geopolitics14:30   China's next Five-year Plan16:15   Innovent Biologics' new cancer drugs18:10   Lower-cost clinical trials19:45   Being selective in semiconductors21:25   Investing in chip equipment makers23:00  China's ‘big tech and AI'25:10   MiniMax making AI like ‘tap water'27:45  The road to robotics29:35  A market you can't ignore30:30  Book choice Glossary of terms (in order of mention): Third plenum: a major policy meeting of China's ruling Communist Party, often used to set big economic/political direction.Sovereign bond issuance: The government raising money by selling bonds (IOUs) to investors.Opportunity set: the range of investable companies available to choose from.Capex: capital expenditure – money spent on long-term assets like factories, equipment, or data centres.Fiscal deficit target: how much more the government plans to spend than it collects in revenue (taxes plus other income), expressed as a share of the economy.GDP: gross domestic product – the total value of goods and services a country produces in a year.Market capitalisation: the total value of a company's shares (share price × number of shares).ESG: environmental, social and governance – how a company manages environmental impact, people issues, and corporate oversight.Large-form batteries: big battery packs used in things like electric vehicles and grid storage.Energy storage systems: large batteries that store electricity for later use (helping balance the grid).Generic drugs: copies of medicines whose patents have expired; usually cheaper, same active ingredient.Bi-specific (bispecific) drugs: drugs designed to bind to two targets at once (often to direct immune cells to cancer).ADC drugs: antibody–drug conjugates – antibodies that deliver a toxic payload to cancer cells.Out-licensing: selling rights to your drug/technology to another company (often for upfront + milestone payments).EUV machines: extreme ultraviolet lithography equipment used to make the most advanced chips.Foundry: a factory business that manufactures chips for other companies.Etch and deposition: steps in chipmaking – etch removes material to form patterns, deposition adds thin layers.Picks and shovels: a metaphor for companies that sell essential tools to an industry (rather than end products).Digitalisation: moving processes and services from offline to software and data-driven systems.Compute: the processing power (chips and servers) used to train/run AI.Large language model (LLM): an AI trained on lots of text to generate and understand language.Margins: how much profit a company makes per pound/dollar of revenue (after costs).Cloud business: selling computing power/storage/software over the internet instead of on a local machine.Algorithm layer: the method or software logic that makes the AI work (as distinct from the hardware).Gross margin: revenue minus direct costs (before overheads), a rough measure of product profitability.Assisted driving: features that help a driver (lane-keeping, adaptive cruise control, etc) but don't fully replace them.Autonomous driving: a car driving itself with minimal or no human input.Software attachment rate: the percentage of customers who add paid software features and/or subscriptions.

Alex Moss and Burton DeWitt are back with a new episode of your go-to darts podcast after the first PDC ProTour events of 2026!   The boys start the show with a brand-new game as Burton attempts to predict the quarter-final results of this week's Premier League night in Antwerp the day after with no prior knowledge of the results! Alex and Burton then take a look back at this week's Players Championship double-header in Germany and focus on the two title winners James Wade and Wessel Nijman.   New PDC tour card holder Samuel Price (24:44) joins the show to look back on a dramatic UK Q-School, which saw him secure a tour card on the final day as one of the top-up players from the First Stage Order of Merit. Samuel talks through his time in the game so far, from how he first got introduced to darts and then taking a break after suffering with dartitis, to making a comeback during lockdown, the influence of the ADC and UKDA in improving his game and a memorable start to 2026 that saw him become a PDC tour card holder for the first time.   Alex and Burton continue their review of the last week in darts and look back on the Dutch Open, which saw Germany's Paul Krohne and home favourite Priscilla Steenbergen win the two main titles in Assen.   The newly crowned Junior World Masters champion Kaya Baysal (1:07:18) calls in to reflect on his landmark win in Milton Keynes last month. The teenager looks back on a whirlwind last 12 months which saw him make history as the youngest winner of a WDF senior title in Hungary, breaking Luke Littler's record, play in youth events on the Lakeside and Alexandra Palace stages, and then defeat Mitchell Lawrie in the final of the inaugural Junior World Masters on the Arena MK stage just a few weeks ago.   The boys wrap up the show with a dip into the mailbag to answer your listeners questions.   Join the Darts Strava King group on Strava *** Get your own Alex Moss replica shirt (as worn by our co-host at the Las Vegas Open 2026) from DJD here! A % of the profits will be donated to The Ethan King Fund for Ewing Sarcoma Research *** This podcast is brought to you in association with Darts Corner - the number one online darts retailer! Darts Corner offers the widest selection of darts products from over 30 different manufacturers.  This podcast is sponsored by Darts Atlas - the platform for darts players, venues, and organisations. Darts Atlas is the home of the Amateur Darts Circuit (ADC) with hundreds of tournaments held on the platform every week.  Have you used Darts Atlas before? Share your feedback and experiences with Darts Atlas with us by sending an email to weeklydartscast@gmail.com and be in with a chance of winning some new logo Weekly Dartscast stickers! Check out Condor Darts here: UK site *** Enjoy our podcast? Make a one-off donation on our new Ko-Fi page here: ko-fi.com/weeklydartscast Support us on Patreon from just $2(+VAT): patreon.com/WeeklyDartscast Thank you to our Patreon members: Phil Moss, Gordon Skinner, Connor Ellis, Dan Hutchinson

Estamos convencidas de que hay dos tipos de personas, las que te llaman “guapa” y las que no. El guapa! casi nunca tiene nada que ver con el aspecto físico es un lubricante léxico, una caricia social o, dicho en modo ADC, un shortcut de la sociabilidad femme. A todo esto le damos vueltas hasta llegar al territorio Fascismo del Cuerpo. Que ahora se concentra en la cara, la cara de guapa. Lo explicamos rodeadas de gente guapa, guapísima, en un directo en el Cupra City Garage de Madrid.

Los Ratones should not be allowed in the LEC! In this episode, Thorin, Peter Dun, and guest jinjo break down one of the spiciest weeks in the LEC. The discussion covers the controversy around Los Ratones fans and Nemesis calling for franchising removal , Ice's development and limitations as an ADC, Humanoid's resurgence and Vitality's strong performances, KCorp's standout form and rising stars, G2's meta issues and drafting struggles, Fnatic's macro concerns and mid/top lane instability, and MKOI's long-standing difficulty in becoming a truly dominant team. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We start this episode discussing the latest international and local developments in the last few months. We begin with the massive display of wealth in the midst of growing inequality in the South East by Igbo bigwigs during the festive period. We use this as an entry point to discuss poverty and wealth gaps in Nigeria.We also reflect on what has been taking place in Nigeria namely the airstrike in Sokoto before briefly reacting to Venezuela and the US's strong hand in international geopolitics. We delve extensively into the actions of ADC, LP, APC and Peter Obi. Is any of it worth paying attention to? Or is it all pointless in the context of ideological similarities and the chances of genuine political change. Are they all the same? We do a breakdown of LP situation, the split in SE political elites over Peter Obi and the possible meaning of symbolism of Peter Obi's latest political moves.We then turn our attention to US intervention in Nigeria and Venezuela. Have we entered a new phase of US belligerence? Is this an increase or is it just more available to view? how much are the imperial vulgarities down to Trump as a person versus textbook US foreign policy? Listen and let us know your thoughts.

Editor-in-Chief of the Archives of Disease in Childhood, Dr Nick Brown, and Senior Editor of ADC, Dr Rachel Agbeko brings you the monthly Atoms - the highlights of the February 2026 issue. Read it on the Archives of Disease in Childhood website: https://adc.bmj.com/content/111/2/i     Please listen to our regular podcasts and subscribe in Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Stitcher and Spotify to get episodes automatically downloaded to your phone and computer. And if you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review at https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/adc-podcast/id333278832 

Dr. Joshua Reuss is back on the podcast to discuss the full update to the living guideline on stage IV NSCLC without driver alterations. He discusses the new evidence and how this impacts the latest recommendations on first-line and subsequent therapeutic options. Dr. Reuss emphasizes the need for shared decision-making between clinicians and patients. He shares ongoing research that the panel will review in the future for further updates to this living guideline, and puts the updated recommendations into context for clinicians treating patients with stage IV NSCLC. Read the full living guideline update "Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2026.3.0" 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 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology,  https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-25-02825    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 am interviewing Dr. Joshua Reuss from Georgetown University, co-chair on "Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2026.3.0." It is great to have you back on the show today, Dr. Reuss. Dr. Joshua Reuss: Happy to be here, Brittany. Brittany Harvey: Just before we discuss this guideline, I would 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. Reuss who has joined 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. Dr. Reuss, this living clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer without driver alterations is updated on an ongoing basis. So, what prompted this latest update to the recommendations? Dr. Joshua Reuss: Our committee is tasked with making routine updates to the living guidelines and really keeping them living, right? So, evaluating new data as it is coming in to see, is this practice changing? Is this data that should inform and potentially alter our guideline recommendations so that practitioners and other care providers could really make the best treatment decisions for their patients? So that is something that happens on a more routine basis, but periodically, we are tasked with performing a more comprehensive update of our guideline where we really evaluate every one of our point recommendations, the data associated with these recommendations, to be sure that these are up to date, these are comprehensive, and to see if we need to alter anything in the language of these updates. Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Thank you for providing that background. And yes, this is truly a comprehensive update that goes through all the latest literature. Given that, I would like to review what has changed and what is new in the recommendations. So, what are the updated recommendations on first-line therapy for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer without driver alterations? Dr. Joshua Reuss: So there are two main guidelines that we recommend from this panel. One is a driver mutation-positive guideline and the other is a driver mutation-negative guideline. And I think on first blush, one might look at kind of the recent flurry of approvals and new data and say, well, all the excitement, you know, is in the driver mutation-positive guideline. But I would say that the driver mutation-negative guideline is equally as important and really has several unique challenges associated with it. You know, first and foremost is that there are really a multitude of regimens that can be considered for any one patient. And how to choose between one can be quite difficult and a stressful challenge that clinicians can have, particularly since there are really no randomized studies comparing these regimens in a head-to-head fashion. In addition, you know, these guidelines are really broken down by two key factors. One is disease histology, so namely squamous versus non-squamous histology. And the other is PD-L1 status, broken down into one of three tertiles: PD-L1 high, which is greater than or equal to 50% expression; PD-L1 low, which is 1% to 49% expression; and then PD-L1 negative or unknown. So what you are really looking at, if you do that math, is really six unique patient subpopulations where we need to make a recommendation on one of the multitude of treatment regimens that is approved. And what that means is you are oftentimes really looking at subset and sub-subset level data to help inform clinicians in their treatment decision making, which can be quite challenging because as those small subsets of data is more and more parsed, there are many confounders that can be interjected there. And so I think the committee is tasked with really quite a challenge in terms of how to really communicate and broadcast that data in a way that informs clinicians in making a decision on what is the right treatment for their patient. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It can be challenging to interpret that subgroup data across several different studies that are reporting on different regimens and different outcomes. And I appreciate you mentioning the driver mutation-positive guideline as well. Listeners can check out the companion episode with Dr. Puri for more information on what is changed in the driver mutation-positive guideline. Based on that primer, what is new for first-line therapy for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer without driver alterations? Dr. Joshua Reuss: Even though I will say there is not a lot of new trial data that was incorporated into this guideline, there were some updates and just some meaningful long-term data that we incorporated. I think first and foremost, there is a new top-level recommendation in this guideline pertaining to molecular testing, which is absolutely critical in both the driver mutation-positive and driver mutation-negative space. I think we tend to think that, oh, well, molecular testing really only pertains to then finding a driver mutation. But the lack of a mutation is absolutely critical as well, right? Because that is what leads us down the mutation-negative pathway. We also need this molecular testing to assess PD-L1 status. We are seeing emerging data on molecular mutations that might confer resistance to certain immunotherapy-based strategies. So the committee felt strongly that a recommendation on molecular testing is critical to include in both the driver mutation-positive guideline and the driver mutation-negative guideline. I will also say that we are now seeing five and six-year updates from some of the landmark trials of immunotherapy in driver mutation-negative non-small cell lung cancer. It is really incredible to see that in some of these trials, we are seeing very impressive durability of the treatment in the patient subsets that we are commenting on. In others, perhaps that durability is less clear, and I think that leads to challenges in making a recommendation on any one particular regimen. And I think that is nowhere more clear than in the squamous subset. I think that was one perhaps subtle change that is in this guideline where, particularly in the PD-L1 negative squamous population, the committee felt that no one regimen really was worthy of standing above the others. Sometimes I think it is important to really champion one unique regimen if we feel that the data is there to support it. But I think it is equally important to list multiple regimens where the data is less clear. I think another point is that while perhaps there were no new regimens that we have added or that led to other clear changes in the prioritization of one regimen over another, there are other unique data subsets that I think come into play in making a decision and that really are important when looking at the discussion on any one recommendation from this guideline. For example, we know there is emerging data on perhaps the significance of molecular alterations in KEAP1 or STK11 and how that might influence frontline decision-making. You know, there is not a prospective phase III trial in this population, but I think we still need to use that data in certain scenarios to make recommendations for a particular patient. Another example of a trial that, again, did not change our recommendations, but I think one can incorporate in their decision making is the KEYNOTE-598 trial. Now, this is not a new study, but what it studied was pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab in a PD-L1 high subset, and found that the addition of ipilimumab to pembrolizumab in the PD-L1 high population did not significantly improve clinical efficacy. And so while pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab is not an approved regimen, it is hard to extrapolate that to our combination treatments that are approved. I think some clinicians might find that data valuable when making a frontline treatment decision on a patient who has PD-L1 high status. So a bit of a whirlwind tour, but I think there are still multiple factors that went into this guideline that are important to review when making treatment decisions for any one patient. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I think what you just mentioned in having that upfront molecular testing is really key for individualized patient care. And the evidence summaries that you provide in addition to the recommendations are really important for clinicians to be able to refer to as they are making decisions in their clinic. So then beyond those changes for first-line therapy, what is updated for second-line and subsequent therapies? Dr. Joshua Reuss: For second-line and subsequent therapies, we did see one new treatment recommendation join these ranks, and that was telisotuzumab vedotin. Telisotuzumab vedotin, quite a mouthful. That is an antibody-drug conjugate. I like to think of that as smart chemotherapy, targeted chemotherapy, where you are trying to utilize some aspect of a marker that is selectively expressed or overexpressed on the cancer surface to then shepherd in the anticancer molecule, a highly potent chemotherapeutic in the case of currently approved antibody-drug conjugates, to exert antitumor killing effect. So in this case, the antibody-drug conjugate telisotuzumab vedotin targets MET overexpression. So telisotuzumab is an antibody targeting MET, and that is conjugated to an MMAE highly potent chemotherapeutic payload called vedotin. So we know MET can be selectively expressed and overexpressed in non-small cell lung cancer in both driver mutation-positive and mutation-negative subsets. The data that led to this approval was from the phase II LUMINOSITY trial which evaluated telisotuzumab vedotin, or Teliso-V, in many subsets. But the subset that really showed promise and was expanded was the EGFR wild-type, non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer population with MET overexpression. And so in 78 patients with high levels of expression, the response rate here was 34.6%, median progression-free survival of 5.5 months, and a median overall survival of 14.6 months. With an overall acceptable safety profile; grade 3 or higher adverse events, neuropathy was perhaps the most common at 7%, also increased ALT at 3.5%, and pneumonitis at 2.9%. Now this was phase II data that led to an accelerated approval. There is an ongoing phase III study randomizing patients with high expression to Teliso-V versus docetaxel. That is the phase III TeliMET study. But it is nice that we now have another option for patients, perhaps a more biomarker-directed option with, again, this MET overexpression. And again, it further reinforces the importance of molecular testing in patients with traditionally driver mutation-negative non-small cell lung cancer, whether that is upfront or at progression, and in particular utilizing immunohistochemistry to assess MET expression in these patients. And this does join another ADC that we had previously made an update in our recommendation, which is trastuzumab deruxtecan, which is approved for those patients with HER2-overexpressing non-small cell lung cancer. So just again to reiterate the importance of molecular testing in patients both at the outset of their treatment and upon progression on frontline therapy. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. It is great to have this new antibody-drug conjugate join the treatment options, and as you mentioned, very important in this case to have that molecular testing done at the outset and at progression. So then in your view, what should clinicians know as they implement this living guideline, and how do these changes impact patients with non-small cell lung cancer? Dr. Joshua Reuss: Because there are so many different regimens that one can consider for any one patient, I think it is easy to become overwhelmed and stress on, "Am I making the right choice for my patient?" And I think one of the key take home points is that in many cases, there is no one right regimen. And I think one has to weigh several factors. It is the treatment schedule. It is the toxicity profile. It is the molecular profile of the patient. It is the patient preference. You know, there are so many factors here. And I would like to draw the reader and viewer's attention to an important section of these guidelines, particularly the Patient and Clinician Communication section, where we have a box focused on discussion points between patients and clinicians, which I think focuses on several of the high-level points that one can emphasize in making these decisions, ranging on things from: what are the goals of the treatment? What are the risks and benefits to any one approach? What are comorbidities that should be factored in? Common concerns, toxicity management, clinical trial consideration. All of these factors that I think are incredibly important in making that frontline treatment decision and implementing a regimen that both the clinician and, more importantly, the patient feels comfortable with. Brittany Harvey: It is really important that there is shared decision-making in these scenarios. And I think that patient-clinician communication section can tease out some of those preferences from the patient end and talk through the risks and benefits of different regimens as well. As we mentioned at the top of this episode, this guideline is a living guideline and updated on an ongoing basis. So what is the panel examining and keeping an eye on for future updates to this guideline? Dr. Joshua Reuss: So I think there are a lot of exciting new therapies and more up-to-date trials that we are anxiously awaiting the results of on our committee, and I think the oncology community in general is awaiting the results of. When we will have these results, I think, is a bit of an open-ended question, but I can give some insight on several of the trials that our committee is really keeping a close eye on. One that we have mentioned for several guideline iterations is the ECOG-ACRIN INSIGNA trial. This is a phase III clinical trial comparing pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab plus carboplatin and pemetrexed chemotherapy in PD-L1 positive, non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer. We talk about there being different regimens that can be considered in PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 high subsets, namely immunotherapy alone or immunotherapy plus chemotherapy, but there is no direct head-to-head comparison here. So this trial hopefully will answer that question. It has now finished accrual. There are other very interesting molecules and trials. I think another interesting compound is ivonescimab. This is a PD-1/VEGF bispecific antibody that is currently approved in China as monotherapy in patients with PD-L1 positive non-small cell lung cancer based off of the HARMONi-2 trial, where the progression-free survival of this bispecific antibody, ivonescimab, appeared superior to pembrolizumab. And we are looking closely at ongoing trials to see if these results will be replicated in an ex-China population. And if so, I think it could have a real impact and change on our guidelines. Still other very interesting things. There are obviously confirmatory studies for antibody-drug conjugates, such as the TeliMET study that I alluded to earlier, and many promising antibody-drug conjugates, both bispecific and trispecific antibody-drug conjugates, that hopefully can inform practice. And then there are several unique subsets of populations that I think we now are utilizing data on to make decisions, but a lot of that is retrospective in small subsets where we do not have that prospective data. And there are several trials ongoing in some of these subsets to try to gain clarity on what regimen may be the best for patients. One example is the phase III TRITON trial, which is looking at comparing CTLA-4 containing regimen, particularly the POSEIDON regimen of durvalumab plus tremelimumab and chemotherapy, versus the KEYNOTE-189 regimen, which is pembrolizumab plus carboplatin and pemetrexed, in patients with non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer that have alterations in either KRAS, KEAP1, and/or STK11. There is a lot of both preclinical and clinical data to suggest that patients with these alterations in STK11 and KEAP1 may be more resistant to a PD-1 based treatment approach, and perhaps the incorporation of CTLA-4 can lead to a more meaningful response in this unique subset. Obviously, that data, it is retrospective, it is in small subsets. And when you add in a CTLA-4 molecule, you are also introducing greater risk for toxicity. So this trial is going to be very important in elucidating: is there a benefit in that unique subset? Does that data that we see retrospectively in this small subset hold true when evaluated in a prospective fashion? So while our guideline, our most recent comprehensive panel update, may not have had a lot of new data in it that has influenced frontline treatment decision-making, I think the future is bright and there are a lot of novel studies and novel treatments on the horizon that will hopefully improve the outcomes for our patients. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. We will look forward to the results of those ongoing trials to provide more options and particularly clarity for patients with non-small cell lung cancer and to inform this guideline and its many updates to come. So I want to thank you so much for your work to rapidly and continuously update this guideline, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Reuss. Dr. Joshua Reuss: Thank you so much. Brittany Harvey: And finally, 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 have 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.  

