Podcasts about adcs

In this episode, Dr. Paul Wheatley-Price is back for our annual recap of the IASLC 2025 World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC), which took place in Barcelona, Spain in early September. He is joined by two special guests, Dr. Barbara Melosky, Professor of Medicine at UBC and Medical Oncologist at BC Cancer, and Dr. Peter Ellis, Professor of Oncology at McMaster University and Medical Oncologist at Juravinski Cancer Center. They chat about all the updates for treatments like osimertinib for EGFR+ lung cancer, immunotherapy for small-cell lung cancer, and promising new treatments like for HER2 and ADCs coming down the pipeline.

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

Authors Drs. Jessica Ross and Alissa Cooper share insights into their JCO PO article, "Clinical and Pathologic Landscapes of Delta-Like Ligand 3 and Seizure-Related Homolog Protein 6 Expression in Neuroendocrine Carcinomas"  Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Drs. Ross and Cooper discuss the landscape of Delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3) and seizure-related homolog protein 6 (SEZ6) across NECs from eight different primary sites. 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 PO and an Associate Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center. Today, I'm excited to be joined by Dr. Jessica Ross, third-year medical oncology fellow at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, as well as Dr. Alissa Cooper, thoracic medical oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School. Both are first and last authors of the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled "Clinical and Pathologic Landscapes of Delta-like Ligand 3 and Seizure-Related Homolog Protein 6 or SEZ6 Protein Expression in Neuroendocrine Carcinomas." At the time of this recording, our guest disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Jessica and Alissa, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us today. Dr. Jessica Ross: Thanks very much for having us. Dr. Alissa Cooper: Thank you. Excited to be here. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: It's interesting, a couple of days before I decided to choose this article, one of my GI oncology colleagues actually asked me two questions. He said, "Rafeh, do you know how you define DLL3 positivity? And what is the status of DLL3 positivity in GI cancers, GI neuroendocrine carcinomas?" The first thing I looked up was this JCO article from Martin Wermke. You might have seen it as well, on obrixtamig, a phase 1 study, a DLL3 bi-specific T-cell engager. And they had some definitions there, and then this article came along, and I was really excited that it kind of fell right in place of trying to understand the IHC landscape of two very interesting targets. Since we have a very broad and diverse audience, especially community oncologists, trainees, and of course academic clinicians and some people who are very interested in genomics, we'll try to make things easy to understand. So my first question for you, Jessica, is: what is DLL3 and SEZ6 and why are they important in neuroendocrine carcinomas? Dr. Jessica Ross: Yeah, good question. So, DLL3, or delta-like ligand 3, is a protein that is expressed preferentially on the tumor cell surface of neuroendocrine carcinomas as opposed to normal tissue. It is a downstream target of ASCL1, and it's involved in neuroendocrine differentiation, and it's an appealing drug target because it is preferentially expressed on tumor cell surfaces. And so, it's a protein, and there are several drugs in development targeting this protein, and then Tarlatamab is an approved bi-specific T-cell engager for the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer in the second line. SEZ6, or seizure-like homolog protein 6, is a protein also expressed on neuroendocrine carcinoma cell surface. Interestingly, so it's expressed on neuronal cells, but its exact role in neuroendocrine carcinomas and oncogenesis is actually pretty poorly understood, but it was identified as an appealing drug target because, similarly to DLL3, it's preferentially expressed on the tumor cell surface. And so this has also emerged as an appealing drug target, and there are drugs in development, including antibody-drug conjugates, targeting this protein for that reason. Dr. Alissa Cooper: Over the last 10 to 15 years or so, there's been an increasing focus on precision oncology, finding specific targets that actually drive the cancer to grow, not just within lung cancer but in multiple other primary cancers. But specifically, at least speaking from a thoracic oncology perspective, the field of non-small cell lung cancer has completely exploded over the past 15 years with the discovery of driver oncogenes and then matched targeted therapies. Within the field of neuroendocrine carcinomas, including small cell lung cancer but also other high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas, there has not been the same sort of progress in terms of identifying targets with matched therapies. And up until recently, we've sort of been treating these neuroendocrine malignancies kind of as a monolithic disease process. And so recently, there's been sort of an explosion of research across the country and multiple laboratories, multiple people converging on the same open questions about why might patients with specific tumor biologies have different kind of responses to different therapies. And so first this came from, you know, why some patients might have a good response to chemo and immunotherapy, which is the first-line approved therapy for small cell lung cancer, and we also sort of extrapolate that to other high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas. What's the characteristic of that tumor biology? And at the same time, what are other targets that might be identifiable? Just as Jesse was saying, they're expressed on the cell surface, they're not necessarily expressed in normal tissue. Might this be a strategy to sort of move forward and create smarter therapies for our patients and therefore move really into a personalized era for treatment for each patient? And that's really driving, I think, a lot of the synthesis of this work of not only the development of multiple new therapies, but really understanding which tumor might be the best fit for which therapy. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for that explanation, Alissa. And as you mentioned, these are emerging targets, some more further along in the process with approved drugs, especially Tarlatamab. And obviously, DLL3 was something identified several years back, but drug development does take time, and readout for clinical trials takes time. Could you, for the sake of our audience, try to talk briefly about the excitement around Tarlatamab in small cell lung cancer, especially data that has led to the FDA approval in the last year, year and a half? Dr. Alissa Cooper: Sure. Yeah, it's really been an explosion of excitement over, as you're saying, the last couple of years, and work really led by our mentor, Charlie Rudin, had identified DLL3 as an exciting target for small cell lung cancer specifically but also potentially other high-grade neuroendocrine malignancies. Tarlatamab is a DLL3-targeting bi-specific T-cell engager, which targets DLL3 on the small cell lung cancer cells as well as CD3 on T cells. And the idea is to sort of introduce the cancer to the immune system, circumventing the need for MHC class antigen presentation, which that machinery is typically not functional in small cell lung cancer, and so really allowing for an immunomodulatory response, which had not really been possible for most patients with small cell lung cancer prior to this. Tarlatamab was tested in a phase 2 registrational trial of about 100 patients and demonstrated a response rate of 40%, which was very exciting, especially compared with other standard therapies which were available for small cell lung cancer, which are typically cytotoxic therapies. But most excitingly, more than even the response rate, I think, in our minds was the durability of response. So patients whose disease did have a response to Tarlatamab could potentially have a durable response lasting a number of months or even over a year, which had previously not ever been seen in this in the relapsed/refractory setting for these patients. I think the challenge with small cell lung cancer and other high-grade neuroendocrine malignancies is that a response to therapy might be a bit easier to achieve, but it's that durability. The patient's tumors really come roaring back quite aggressively pretty quickly. And so this was sort of the most exciting prospect is that durability of response, that long potential overall survival tail of the curve really being lifted up. And then most recently at ASCO this year, Dr. Rudin presented the phase 3 randomized controlled trial which compared Tarlatamab to physician's choice of chemotherapy in a global study. And the choice of chemotherapy did vary depending