In this episode of the Mic On Podcast, Seun Okinbaloye speaks with political activist and BBOG co-convener Aisha Yesufu, who delivers a blunt assessment of Nigeria's leadership and the state of governance under President Bola Tinubu. She says the country lacks direction and argues that public frustration cuts across regions, driven by lived realities rather than party loyalty.Yesufu explains her alignment with the ADC as a strategic move, not an emotional one, describing the coalition as united enough to challenge the APC in 2027. While admitting that Peter Obi influenced her decision, she insists her loyalty is to competence and accountability, not party sentiment.She strongly backs Obi as the most credible opposition candidate, dismissing claims that he cannot win Northern votes and predicting internal fractures within the APC ahead of 2027. For Yesufu, the coming election hinges on credible leadership and the integrity of the process, which she believes will define Nigeria's future.Guest:Aisha Yesufu(Political Activist / Co-Convener, Bring Back Our Girls Movement)

Promises, Promises: Nigeria's election cycle is in full swing, and politicians are dusting off their playbooks, making grand promises to woo voters. But as the campaign rhetoric fades and the votes are cast, one question lingers: when is enough, enough? How long should Nigerians wait for leaders to deliver on their promises? Is four years too long for roads to be fixed, hospitals to be built, and jobs to be created? In this episode of Nigeria Daily, we take a hard look at the perennial gap between promise and delivery. We'll explore the reasons behind the disconnect and ask the tough questions: what's holding our leaders back? And what will it take for Nigerians to see real change on the ground?"

In this episode of the Mic On Podcast, Seun Okinbaloye speaks with the Minister of Arts. Culture, Tourism and the Creative Economy, Hannatu Musawa, on the future of Nigeria's creative industry and the political outlook ahead of 2027. She traces her resilience to her upbringing and family influences, describing her father as the most significant figure in her life.Musawa outlines the government's creative economy agenda, citing plans to expand “Detty December,” create millions of jobs, and boost GDP through global best practices. She said the ministry was focused on funding, distribution, and global competitiveness to help Nigerian creatives thrive.On politics, the minister strongly backed President Bola Tinubu's re-election, arguing that opposition figures lack the reach to unseat him, especially in the North. She also weighed in on party dynamics, the rise of the ADC, and insisted that her focus remains on delivering results, not pursuing electoral office.Guest:Hannatu Musawa(Minister of Arts, Culture, Tourism & the Creative Economy)

Katie talks to Palestinian-American lawyer Jenin Younes about the settlement reached by NY Attorney General Tish James and Betar, the zionist hate group, which has gone after Jenin's own clients; the attacks on free Speech criticizing Israel and her spat with JD Vance that landed her on The Daily Show. Then Katie talks to Immigration and Civil Rights lawyer James Carleson about how the Trump administration is using immigration enforcement to unleash a broader techno-fascist agenda in league with Peter Thiel and the billionaires, which the Democrats enable. He also talks about the rapid response networks being built out in major cities which offers a roadmap for how ordinary people resist. To watch the full interview with Mohammad Marandi & Moeed Pirzada, sign up for Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/posts/patreon-full-148479202 Or you can now watch as a YouTube member: https://youtu.be/MeubrKgKxTo Jenin Younes is a palestinian-American attorney, and the national legal director of the ADC, The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. She's also the co-host of the podcast Previously Prohibited. She describes herself as cancelled by the left for her Covid views & cancelled by the right for Palestine views. This is the horizontal/landscape aspect ratio of the broadcast. For the vertical/portrait aspect ratio, go here: https://youtube.com/live/_sCNlTdE6GI ***Please support The Katie Halper Show *** For bonus content, exclusive interviews, to support independent media & to help make this program possible, please join us on Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/thekatiehalpershow Get your Katie Halper Show Merch here! https://katiehalper.myspreadshop.com/all Follow Katie on Twitter: https://x.com/kthalps Follow Katie on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kthalps Follow Katie on TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@kthalps_

Esportmaníacos 2473: En el programa de hoy hemos tenido información del nuevo MMO de League of Legends, por lo menos en lo que respecta a una nueva contratación de un ex de World of Warcraft para Riot Games. Hemos charlado sobre Ferra yéndose a Heretics y hemos revisado unas declaraciones de Vladi, mid laner de Fnatic, sobre Caliste, ADC de Karmine Corp. APÓYANOS AQUÍ https://www.patreon.com/Esportmaniacos https://www.twitch.tv/esportmaniacos 🔁Nuestras redes🔁 https://twitter.com/Esportmaniacos https://www.tiktok.com/@esportmaniacos 💙Referido de AMAZON: https://amzn.to/36cVx3g 00:00:00 - Intro 00:22:00 - Repaso a la LPL 00:26:25 - Novedades del MMO de League of Legends 00:40:10 - Lo de Ferra 01:10:15 - Momento exprimir a Champi a ver si nos dice algo de las scrims 01:13:20 - Vladi responde a unas declaraciones de Caliste 01:27:30 - Vladi también habla del nivel de Fnatic

Justin Fris and Tom Zaunmayr discuss Tony Galati's apple ambitions. Plus BHP share dip after cost blowout; Victor Goh's hotel given a hurry up; ADC plan pivot for Perth Girls School.

Since Nigeria returned to democratic rule in 1999, the Fourth Republic has promised inclusion, representation and opportunity for all citizens.But for many years, young Nigerians remained spectators in a political system dominated by older leaders.The signing of the Not Too Young To Run Act in 2018 marked a turning point, lowering age limits and giving young people a legal pathway into leadership.On Nigeria Daily, we examine how this law has reshaped youth participation in Nigeria's Fourth Republic, the challenges young politicians still face, and whether Nigeria's democracy is truly opening its doors to the next generation.

The League of Legends Betting Podcast  Friday, January 16th, 2025 - LCK, LPL Recorded on: Thursday, January 15th at 507pm Eastern   Intro/Recap (0:26) Brief discussion about ADC / meta and possible DFS / prop site implications LCK Slate (13:05) LPL Slate (16:31)     You can find more, exclusive content to go along with this show on My Patreon. My Twitter/X is @GelatiLOL P&L Sheet for 2025 can be found here and pinned to the top of my Twitter.

Dr. Hope Rugo and Dr. Vivek Subbiah discuss innovative trial designs to enable robust studies for smaller patient populations, as well as the promise of precision medicine, novel therapeutic approaches, and global partnerships to advance rare cancer research and improve patient outcomes. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello and welcome to By the Book, a podcast series from ASCO that features engaging conversations between editors and authors of the ASCO Educational Book. I am your host, Dr. Hope Rugo. I am the director of the Women's Cancers Program and division chief of breast medical oncology at the City of Hope Cancer Center [in Los Angeles]. The field of rare cancer research is rapidly transforming thanks to progress in clinical trials and treatment strategies, as well as improvements in precision medicine and next-generation sequencing that enable biomarker identification. According to the National Cancer Institute, rare cancers occur in fewer than 150 cases per million each year, but collectively, they represent a significant portion of all cancer diagnoses. And we struggle with the appropriate treatment for these rare cancers in clinical practice. Today, I am delighted to be joined by Dr. Vivek Subbiah, a medical oncologist and the chief of early-phase drug development at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee. Dr. Subbiah is the lead author of a paper in the ASCO Educational Book titled "Designing Clinical Trials for Patients with Rare Cancers: Connecting the Zebras," a great title for this topic. He will be telling us about innovative trial designs to enable robust studies for small patient populations, the promise of precision medicine, and novel therapeutic approaches to improve outcomes, and how we can leverage AI now to enroll more patients with rare cancers in clinical trials. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. Subbiah, it is great to have you on the podcast today. Thanks so much for being here. Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Thank you so much, Dr. Rugo, and it is an honor and pleasure being here. And thank you for doing this podcast for rare cancers. Dr. Hope Rugo: Absolutely. We are excited to talk to you. And congratulations on this fantastic paper. It is such a great resource for our community to better understand what is new in the field of rare cancer research. Of course, rare cancers are complex and multifaceted diseases. And this is a huge challenge for clinical oncologists. You know, our clinics, of course, cannot be designed as we are being very uni-cancer focused to just be for one cancer that is very rare. So, oncologists have to be a jack of all trades in this area. Your paper notes that there are approximately 200 distinct types of rare and ultra-rare cancers. And, by definition, all pediatric cancers are rare cancers. Of course, clinical trials are essential for developing new treatment strategies and improving patient outcomes, and in your paper, you highlight some unique challenges in conducting trials in this rare cancer space. Can you tell us about the challenges and how really innovative trial designs, I think a key issue, are being tailored to the specific needs of patients with rare cancer and, importantly, for these trials? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Rare cancers present a perfect storm of challenges. First, the patient populations are very small, which makes it really hard to recruit enough participants for traditional type trials. Second, these patients are often geographically dispersed across multiple cities, across multiple states, across multiple countries, across multiple zip codes. So, logistics become complicated. Third, there is often limited awareness among clinicians, which delays referrals and diagnosis. Add to that regulatory hurdles, funding constraints, and you can see why rare cancer trials are so tough to execute. To overcome these barriers, we are seeing some really creative novel trial designs. And there are four different types of trial designs that are helping with enrolling patients with rare cancers. The first one is the basket trial. So let us talk about what basket studies are. Basket studies group patients based on shared genetic biomarkers or shared genetic mutations rather than tumor type. So instead of running separate 20 to 30 to 40 trials, you can study one therapy across multiple cancers. The second type of trial is the umbrella trial. The umbrella trials flip that concept of basket studies. They focus on one cancer type but test multiple targeted therapies within it. The third category of innovative trials are the platform studies. Platform trials are another exciting innovation. They allow new treatment arms to be added or removed as the data matures and as the data evolves, making trials more adaptive and efficient. The final category are decentralized tools in traditional trials, which are helping patients participate closer to where they are so that they can sleep in their own bed, which is, I think, a game changer for accessibility.  These designs maximize efficiency and feasibility for rare cancer research and rare cancer clinical trials. Dr. Hope Rugo: I love the idea of the platform trials that are decentralized. And I know that there is a trial being worked on with ARPA-H (Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health) funding in triple-negative breast cancer as well as in lung cancer, I think, and others with this idea of a platform trial. But it is challenged, I think, by precision medicine and next-generation sequencing where some patients do not have targetable markers, or there isn't a drug to target the marker. I think those are almost the same thing. We have really seen that these precision medicine ideas and NGS have moved the needle in helping to identify genetic alterations. This helps us to be more personalized. It actually helps with platform studies to customize trial enrollment. And we hope that this will result in better outcomes. It also allows us, I think, to study drugs even in the early stage setting more effectively. How can these advances be best applied to the future of rare cancers, as well as the challenges of not finding a marker or not having a drug? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Thank you so much for that question. I think precision medicine and next-gen sequencing, or NGS, are truly the backbone of modern precision oncology. They have transformed how we think about cancer treatment. Instead of treating based on where the tumor originated or where the tumor started, we now look at the genetic blueprint of cancer. The NGS or next-gen sequencing allows us to sequence millions of DNA fragments quickly. Twenty, 30 years ago, they said we cannot sequence a human genome. Then it took almost a decade to sequence the first human genome. Right now, we have academic centers and commercial sequencing companies that are really democratizing NGS across all sites, not just in academic centers, across all the community sites, so that NGS is now accessible. This means that we can identify these actionable alterations like picking needles in haystacks, like NTRK fusions, RET fusions, or BRAF V600E alterations, high tumor mutational burden. This might occur across not one tumor type, across several different tumor types. So for rare cancers, this is critical because some of these mutations often define the best treatment option. Here is why this matters. Personalized therapy, right? Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, we can tailor treatment to the patient's unique molecular profile. For trial enrollment, this can definitely help because patients can join biomarker-driven trials even if their cancer type is rare or ultra-rare. NGS technology has also helped us in designing rational studies. Many times monotherapy does not work in these cancers. So we are thinking about rational combination strategies. So NGS technology is helping us. Looking ahead, I see NGS becoming routine in clinical practice, not just at major niche academic centers, but everywhere. We will see more tumor-agnostic approvals, more molecular tumor boards guiding treatment decisions in real time. And I think we are seeing an expanded biomarker setup. Previously, we used to have only a few drugs and a handful of mutations. Now with homologous recombination defects, BRCA1/2 mutation, and expanding the HRD and also immunohistochemistry, we are expanding the biomarker portfolio. So again, I personally believe that the future is precision. What I mean by precision is delivering the right drug to the right patient at the right time. And for rare cancers, this isn't just progress. It is survival. And it is maybe the only way that they can have access to these cutting-edge precision medicines. Dr. Hope Rugo: That is so important. You mentioned an important area we will get to in a moment, the tumor-agnostic therapies. But as part of talking about that, do you think that the trials should also include just standard therapies? You know, who do you give an ADC to and when with these rare cancers? Because some of them do not have biomarkers to target and it is so disappointing for patients and providers where you are trying to screen a patient for a trial or a platform trial where you have one arm with this mutation, one arm with that, and they do not qualify because they only have a p53 loss, you know? They just do not have the marker that helps them. But we see this in breast cancer all the time. And it is tough because we don't have good information on the sequencing. So I wonder, you know, just because for some of these rare cancers it is not even clear what to use when with standard treatments. And then that kind of gets into this idea of the tumor-agnostic therapies that you mentioned. There are a lot of new treatments that are being evaluated. We have seen approval of some treatments in the last few years that are tumor-agnostic and based on a biomarker. Is that the best approach as we go forward for rare cancers? And what new treatment options are most exciting to you right now? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Tumor-agnostic therapies, really close to my heart, are real breakthrough therapies and represent a major paradigm shift in oncology. Traditionally, for the broad listeners here, we are used to thinking about designing clinical trials and therapy like where the cancer originated, breast cancer, kidney cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer. A tumor-agnostic therapy flips that model. Instead of focusing on the organ, they target the specific genetic alteration or biomarker that drives cancer growth regardless of where the tumor started, regardless of the location of the tumor, regardless of the zip code of the tumor. So why is this so important for rare cancers? Because many rare cancers share molecular features with more common cancers. For instance, NTRK fusion might occur in pediatric sarcoma, a salivary gland tumor, or a thyroid cancer. Historically, each of these would require separate trials, which is nearly impossible, unfeasible to conduct in these ultra-rare cancers like salivary gland cancer or pediatric sarcomas. Tumor-agnostic therapies allow us to treat all those cancers with the same targeted drug if they share that biomarker. Again, we are in 2025. The first tissue-agnostic approval, the historic precedent, was in fact an immunotherapy. Pembrolizumab was approved in 2017, May 2017, as the first immunotherapy to be approved in a tumor-agnostic way for a genomic biomarker, for MSI-High and dMMR cancers. Then came the NTRK inhibitors. So today we have not one, not two, but three different NTRK inhibitors: larotrectinib, entrectinib, and repotrectinib, which show response rates of nearly more than 60 to 75% across a handful of dozens and dozens of cancer types. Then, of course, we have RET inhibitors like selpercatinib, which is approved tissue-agnostic, and pralsetinib, which also shows tissue-agnostic activity across multiple cancers. And more recently, combination therapy with a BRAF and MEK combination, dabrafenib and trametinib, received tumor-agnostic approval for all BRAF V600E tumors with the exception of colorectal cancer. And even recently, you mentioned about antibody drug conjugates. Again, I think we live in an era of antibody drug conjugates. And Enhertu, trastuzumab deruxtecan, which was used first in breast cancer, now it is approved in a histology-agnostic manner for all HER2-positive tumors defined by immunohistochemistry 3+. So again, beyond NGS, now immunohistochemistry for HER2 is also becoming a biomarker. So again, for the broad listeners here, in addition to comprehensive NGS that may allow patients to find treatment options for these rare cancers for NTRK, RET, and BRAF, immunohistochemistry for HER2 positivity is also emerging as a biomarker given that we have a new FDA approval for this. So I would say personally that these therapies are game changers because they open doors for patients who previously had no options. Instead of waiting for years for a trial in their specific cancer type, they can access a treatment based on their molecular profile. I think it is precision medicine at its finest and best. Looking ahead, the third question you asked me is what is exciting going on? I think we will see more of these approvals. My hope is that today, I think we have nine to ten approvals. My hope is that within the next 25 to 50 years, we will have at least 50 to 100 drugs approved in this space based on a biomarker, not based on a location of the tumor type. Drug targeting rare alterations like FGFR2 fusions, FGFR amplifications, ALK fusions, and even complex signatures like high tumor mutational burden. I think we will be seeing hopefully more and more drugs approved. And as sequencing becomes routine, we will identify more patients for these therapies. I think for rare cancers, this is not just innovative approach. This is essential for them to access these novel precision medicines. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, that is such a good point. I do think it is critical. Interestingly in breast cancer, it hasn't been, you know, there is always like two patients in these tumor-agnostic trials, or if that. You know, I think I have seen one NTRK fusion ever. I think that highlights the importance for rare cancers. And you know, I am hoping that that will translate into some new directions for some of our rarer and impossible-to-treat subtypes of breast cancer. It is this kind of research that is really going to make a difference. But what about those people who do not have biomarkers? What if you do not fit into that? Do you think there is a possibility of trying to do treatments for rare cancers in some prospective way that would help with that? You know, it is really a huge challenge. Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Absolutely. I think, you know, you're right, usually many of these rare cancers are driven by specific biomarkers. And again, some of the pediatric salivary gland tumors or pediatric sarcomas like fibrosarcomas, they are pathognomonic with NTRK fusions. And again, given that we have a tumor-agnostic approval, now these patients have access to these therapies. And I do not think that we would have had a trial just for pediatric fibrosarcomas with NTRK fusions. So that is one way. Another way is SWOG, right? The SWOG DART [1609] had this combination dual checkpoint, it was called the DART study dual combination chemotherapy with ipi/nivo. Now here the rare cancer subtype itself becomes a biomarker and they showed activity across multiple rare cancer subtypes. They didn't require a biomarker. As long as it was a rare or ultra-rare cancer, these patients were enrolled into the SWOG DART trial and multiple arms have read out. Angiosarcoma, Kaposi sarcoma, even gestational trophoblastic disease. Again, they have shown responses in these ultra-rare, rare cancers. Sometimes they might be seeing one or two cases a whole year. And I think this SWOG effort, this cooperative group effort, really highlighted the need for such studies without biomarkers as well. Dr. Hope Rugo: That is such a fantastic example of how to try and treat patients in a collaborative way. And in the paper, you also emphasize the need for collaborative research efforts, you know, uniting resource expertise across different ways of doing research. So cooperative groups, advocacy organizations that can really help advance rare cancer research, improve access to new therapies, and I think importantly influence policy changes. I think this already happened with the agnostic approvals. Could you tell us more about that? How can we move forward with this most effectively? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Personally, I believe that collaboration is absolutely critical and essential for rare cancer research. No single institution, no single individual, or no single state or entity can tackle these challenges alone. The patient populations are small and dispersed. So pooling resources is the only way to run these meaningful trials. Again, it is not like singing, it is like putting a huge, huge, I would say, an opera piece together. It is not a solo, vocal therapy, but rather putting a huge opera piece like Turandot. You know, you mentioned cooperative groups. Cooperative groups, as I mentioned earlier, the SWOG DART program, the ASCO [TAPUR study]. ASCO is doing a phenomenal work of the TAPUR study. Again, this ASCO TAPUR program has enrolled so many patients with rare cancers who otherwise would not have treatment options. NCI-MATCH, the global effort, right? NCI-MATCH and the ComboMATCH are great examples. They bring together hundreds of sites, thousands of clinicians to run large-scale trials that would be impossible for any individual center or institution. These trials have already changed practice. For instance, the DART demonstrated the power of immunotherapy in rare cancers and influenced NCCN guidelines. One of the arms of the NCI-MATCH study from the BRAF V600E arm contributed towards the BRAF V600E tissue-agnostic approval. So, the BRAF V600E tissue-agnostic approval was by a pooled analysis of several studies. The ROAR study, the Rare Oncology Agnostic Research study, the NCI-MATCH dataset of tumor-agnostic cohort, and another pediatric trial, and also evidence from literature and evidence of case reports. And all this pooled analysis contributed to the tissue-agnostic approval of BRAF V600E across multiple rare cancers. There are several patient advocacy organizations which are the real unsung heroes here. Groups like, for instance, we mentioned in the paper, Target Cancer Foundation, don't just raise awareness for rare cancer research, they actively connect patients to trials providing financial, emotional support, and even run their own studies like the TRACK trial. They also influence policy to make access easier. On a global scale, initiatives like DRUP in the Netherlands, the ROME study in Italy, the PCM4EU in Europe are expanding precision medicine across these borders. These collaborations accelerate research, improve trial enrollment, and ensure patients everywhere can have access to these cutting-edge therapies. Again, it is truly a team effort, right? It is a multi-stakeholder approach. Researchers, clinicians, investigators, industry, regulators, academia, patients, patient advocates, and their caregivers all working together. And it takes a village. Dr. Hope Rugo: Absolutely. I mean, what a nice response to that. And I think really exciting and it is great to see your passion about this as well. But it helps all of us, I think, getting discouraged in treating these cancers to understand what is happening moving forward. And I think it is also a fabulous opportunity for our junior colleagues as they rise up in academics to be involved in these international collaborative efforts which are further expanding. One of the things that comes up for clinical trials for patients, and I think it is highlighted with rare cancers because, as you mentioned, people are all over the place, you know, they are so rare. They are all far away. Our patients are always saying to us, "Should I go here for a phase 1 trial?" Can you talk a little bit about how we can overcome these financial and geographic burdens for the patients? You talked about having trials locally, but it is a big financial and just social burden for patients. Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Great point. Financial cost is a major barrier in rare cancer clinical trials. It is a major barrier not just in rare cancer clinical trials, but in clinical trials in general. The economics of rare cancer research are one of the toughest challenges we face. Developing a new drug is already expensive, often billions of dollars. On an average, it takes 2 billion dollars or 2.8 billion dollars according to some data from drug discovery to approval. For rare cancers, the market is tiny, which means the pharmaceutical companies have really little financial incentive to invest. That is why initiatives like the Orphan Drug Act were created to provide tax credits, grants, and market exclusivity to encourage development for rare diseases. Clinical trials themselves are expensive because the small patient populations mean longer recruitment times and higher per-patient costs. Geographic dispersion, as you mentioned, for the patients adds travel, coordination. That is why we need to think out of the box about decentralized trial infrastructure so that we can mitigate some of these expenses. Complex trial designs like basket or platform trials sometimes require sophisticated data systems and regulatory oversight. That is a challenge. And I think some of the pragmatic studies like ASCO TAPUR have overcome those challenges. Advanced technologies like next-gen sequencing and molecular profiling also add significant upfront cost to this. Funding is also limited because rare cancers receive less attention compared to common cancers. Public funding and cooperative group trials help a lot, but I think they cannot cover everything. Patient advocacy organizations sometimes step in to bridge these gaps, but sustainable financing remains a huge challenge. So, the bottom line is without financial incentives and collaborating funding models, many promising therapies for rare cancers would never make it to patients. That is why we need system-wide policy changes, global partnerships, and innovative, effective, seamless trial designs which are so critical so that they can help reduce the cost and make research feasible so that we can deliver the right drug to the right patient at the right time. Dr. Hope Rugo: There is a lot of excitement about the future integration of AI in screening. Just at the San Antonio Breast Cancer meetings, we have a number of different presentations about AI to find markers, even like HER2, and using AI where you would screen and then match patients to clinical trials. Do you have any guidance for the rare cancer community on how to leverage this technology in order to optimize patient enrollment and, I think, identification of the best treatment matches? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: I think artificial intelligence, AI, is a game-changer in the making. Right now, clinical trial is clunky. Matching patients to trial is often manual, time consuming, laborious. You need a lot of personnel to do that. AI can automate this process by analyzing genomic data, medical records, and trial eligibility criteria to find the best matches quickly, accurately, and effectively. For the community, the key is to invest in data standardization and interoperability because AI needs clean, structured data to work effectively. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you so much, Dr. Subbiah, for sharing these fantastic insights with us on the podcast today and for your excellent article. Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Thank you so much. Dr. Hope Rugo: We thank you, our listeners, for joining us today. You will find a link to Dr. Subbiah's Educational Book article in the transcript of this episode. And please join us again next month on By the Book for more insightful views on key issues and innovations that are shaping modern oncology.  Thank you. 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. Hope Rugo   @hoperugo   Dr. Vivek Subbiah @VivekSubbiah Follow ASCO on social media:        ASCO on X  ASCO on Bluesky       ASCO on Facebook        ASCO on LinkedIn        Disclosures:       Dr. Hope Rugo:    Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma   Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer   Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx   Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Consulting/Advisory Role: Loxo/Lilly, Illumina, AADI, Foundation Medicine, Relay Therapeutics, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Incyte, Novartis, Pheon Therapeutics, Abbvie Research Funding (Inst.): Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, NanoCarrier, Northwest Biotherapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Berg Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Fujifilm, PharmaMar, D3 Oncology Solutions, Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Mutlivir, Blueprint Medicines, Loxo, Vegenics, Takeda, Alfasigma, Agensys, Idera, Boston Biomedical, Inhibrx, Exelixis, Amgen, Turningpoint Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics Other Relationship: Medscape, Clinical Care Options

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we delve into a series of transformative updates reshaping drug development and patient care across the globe.Starting with a major collaboration between Roche and Medilink Therapeutics that has captured industry attention. Roche is making a strategic move by committing $570 million to partner on an antibody-drug conjugate, or ADC, targeting the B7-H3 immune checkpoint protein. This partnership underscores a broader industry trend focusing on immuno-oncology. ADCs have become pivotal due to their ability to deliver cytotoxic agents precisely to tumor cells, reducing systemic exposure and minimizing side effects. This precision not only enhances efficacy but also improves patient experience, marking a significant stride in cancer treatment modalities.In another strategic alliance, Pfizer has entered into a $50 million deal with Madrigal Pharmaceuticals for a DGAT2 inhibitor. Madrigal plans to pair this with its liver disease treatment, Rezdiffra, aiming to amplify therapeutic outcomes in liver conditions. This highlights an increasingly popular approach in medicine: polypharmacy and combination therapies. By tackling diseases from multiple angles, these therapies promise more comprehensive management of complex conditions, reflecting a shift towards more personalized and effective treatment strategies.Turning our attention to the startup landscape, "Baby KJ" Scientist has launched a new personalized CRISPR therapy company with $16 million in initial funding from Menlo Ventures. This venture signals growing interest in CRISPR technology for crafting bespoke genetic therapies. The potential for CRISPR lies in its ability to edit genomes precisely, opening possibilities for treating genetic disorders at their root cause and tailoring interventions to individual patients' genetic profiles.On the financial front, Aktis Oncology's successful IPO stands out, raising an impressive $318 million through an upsized offering. This achievement not only illustrates investor confidence in biotech but also suggests a more favorable atmosphere for upcoming biotech ventures seeking public funding. A robust financial ecosystem is crucial for fostering innovation and bringing cutting-edge therapies from the lab bench to the bedside.In another exciting development, Airnexis Therapeutics has secured $200 million to advance its COPD treatment asset in collaboration with a Chinese pharmaceutical firm. The total deal could reach up to $955 million in what's known as biobucks—a term used for milestone payments in biotech partnerships. This collaboration exemplifies the globalization of biotech partnerships, emphasizing the strategic importance of tapping into diverse markets for drug development and commercialization.Meanwhile, Ollin Biosciences is making waves with promising results from its bispecific antibody trial. The antibody showed superior efficacy in treating diabetic macular edema compared to Genentech's Vabysmo. This success potentially sets a new benchmark for retinal disease therapies and highlights the rapid evolution of bispecific antibodies. These agents can engage multiple targets simultaneously, offering enhanced therapeutic potential across various conditions.Leadership dynamics are also influencing the sector. Charles Fuchs has transitioned from his role as Roche's Global Head of Oncology and Hematology Product Development to Tubulis. Such moves suggest potential shifts in strategic focus for both companies involved, reflecting broader trends in leadership realignments within the industry. Additionally, Illumina's appointment of Eric Green as Chief Medical Officer showcases another instance of experienced leaders taking pivotal roles within companies at the forefront of genomic research. Such appointments underscore the imSupport the show