on the part of the world that the patients were enrolled in, but in general, it was a really markedly positive study for response rate, for progression-free survival, and for overall survival. Really exciting results which really cemented Tarlatamab's place as the standard second-line therapy for patients with small cell lung cancer whose disease has progressed on first-line chemo-immunotherapy. So that has been very exciting. This drug was FDA approved in May of 2024, and so has been used extensively since then. I think the adoption has been pretty widespread, at least in the US, but now in this global trial that was just presented, and there was a corresponding New England Journal paper, I think really confirms that this is something we really hopefully can offer to most of our patients. And I think, as we all know, that this therapy or other therapies like it are also being tested potentially in the first-line setting. So there was data presented with Tarlatamab incorporated into the maintenance setting, which also showed exciting results, albeit in a phase 1 trial, but longer overall survival than we're used to seeing in this patient population. And we await results of the study that is incorporating Tarlatamab into the induction phase with chemotherapy as well. So all of this is extraordinarily exciting for our patients to sort of move the needle of how many patients we can keep alive, feeling functional, feeling well, for as long as possible. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Very exciting session at ASCO. I was luckily one of the co-chairs for the session that Dr. Rudin presented it, and I remember somebody mentioning there was more progress seen in that session for small cell lung cancer than the last 30, 35 years for small cell, very exciting space and time to be in as far as small cell lung cancer. Now going to this project, Jessica, since you're the first author and Alissa's the last, I'm assuming there was a background conversation that you had with Alissa before you embarked on this project as an idea. So could you, again, for other trainees who are interested in doing research, and it's never easy to do research as a resident and a fellow when you have certain added responsibilities. Could you give us a little bit of a background on how this started and why you wanted to look at this question? Dr. Jessica Ross: Yeah, sure. So, as with many exciting research concepts, I think a lot of them are derived from the clinic. And so I think Alissa and I both see a good number of patients with small cell, large cell lung cancer, and then high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas. And so I think this was really born out of a basic conversation of we have these drugs in development targeting these two proteins, DLL3 and SEZ6, but really what is the landscape of cancers that express these proteins and who are the patients that really might benefit from these exciting new therapies. And of course, there was some data out there, but sort of less than one would imagine in terms of, you know, neuroendocrine carcinomas can really come from anywhere in the body. And so when you're seeing a patient with small cell of the cervix, for example, like what are the chances that their cancer expresses DLL3 or expresses SEZ6? So it was really derived from this pragmatic, clinically oriented question that we had both found ourselves thinking about, and we were lucky enough at MSK, we had started systematically staining patients' tumors for DLL3, tumors that are high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas, and then we had also more recently started staining for SEZ6 as well. And so we had this nice prospectively collected dataset with which to answer this question. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Excellent. And Alissa, could you try to go into some of the details around which patients you chose, how many patients, what was the approach that you selected to collect the data for this project? Dr. Alissa Cooper: This is perhaps a strength but also maybe a limitation of this dataset is, as Jesse alluded to, our pathology colleagues are really the stars of this paper here because we were lucky enough at MSK that they were really forethinking. They are absolute experts in the field and really forward-thinking people in terms of what information might be needed in the future to drive treatment decision-making. And so, as Jesse had said, small cell lung cancer tumor samples reflexively are stained for DLL3 and SEZ6 at MSK if there's enough tumor tissue. The other high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas, those stains are performed upon physician request. And so that is a bit of a mixed bag in terms of the tumor samples we were able to include in this dataset because, you know, upon physician request depends on a number of factors, but actually at MSK, a number of physicians were requesting these stains to be done on their patients with high-grade neuroendocrine cancers of of other histologies. So we looked at all tumor samples with a diagnosis of high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of any histology that were stained for these two stains of interest. You know, I can let Jesse talk a bit more about the methodology. She was really the driver of this project. Dr. Jessica Ross: Yeah, sure. So we had 124 tumor samples total. All of those were stained for DLL3, and then a little less than half, 53, were stained for SEZ6. As Alissa said, they were from any primary site. So about half of them were of lung origin, that was the most common primary site, but we included GI tract, head and neck, GU, GYN, even a few tumors of unknown origin. And again, that's because I think a lot of these trials are basket trials that are including different high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas no matter the primary site. And so we really felt like it was important to be more comprehensive and inclusive in this study. And then, methodologically, we also defined positivity in terms of staining of these two proteins as anything greater than or equal to 1% staining. There's really not a defined consensus of positivity when it comes to these two novel targets and staining for these two proteins. But in the Tarlatamab trials, for some of the correlative work that's been done, they use that 1% cutoff, and we just felt like being consistent with that and also using a sort of more pragmatic yes/no cutoff would be more helpful for this analysis. Dr. Alissa Cooper: And that was a point of discussion, actually. We had contemplated multiple different schemas, actually, for how to define thresholds of positivity. And I know you brought up that question before, what does it mean to be DLL3 positive or DLL3 high? I think you were alluding to prior that there was a presentation of obrixtamig looking at extra-pulmonary neuroendocrine carcinomas, and they actually divvied up the results between DLL3 50% or greater versus DLL3 low under 50%. And they actually did demonstrate differential efficacy certainly, but also some differential safety as well, which is very provocative and that kind of analysis has not been presented for other novel therapies as far as I'm aware. I could be wrong, but as far as I'm aware, that was sort of the first time that we saw a systematic presentation of considering patients to be, quote unquote, "high" or "low" in these sort of novel targets. I think it is important because the label for Tarlatamab does not require any DLL3 expression at all, actually. So it's not hinging upon DLL3 expression. They depend on the fact that the vast majority of small cell lung cancer tumors do express DLL3, 85% to 90% is what's been demonstrated in a few studies. And so, there's not prerequisite testing needed in that regard, but maybe for these extra-pulmonary, other histology neuroendocrine carcinomas, maybe it does matter to some degree. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Definitely agree that this evolving landscape of trying to understand whether an expression for something actually really does correlate with, whether it's an immune cell engager or an antibody-drug conjugate is a very evolving and dynamically moving space. And one of the questions that I was discussing with one of my friends was whether IHC positivity and the level of IHC positivity, as you've shown in one of those plots where you have double positive here on the right upper corner, you have the double negative towards the left lower, whether that somehow determines mRNA expression for DLL3. Obviously, that was not the question here that you were looking at, but it does kind of bring into question certain other aspects of correlations, expression versus IHC. Now going to the figures in this manuscript, very nicely done figures, very easy to understand because I've done the podcast for quite a bit now, and usually what I try to do first is go through the figures before I read the text, and and a lot of times it's hard to understand the figures without reading the text, but in your case, specifically the figures were very, very well done. Could you give us an overview, a quick overview of some of the important results, Jessica, as far as what you've highlighted in the manuscript? Dr. Jessica Ross: Sure. So I think the key takeaway is that, of the tumors in our cohort, the majority were positive for DLL3 and positive for SEZ6. So about 80% of them were positive for DLL3 and 80% were positive for SEZ6. About half of the tumors were stained for both proteins, and about 65% of those were positive as well. So I think if there's sort of one major takeaway, it's that when you're seeing a patient with a high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma, the odds are that their tumor will express both of these proteins. And so that can sort of get your head thinking about what therapies they might be eligible for. And then we also did an analysis of some populations of interest. So for example, we know that non-neuroendocrine pathologies can transform into neuroendocrine tumors. And so we specifically looked at that subset of patients with transformed tumors, and those were also- the majority of them were positive, about three-quarters of them were positive for both of these two proteins. We looked at patients with brain met samples, again, about 70% were positive. And then I'd say the last sort of population of interest was we had a subset of 10 patients who had serial biopsies stained for either DLL3 or SEZ6 or both. In between the two samples, these patients were treated with chemotherapy. They were not treated with targeted therapy, but interestingly, in the majority of cases, the testing results were concordant, meaning if it was DLL3 positive to begin with, it tended to remain DLL3 positive after treatment. And so I think that's important as well as we think about, you know, a patient who maybe had DLL3 testing done before they received their induction chemo-IO, we can somewhat confidently say that they're probably still DLL3 positive after that treatment. And then finally, we did do a survival analysis among specifically the patients with lung neuroendocrine carcinomas. We looked at whether DLL3 expression affected progression-free survival on first-line platinum-etoposide, and then we looked at did it affect overall survival. And we found that it did not have an impact or the median progression-free survival was similar whether you were DLL3 positive or negative. But interestingly, with overall survival, we found that DLL3 positivity actually correlated with slightly improved overall survival. These were small numbers, and so, you know, I think we have to interpret this with caution, for sure, but it is interesting. I think there may be something to the fact that five of the patients who were DLL3 positive were treated with DLL3-targeting treatments. And so this made me think of, like in the breast cancer world, for example, if you have a patient with HER2-positive disease, it initially portended worse prognosis, more aggressive disease biology, but on the other hand, it opens the door for targeted treatments that actually now, at least with HER2-positive breast cancer, are associated with improved outcomes. And so I think that's one finding of interest as well. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Definitely proof-of-concept findings here that you guys have in the manuscript. Alissa, if I may ask you, what is the next important step for a project like this in your mind? Dr. Alissa Cooper: Jesse has highlighted a couple of key findings that we hope to move forward with future investigative studies, not necessarily in a real-world setting, but maybe even in clinical trial settings or in collaboration with sponsors. Are these biomarkers predictive? Are they prognostic? You know, those are still- we have some nascent data, data has been brewing, but I think that we we still don't have the answers to those open questions, which I think are critically important for determining not only clinical treatment decision-making, but also our ability to understand sequencing of therapies, prioritization of therapies. I think a prospective, forward-looking project, piggybacking on that paired biopsy, you know, we had a very small subset of patients with paired biopsies, but a larger subset or cohort looking at paired biopsies where we can see is there evolution of these IHC expression, even mRNA expression, as you're saying, is there differential there? Are there selection pressures to targeted therapies? Is there upregulation or downregulation of targets in response not just to chemotherapy, but for example, for other sort of ADCs or bi-specific T-cell engagers? I think those are going to be critically important future studies which are going to be a bit challenging to do, but really important to figure out this key clinical question of sequencing, which we're all contemplating in our clinics day in and day out. If you have a patient, and these patients often can be sick quite quickly, they might have one shot of what's the next treatment that you're going to pick. We can't guarantee that every patient is going to get to see every therapy. How can you help to sort of answer the question of like what should you offer? So I think that's the key question sort of underlying any future work is how predictive or prognostic are these biomarkers? What translational or correlative studies can we do on the tissue to understand clinical treatment decision-making? I think those are the key things that will unfold in the next couple of years. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: The last question for you, Alissa, that I have is, you are fairly early in your career, and you've accomplished quite a lot. One of the most important things that comes out from this manuscript is your mentorship for somebody who is a fellow and who led this project. For other junior investigators, early-career investigators, how did you do this? How did you manage to do this, and how did you mentor Jessica on this project with some of the lessons that you learned along the way, the good and other things that would perhaps help other listeners as they try to mentor residents, trainees, which is one of the important things of what we do in our daily routine? Dr. Alissa Cooper: I appreciate you calling me accomplished. Um, I'm not sure how true that is, but I appreciate that. I didn't have to do a whole lot with this project because Jesse is an extraordinarily smart, driven, talented fellow who came up with a lot of the clinical questions and a lot of the research questions as well. And so this project was definitely a collaborative project on both of our ends. But I think what was helpful from both of our perspectives is from my perspective, I could kind of see that this was a gap in the literature that really, I think, from my work leading clinical trials and from treating patients with these kinds of cancers that I really hoped to answer. And so when I came to Jessica with this idea as sort of a project to complete, she was very eager to take it and run with it and also make it her own. You know, in terms of early mentorship, I have to admit this was the first project that I mentored, so it was a great learning experience for me as well because as an early-career clinician and researcher, you're used to having someone else looking over your shoulder to tell you, "Yes, this is a good journal target, here's what we can anticipate reviewers are going to say, here are other key collaborators we should include." Those kind of things about a project that don't always occur to you as you're sort of first starting out. And so all of that experience for me to be identifying those more upper-level management sort of questions was a really good learning experience for me. And of course, I was fantastically lucky to have a partner in Jesse, who is just a rising star. Dr. Jessica Ross: Thank you. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Well, excellent. It sounds like the first of many other mentorship opportunities to come for you, Alissa. And Jessica, congratulations on your next step of joining and being faculty, hopefully, where you're training. Thank you again, both of you. This was very insightful. I definitely learned a lot after I reviewed the manuscript and read the manuscript. Hopefully, our listeners will feel the same. Perhaps we'll have more of your work being published in JCO PO subsequently. Dr. Alissa Cooper: Hope so. Thank you very much for the opportunity to chat today. Dr. Jessica Ross: Yes, thank you. This was great. 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 as you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. 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. Alissa Jamie Cooper Honoraria Company: MJH Life Scienes, Ideology Health, Intellisphere LLC, MedStar Health, Physician's Education Resource, LLC,  Gilead Sciences, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Novartis,  Research Funding: Merck, Roche, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Abbvie, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Gilead Sciences