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Hope Rugo discuss advances in antibody-drug conjugates for various breast cancer types as well as treatment strategies in the new era of oral SERDs for HR-positive breast cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I'm a medical oncologist and vice chair of academic affairs here at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles. Today, I'm thrilled to be joined by Dr. Hope Rugo, an internationally renowned breast medical oncologist and my colleague here at City of Hope, where she leads the Women's Cancers Program and serves as division chief of breast medical oncology. Dr. Rugo is going to share with us exciting advances in antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) that are expanding treatment options in various breast cancer types. She'll also address some of the complex questions arising in the new era of oral SERDs (selective estrogen receptor degraders) that are revolutionizing treatment in the hormone receptor-positive breast cancer space. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. Rugo, welcome, and thanks so much for being on the podcast today. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you. Pleasure to be here. Dr. Monty Pal: So, I'm going to switch to first names if you don't mind.  The first topic is actually a really exciting one, Hope, and this is antibody-drug conjugates. I don't know if I've ever shared this with you, but I actually started my training at UCLA, I was a med student and resident there, and it was in Dennis Slamon's lab. I worked very closely with Mark Pegram and a handful of others. This is right around the time I think a lot of HER2-directed therapies were really evolving initially in the clinics. Now we've got antibody-drug conjugates. Our audience is well-familiar with the mechanism there but tell us about how ADCs have really started to reshape therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, I mean, this is a really great place to start. I mean, we have had such major advances in breast cancer just this year, I think really changing the paradigm of treating patients. But HER2-positive disease, we've been used to having sequenced success of new agents. And I think the two biggest areas where we've made advances in HER2-positive disease, which were remarkably advanced this year in 2025, have been in antibody-drug conjugates with trastuzumab deruxtecan and with new oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that have less of a target on EGFR and more on HER2, so they have an overall more tolerable toxicity profile and therefore a potentially better efficacy in the clinic. At least that's what we're seeing with these new strategies that we couldn't really pursue in the past because of toxicities of the oral TKIs. So, although our topic is ADCs, I'm going to include the TKI because it's so important in our thinking about treating HER2-positive disease. In the metastatic setting, we've seen these remarkable improvements in progression-free and overall survival in the second-line setting with T-DXd, or trastuzumab deruxtecan, compared to T-DM1. And then sequencing ADCs with giving T-DXd after T-DM1 was better than an oral tyrosine kinase or a trastuzumab combination with standard chemotherapy. That was DESTINY-Breast03 and DESTINY-Breast02. So, then we've had other trials since then, and T-DXd has moved into the early-stage setting, which I'll talk about in just a moment. But the next big trial for T-DXd in HER2-positive disease was moving it to the first-line setting to supplant what has become an established treatment for now quite a long time: the so-called CLEOPATRA regimen, which used the combined antibodies trastuzumab, pertuzumab with a taxane as first-line therapy. And then we've proceeded on with maintenance with ongoing HP for patients with responding or stable disease. And we'd seen long-term data showing, you know, at 8 years there was a group of patients whose cancers had never progressed and continued improved overall survival. So, T-DXd was studied in DESTINY-Breast09, either alone or in combination with pertuzumab compared to THP. The patient population had received a little bit more prior treatment, but interestingly, not a lot compared to CLEOPATRA. And they designed the trial to be T-DXd continued until progression with or without pertuzumab versus THP, which would go for six cycles and then stop around six cycles, and then stop and continue HP. Patients who had hormone receptor-positive disease could use hormone therapy, and this is one of the issues with this dataset because, surprisingly in this dataset and one other I'll mention, very few patients took hormone therapy. And even in the maintenance trial, the HER2CLIMB-05, less than 50% took hormone therapy as maintenance. This is kind of shocking to me and highlights an area of really important education, that outcome is improved when you add endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive HER2-positive metastatic disease in the maintenance phase, and it's a really important part of treatment. But suffice it to say, you know, you're kind of studying continued chemo versus stopping chemo in maintenance. And T-DXd, as we all expected, in combination with pertuzumab was superior to THP in terms of progression-free survival, really remarkably improved. And you could stop the chemo with toxicity, but most people continued it with T-DXd. Again, not a lot of people got hormone therapy, which is an issue, and you stop the chemo in the control arm. So, this has brought up a lot of interest in trying to use T-DXd as an induction and then go to maintenance, much as we do with the CLEOPATRA regimen with hormone therapy. But it brings up another issue. So first, T-DXd is superior; it's a great treatment. Not everybody needs to have it because we don't know whether it's better to give T-DXd first or second with progression - that we need a little bit longer follow-up. But just earlier this week, interestingly, the third week of December, the U.S. FDA approved T-DXd in the DESTINY-Breast09 approach with pertuzumab. So as I mentioned earlier, there was a T-DXd-alone arm; that arm has not yet reported. So very interesting, we don't know if you need pertuzumab or not. So what about the maintenance? That's the other area where we've made a huge advance here. So, we all want to stop chemo and we want to stop T-DXd. You don't want somebody being nauseated for two years while they're on treatment, and also there's a small number of patients with mostly de novo metastatic HER2-positive disease who are cured of their disease. We'd like to expand that, and I think these new drugs give us the opportunity to improve the number of patients who might be cured from metastatic disease. So the first maintenance study we saw was adding palbociclib, the CDK4/6 inhibitor, to endocrine therapy and HP, essentially. There, we had a remarkable improvement in progression-free survival difference of 15.2 months: 29 to 44 months, really huge. At San Antonio this year, we saw data with this oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor tucatinib, already showed it was great in a triplet, but as maintenance in combination with HP, it showed also a remarkable improvement in progression-free survival. But the numbers were all shifted down. So in PATINA, the control arm was in the 24-month range; here it was the tucatinib-HP arm that was in the 25 months and 16 months for control. So there was a differential benefit in ER-negative and ER-positive disease. So I think we're all thinking that our ideal approach moving forward would be to give T-DXd to most patients, we see how they do, and treat to best response. And then, stop the T-DXd, start HP, trastuzumab, pertuzumab for ER-negative, with tucatinib for ER-positive with palbociclib. We also have early data that suggests that both approaches may reduce the development of brain metastases, an issue in HER2-positive disease, and delay time to progression of brain metastases as seen in HER2CLIMB-05 in very early data - small numbers, but still quite intriguing that you might delay progression of brain metastases with tucatinib that clearly has efficacy in the brain.  So, I think that this is a hugely exciting advance for our patients, and these approaches are quickly moving into the early stage setting. T-DXd compared to standard chemo, essentially followed by THP, so a sequenced approach resulted in more pathologic complete responses than a standard THP-AC-type neoadjuvant therapy. T-DXd alone for eight cycles wasn't better, and that's interesting. We still need the sequenced non-cross-resistant chemo. But I think even more importantly, the data from DESTINY-Breast05 looking at T-DXd versus T-DM1 in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant HER2-targeted therapy showed a remarkable improvement in invasive disease-free survival with T-DXd versus T-DM1, and quite early. It was a high-risk population, higher risk than the T-DM1 trial with KATHERINE, but earlier readout with a remarkable improvement in outcome. We expect to be FDA approved sometime in the first half of 2026. So then we'll get patients who've already had T-DXd who get metastatic disease. But my hope is that with T-DXd, maybe with tucatinib in the right group of patients or even sequenced in very high-risk disease, that we could cure many more patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer and cure a subset, a greater subset of patients with de novo metastatic disease. Dr. Monty Pal: That's brilliant. And you tackled so many questions that I was going to follow up with there: brain metastases, etc. That was sort of looming in my mind. I mean, general thoughts on an ADC versus a TKI in the context of brain mets? Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, it's an interesting question because T-DXd has shown quite good efficacy in this setting. And tucatinib, of course, had a trial where they took patients with new brain mets, so a larger population than we've seen yet for the T-DXd trials, and saw that not only did they delay progression of brain metastases and result in shrinkage of existing untreated brain mets, but that patients who develop a new brain met, they could stay on the same assigned treatment. They got stereotactic radiation, and then the patients who were on tucatinib with trastuzumab and capecitabine had a further delay in progression of brain mets compared to those on the placebo arm, even after treatment of a new one that developed on treatment. So, I think it's hard. I think most of us for a lot of brain mets might start with the tucatinib approach, but T-DXd is also a very important treatment. You know, you're kind of trading off a diarrhea, some liver enzyme elevations with tucatinib versus nausea, which you really have to work on managing because it can be long-delayed nausea, and this risk of ILD, interstitial lung disease, that's about 12%, with most but not all trials showing a mortality rate from interstitial lung disease of just under 1 percent. In the early-stage setting, it was really interesting to see that with T-DXd getting four cycles in the neoadjuvant setting, a lot less ILD noted than the patients who got up to 14 cycles, as I think they got a median of 10 cycles in the post-surgical setting, there was a little bit more ILD. But I think we're going to be better and better at finding this earlier and preventing mortality by just stopping drug and treating earlier with steroids. Dr. Monty Pal: And this ILD issue, it always seems to resurface. There are drugs that I use in my kidney cancer clinic, everolimus, common to perhaps the breast cancer clinic as well, pembrolizumab, where I think the pattern of pneumonitis is quite different, right? What is your strategy for recognizing pneumonitis early in this context? Dr. Hope Rugo: Well, it is, and you know, having done the very early studies in everolimus where we gave it in the neoadjuvant setting and we're like, "Hmm, the patient came in with a cough. What's going on?" You know, we didn't know. And you have mouth sores, you know, we were learning about the drug as we were giving it. What we don't do with everolimus and CDK4/6 inhibitors, for example, is grade 1 changes like radiation pneumonitis, we don't stop, we don't treat it. We only treat for symptoms. But because of the mortality associated with T-DXd, albeit small, we stop drug for grade 1 imaging-only asymptomatic pneumonitis, and some of us treat with a half dose of steroids just to try and hasten recovery. We've actually now published or presented a couple of datasets from trials, a pooled analysis and a real-world analysis, that have looked at patients who were retreated after grade 1 pneumonitis or ILD and tolerated drug very well and none of them died of interstitial lung disease, which was really great to see because you can retreat safely and some of these patients stayed on for almost a year benefiting from treatment. So, there's a differential toxicity profile with these drugs and there are risk factors which clearly have identified those at higher risk: prior ILD, for example. A French group said smoking; other people haven't found that, maybe because they smoked more in France, I don't know. And being of Japanese descent is quite interesting. The studies just captured that you were treated in Japan, but I think it's probably being of Japanese descent with many drugs that increases your risk of ILD. And, you know, older patients, people who have hypoxia, those are the patients. So, how do we do this? With everolimus, we don't have specific monitoring. But for T-DXd we do; we do every nine weeks to start with and then every 12 weeks CT scans because most of the events occur relatively early. Somebody who's older and at higher risk now get the first CT at six weeks. Dr. Monty Pal: This is super helpful. And I have to tell you, a lot of these drugs are permeating the bladder cancer space which, you know, is ultimately going to be a component of my practice, so thank you for all this. We could probably stay on this topic of HER2-positive disease forever. I'm super interested in that space still. But let me shift gears a little bit and talk about triple-negative breast cancer and this evolving space of HR-positive, HER2-low breast cancer. I mean, tell us about ADCs in that very sort of other broad area. Dr. Hope Rugo: So triple-negative disease is the absolute hardest subset of disease that we have to treat because if you don't have a great response in the early stage setting, the median survival is very short, you know, under two years for the majority of TNBCs, with the exception of the small percentage of low proliferative disease subsets. The co-question is what do we do for these patients and how do we improve outcome? And sacituzumab govitecan has been one strategy in the later line setting that was shown to improve progression-free and overall survival, the Trop-2 ADC. We had recently three trials presented with the two ADCs, sacituzumab govitecan and the other Trop-2 ADC that's approved for HR-positive disease, datopotamab deruxtecan. And they were studied in the first-line setting. Two trials with SG, sacituzumab govitecan, those trials, one was PD-L1 positive, ASCENT-04. That showed that SG with a checkpoint inhibitor was superior, so pembrolizumab was superior to the standard KEYNOTE-355 type of treatment with either a taxane or gemcitabine and carboplatin with pembrolizumab for patients who have a combined positive score for PD-L1, 10 or greater. So, these are patients who are eligible for a checkpoint inhibitor, and SG resulted in an improved progression-free survival.  The interesting thing about that dataset is that few patients had received adjuvant or neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitor, which is fascinating because we give it to everybody now. But access is an issue and timing of the study enrollment was an issue. The other thing which I think we've all really applauded Gilead for is that there was automatic crossover. So, you could get from the company, to try and overcome some of the enormous disparities worldwide in access to these life-saving drugs, you could get SG through the company for free once you had blinded independent central review confirmation of disease progression. Now, a lot of the people who got the SG got it through their insurance, they didn't bill the company, but 80 percent of patients in the control arm received SG in the second-line setting. So that impacts your ability to look at overall survival, but it's an incredibly important component of these trials. So then at ESMO, we saw the data from SG and Dato-DXd in the first-line metastatic setting for patients who either had PD-L1-negative disease or weren't eligible for an immunotherapy. For the Dato study, TROPION-Breast02, that was 10 percent of the patients who had PD-L1-positive disease but didn't get a checkpoint inhibitor, and for the ASCENT-03 trial population it was only 1 percent. Importantly, the trials allowed patients who relapsed within a year of receiving their treatment with curative intent, and the Dato study, TB-02, allowed patients who relapsed while on treatment or within the first six months, and that was 15 percent of the 20 percent of early relapsers. The ASCENT trial, ASCENT-03, had 20 percent who relapsed between 6 and 12 months. The drugs were better than standard of care chemotherapy, the ADCs in both trials, which is very nice. Different toxicity profiles, different dosing intervals, but better than standard of care chemotherapy in the disease that's hardest for us to treat. And importantly, when you looked at the subset of early relapsers, those patients also did better with the ADC versus chemotherapy, which is incredibly important. And we were really interested in that 15 percent of patients who had early relapse. I actually think that six months thing was totally contrived, invented, you know, categorization and doesn't make any sense, and we should drop it. But the early relapsers were 15 percent of TB-02 and Dato was superior to standard of care chemo. We like survival, but the ASCENT trial again allowed the crossover to an approved ADC that improved survival and 80 percent of patients crossed over. In the Dato trial, they did not allow crossover, they didn't provide Dato, which isn't approved for TNBC but is for HR-positive disease, and they didn't allow, of course, pay for SG. So very few patients actually crossed over in their post-treatment data and in that study, they were able to show a survival benefit. So actually, I think in the U.S. where we can use approved drugs already before there's a fixed FDA approval, that people are already switching to use SG or Dato in the first-line setting for metastatic TNBC that's both PD-L1 positive for SG and PD-L1 negative for both drugs. And I think understanding the toxicity profiles of the two drugs is really important as well as the dosing interval to try and figure out which drug to use. Dr. Monty Pal: Brilliant. Brilliant. Well, I'm going to shift gears a little bit. ADCs are a topic, again, just like HER2-positive disease we could stay on forever. Dr. Hope Rugo: Huge. Yes. Dr. Monty Pal: But we're going to shift gears to another massive topic, which is oral SERDs. In broad strokes, right, this utilization of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the context of HR-positive breast cancer is obviously, you know, a paradigm that's been well established at this point. Where do we sequence in oral SERDs? Where do they fit into this paradigm? Dr. Hope Rugo: Ha! This is a rapidly changing area; we keep changing what we're saying every other minute. And I think that there are three areas of great interest. So one is patients who develop ESR1 mutations that allow constitutive signaling through the estrogen receptor, even when there's not estrogen around, and that is a really important mutation that is subclonal; it develops under the pressure of treatment in about 40 percent of patients. And it doesn't happen when you first walk in the door. And what we've seen is that oral SERDs as single agents are better than standard single-agent endocrine therapy in that setting. The problem that we've had with that approach is that we're now really interested in giving targeted agents with our endocrine therapies, not just in the first-line setting where CDK4/6 inhibitors are our standard of care with survival benefit for ribociclib and, you know, survival benefit in subsets with other CDK4/6 inhibitors, and abemaciclib with a numeric improvement. So we give it first line. The question is, what do you do in the second-line setting? Because of the recent data, we now believe that oral SERDs should be really given with a targeted agent. And some datasets which were recently presented, which I think have helped us with that, have been EMBER-3 and then the most recently evERA BC, or evERA Breast Cancer, that looked at the oral SERD giredestrant with everolimus compared to standard of care endocrine therapy with everolimus, where 100 percent of patients received prior CDK4/6 inhibitor and showed a marked improvement in progression-free survival, including in the subsets of patients with a short response, 6-12 months of prior response to CDK4/6 inhibitor and in those who had a PIK3CA pathway mutation. The thing is that the benefit looks like it's much bigger in the ESR1 mutant population, although response was better, PFS wasn't better in the wild type. So, we're still trying to figure that out. We also saw EMBER-3 with imlunestrant and abemaciclib as a second line. Not everybody had had a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor; they compared it to imlunestrant alone, but still the data was quite striking and seemed to cross the need for ESR1 mutations. And then lastly, we saw data from the single arms of the ELEVATE trial looking at elacestrant with everolimus and abemaciclib and showed these really marked progression-free survival data, even though single-arm, that crossed the mutation status. At least for the everolimus combination, abemaciclib analysis is still to come in the mutated subgroups. But really remarkable PFS, much longer.  Single-agent fulvestrant after CDK4/6 inhibitor AI has a PFS in like the three-month range and in some studies, maybe close to five months. These are all at 10-plus months and really looking very good. And so those questions are, is it ESR1 mutation alone? Is it all comers? We'd like all comers, right? We believe in the combination approach and we're learning more about combinations with drugs like capivasertib and other drugs as we move forward. Everybody now wants to combine their targeted agent with an oral SERD because they're clearly here to stay with quite remarkable data. The other issue, so the second issue in the metastatic setting is, does it make a difference if we change to an oral SERD before radiographic imaging evidence of progression? And that was the question asked in the SERENA-6 trial where patients had serial monitoring for the presence of ESR1 mutations in ctDNA. And those who had them without progression on imaging could be randomized to switch to camizestrant with the same CDK4/6 inhibitor or stay on their same AI CDK4/6 inhibitor. And they showed a difference in progression-free survival that markedly favored camizestrant. But interestingly, the people who were on the standard control arm had an ESR1 mutation, we think AIs don't work, they stayed on for nine more months. The patients who were on the camizestrant stayed on for more than 16 months. And they presented some additional subset data which showed the same thing: follow-up PFS data, PFS2, all beneficial in SERENA-6 at the San Antonio [Breast Cancer Symposium]. So, we're still a little bit unclear about that. They did quality of life, and pain was markedly improved. They had a marked delayed time to progression of pain in the camizestrant arm. So this is all a work in progress, trying to understand who should we switch without progression to an oral SERD based on this development of this mutation that correlates with resistance. And, you know, it's interesting because the median time to having a mutation was 18 months and the median time to switch was almost 24 months. And then there were like more than 3,000 patients who hadn't gotten a mutation, hadn't switched, and were still okay. So screening everybody is the big question, and when you would start and who you would change on and how this affects outcome. Patients didn't have access to camizestrant in the control arm, something we can't fix but we have experimental drugs. We're actually planning a trial, I hope in collaboration with the French group Unicancer, and looking at this exact question. You know, if you switch and you change the CDK4/6 inhibitor and then you also allow crossover, what will we see? Dr. Monty Pal: We're coming right to the tail end of our time here, and I could probably go on for another couple of hours with you here. But if you could just give us maybe one or two big highlights from San Antonio, any thoughts to leave our audience with here based on this recent meeting? Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, I mean, I talked about a lot of those new data already from San Antonio, and the one that I'd really like to mention which I think was, you know, there were a lot of great presentations including personalized screening presented from the WISDOM trial by my colleague Laura Esserman, fascinating and really a big advance. But lidERA was the big highlight, I think, outside of the HER2CLIMB-05 which I talked about earlier in HER2-positive disease. And this study looked at giredestrant, the oral SERD versus standard of care endocrine therapy as treatment for medium and high-risk early-stage breast cancer. And what they showed, which I think was really remarkable with just about a three-year median follow-up, was an improvement in invasive disease-free survival with a hazard ratio of 0.7. I mean, really quite remarkable and so early. It looked as though this was all driven by the high-risk group, which makes sense, not the medium risk, it's too early. And also that there was a bigger benefit in patients who were on tamoxifen compared to giredestrant versus AI, but for both groups, the confidence intervals didn't cross 1. There's even a trend towards overall survival, even though it's way too early. I think that, you know, really well-tolerated oral drug that could improve outcome in early-stage disease, this is the first advance we've seen in over two decades in the treatment of early-stage hormone receptor-positive disease with just endocrine therapy. I think we think that we don't want to give up CDK4/6 inhibitors because we saw a survival benefit with abemaciclib and a trend with giving ribociclib in the NATALEE trial. So we're thinking that maybe one approach would be to give CDK4/6 inhibitors and then switch to an oral SERD or to have enough data to be able to give oral SERDs with these CDK4/6 inhibitors for early-stage disease. And that's all in the works, you know, lots of studies going on. We're going to see a lot of data with both switching 8,000 patients with an imlunestrant switching trial, an elacestrant trial going on, and safety data with giredestrant with abemaciclib and soon to come ribociclib. So, this is going to change everything for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer, and I hope cure more patients of the most common subset of the most common cancer diagnosed in women worldwide. Dr. Monty Pal: Super exciting. It's just remarkable to hear how this has evolved since 25 years ago, which is really the last time I sort of dabbled in breast cancer.  Thank you so much, Hope, for joining us today. These were fantastic insights. Appreciate you being on the ASCO Daily News Podcast and really want to thank you personally for your remarkable contribution to the field of breast cancer. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you very much, and thanks for talking with me today. Dr. Monty Pal: You got it. And thanks a lot to our listeners today as well. You'll find links to all the studies we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear today on the ASCO Daily News 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 opinion 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. Monty Pal @montypal Dr. Hope Rugo   @hoperugo Follow ASCO on social media:        ASCO on X  ASCO on Bluesky       ASCO on Facebook        ASCO on LinkedIn        Disclosures:     Dr. Monty Pal:    Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview   Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical   Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis   Dr. Hope Rugo:    Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma   Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer   Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx  