Send us a textGood morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we delve into a host of transformative events reshaping the landscape, from strategic acquisitions and funding infusions to regulatory maneuvers and scientific breakthroughs.Johnson & Johnson has taken a decisive step in its oncology strategy with the $3 billion acquisition of Halda's cell death technology. This acquisition, focusing on the "hold and kill" bifunctional small molecule platform, is poised to enhance J&J's prostate cancer pipeline significantly. It underscores J&J's commitment to expanding its oncology portfolio through innovative platforms designed to improve therapeutic outcomes. The move highlights a broader industry trend toward personalized medicine and targeted cancer therapies, which are becoming pivotal in improving patient care.In another domain of cancer treatment, Nuvalent has unveiled promising Phase 1/2 data for its candidate neladalkib, which could position the company as a formidable competitor to Pfizer's established lung cancer drug, Lorbrena. The promising data might expedite regulatory discussions with the FDA, potentially leading to an accelerated approval process. This development illustrates the competitive landscape in oncology, where firms strive to introduce novel therapies with improved efficacy and safety profiles.The field of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) is also experiencing significant advancements. A San Diego-based biotech has secured $120 million in funding to develop a best-in-class ADC formula, with support from Merck & Co. This initiative aims to refine the precision and efficacy of ADCs by delivering cytotoxic agents directly to cancer cells while minimizing collateral damage to healthy tissues. Such innovations are crucial as they represent a new frontier in targeted cancer therapy.In terms of financial activities, Artios Pharma's successful $115 million Series D funding round is set to bolster its clinical efforts in exploring DNA damage response inhibitors for cancer treatment. These inhibitors target cancer cells' ability to repair DNA damage, holding potential for more effective therapies against resistant cancer types. Meanwhile, Sofinnova Partners' €650 million raise for biotech and medtech investments amid a volatile economic environment underscores continued investor confidence in life sciences despite market uncertainties.Bayer is making strategic moves in China by opening an incubator in Beijing. This facility will host local biopharma companies such as Suzhou Puhe Biopharma and Beijing Youngen Technology, fostering innovation and collaboration within China's burgeoning biotech landscape. Such initiatives reflect global efforts to leverage regional strengths and foster cross-border collaborations.On the operational side, Nxera Pharma is restructuring its workforce by laying off 15% of its staff as part of a strategic pivot towards profitability. This decision mirrors broader industry trends where companies refocus resources on core projects to streamline operations and enhance financial stability.A recent study has highlighted the impact of NIH grant cuts on clinical trials across the United States. Over 383 trials involving more than 74,000 patients have been disrupted due to funding terminations under the current administration. This situation raises concerns about the sustainability of clinical research funding and its implications for ongoing medical advancements.Jazz Pharmaceuticals has reported practice-changing Phase 3 results for its HER2-targeted drug Ziihera for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. These findings reaffirm Jazz's confidence in positioning Ziihera as a preferred first-line treatment option for HER2-positive cancers, poSupport the show

In this episode, Benjamin Levy, MD, FASCO, and Alex Spira, MD, PhD, FASCO, discuss the latest developments in targeting TROP2 and TIGIT for the treatment of lung cancer, including:TROP2-targeting ADCs: datopotamab deruxtecan, sacituzumab govitecan, sacituzumab tirumotecan TROP2 ADCS for patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLCTIGIT-targeting agents: domvanalimab, rilvegostomigPresenters:Benjamin Levy, MD, FASCOAssociate ProfessorJohns Hopkins School of MedicineClinical DirectorJohns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, National Capitol Region (NCR)Washington, DCAlex Spira, MD, PhD, FASCODirector Clinical ResearchVirginia Cancer SpecialistsCEO NEXT Oncology VirginiaFairfax, VirginiaContent based on an online CME program supported by an independent educational grant from Gilead Sciences, Inc.Link to full program:https://bit.ly/4qZLR6B Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

ADCs as first-line treatment? ESR1 monitoring before progression? Local therapy for CNS disease? Experts tackle today's toughest decisions. Credit available for this activity expires: 11/14/2026 Earn Credit / Learning Objectives & Disclosures: https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/charting-course-metastatic-breast-cancer-care-optimizing-2025a1000v4s?ecd=bdc_podcast_libsyn_mscpedu

Enrique Grande, MD, MSc, PhD Quirónsalud MadridMadrid, SpainThe therapeutic landscape for urothelial cancer (UC) has undergone significant transformation in recent years, with the addition of PD-1/PD-L1 targeting immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and novel targeted therapies and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) adding to the complexity of treatment options available for patients throughout the course of their disease. The optimal sequencing of treatments depends on an understanding of the relevance of different pathological subtypes of the disease and of the latest clinical evidence and guidelines that support the use of different therapies.  By this expert interview, you will receive a detailed grounding of the disease process and management from diagnosis through to salvage treatments of advanced disease. The course will enable clinicians who are involved in the management of patients with urothelial cancer to integrate the latest advances and use of novel therapies for advanced urothelial cancer into safe and effective patient care. 

Francisco X. Real, MD, PhDNational Cancer Research CenterMadrid, SpainThe therapeutic landscape for urothelial cancer (UC) has undergone significant transformation in recent years, with the addition of PD-1/PD-L1 targeting immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and novel targeted therapies and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) adding to the complexity of treatment options available for patients throughout the course of their disease. The optimal sequencing of treatments depends on an understanding of the relevance of different pathological subtypes of the disease and of the latest clinical evidence and guidelines that support the use of different therapies.By this expert interview, you will receive a detailed grounding of the disease process and management from diagnosis through to salvage treatments of advanced disease. The course will enable clinicians who are involved in the management of patients with urothelial cancer to integrate the latest advances and use of novel therapies for advanced urothelial cancer into safe and effective patient care. 

Natalia Carballo, MDSanitas Hospitals/Atrys HealthMadrid, SpainThe therapeutic landscape for urothelial cancer (UC) has undergone significant transformation in recent years, with the addition of PD-1/PD-L1 targeting immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and novel targeted therapies and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) adding to the complexity of treatment options available for patients throughout the course of their disease. The optimal sequencing of treatments depends on an understanding of the relevance of different pathological subtypes of the disease and of the latest clinical evidence and guidelines that support the use of different therapies.By this expert interview, you will receive a detailed grounding of the disease process and management from diagnosis through to salvage treatments of advanced disease. The course will enable clinicians who are involved in the management of patients with urothelial cancer to integrate the latest advances and use of novel therapies for advanced urothelial cancer into safe and effective patient care. 

Félix Guerrero-Ramos, MD, PhD, FEBUHospital Doce de OctubreMadrid, SpainThe therapeutic landscape for urothelial cancer (UC) has undergone significant transformation in recent years, with the addition of PD-1/PD-L1 targeting immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and novel targeted therapies and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) adding to the complexity of treatment options available for patients throughout the course of their disease. The optimal sequencing of treatments depends on an understanding of the relevance of different pathological subtypes of the disease and of the latest clinical evidence and guidelines that support the use of different therapies.By this expert interview, you will receive a detailed grounding of the disease process and management from diagnosis through to salvage treatments of advanced disease. The course will enable clinicians who are involved in the management of patients with urothelial cancer to integrate the latest advances and use of novel therapies for advanced urothelial cancer into safe and effective patient care. 

Hay vida más allá de EV Pembro. Los Dres Durán, Gómez de Liaño y Coca Membribes repasan el estudio de DV-Toripalimab presentado recientemente en ESMO. Más similitudes que diferencias con EV302 aunque quedan algunas preguntas por responder. Necesitamos más ensayos para entender cuándo hay que interrumpir el tratamiento, así como un mayor seguimiento de los pacientes. También repasaremos el arsenal de nuevos ADCs en marcha que seguirán aportando evidencia en esta población.

Tom moderates Jun Guo, Matt Galsky, Michiel Van der Heidjen and Shilpa Gupta as they discuss this ever-expanding class of agents in bladder cancer.

Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) are a niche but growing segment in the global bio/pharmaceutical industry—both on pipeline and market basis and in the CDMO sector. What are the growth prospects overall and in the major segments and how may evolving trade policy impact global supply lines? Gaurav Chaudhary, CEO, Roots Analysis, a business intelligence firm serving the bio/pharmaceutical industry, provides the latest market insights.   Support the show