Esportmaníacos 2454: En el programa de hoy hemos repasado los cambios de la nueva temporada de League of Legends ya que hoy ha dado inicio. Desde las misiones por rol, los cambios a objetivos y los nuevos objetos. También hemos visto un leak sobre la nueva ERL de España llevada por Cabal y Lastlap. Leak al cuál hemos añadido algo de información. APÓYANOS AQUÍ https://www.patreon.com/Esportmaniacos https://www.twitch.tv/esportmaniacos 🔁Nuestras redes🔁 https://twitter.com/Esportmaniacos https://www.tiktok.com/@esportmaniacos 💙Referido de AMAZON: https://amzn.to/36cVx3g 00:00:00 - Intro 00:17:40 - El leak de la ERL española 00:30:50 - Muere el Código del Invocador 00:33:20 - El nuevo sistema de baneo a trolls en selección de campeón 00:40:20 - Todos los cambios de la nueva temporada 00:56:50 - Royal se rinde 01:00:35 - La misión de mid lane 01:08:00 - La misión de ADC/bot lane 01:18:50 - La misión de support 01:23:30 - Cambios a los objetivos 01:35:15 - Los nuevos objetos, ¿qué será lo más OP?

Election preparations in Nigeria traditionally follow a clear path INEC releases a timetable, political parties adjust, and campaigns officially begin.But ahead of the 2027 general elections, that order appears to be shifting.Even without an official election calendar from INEC, some aspirants have declared interest, supporters are mobilising, and campaign-like activities are already unfolding raising questions about legality, fairness, and the future of Nigeria's electoral process.On Nigeria Daily, we examine when INEC will release the 2027 election calendar, why some politicians are moving ahead of schedule, and what the law says about early declarations and campaigns.

Alex Moss and Andrew Sinclair are back with a new episode of your go-to darts podcast after the 2025/26 PDC World Darts Championship! The boys start the show with a look back at the finale at Alexandra Palace, reflecting on Luke Littler becoming a back-to-back PDC world champion and also discussing Gian van Veen's run to his first senior world final. The ADC's Scott Hunt (20:00) calls in following the ADC Global Championship finale at the weekend. Scott looks back on the ADC's 2025 and the start of 2026 which saw Jack Tweddell pocket the £60,000 top prize for winning the Global Championship, before looking ahead to the rest of this year, the expansion to the Championship Tour in 2026, along with what the future holds for the organisation's flagship event later this year. Alex and Andrew continue their review of the PDC World Darts Championship, picking out their favourite moments from the last three weeks at Alexandra Palace, before giving their thoughts on the Premier League line up for 2026. Ahead of opening in select theatres on Friday, some of the cast and crew from BULLS The Movie join Alex to look ahead to the first darts movie's big release this week. Director Dan Meyer, lead actors Meir Steinberg and Matt Trudeau, and producer/actress Kelsey Bunner talk through their roles in the movie and the excitement of BULLS finally coming to our screens. The boys wrap up the show by giving their picks for the final stage at Q-School and then look ahead to 2026 and what they are most looking forward to darts wise from the year ahead. BULLS The Movie is being released from Vertical Films to select theatres and streaming on January 9. Join the Darts Strava King group on Strava *** This podcast is brought to you in association with Darts Corner - the number one online darts retailer! Darts Corner offers the widest selection of darts products from over 30 different manufacturers.  This podcast is sponsored by Darts Atlas - the platform for darts players, venues, and organisations. Darts Atlas is the home of the Amateur Darts Circuit (ADC) with hundreds of tournaments held on the platform every week.  Have you used Darts Atlas before? Share your feedback and experiences with Darts Atlas with us by sending an email to weeklydartscast@gmail.com and be in with a chance of winning some new logo Weekly Dartscast stickers! Check out Condor Darts here: UK site *** Enjoy our podcast? Make a one-off donation on our new Ko-Fi page here: ko-fi.com/weeklydartscast Support us on Patreon from just $2(+VAT): patreon.com/WeeklyDartscast Thank you to our Patreon members: Phil Moss, Gordon Skinner, Connor Ellis, Dan Hutchinson

Alexandre Kazuo Kubo & Lucas Ribeiro, authors of Principle: 128 Kazuo Kubo and Lucas Ribeiro are Brazilian advertising creatives with over 20 years of experience at top global agencies, including McCANN New York , CP+B, BETC, Hill Holliday, and Africa. They've contributed to campaigns for brands like The Coca-Cola Company, BMW Group, Gatorade, PUMA Group, Smirnoff, and ESPN, earning recognition at Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, D&AD, One Show, Clio, and ADC. Both also mentor emerging talent and co‑authored Principle: @128 Principles to Become a Creative in an Advertising Agency, a career guide offering practical advice for newcomers navigating agency life.

The year 2025 was one marked by political tension, policy decisions, and difficult choices for Nigeria.From economic reforms and tax debates to security operations and party politics, government actions continued to shape public conversation and daily life.On today's episode of Nigeria Daily, we take a closer look at the political events and policies that defined 2025, and what they reveal about Nigeria's governance and democratic journey.

Featuring perspectives from Dr Lisa A Carey and Dr Rita Nanda, including the following topics:  Overview: Molecular basis of antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) toxicities — Sequencing of ADCs and mechanisms of resistance (0:00) Case: A woman in her late 60s with localized triple-negative breast cancer develops myocarditis during neoadjuvant therapy with chemotherapy/pembrolizumab — Richard Zelkowitz, MD (8:22) Case: A woman in her mid 70s with recurrent ER-negative, HER2-low, PD-L1-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) who experiences disease progression on nab paclitaxel/atezolizumab responds to sacituzumab govitecan — Ranju Gupta, MD (26:43) Case: A woman in her early 80s with recurrent ER-positive, HER2-low (IHC 1+) mBC experiences disease progression on trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), then receives datopotamab deruxtecan and develops pulmonary symptoms — Laila Agrawal, MD (32:11) Data Review: T-DXd (37:51) Case: A woman in her early 70s with recurrent ER-positive, HER2-low (IHC 1+) mBC, including bladder metastases, experiences disease progression after palbociclib/letrozole, then capivasertib/fulvestrant, then nab paclitaxel — Justin Favaro, MD, PhD (44:02) Case: A woman in her late 70s with ER-positive, HER2-low mBC who experiences disease progression after 1 year of ribociclib/letrozole receives sacituzumab govitecan — Erik Rupard, MD (55:19) CME information and select publications

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world.In a dynamic landscape marked by both advancements and challenges, the pharmaceutical and biotech sectors continue to evolve with notable scientific, regulatory, and strategic updates. Ipsen's recent $1 billion acquisition of Simcere's preclinical LRRC15-targeting asset underscores a growing focus on antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). These conjugates leverage the targeted action of antibodies combined with the cytotoxic effects of drugs, representing a promising approach to cancer treatment by potentially minimizing systemic toxicity. Ipsen's strategic move reflects its commitment to expanding its oncology portfolio and staying competitive within the rapidly advancing ADC landscape.AstraZeneca has been active in its pursuit of innovative cancer treatments. The company has invested $100 million in Jacobio's clinical-stage pan-KRAS inhibitor, a promising development targeting KRAS mutations prevalent in various cancers. This investment aligns with AstraZeneca's strategy to tackle challenging oncogenic targets. However, their efforts faced a setback as their Phase 3 trial for ceralasertib, an ATR inhibitor for lung cancer, failed to meet its primary endpoint. Despite this setback, AstraZeneca maintains confidence by investing significantly in promising areas like KRAS inhibitors, highlighting the inherent risks involved in pioneering novel therapeutic strategies, particularly those aiming to overcome resistance mechanisms in immuno-oncology.BioMarin has quietly discontinued its liver disease candidate amid a $4.8 billion deal with Amicus. This decision points to the complex nature of pipeline prioritization and resource allocation within high-stakes financial environments. The company's strategic shifts reflect ongoing evaluations of their development priorities in light of evolving market demands.Boehringer Ingelheim has demonstrated a commitment to renal therapeutics with a $448 million investment in Rectify Pharmaceuticals for a preclinical chronic kidney disease program. This partnership seeks to address significant unmet medical needs within kidney disease treatment. Meanwhile, Gilead Sciences has entered into a $35 million licensing agreement with Assembly Biosciences for herpes simplex virus (HSV) assets, diversifying its infectious disease portfolio and expanding its reach within antiviral therapies.Novo Holdings-backed Windward Bio's acquisition of rights to Qyun's clinical-stage immunology bispecifics for $700 million highlights robust activity in the immunology space. Bispecific antibodies are gaining traction due to their ability to target two antigens simultaneously, offering enhanced therapeutic efficacy. This acquisition illustrates ongoing interest in this area as companies seek innovative solutions to complex immunological challenges.The broader industry is also witnessing strategic partnerships such as Aditum Bio's launch of a new biotech venture with Fosun Pharma. This collaboration aims to foster novel therapies through a synergistic blend of biotechnology innovation and pharmaceutical expertise. These alliances reflect an industry trend towards collaborative efforts that leverage diverse strengths to advance therapeutic development.In regulatory news, nine major pharmaceutical companies have reached agreements with the U.S. government to lower certain drug prices in exchange for tariff relief. This development signals ongoing negotiations aimed at balancing drug affordability with industry sustainability amid growing scrutiny over pricing practices.In December 2025, significant developments emerged, impacting scientific innovation, regulatory approvals, mergers, and strategic partnerships across the industry. Notably, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted early approval to Cytokinetics' MyqorzSupport the show