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we explore a series of groundbreaking advancements and strategic collaborations that promise to transform drug development and patient care.In the autoimmune space, Boehringer Ingelheim has made a significant move by securing a $570 million agreement with CDR-Life. This deal centers on a trispecific antibody, a novel therapeutic approach that targets multiple pathways simultaneously, potentially revolutionizing treatments for autoimmune diseases. Boehringer's commitment to these cutting-edge modalities highlights their strategy to leverage novel technologies for more effective therapeutic solutions.Similarly, Celltrion has entered a $744 million collaboration with Kaigene, focusing on two preclinical autoimmune drugs. This partnership marks Celltrion's strategic shift from biosimilars to novel biologics, positioning the company at the forefront of biologic therapeutics. By investing in early-stage research, Celltrion aims to introduce transformative therapies for autoimmune conditions, showcasing the industry's willingness to bet on groundbreaking scientific advancements.In gene editing, Azalea Therapeutics is gaining attention with its focus on permanent genome editing using a dual-vector approach. Backed by $82 million in funding and support from CRISPR pioneer Jennifer Doudna, Azalea is poised to develop potentially curative solutions through single-dose treatments. The credibility lent by a Nobel laureate adds anticipation to their research outcomes, with the potential to significantly impact gene therapy.Shifting focus to clinical trials, Sarepta Therapeutics faces challenges after missing the primary endpoint in its confirmatory trial for Duchenne muscular dystrophy drugs. Despite this setback, Sarepta is pursuing full FDA approval, emphasizing the complex interplay between clinical data and regulatory strategies. This situation underscores the critical importance of robust confirmatory trials in securing drug approvals and ensuring patient access to new therapies.Merck is making strategic moves in oncology by regaining full control over an early-phase asset and securing $700 million from Blackstone for its oncology pipeline. This dual focus on asset acquisition and financial fortification reflects Merck's aggressive growth strategy aimed at expanding its cancer treatment offerings.Emerging from stealth mode, Neok Bio has secured a $75 million investment to advance bispecific antibody-drug conjugates into clinical trials. These bispecific ADCs represent the forefront of targeted cancer therapies, aiming for precision targeting of cancer cells while minimizing off-target effects. Neok Bio's progress could significantly enhance oncology treatment paradigms through improved therapeutic indices.Turning to regulatory landscapes, Teva's recall of over half-a-million bottles of prazosin hydrochloride due to potential carcinogenic impurities highlights ongoing challenges in ensuring drug safety and quality control within manufacturing processes. Such recalls underscore the critical importance of maintaining high standards in pharmaceutical production.In broader industry developments, we see dynamic trends where scientific innovation meets strategic business decisions and regulatory considerations. The potential impact on patient care is profound, with breakthroughs in autoimmune treatments, gene editing technologies, and targeted cancer therapies poised to alter therapeutic landscapes significantly.UCB has achieved another milestone with FDA approval for Kygevvi, an ultra-rare disease medication marking their third approval in rare conditions within three years. This success underscores UCB's strategic focus on niche markets that offer less competition but significant patient impact. Advancements in genetic research aSupport the show

In this episode, Kathleen N. Moore, MD, MS, FASCO, and Isabelle Ray-Coquard, MD, PhD, discuss the emerging role of CDH6-targeting antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) for ovarian cancer, including:Results of the phase I trial of raludotatug deruxtecan (R-DXd) in ovarian cancerResults of the phase II REJOICE-Ovarian01 study in patients with platinum-resistant diseaseHow R-DXd may be incorporated into the treatment paradigmOther investigational CDH6-targeting ADCs: CUSP06, SIM0505Presenters:Kathleen N. Moore, MD, MS, FASCO Deputy Director and Cancer Therapeutics Co-LeadStephenson Cancer Center at the University of OklahomaProfessorDepartment of OB/GynASCO BODOklahoma City, OklahomaIsabelle Ray-Coquard, MD, PhD President of the Gineco GroupCentre Leon BérardReshape Lab Inserm u1290Université Claude Bernard Lyon EstLyon, FranceContent based on an online CME program supported by an independent educational grant from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Link to full program: https://bit.ly/43PXoeP Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

As we near the end of 2025, the CDMO industry finds itself at a pivotal financial and strategic juncture — shaped by constrained funding, shifting demand, and renewed investor scrutiny.  In this episode of Off Script, we speak with Brian Scanlan, Advisor of Life Sciences at Edgewater Capital Partners, to examine how the year's market and investment trends align with his predictions from an earlier CPHI Annual Report. Brian shares his perspective on: How accurately his forecast of stability and growth for clinical CROs and CDMOs has held up amid tighter capital markets; The ongoing softness among early-stage pharma service providers and what it reveals about funding flows across the sector; and Where investor interest is gravitating — from ADCs and small molecules to biologics — and what this signals for the next phase of CDMO evolution.

“We were able to show multiple datasets that actually deliver against this vision that antibody drug conjugates can improve on and therefore displace chemotherapy” says Dr. Susan Galbraith, AstraZeneca’s EVP of oncology R&D. Galbraith joins Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Sam Fazeli to break down key findings from ESMO — from early-line HER2 breast cancer data to progress in bladder and lung cancer. She details the promise of Enhertu and Datopotamab, AstraZeneca’s antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), and how their work may transform cancer treatment in curative settings.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As part of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2025, CancerNetwork® spoke with a variety of experts about key takeaways from different late-breaking abstracts, oral presentations, and other sessions focused on potential advancements across cancer care. Presenting investigators highlighted updated results from clinical trials evaluating novel therapeutic strategies across different cancer populations, including breast cancer and lung cancer.  Phase 3 VIKTORIA-1 Trial Sara A. Hurvitz, MD, FACP, the Smith Family Endowed Chair in Women's Health and senior vice president and director of the Clinical Research Division at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center, and tumor chair in breast oncology for the ONCOLOGY® editorial advisory board, first discussed findings from the phase 3 VIKTORIA-1 trial (NCT05501886). Her presentation highlighted how VIKTORIA-1 was “the first study to demonstrate a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival [PFS] with PAM inhibition” for patients with PIK3CA wild-type advanced breast cancer. Data from the trial showed that gedatolisib plus fulvestrant (Faslodex) and palbociclib (Ibrance) produced a median PFS of 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.2-16.6) vs 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.8-2.3) with fulvestrant alone (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.17-0.35; P