JCO PO author Dr. Shilpa Gupta at Cleveland Clinic Children's Hospital shares insights into her article, "Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 3 (FGFR3) Alteration Status and Outcomes on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICPI) in Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma". Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Gupta discuss how FGFR3 combined with TMB emerged as a biomarker that may be predictive for response to ICPI in mUC. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, podcast editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Associate Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center. Today I am excited to be joined by Dr. Shilpa Gupta, Director of Genitourinary Medical Oncology at the Cancer Institute and co-leader of the GU Oncology Program at the Cleveland Clinic, and also lead author of the JCO PO article titled "Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 3 Alteration Status and Outcomes on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma." At the time of this recording, our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Shilpa, welcome again to the podcast. Thank you for joining us today. Dr. Shilpa Gupta: Thank you, Rafeh. Honor to be here with you again. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: It is nice to connect with you again after two years, approximately. I think we were in our infancy of our JCO PO podcast when we had you first time, and it has been an interesting journey since then. Dr. Shilpa Gupta: Absolutely. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Well, excited to talk to you about this article that you published. Wanted to first understand what is the genomic landscape of urothelial cancer in general, and why should we be interested in FGFR3 alterations specifically? Dr. Shilpa Gupta: Bladder cancer or urothelial cancer is a very heterogeneous cancer. And while we find there is a lot of mutations can be there, you know, like BRCA1, 2, in HER2, in FGFR, we never really understood what is driving the cancer. Like a lot of old studies with targeted therapies did not really work. For example, we think VEGF can be upregulated, but VEGF inhibitors have not really shown definite promise so far. Now, FGFR3 receptor is the only therapeutic target so far that has an FDA approved therapy for treating metastatic urothelial cancer patients, and erdafitinib was approved in 2019 for patients whose tumors overexpressed FGFR3 mutations, alterations, or fusions. And in the landscape of bladder cancer, it is important because in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, about 70 to 80% patients can have this FGFR3. But as patients become metastatic, the alterations are seen in, you know, only about 10% of patients. So the clinical trials that got the erdafitinib approved actually used archival tumor from local cancer. So when in the real world, we don't see a lot of patients if we are trying to do metastatic lesion biopsies. And why it is important to know this is because that is the only targeted therapy available for our patients right now. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for giving us that overview. Now, on the clinical side, there is obviously some interesting data for FGFR3 on the mutation side and the fusion side. In your clinical practice, do you tend to approach these patients differently when you have a mutation versus when you have a fusion? Dr. Shilpa Gupta: We can use the treatment regardless of that. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I recently remember I had a patient with lung cancer, squamous lung cancer, who also had a synchronous bladder mass. And the first thought from multiple colleagues was that this is metastatic lung. And interestingly, the liquid biopsy ended up showing an FGFR3-TACC fusion, which we generally don't see in squamous lung cancers. And then eventually, I was able to convince our GU colleagues, urologists, to get a biopsy. They did a transurethral resection of this tumor, ended up being primary urothelial and synchronous lung, which again, going back to the FGFR3 story, I saw in your paper there is a mention of FGFR3-TACC fusions. Anything interesting that you find with these fusions as far as biology or tumor behavior is concerned? Dr. Shilpa Gupta: We found in our paper of all the patients that were sequenced that 20% had the pathognomonic FGFR3 alteration, and the most common were the S249C, and the FGFR3-TACC3 fusion was in 45 patients. And basically I will say that we didn't want to generate too much as to fusion or the differences in that. The key aspect of this paper was that historically there were these anecdotal reports saying that patients who have FGFR alterations or mutations, they may not respond well to checkpoint inhibitors because they have the luminal subtype. And these were backed by some preclinical data and small anecdotal reports. But since then, we have seen that, and that's why a lot of people would say that if somebody's tumor has FGFR3, don't give them immunotherapy, give them erdafitinib first, right? So then we had this Phase 3 trial called the THOR trial, which actually showed that giving erdafitinib before pembrolizumab was not better. That debunked that myth, and we are actually reiterating that because in our work we found that patients who had FGFR3 alterations or fusions, and if they also have TMB-high, they actually respond very well to single agent immunotherapy. And that is, I think, very important because it tells us that we are not really seeing that so-called potential of resistance to immunotherapy in these patients. So to answer your question, yeah, we did see those differences, but I wouldn't say that any one marker is more prominent. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: The analogy is kind of similar to what we see in lung cancer with these mutations called STK11/KEAP1, which are also present in some other tumors. And one of the questions that I don't think has been answered is when you have in lung cancer, if you extrapolate this, where doublet or single agent immunotherapy doesn't do as well in tumors that are STK11 mutated. But then if you have a high TMB, question is does that TMB supersede or trump the actual mutation? Could that be one reason why you see the TMB-high but FGFR3 altered tumors in your dataset responding or having better outcomes to immunotherapy where potentially there is just more neoantigens and that results in a more durable or perhaps better response to checkpoint therapy? Dr. Shilpa Gupta: It could be. But you know, the patients who have FGFR alterations are not that many, right? So we have already seen that just patients with TMB-high respond very well to immunotherapy. Our last podcast was actually on that, regardless of PD-L1 that was a better predictor of response to immunotherapy. So I think it's not clear if this is adding more chances of response or not, because either way they would respond. But what we didn't see, which was good, that if they had FGFR3, it's not really downplaying the fact that they have TMB-high and that patients are not responding to immunotherapy. So we saw that regardless, and that was very reassuring. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: So if tomorrow in your clinic you had an individual with an FGFR3 alteration but TMB-high, I guess one could be comfortable just going ahead with immunotherapy, which is what the THOR trial as you mentioned. Dr. Shilpa Gupta: Yes, absolutely. And you know, when you look at the toxicity profiles of pembrolizumab and erdafitinib, really patients really struggle with using the FGFR3 inhibitors. And of course, if they have to use it, we have to, and we reserve it for patients. But it's not an easy drug to tolerate. Currently the landscape is such that, you know, frontline therapy has now evolved with an ADC and immunotherapy combinations. So really if patients progress and have FGFR3 alterations, we are using erdafitinib. But let's say if there were a situation where a patient has had chemotherapy, no immunotherapy, and they have FGFR3 upregulation and TMB-high, yes, I would be comfortable with using only pembrolizumab. And that really ties well together what we saw in the THOR trial as well. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Going to the clinical applications, you mentioned a little bit of this in the manuscript, is combination therapies. You alluded to it a second back. Everything tends to get combined with checkpoint therapy these days, as you've seen with the frontline urothelial, pembrolizumab with an ADC. What is the landscape like as far as some of these FGFR alterations are concerned? Is it reasonable to combine some of those drugs with immune checkpoint therapy? And what are some of the toxicity patterns that you've potentially seen in your experience? Dr. Shilpa Gupta: So there was indeed a trial called the NORSE trial. It was a randomized trial but not a comparative cohort, where they looked at FGFR altered patients. And when they combined erdafitinib plus cetrelimab, that did numerically the response rates were much higher than those who got just erdafitinib. So yeah, the combination is definitely doable. There is no overlapping toxicities. But unfortunately that combination has not really moved forward to a Phase 3 trial because it's so challenging to enroll patients with such kind of rare mutations on large trials, especially to do registration trials. And since then the frontline therapy has evolved to enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab. I know there is an early phase trial looking at a next generation FGFR inhibitor. There is a triplet combination looking in Phase 1 setting with a next generation FGFR inhibitor with EV-pembro. However, it's not a randomized trial. So you know, I worry about such kinds of combinations where we don't have a path for registration. And in the four patients that have been treated, four or five patients in the early phase as a part of basket trial, the toxicities were a lot, you know, when you combine the EV-pembro and an FGFR3 inhibitor, we see more and more toxicity. So the big question is do we really need the "kitchen sink" approach when we have a very good doublet, or unless the bar is so high with the doublet, like what are we trying to add at the expense of patient toxicity and quality of life is the big question in my mind. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Going back to your manuscript specifically, there could be a composite biomarker. You point out like FGFR in addition to FGFR TMB ends up being predictive prognostic there. So that could potentially be used as an approach to stratify patients as far as treatment, whether it's a single agent versus combination. Maybe the TMB-low/FGFR3 mutated require a combination, but the TMB-high/FGFR mutated don't require a combination, right? Dr. Shilpa Gupta: No, that's a great point, yeah. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: But again, very interesting, intriguing concepts that you've alluded to and described in this manuscript. Now, a quick take on how things have changed in the bladder cancer space in the last two years. We did a podcast with you regarding some biomarkers as you mentioned two years back. So I really would like to spend the next minute to two to understand how have things changed in the bladder cancer space? What are some of the exciting things that were not there two years back that are in practice now? And how do you anticipate the next two years to be like? Maybe we'll have another podcast with you in another two years when the space will have changed even more. Dr. Shilpa Gupta: Certainly a lot has happened in the two years, you know. EV-pembro became the universal frontline standard, right? We have really moved away from cisplatin eligibility in metastatic setting because anybody would benefit from EV-pembro regardless of whether they are candidates for cisplatin or not, which historically was relevant. And just two days ago, we saw that EV-pembro has now been approved for localized bladder cancer for patients who are cisplatin ineligible or refusing. So, you know, this very effective regimen moving into earlier setting, we now have to really think of good treatment options in the metastatic setting, right? So I think that's where a lot of these novel combinations may come up. And what else we've seen is in a tumor agnostic trial called the DESTINY-PanTumor trial, patients who had HER2 3+ on immunohistochemistry, we saw the drug approval for T-DXd, and I think that has kind of reinvigorated the interest in HER2 in bladder cancer, because in the past targeting HER2 really didn't work. And we still don't know if HER2 is a driver or not. And at ESMO this year, we saw an excellent study coming out of China with DV which is targeting HER2, and toripalimab, which is a Chinese checkpoint inhibitor, showing pretty much similar results to what we saw with EV-pembro. Now, you know, not to do cross-trial comparisons, but that was really an amazing, amazing study. It was in the presidential session. And I think the big question is: does that really tell us that HER2-low patients will not benefit? Because that included 1+, 2+, 3+. So that part we really don't know, and I think we want to study from the EV-302 how the HER2 positive patients did with EV and pembro. So that's an additional option, at least in China, and hopefully if it gets approved here, there is a trial going on with DV and pembro. And lastly, we've seen a very promising biomarker, like ctDNA, for the first time in bladder cancer in the adjuvant setting guiding treatment with adjuvant atezolizumab. So patients who were ctDNA positive derived overall survival and recurrence-free survival benefit. So that could help us select moving forward with more studies. We can spare unnecessary checkpoint inhibitors in patients who are not going to benefit. So I think there is a lot happening in our field, and this will help do more studies because we already have the next generation FGFR inhibitors which don't have the toxicities that erdafitinib comes with. And combining those with these novel ADCs and checkpoint inhibitors, you know, using maybe TMB as a biomarker, because we really need to move away from PD-L1 in bladder cancer. It's shown no utility whatsoever, but TMB has. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Well, thank you so much, Shilpa, for that tour de force of how things have changed in bladder cancer. There used to be a time when lung and melanoma used to lead this space in terms of the number of approvals, the biomarker development. It looks like bladder cancer is shifting the trend at this stage. So definitely exciting to see all the new changes that are coming up. I'd like to spend another minute and a half on your career. You've obviously been a leader and example for many people in the GU space and beyond. Could you, for the sake of our early career especially, the trainees and other listeners, describe how you focused on things that you're currently leading as a leader, and how you shaped your career trajectory over the last 10 years? Dr. Shilpa Gupta: That's a really important question, Rafeh, and you and I have had these discussions before, you know, being an IMG on visas like you, and being in different places. I think I try to make the most of it, you know, instead of focusing on the setbacks or the negative things. Like tried to grab the opportunities that came along. When I was at Moffitt, got to get involved with the Phase 1 trial of pembrolizumab in different tumor types. And just keeping my options open, you know, getting into the bladder cancer at that time when I wanted to really do only prostate, but it was a good idea for me to keep my options open and got all these opportunities that I made use of. I think an important thing is to, like you said, you know, have a focus. So I am trying to focus more on biomarkers that, you know, we know that 70% patients will respond to EV-pembro, right? But what about the remaining 30%? Like, so I'm really trying to understand what determines hyperprogressors with such effective regimens who we really struggle with in the clinic. They really don't do well with anything we give them after that. So we are doing some work with that and also trying to focus on PROs and kind of patient-reported outcomes. And a special interest that I've now developed and working on it is young-onset bladder cancer. You know, the colorectal cancer world has made a lot of progress and we are really far behind. And bladder cancer has historically been a disease of the elderly, which is not the case anymore. We are seeing patients in their 30s and 40s. So we launched this young-onset bladder cancer initiative at a Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network meeting and now looking at more deep dive and creating a working group around that. But yeah, you know, I would say that my philosophy has been to just take the best out of the situation I'm in, no matter where I am. And it has just helped shape my career where I am, despite everything. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Well, thank you again. It is always a pleasure to learn from your experiences and things that you have helped lead. Appreciate all your insights, and thank you for publishing with JCO PO. Hopefully we will see more of your biomarker work being published and perhaps bring you for another podcast in a couple of years. Dr. Shilpa Gupta: Yeah, thank you, Rafeh, for the opportunity. And thanks to JCO PO for making these podcasts for our readers. So thanks a lot. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. 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. DISCLOSURES Dr. Shilpa Gupta Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Company: BioNTech SE,  Nektar Consulting or Advisory Role: Company: Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Merck, Foundation Medicine, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Medarex, Natera, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen Research Funding: Recipient: Your Institution Company: Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Merck, Roche/Genentech, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Novartis, Tyra Biosciences, Pfizer, Convergent Therapeutics, Acrivon Therapeutics, Flare Therapeutics, Amgen Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Company: Pfizer, Astellas Pharma, Merck    

In this episode, we sit down with Riot Phroxzon, Lead Gameplay Designer at Riot Games, for a deep-dive into the future of League of Legends.We cover what Riot learned from the 2025 champion releases (Mel, Yunara, and Zaahen), why some designs missed the mark with players, and how those lessons are shaping champion philosophy going forward. Phroxzon breaks down Zaahen's kit design, community reaction to Mel, and whether Riot is satisfied with Yunara's long-term impact.The conversation then shifts to Summoner's Rift changes, including what worked, what didn't, and why Atakhan is being removed. We explore Riot's evolving vision for macro gameplay in 2026, including split pushing, objective control, and how the overall pace of the game is changing.We also tackle one of the most controversial topics in League right now: role balance. Why does Riot believe jungle is overtuned, why ADC and top lane are struggling, and how jungle lost its identity in 2025. Phroxzon explains Riot's internal data, the goals behind role quests, and what role balance will look like moving into 2026.Later in the episode, we discuss matchmaking and Solo Queue, including autofill philosophy, what it actually takes to climb, and how Riot plans to reduce time to get into games. We also touch on bringing back old items, Aegis of Valor, duo queue across ranks (excluding Korea), and what Riot learned from WASD movement testing.

"I'll go back to the backpack analogy. When your kids come home with a backpack, all of a sudden their homework is not on the desk where it's supposed to be. It's in the kitchen; it kind of spreads all over the place, but it's still in the house. When we give antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs), the chemotherapy does go in, but then it can kind of permeate out of the cell membrane and something right next to it—another cancer cell that might not look exactly like the cancer cell that the chemotherapy was delivered into—is affected and the chemotherapy goes over to that cancer cell and kills it," ONS member Marisha Pasteris, OCN®, office practice nurse in the breast medicine service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, NY, told Jaime Weimer, MSN, RN, AGCNS-BS, AOCNS®, manager of oncology nursing practice at ONS, during a conversation about ADCs in metastatic breast cancer. Music Credit: "Fireflies and Stardust" by Kevin MacLeod Licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 3.0  This podcast is sponsored by Gilead and is not eligible for NCPD contact hours. ONS is solely responsible for the criteria, objectives, content, quality, and scientific integrity of its programs and publications.  Episode Notes  This episode is not eligible for NCPD. ONS Podcast™ episodes: Episode 391: Pharmacology 101: Antibody–Drug Conjugates Episode 378: Considerations for Adolescent and Young Adult Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Episode 368: Best Practices for Challenging Patient Conversations in Metastatic Breast Cancer Episode 350: Breast Cancer Treatment Considerations for Nurses Episode 303: Cancer Symptom Management Basics: Ocular Toxicities ONS Voice articles: An Oncology Nurse's Guide to Cancer-Related Ocular Toxicities Black Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Are Less Informed About Their Clinical Trial Options Communication Case Study: Talking to Patients About Progressive Metastatic Breast Cancer What Is HER2-Low Breast Cancer? ONS Voice drug reference sheets: Belantamab mafodotin-blmf Datopotamab deruxtecan-dlnk Enfortumab vedotin-ejfv Fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki ONS books: Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy Guidelines and Recommendations for Practice (second edition) Guide to Breast Care for Oncology Nurses Guide to Cancer Immunotherapy (second edition) ONS courses: ONS Fundamentals of Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy Administration™ ONS/ONCC® Chemotherapy Immunotherapy Certificate™ Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing article: Antibody–Drug Conjugates and Ocular Toxicity: Nursing, Patient, and Organizational Implications for Care The Association Between Hormone Receptor Status and End-of-Life Care Among Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Oncology Nursing Forum article: Impact of Race and Area Deprivation on Triple-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Outcomes ONS huddle cards: Altered Body Image Huddle Card Chemotherapy Huddle Card Targeted Therapy Huddle Card Foundations of Antibody–Drug Conjugate Use in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Case Study ONS Biomarker Database (refine by breast cancer) ONS Breast Cancer Learning Library American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) homepage Drugs@FDA package inserts National Comprehensive Cancer Network homepage Susan G. Komen metastatic breast cancer page To discuss the information in this episode with other oncology nurses, visit the ONS Communities.  To find resources for creating an ONS Podcast club in your chapter or nursing community, visit the ONS Podcast Library. To provide feedback or otherwise reach ONS about the podcast, email pubONSVoice@ons.org. Highlights From This Episode "What an ADC is doing is taking the antibody and linking it to a cytotoxic chemotherapy with the idea of delivering it directly into the cell. How I explain this to new nurses or patients is a backpack analogy. If we think of it as a HER2 molecule wearing a chemo backpack, it's going to find the HER2 receptor attached to it and then drop the chemotherapy into the cell via the backpack. Similar to how we come home from work, we open the key to our door, we're carrying all of our items, and then we drop our own personal items in our house." TS 2:30 "The reason that so many patients with metastatic breast cancer are able to receive ADC therapy is because they are targeting two very common antibodies that we see in breast cancer. One is HER2 and the other is trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (TROP2). These are seen across the board. We see these on triple-negative breast cancers, hormone receptor–positive cancers, and HER2-positive breast cancers. And now we have a new way to talk about HER2, which is a HER2-low. ... Recently, we have found that patients who express low levels of HER2 are able to receive ADC therapy, specifically fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan." TS 4:21 "Another [ADC] that has just been approved is datopotamab deruxtecan. This is another ADC that targets the TROP2 receptor on a cancer cell. This one carries a lot of side effects. I mentioned earlier that you need an ophthalmology clearance because there is a lot of ocular toxicity around this one. We see a lot of blepharitis, conjunctivitis, there can be blurred vision. Another thing we monitor on this one is mucositis. In the package insert, there's a recommendation for using ice chips while receiving the treatment. ... Then in the HER2-positive and HER2-low space is the big one, which is fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan. This was approved in 2019 for the HER2-positive patients, then more recently in the HER2-low [patients]. The big [side effect] with this one is interstitial lung disease." TS 10:11 "Interstitial lung disease is an inflammation or a little bit of fibrosis within the lung that causes an impaired exchange between the oxygen and carbon dioxide. This was seen in the clinical trials, specifically around fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan. During the trials, they had a very small percentage, I think it was 1%, that died due to interstitial lung disease. So, this is a very important side effect for us as nurses to be aware of. It typically presents in patients like a dyspnea. A lot of times, it's like, 'Well, I used to be able to walk my kid to the bus stop, but now when I walk there, I feel really short of breath.' Or 'I've had this dry cough for the past couple weeks and I've tried medications, but haven't had that relieved.' So, we really need to be aware of that because early intervention in interstitial lung disease is key." TS 12:57 "ADCs are toxic drugs. They have the benefit of being targeted, but we know that they carry a lot of side effects. ... Their specificity makes them so wonderful and we've seen amazing responses to these drugs. But also, we want patients to be safe. We want to give these drugs safely. So, we have to assess our patients and make sure that this is an appropriate patient to give this therapy to. I think that's an open conversation that clinicians need to have with patients regarding these drugs." TS 18:08

Please visit answersincme.com/860/IME-69386-replay1 to participate, download slides and supporting materials, complete the post test, and get a certificate. In this activity, experts in NSCLC discuss how to harness targeted ADCs with practical, case-based insights to personalize care and improve outcomes in advanced lung cancer. Upon completion of this activity, participants should be better able to: Interpret the latest clinical trial data for approved and emerging antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in NSCLC; Recognize biomarker-driven strategies to guide treatment management in patients with NSCLC; and Apply evidence-based strategies for the individualized management of patients with NSCLC receiving ADC therapy.

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we're diving into a series of pivotal events and breakthroughs shaping the future of this dynamic industry.The pharmaceutical and biotech sectors are experiencing a wave of significant advancements, regulatory shifts, and strategic maneuvers. Recently, Bristol Myers Squibb faced a delay in their Alzheimer's psychosis treatment, Cobenfy, due to site irregularities detected in the ADEPT-2 study. This highlights the critical importance of rigorous clinical trial management. The postponement could influence stakeholders' confidence in timelines for breakthrough treatments in neuropsychiatric disorders.Richard Pazdur, M.D., is preparing to retire from his leadership role at the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. This transition period could have profound implications for how new therapies are evaluated, potentially altering approval processes and timelines. His departure marks a significant shift within an agency renowned for its role in drug approvals and regulatory oversight.On the scientific front, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals has reported promising results from two Phase 3 trials of clascoterone, a topical cream designed to treat male-pattern hair loss. The findings suggest that clascoterone could become a transformative treatment by offering a novel mechanism to address androgenetic alopecia through the inhibition of dihydrotestosterone activity at the follicular level. This development underscores an expanding focus on dermatological conditions within biopharma research and offers new hope to millions affected by hair loss.In legal developments, Daiichi Sankyo's successful appeal in its antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) patent dispute with Seagen marks a significant victory with substantial financial implications. The overturning of a $41.8 million verdict illustrates the competitive dynamics in ADC technology, which plays a crucial role in targeted cancer therapies. This case emphasizes the importance of robust intellectual property strategies in maintaining competitive advantages in innovative therapeutic modalities.On the funding front, Excelsior Sciences has secured $95 million to enhance its "smart bloccs" platform for small molecule discovery and production. This investment aims to support advancements in chemical synthesis technologies crucial for accelerating drug development pipelines and fostering collaborations across therapeutics and materials science sectors. Such initiatives underscore the growing emphasis on technological innovation to streamline drug discovery processes.The European Union is making strides toward bolstering supply chain resilience with new regulations aimed at preventing drug shortages. By diversifying local biopharma supply chains and encouraging domestic production, these measures address vulnerabilities exposed by recent global disruptions. This policy shift could lead to more sustainable drug manufacturing practices within Europe, ensuring better preparedness against future crises.Pharvaris has achieved a significant milestone with its Phase 3 trial of deucrictibant meeting primary endpoints. This sets the stage for regulatory filings as a competitor to KalVista Pharmaceuticals' Ekterly in hereditary angioedema treatment. This progress highlights ongoing innovation in addressing rare genetic diseases and fostering competitive therapeutic landscapes.The FDA's approval of Cleveland Diagnostics' IsoPSA test marks a notable advancement in prostate cancer diagnostics. By detecting specific PSA protein variants associated with malignancy risk, IsoPSA represents a step forward in precision medicine. It offers enhanced diagnostic accuracy and potentially improves patient outcomes through early intervention strategies.Overall, these developments reflect the dynamic nature of the pharmacSupport the show

Audio roundup of selected biopharma industry content from Scrip over the business week ended November 28, 2025. In this episode: 2027 Medicare price cuts likely not as large as CMS estimates; Zai Lab leads DLL3 lung cancer ADC race; Phase II failure for J&J's Alzheimer's asset posdinemab; Bayer's positive Phase III data for asundexian in stroke; and Pfizer/Astellas's Padcev's first big win in bladder cancer study. Story links: https://insights.citeline.com/scrip/podcasts/scrips-five-must-know-things/quick-listen-scrips-five-must-know-things-R4RCDF2RXVGVHPEX2WQ7A3JVKU/ This episode was produced with the help of AI text-to-voice and voice emulation tools. Playlist: soundcloud.com/citelinesounds/sets/scrips-five-must-know-things

"Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) have three basic parts: the antibody part, the cytotoxic chemo, and the linker that connects the two. First, the antibody part binds to the target on the surface of the cell. Antibodies can be designed to bind to proteins with a very high level of specificity. That's what gives it the targeted portion. Then the whole thing gets taken up by the cell and broken down, which releases the chemotherapy part. Some sources will call this the 'payload' or the 'warhead.'  That's the part that's attached to the 'heat-seeking' part, and that's what causes the cell death," Kenneth Tham, PharmD, BCOP, clinical pharmacist in general oncology at the University of Washington Medicine and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, WA, told Jaime Weimer, MSN, RN, AGCNS-BS, AOCNS®, manager of oncology nursing practice at ONS, during a conversation about antibody–drug conjugates. Music Credit: "Fireflies and Stardust" by Kevin MacLeod Licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 3.0  Earn 0.5 contact hours of nursing continuing professional development (NCPD) by listening to the full recording and completing an evaluation at courses.ons.org by November 28, 2026. The planners and faculty for this episode have no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies to disclose. ONS is accredited as a provider of nursing continuing professional development by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation. Learning outcome: Learners will report an increase in knowledge related to the mechanism of action of antibody–drug conjugates. Episode Notes  Complete this evaluation for free NCPD. ONS Podcast™ episodes: Pharmacology 101 series Episode 303: Cancer Symptom Management Basics: Ocular Toxicities Episode 283: Desensitization Strategies to Reintroduce Treatment After an Infusion-Related Reaction ONS Voice articles: An Oncology Nurse's Guide to Cancer-Related Ocular Toxicities Antibody–Drug Conjugates Join the Best of Two Worlds Into One New Treatment Nursing Management of Adverse Events From Enfortumab Vedotin Therapy for Urothelial Cancer Oncology Nurses' Role in Translating Biomarker Testing Results The Pharmacist's Role in Combination Cancer Treatments ONS Voice drug reference sheets: Belantamab mafodotin-blmf Datopotamab deruxtecan-dlnk Enfortumab vedotin Fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki ONS book: Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy Guidelines and Recommendations for Practice (second edition) ONS course: ONS Fundamentals of Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy Administration™ Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing articles: Antibody–Drug Conjugates and Ocular Toxicity: Nursing, Patient, and Organizational Implications for Care Nurse-Led Grading of Antineoplastic Infusion-Related Reactions: A Call to Action Other ONS resources: Antineoplastic Administration Huddle Card Biomarker Database Chemotherapy Huddle Card Monoclonal Antibodies Huddle Card Association of Cancer Care Centers (ACCC) antibody–drug conjugates page Drugs@FDA Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) National Cancer Institute cancer drugs page Network for Collaborative Oncology Development and Advancement (NCODA) clinical resource library ACCC/HOPA/NCODA/ONS Patient Education Sheets website To discuss the information in this episode with other oncology nurses, visit the ONS Communities.  To find resources for creating an ONS Podcast club in your chapter or nursing community, visit the ONS Podcast Library. To provide feedback or otherwise reach ONS about the podcast, email pubONSVoice@ons.org Highlights From This Episode "The mechanism of action of the chemo itself depends on what agent or what 'warhead' is attached. Generally, [ADCs] have some kind of cytotoxic mechanism related to many of the chemotherapies that we use in practice, without attachment to the antibody. Some of them can be microtubule inhibitors, vinca alkaloids like vincristine. Some of them can be topoisomerase I (TOP1) inhibitors like irinotecan. Some can be alkylating agents that cause DNA breaks. So, again, looking back at the arsenal we have of cytotoxic chemo, these can all be incorporated into the ADCs." TS 5:54 "I want to talk about a case where the biomarker is being tested, but the biomarker isn't the target that you're looking for. One good case of this is a newer agent that was approved called datopotamab deruxtecan. The datopotamab portion is specific to a target called 'trophoblast cell surface antigen 2' (TROP2), which is expressed on the surface of many epithelial cancers. This agent was first approved in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, and received accelerated approval in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with an EGFR mutation. ... The antibody looks for a target, TROP2. But in both of these cases—in the breast cancer and the NSCLC—you're testing for expression of different mutations or lack thereof. You're not looking for expression of TROP2. There's more research that needs to be done about the relationship between TROP2 expression and the presence or absence of these other biomarkers, but until we know more, we're actually testing for biomarkers that aren't the target of the ADC." TS 10:22 "There are common adverse advents to antibodies and chemo in general. Because we have both of these components, we want to watch out for the adverse effects of both of them. Antibodies, as with most proteins, can trigger an immune response or an infusion reaction. So, many ADCs can also cause hypersensitivity or infusion reactions. The rates of that are really variable and depend on the actual antibodies themselves. Then you have the cytotoxic component, the chemotherapy component, which has its own characteristic side effects. So, if we think of general chemo side effects—fatigue, nausea, bone marrow suppression, alopecia—these can [occur] with a lot of ADCs as well." TS 15:34 "The rate of ocular toxicity in [mirvetuximab soravtansine] is quite high. The manufacturer reports that this can occur in up to 60% of patients. With rates so high, the manufacturer recommends a preventive strategy. For this particular agent, [they] recommend patients have required eyecare. ... This ocular toxicity is something we do see in other ADCs that don't have the same target and don't necessarily have the same payload component. For example, tisotumab vedotin and again, datopotamab deruxtecan, can both cause ocular toxicities and both would have required ocular supportive care." TS 20:08 "Overall, I feel like the future is incredibly bright for these agents. There have only been around a dozen therapies approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) despite this idea—the first agent came out in 2000. So, 25 years later, there are only around a dozen FDA-approved treatments. But there are so many more that are coming through the pipeline. And as we're discovering more biomarkers and developing more specialized antibodies, it's only natural that more ADCs will follow." TS 26:50

Please visit answersincme.com/CAZ860 to participate, download slides and supporting materials, complete the post test, and obtain credit. In this activity, an expert in hematology-oncology answers the most commonly asked questions from clinicians about the management of relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) with antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs). Upon completion of this activity, participants should be better able to: Identify patients with R/R DLBCL who may benefit from ADC therapy in the third-line or later setting; Interpret current evidence to inform selection of ADC therapies for patients with R/R DLBCL in the third-line or later setting; and Discuss strategies to optimize the use of ADC therapies for patients with R/R DLBCL, particularly in the community setting.