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 of the most significant shifts occurring in these industries, touching on strategic restructuring, regulatory milestones, and groundbreaking scientific advancements that are shaping the future of drug development and patient care.Let's begin with a major corporate shakeup at Novo Nordisk. The company has announced a significant leadership transition as former CEO Lars Rebien Sorensen is set to become the new chairman of the board. This change follows the resignation of seven board members and indicates a strategic realignment within the company. The Novo Foundation's involvement suggests a deeper strategic shift, potentially aligning with new organizational objectives and innovations. Such moves are pivotal as they could influence Novo Nordisk's market position and future product development.Turning to scientific breakthroughs, Merck's collaboration with Kelun-Biotech has yielded promising results with their Trop2 antibody-drug conjugate, sacituzumab-tmt. This ADC has shown success in two Phase 3 trials targeting lung and breast cancers, underscoring the therapeutic potential of ADCs in oncology. By selectively targeting cancer cells while minimizing damage to healthy tissues, ADCs could significantly improve patient outcomes and represent a powerful modality in cancer treatment.In regulatory affairs, Kenvue is challenging the FDA over proposed safety warnings for Tylenol linked to autism during pregnancy. This dispute highlights the ongoing debates surrounding drug safety and regulatory oversight. The outcome could have significant implications for labeling practices and consumer trust in over-the-counter medications. Meanwhile, Summit Therapeutics plans to file for FDA approval of ivonescimab, highlighting ongoing innovation in drug development pipelines. Similarly, Novo Nordisk's semaglutide pill Rybelsus has received FDA expansion approval to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events. This sets a new benchmark for oral metabolism drugs by demonstrating their potential beyond glycemic control to positively impact cardiovascular health.As we explore industry trends, there's growing interest in direct-to-consumer drug sales. While this approach offers patients access to medications at reduced costs, it raises concerns about privacy and the quality of care without traditional healthcare provider interactions. Additionally, a notable decline in pharmaceutical TV ad spending by 19% in Q3 suggests a shift towards digital engagement strategies. Amidst these narratives, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) has launched an awareness campaign to combat misinformation about vaccines. This effort underscores the importance of immunizations in public health and aims to reinforce trust amid rising disinformation.In another scientific advancement, GSK has released positive Phase 3 data for Spero Therapeutics' oral antibiotic candidate. The oral formulation's efficacy comparable to intravenous options could lead to broader use and improved patient adherence—critical advancements as antibiotic resistance remains a global health challenge.Investment activities reflect strategic shifts within the industry as well. Curewell Capital's investment in Wilmington PharmaTech aims to enhance U.S. active pharmaceutical ingredient production capacity—a crucial step given recent global supply chain disruptions. Similarly, India's ACG is making a $200 million investment in its first U.S. empty-capsule production facility, highlighting the strategic importance of manufacturing capabilities on American soil.Galapagos' decision to wind down its cell therapy unit marks a significant strategic pivot from its previous focus on this modality. This shift reflects broader industry trends where companies reassess priorSupport the show

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Recent developments in these industries underscore a period of significant scientific progress, regulatory maneuvers, and strategic investments.One notable event was AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo's success at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2025. Their antibody-drug conjugate, Datroway, demonstrated superior efficacy compared to Gilead's Trodelvy in the first global head-to-head trial involving Trop2-targeted therapies. This reflects the increasing focus on antibody-drug conjugates as precision medicine tools that offer targeted treatment options with potentially improved outcomes over traditional chemotherapy.In a move highlighting the ongoing trend of bolstering domestic production capacities, Merck is making a substantial $3 billion investment in a small molecule drug plant in Virginia. This is part of a broader $70 billion commitment to expand manufacturing and R&D capabilities in the U.S. Such strategic investments are crucial for maintaining competitive advantage and ensuring drug availability while meeting rising demands and streamlining supply chains.Turning to regulatory updates, the FDA has approved Amgen and AstraZeneca's Tezspire for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. This marks Tezspire's second indication, following its initial approval for severe asthma in 2021. The expanded approval showcases the drug's versatility and represents a strategic push to enhance its market presence against competitors like Dupixent.In oncology, Merck's Keytruda and Astellas/Pfizer's Padcev have made headlines with compelling results in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The combination therapy reduced the risk of death by 50%, reinforcing Keytruda's position as a cornerstone immunotherapy across multiple cancer types. This result not only augments treatment options but also signifies the potential for combination regimens to enhance patient outcomes.Roche has expanded the indication of its aging oncology drug Gazyva to treat lupus nephritis, demonstrating strategic repurposing efforts to extend the lifecycle of existing therapies. While this expansion into autoimmune diseases comes late in Gazyva's lifecycle, it highlights a growing trend of capitalizing on established drugs for new therapeutic areas.AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo's Enhertu showed robust efficacy in early breast cancer treatment, potentially reshaping therapeutic strategies by offering new hope for early intervention. Similarly, Novartis' Pluvicto demonstrated promise in slowing hormone-sensitive prostate cancer progression, underscoring the potential of radioligand therapies in oncology.However, not all developments have been positive. AstraZeneca faced setbacks when its Imfinzi and Lynparza combination failed to meet survival goals in ovarian cancer, underscoring the challenges inherent in oncology drug development and the stringent benchmarks set by regulatory authorities like the FDA.The industry is also witnessing significant advancements in next-generation ADCs, as evidenced by Tubulis' 59% response rate in early clinical trials, which has attracted substantial investor interest. Additionally, Grail's Galleri cancer blood test is progressing towards FDA review with enhanced performance data, potentially revolutionizing cancer screening and early detection practices.These scientific and regulatory milestones are complemented by strategic investments in bioconjugation technologies. Cohance Life Sciences' $10 million investment in NJ Bio to enhance GMP bioconjugation capabilities exemplifies this trend. Such investments are crucial for advancing ADC development, which remains a focal point for innovative cancer therapies.Overall, these developments reflect a dynamic phase for the pharmaceutical and biotech sectors characterized by signSupport the show