Dr. Linda Duska and Dr. Kathleen Moore discuss key studies in the evolving controversy over radical upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Linda Duska: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am your guest host, Dr. Linda Duska. I am a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine.  On today's episode, we will explore the management of advanced ovarian cancer, specifically with respect to a question that has really stirred some controversy over time, going all the way back more than 20 years: Should we be doing radical upfront surgery in advanced ovarian cancer, or should we be doing neoadjuvant chemotherapy? So, there was a lot of hype about the TRUST study, also called ENGOT ov33/AGO-OVAR OP7, a Phase 3 randomized study that compares upfront surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval surgery. So, I want to talk about that study today. And joining me for the discussion is Dr. Kathleen Moore, a professor also of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Oklahoma and the deputy director of the Stephenson Cancer Center, also at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences.  Dr. Moore, it is so great to be speaking with you today. Thanks for doing this. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, it's fun to be here. This is going to be fun. Dr. Linda Duska: FYI for our listeners, both of our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  So let's just jump right in. We already alluded to the fact that the TRUST study addresses a question we have been grappling with in our field. Here's the thing, we have four prior randomized trials on this exact same topic. So, share with me why we needed another one and what maybe was different about this one? Dr. Kathleen Moore: That is, I think, the key question. So we have to level-set kind of our history. Let's start with, why is this even a question? Like, why are we even talking about this today? When we are taking care of a patient with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, the aim of surgery in advanced ovarian cancer ideally is to prolong a patient's likelihood of disease-free survival, or if you want to use the term "remission," you can use the term "remission." And I think we can all agree that our objective is to improve overall survival in a way that also does not compromise her quality of life through surgical complications, which can have a big effect. The standard for many decades, certainly my entire career, which is now over 20 years, has been to pursue what we call primary cytoreductive surgery, meaning you get a diagnosis and we go right to the operating room with a goal of achieving what we call "no gross residual." That is very different – in the olden days, you would say "optimal" and get down to some predefined small amount of tumor. Now, the goal is you remove everything you can see.  The alternative strategy to that is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery, and that has been the, quote-unquote, "safer" route because you chemically cytoreduce the cancer, and so, the resulting surgery, I will tell you, is not necessarily easy at all. It can still be very radical surgeries, but they tend to be less radical, less need for bowel resections, splenectomy, radical procedures, and in a short-term look, would be considered safer from a postoperative consideration. Dr. Linda Duska: Well, and also maybe more likely to be successful, right? Because there's less disease, maybe, theoretically. Dr. Kathleen Moore: More likely to be successful in getting to no gross residual. Dr. Linda Duska: Right. Yeah, exactly. Dr. Kathleen Moore: I agree with that. And so, so if the end game, regardless of timing, is you get to no gross residual and you help a patient and there's no difference in overall survival, then it's a no-brainer. We would not be having this conversation. But there remains a question around, while it may be more likely to get to no gross residual, it may be, and I think we can all agree, a less radical, safer surgery, do you lose survival in the long term by this approach? This has become an increasing concern because of the increase in rates of use of neoadjuvant, not only in this country, but abroad. And so, you mentioned the four prior studies. We will not be able to go through them completely. Dr. Linda Duska: Let's talk about the two modern ones, the two from 2020 because neither one of them showed a difference in overall survival, which I think we can agree is, at the end of the day, yes, PFS would be great, but OS is what we're looking for. Dr. Kathleen Moore: OS is definitely what we're looking for. I do think a marked improvement in PFS, like a real prolongation in disease-free survival, for me would be also enough. A modest improvement does not really cut it, but if you are really, really prolonging PFS, you should see that-  Dr. Linda Duska: -manifest in OS. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, yeah. Okay. So let's talk about the two modern ones. The older ones are EORTC and CHORUS, which I think we've talked about. The two more modern ones are SCORPION and JCOG0602. So, SCORPION was interesting. SCORPION was a very small study, though. So one could say it's underpowered. 170 patients. And they looked at only patients that were incredibly high risk. So, they had to have a Fagotti score, I believe, of over 9, but they were not looking at just low volume disease. Like, those patients were not enrolled in SCORPION. It was patients where you really were questioning, "Should I go to the OR or should I do neoadjuvant? Like, what's the better thing?" It is easy when it's low volume. You're like, "We're going." These were the patients who were like, "Hm, you know, what should I do?" High volume. Patients were young, about 55. The criticism of the older studies, there are many criticisms, but one of them is that, the criticism that is lobbied is that they did not really try. Whatever surgery you got, they did not really try with median operative times of 180 minutes for primary cytoreduction, 120 for neoadjuvant. Like, you and I both know, if you're in a big primary debulking, you're there all day. It's 6 hours. Dr. Linda Duska: Right, and there was no quality control for those studies, either. Dr. Kathleen Moore: No quality control. So, SCORPION, they went 451-minute median for surgery. Like, they really went for it versus four hours and then 253 for the interval, 4 hours. They really went for it on both arms. Complete gross resection was achieved in 50% of the primary cytoreduced. So even though they went for it with these very long surgeries, they only got to the goal half the time. It was almost 80% in the interval group. So they were more successful there. And there was absolutely no difference in PFS or OS. They were right about 15 months PFS, right about 40 months OS.  JCOG0602, of course, done in Japan, a big study, 300 patients, a little bit older population. Surprisingly more stage IV disease in this study than were in SCORPION. SCORPION did not have a lot of stage IV, despite being very bulky tumors. So a third of patients were stage IV. They also had relatively shorter operative times, I would say, 240 minutes for primary, 302 for interval. So still kind of short. Complete gross resection was not achieved very often. 30% of primary cytoreduction. That is not acceptable. Dr. Linda Duska: Well, so let's talk about TRUST. What was different about TRUST? Why was this an important study for us to see? Dr. Kathleen Moore: So the criticism of all of these, and I am not trying to throw shade at anyone, but the criticism of all of these is if you are putting surgery to the test, you are putting the surgeon to the test. And you are assuming that all surgeons are trained equally and are willing to do what it takes to get someone to no gross residual. Dr. Linda Duska: And are in a center that can support the post-op care for those patients. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Which can be ICU care, prolonged time. Absolutely. So when you just open these broadly, you're assuming everyone has the surgical skills and is comfortable doing that and has backup. Everybody has an ICU. Everyone has a blood bank, and you are willing to do that. And that assumption could be wrong. And so what TRUST said is, "Okay, we are only going to open this at centers that have shown they can achieve a certain level of primary cytoreduction to no gross residual disease." And so there was quality criteria. It was based on – it was mostly a European study – so ESGO criteria were used to only allow certified centers to participate. They had to have a surgical volume of over 36 cytoreductive surgeries per year. So you could not be a low volume surgeon. Your complete resection rates that were reported had to be greater than 50% in the upfront setting. I told you on the JCOG, it was 30%. Dr. Linda Duska: Right. So these were the best of the best. This was the best possible surgical situation you could put these patients in, right? Dr. Kathleen Moore: Absolutely. And you support all the things so you could mitigate postoperative complications as well. Dr. Linda Duska: So we are asking the question now again in the ideal situation, right? Dr. Kathleen Moore: Right. Dr. Linda Duska: Which, we can talk about, may or may not be generalizable to real life, but that's a separate issue because we certainly don't have those conditions everywhere where people get cared for with ovarian cancer. But how would you interpret the results of this study? Did it show us anything different? Dr. Kathleen Moore: I am going to say how we should interpret it and then what I am thinking about. It is a negative study. It was designed to show improvement in overall survival in these ideal settings in patients with FIGO stage IIIB and C, they excluded A, these low volume tumors that should absolutely be getting surgery. So FIGO stage IIIB and C and IVA and B that were fit enough to undergo radical surgery randomized to primary cytoreduction or neoadjuvant with interval, and were all given the correct chemo. Dr. Linda Duska: And they were allowed bevacizumab and PARP, also. They could have bevacizumab and PARP. Dr. Kathleen Moore: They were allowed bevacizumab and PARP. Not many of them got PARP, but it was distributed equally, so that would not be a confounder. And so that was important. Overall survival is the endpoint. It was a big study. You know, it was almost 600 patients. So appropriately powered. So let's look at what they reported. When they looked at the patients who were enrolled, this is a large study, almost 600 patients, 345 in the primary cytoreductive arm and 343 in the neoadjuvant arm. Complete resection in these patients was 70% in the primary cytoreductive arm and 85% in the neoadjuvant arm. So in both arms, it was very high. So your selection of site and surgeon worked. You got people to their optimal outcome. So that is very different than any other study that has been reported to date. But what we saw when we looked at overall survival was no statistical difference. The median was, and I know we do not like to talk about medians, but the median in the primary cytoreductive arm was 54 months versus 48 months in the neoadjuvant arm with a hazard ratio of 0.89 and, of course, the confidence interval crossed one. So this is not statistically significant. And that was the primary endpoint. Dr. Linda Duska: I know you are getting to this. They did look at PFS, and that was statistically significant, but to your point about what are we looking for for a reasonable PFS difference? It was about two months difference. When I think about this study, and I know you are coming to this, what I thought was most interesting about this trial, besides the fact that the OS, the primary endpoint was negative, was the subgroup analyses that they did. And, of course, these are hypothesis-generating only. But if you look at, for example, specifically only the stage III group, that group did seem to potentially, again, hypothesis generating, but they did seem to benefit from upfront surgery.  And then one other thing that I want to touch on before we run out of time is, do we think it matters if the patient is BRCA germline positive? Do we think it matters if there is something in particular about that patient from a biomarker standpoint that is different? I am hopeful that more data will be coming out of this study that will help inform this. Of course, unpowered, hypothesis-generating only, but it's just really interesting. What do you think of their subset analysis? Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, I think the subsets are what we are going to be talking about, but we have to emphasize that this was a negative trial as designed. Dr. Linda Duska: Absolutely. Yes. Dr. Kathleen Moore: So we cannot be apologists and be like, "But this or that." It was a negative trial as designed. Now, I am a human and a clinician, and I want what is best for my patients. So I am going to, like, go down the path of subset analyses. So if you look at the stage III tumors that got complete cytoreduction, which was 70% of the cases, your PFS was almost 28 months versus 21.8 months. Dr. Linda Duska: Yes, it becomes more significant. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, that hazard ratio is 0.69. Again, it is a subset. So even though the P value here is statistically significant, it actually should not have a P value because it is an exploratory analysis. So we have to be very careful. But the hazard ratio is 0.69. So the hypothesis is in this setting, if you're stage III and you go for it and you get someone to no gross residual versus an interval cytoreduction, you could potentially have a 31% reduction in the rate of progression for that patient who got primary cytoreduction. And you see a similar trend in the stage III patients, if you look at overall survival, although the post-progression survival is so long, it's a little bit narrow of a margin.  But I do think there are some nuggets here that, one of our colleagues who is really one of the experts in surgical studies, Dr. Mario Leitao, posted this on X, and I think it really resonated after this because we were all saying, "But what about the subsets?" He is like, "It's a negative study." But at the end of the day, you are going to sit with your patient. The patient should be seen by a GYN oncologist or surgical oncologist with specialty in cytoreduction and a medical oncologist, you know, if that person does not give chemo, and the decision should be made about what to do for that individual patient in that setting. Dr. Linda Duska: Agreed. And along those lines, if you look carefully at their data, the patients who had an upfront cytoreduction had almost twice the risk of having a stoma than the patients who had an interval cytoreduction. And they also had a higher risk of needing to have a bowel resection. The numbers were small, but still, when you look at the surgical complications, as you've already said, they're higher in the upfront group than they are in the interval group. That needs to be taken into account as well when counseling a patient, right? When you have a patient in front of you who says to you, "Dr. Moore, you can take out whatever you want, but whatever you do, don't make me a bag." As long as the patient understands what that means and what they're asking us to do, I think that we need to think about that. Dr. Kathleen Moore: I think that is a great point. And I have definitely seen in our practice, patients who say, "I absolutely would not want an ostomy. It's a nonstarter for me." And we do make different decisions. And you have to just say, "That's the decision we've made," and you kind of move on, and you can't look back and say, "Well, I wish I would have, could have, should have done something else." That is what the patient wants. Ultimately, that patient, her family, autonomous beings, they need to be fully counseled, and you need to counsel that patient as to the site that you are in, her volume of disease, and what you think you can achieve. In my opinion, a patient with stage III cancer who you have the site and the capabilities to get to no gross residual should go to the OR first. That is what I believe. I do not anymore think that for stage IV. I think that this is pretty convincing to me that that is probably a harmful thing. However, I want you to react to this. I think I am going to be a little unpopular in saying this, but for me, one of the biggest take-homes from TRUST was that whether or not, and we can talk about the subsets and the stage III looked better, and I think it did, but both groups did really well. Like, really well. And these were patients with large volume disease. This was not cherry-picked small volume stage IIIs that you could have done an optimal just by doing a hysterectomy. You know, these were patients that needed radical surgery. And both did well. And so what it speaks to me is that anytime you are going to operate on someone with ovary, whether it be frontline, whether it be a primary or interval, you need a high-volume surgeon. That is what I think this means to me. Like, I would want high volume surgeon at a center that could do these surgeries, getting that patient, my family member, me, to no gross residual. That is important. And you and I are both in training centers. I think we ought to take a really strong look at, are we preparing people to do the surgeries that are necessary to get someone to no gross residual 70% and 85% of the time? Dr. Linda Duska: We are going to run out of time, but I want to address that and ask you a provocative question. So, I completely agree with what you said, that surgery is important. But I also think one of the reasons these patients in this study did so well is because all of the incredible new therapies that we have for patients. Because OS is not just about surgery. It is about surgery, but it is also about all of the amazing new therapies we have that you and others have helped us to get through clinical research. And so, how much of that do you think, like, for example, if you look at the PFS and OS rates from CHORUS and EORTC, I get it that they're, that they're not the same. It's different patients, different populations, can't do cross-trial comparisons. But the OS, as you said, in this study was 54 months and 48 months, which is, compared to 2010, we're doing much, much better. It is not just the surgery, it is also all the amazing treatment options we have for these patients, including PARP, including MIRV, including lots of other new therapies. How do you fit that into thinking about all of this? Dr. Kathleen Moore: I do think we are seeing, and we know this just from epidemiologic data that the prevalence of ovarian cancer in many of the countries where the study was done is increasing, despite a decrease in incidence. And why is that? Because people are living longer. Dr. Linda Duska: People are living longer, yeah. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Which is phenomenal. That is what we want. And we do have, I think, better supportive care now. PARP inhibitors in the frontline, which not many of these patients had. Now some of them, this is mainly in Europe, will have gotten them in the first maintenance setting, and I do think that impacts outcome. We do not have that data yet, you know, to kind of see what, I would be really interested to see. We do not do this well because in ovarian cancer, post-progression survival can be so long, we do not do well of tracking what people get when they come off a clinical trial to see how that could impact – you know, how many of them got another surgery? How many of them got a PARP? I think this group probably missed the ADC wave for the most part, because this, mirvetuximab is just very recently available in Europe. Dr. Linda Duska: Unless they were on trial. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Unless they were on trial. But I mean, I think we will have to see. 600 patients, I would bet a lot of them missed the ADC wave. So, I do not know that we can say we know what drove these phenomenal – these are some of the best curves we've seen outside of BRCA. And then coming back to your point about the BRCA population here, that is a really critical question that I do not know that we're ever going to answer. There have been hypotheses around a tumor that is driven by BRCA, if you surgically cytoreduced it, and then chemically cytoreduced it with chemo, and so you're starting PARP with nothing visible and likely still homogeneous clones. Is that the group we cured? And then if you give chemo first before surgery, it allows more rapid development of heterogeneity and more clonal evolution that those are patients who are less likely to be cured, even if they do get cytoreduced to nothing at interval with use of PARP inhibitor in the front line. That is a question that many have brought up as something we would like to understand better. Like, if you are BRCA, should you always just go for it or not? I do not know that we're ever going to really get to that. We are trying to look at some of the other studies and just see if you got neoadjuvant and you had BRCA, was anyone cured? I think that is a question on SOLO1 I would like to know the answer to, and I don't yet, that may help us get to that. But that's sort of something we do think about. You should have a fair number of them in TRUST. It wasn't a stratification factor, as I remember. Dr. Linda Duska: No, it wasn't. They stratified by center, age, and ECOG status Dr. Kathleen Moore: So you would hope with randomization that you would have an equal number in each arm. And they may be able to pull that out and do a very exploratory look. But I would be interested to see just completely hypothesis-generating what this looks like for the patients with BRCA, and I hope that they will present that. I know they're busy at work. They have translational work. They have a lot pending with TRUST. It's an incredibly rich resource that I think is going to teach us a lot, and I am excited to see what they do next. Dr. Linda Duska: So, outside of TRUST, we are out of time. I just want to give you a moment if there were any other messages that you want to share with our listeners before we wrap up. Dr. Kathleen Moore: It's an exciting time to be in GYN oncology. For so long, it was just chemo, and then the PARP inhibitors nudged us along quite a bit. We did move more patients, I believe, to the cure fraction. When we ultimately see OS, I think we'll be able to say that definitively, and that is exciting. But, you know, that is the minority of our patients. And while HRD positive benefits tremendously from PARP, I am not as sure we've moved as many to the cure fraction. Time will tell. But 50% of our patients have these tumors that are less HRD. They have a worse prognosis. I think we can say that and recur more quickly. And so the advent of these antibody-drug conjugates, and we could name 20 of them in development in GYN right now, targeting tumor-associated antigens because we're not really driven by mutations other than BRCA. We do not have a lot of things to come after. We're not lung cancer. We are not breast cancer. But we do have a lot of proteins on the surface of our cancers, and we are finally able to leverage that with some very active regimens. And we're in the early phases, I would say, of really understanding how best to use those, how best to position them, and which one to select for whom in a setting where there is going to be obvious overlap of the targets. So we're going to be really working this problem. It is a good problem. A lot of drugs that work pretty well. How do you individualize for a patient, the patient in front of you with three different markers? How do you optimize it? Where do you put them to really prolong survival? And then we finally have cell surface. We saw at ASCO, CDK2 come into play here for the first time, we've got a cell cycle inhibitor. We've been working on WEE1 and ATR for a long time. CDK2s may hit. Response rates were respectable in a resistant population that was cyclin E overexpressing. We've been working on that biomarker for a long time with a toxicity profile that was surprisingly clean, which I like to see for our patients. So that is a different platform. I think we have got bispecifics on the rise. So there is a pipeline of things behind the ADCs, which is important because we need more than one thing, that makes me feel like in the future, I am probably not going to be using doxil ever for platinum-resistant disease. So, I am going to be excited to retire some of those things. We will say, "Remember when we used to use doxil for platinum-resistant disease?" Dr. Linda Duska: I will be retired by then, but thanks for that thought. Dr. Kathleen Moore: I will remind you. Dr. Linda Duska: You are right. It is such an incredibly exciting time to be taking care of ovarian cancer patients with all the opportunities.  And I want to thank you for sharing your valuable insights with us on this podcast today and for your great work to advance care for patients with GYN cancers. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Likewise. Thanks for having me. Dr. Linda Duska: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to the TRUST study and other studies discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to 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. More on today's speakers:   Dr. Linda Duska  @Lduska Dr. Kathleen Moore Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter) ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest:    Dr. Linda Duska:   Consulting or Advisory Role: Regeneron, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Ellipses Pharma  Research Funding (Inst.): GlaxoSmithKline, Millenium, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Aeterna Zentaris, Novartis, Abbvie, Tesaro, Cerulean Pharma, Aduro Biotech, Advaxis, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Leap Therapeutics  Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: UptToDate, Editor, British Journal of Ob/Gyn  Dr. Kathleen Moore: Leadership: GOG Partners, NRG Ovarian Committee Chair Honoraria: Astellas Medivation, Clearity Foundation, IDEOlogy Health, Medscape, Great Debates and Updates, OncLive/MJH Life Sciences, MD Outlook, Curio Science, Plexus, University of Florida, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Congress Chanel, BIOPHARM, CEA/CCO, Physician Education Resource (PER), Research to Practice, Med Learning Group, Peerview, Peerview, PeerVoice, CME Outfitters, Virtual Incision Consulting/Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Immunogen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Eisai, Verastem/Pharmacyclics, AADi, Caris Life Sciences, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Regeneron, zentalis, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, BioNTech SE, Immunocore, Seagen, Takeda Science Foundation, Zymeworks, Profound Bio, ADC Therapeutics, Third Arc, Loxo/Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Tango Therapeutics, Abbvie, T Knife, F Hoffman La Roche, Tubulis GmbH, Clovis Oncology, Kivu, Genmab/Seagen, Kivu, Genmab/Seagen, Whitehawk, OnCusp Therapeutics, Natera, BeiGene, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Day One Biopharmaceuticals, Debiopharm Group, Foundation Medicine, Novocure Research Funding (Inst.): Mersana, GSK/Tesaro, Duality Biologics, Mersana, GSK/Tesaro, Duality Biologics, Merck, Regeneron, Verasatem, AstraZeneca, Immunogen, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, Immunocore, Torl Biotherapeutics, Allarity Therapeutics, IDEAYA Biosciences, Zymeworks, Schrodinger Other Relationship (Inst.): GOG Partners

In this week's episode of Dividend Talk, we're back with a jam-packed Dividend Announcements & Earnings deep dive.We kick things off with PayPal initiating its first-ever dividend (welcome to the club, Monkey!), Hershey holding flat to stay off the aristocrat chopping block, and a wild stat on revenue-per-employee (OnlyFans crushes tech giants at $37.6M per head). Then it's over to dividend hikes from Iberdrola (+8.2%), Rockwell Automation, AbbVie, and ExxonMobil, before diving into earnings: Nestlé's volume rebound in China, Schneider Electric riding data-center tailwinds, Altria's cash-rich but growth-poor reality, UnitedHealth's margin squeeze, T. Rowe Price outflows, and Shell's $10B FCF buyback machine.In the Q&A, we tackle benchmarking vs. S&P 500, dollar-cost-averaging into falling knives, estate tax broker moves, covered-call ETFs, Finnish gems, Evolution's permanent pivot, and stock-specific takes on Novo Nordisk, APD, Qualcomm, and more.SEE YOU ON THE INSIDE!!Tickers discussed: PYPL, HSY, GOOGL, MSFT, EBAY, AMZN, IBM, MCD, IEP, IBDR.MC, MUM.DE, SIE.DE, APD, LIN, NOVO-B.CO, EVO.ST, QCOM, ARE, ADC, MO, BATS.L, PM, UNH, TROW, SHEL, XOM, TTE, ITW, ABT, ADP, SCHN.PA, ROC.AX, NOVN.SW, NESN.SW, MCD, APH, DHR, TXN, VFC, RELAS, VWS.CO, WSO, GRG.LJoin us:[Facebook] – Https://www.facebook.com/groups/dividendtalk[Twitter] – @DividendTalk_ , @European_DG[Discord] – https://discord.gg/nJyt9KWAB5[Premium Services] – https://dividendtalk.eu/download-your-free-samples/[Malmo Meetup] – https://t.co/STgV1nMWKj

On today's episode, Dr. Tabby Khan, senior director of analytics for Komodo Health, spoke about their newest data analysis measuring age and insurance disparities in antibody-drug conjugate, or ADC, treatment rates in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The analysis was in partnership with the Tigerlily Foundation, a national breast cancer advocacy organization, in celebration of the 40th anniversary of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

Send us a textPeaches and Aaron are back swinging at the nonsense. From Special Warfare's assessment model to Air Force Academy cadets racking up predatory loans, this episode rips into leadership fails, lazy commanders who hand out paperwork like candy, and the lost art of spot corrections. We go from stories of LOCs, LORs, and mustache games with Rangers, to watching Army football drop a quarter million dollars just to get smoked by Tarleton State. Oh, and Peaches gets dragged through camp in just a towel because Rangers can't handle beards. Add in college football meltdowns, fantasy league punishments, and some blistering hot takes on what “leadership” actually means—you've got a mix of cringe, comedy, and brutal honesty that only Ones Ready delivers.⏱️ Timestamps: 00:00 – Intro & Special Warfare assessment truth bombs 01:15 – Operator Training Summit Nashville & gear talk 03:10 – Booties in the pool: stop training slick 04:45 – AOCs gone wild with paperwork 07:00 – Progressive discipline vs lazy leadership 10:20 – Why real mentorship beats LOR inflation 12:50 – Spot corrections, life problems, and actually helping airmen 17:30 – Setting boundaries and predictable leadership 23:10 – Smoke sessions, “don't tell dad,” and better discipline tools 25:30 – Peaches' LOC story that turned his career around 29:30 – Pushing boundaries vs working the system 33:00 – Rangers, beards, and the towel walk of shame 36:00 – Mustache game rules and how to win (or lose) 40:00 – Always rebuttal your paperwork (and call ADC, not your buddy) 41:30 – The insane $416K Academy disenrollment bill 47:00 – The infamous Manitou Incline & OTS candidate pain fest 54:00 – Army football pays $250K to lose to Tarleton State 56:10 – Air Force uniforms: actually fire this year 01:02:00 – Bama gets stomped, SEC fan tears taste delicious 01:03:50 – Peaches unveils the Fantasy Loser Belt 01:04:55 – Wrap up & call-to-actions