This week's EYE ON NPI is as mysterious and powerful as the extra-dimensional being from Star Trek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek)) - it's the new Arduino UNO Q (https://www.digikey.com/en/product-highlight/a/arduino/uno-q-microcontroller-board) microcontroller board, released as part of the Qualcomm/Arduino acquisition announcement (https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2025/10/qualcomm-to-acquire-arduino-accelerating-developers--access-to-i). This Uno-shaped board is packed with both an STM32 microcontroller and a Qualcomm Dragonwing microprocessor so you get the best-of-both-worlds: 3.3V/5V logic compatibility with timers and ADCs, plus a full Debian install and AI support for running local vision models. We last checked in on Arduino we were reviewing their new announcements based on a partnership with Renesas: the Arduino Nano R4 SoC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLAI41ZfCfw) which is a miniaturized version of the UNO R4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw0EU8urz5M). These boards feature an Arm microcontroller, with lots of fun on-board accessories like an LED grid, Qwiic connector, and WiFi/Bluetooth module. These boards represented a bump in capabilities over the classic UNO R3 (https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/arduino/A000073/3476357) but are still under-powered compared to the 'Portenta' line (https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/arduino/ABX00045/15294134). So, when we see the Arduino UNO Q (https://www.digikey.com/short/qc9d09fm) is a merging of three separate 'strands' of Arduino development history. One, it's shaped and has hardware-compatibility with the classic UNO which has been their mainstay for decades. Two, it has the powerful microcontroller type that the Pro line features. And three, it revives some of the Linux-based boards that Arduino had previously released like the Yun (https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/arduino/A000008/4486331), Tian (https://docs.arduino.cc/retired/boards/arduino-tian/) and Tre (https://docs.arduino.cc/retired/boards/arduino-tre). What sets the Q apart is that this time instead of being just a chip-supplier partnership, Arduino has been acquired as a subsidiary of Qualcomm (https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2025/10/qualcomm-to-acquire-arduino-accelerating-developers--access-to-i) which means that there's going to be first-class engineering support for the onboard Dragonwing processor. Speaking of, let's take a look at the hardware included in the new Q! There's two chipsets on each board: the big processor is a Qualcomm Dragonwing™ QRB2210 (https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/qualcomm/QRB-2210-0-NSP752-TR-00-0/27904331) - 64-bit System-on-Chip with 4 × Arm Cortex-A53 running at 2.0 GHz and Adreno 702 GPU running at 845 MHz for 3D graphics. This chip runs mainline Debian OS with upstream support so you can configure a kernel and distribution image without needing patches. Arduino and Qualcomm distribute their own ready to go image too (https://docs.arduino.cc/tutorials/uno-q/update-image/). This chip has modern A/V support with both CSI camera and DSI MIPI display capability to match. Those high speed connects are available on the dual 60-pin bottom connects - while there isn't a sub-connect board right now, it's likely that Arduino will develop one soon. Meanwhile, you can use their documentation (https://docs.arduino.cc/hardware/uno-q/) such as STEP and Gerber files if you want to start adding a direct-plug integration into your hardware now. The second chipset is a STM32U585 Arm Cortex-M33 with 2 MB Flash, 786 kB SRAM and running at 160 MHz - it runs the Arduino Core via Zephyr OS and from the block diagram, looks like it communicates with the main core via UART and SPI. The STM is what handles GPIO, PWM, ADC, DAC, timers, etc since it is 3.3V logic and has some 5V logic-level compatibility. The main headers on the Arduino - and some of the bottom extra headers - expose the STM logic so you can connect standard sensors, OLEDs, relays etc. While there are some GPIO from the Dragonwing also available, they're 1.8V logic and are already allocated in the Linux Device tree. The Arduino UNO Q (https://www.digikey.com/short/qc9d09fm) is available for pre-order right now from DigiKey for a door-busting $44! We've already put in our order, and we'll do a project to check it out as soon as it arrives. After you get your pre-order in, check out some of the projects that have already been published to get a sense of the Q's capabilities like this MAME emulation arcade cabinet (https://projecthub.arduino.cc/jcarolinares/arduino-uno-q-arcade-cabinet-machine-39dd38) or face-recognition car (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGDxAXpH_Ag). You can start dreaming of what you'll be able to do with a full computer + microcontroller board that fits where your old UNO R3 would fit, while you wait for the shipping notification.

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we're delving into a series of fascinating updates that underscore a period of significant scientific advancement, strategic partnerships, and regulatory developments in the industry.Starting with Dianthus Therapeutics, which has taken a bold step by investing up to $1 billion to license a bifunctional fusion protein from Nanjing Leads Biolabs. This protein targets autoimmune disorders, a field of immense interest due to the unmet medical needs and potential for breakthrough treatments. Such substantial financial commitments highlight the ongoing trend in the biotech sector towards innovative therapies for autoimmune diseases. In parallel, Sanofi has secured a $500 million agreement with Evoq Therapeutics, continuing its strategic focus on next-generation autoimmune technologies. This partnership aligns with Sanofi's broader strategy to leverage cutting-edge science in managing autoimmune conditions more effectively. Sanofi's engagement with Evoq Therapeutics stands out as a significant step forward in conquering autoimmune diseases through nanodisc technology designed to facilitate the development of curative treatments for disorders like celiac disease and type 1 diabetes. This collaboration reflects a growing trend among pharmaceutical giants investing in advanced biotechnologies that promise transformative impacts on disease management and patient care.Meanwhile, AstraZeneca's renewed collaboration with Immunai, valued at $85 million, seeks to enhance therapies for inflammatory bowel disease through artificial intelligence. This collaboration is part of a wider industry movement towards utilizing AI in drug discovery and development, particularly for complex diseases like IBD. AI's ability to process large datasets and identify potential therapeutic targets faster and more accurately is revolutionizing how companies approach drug development.In clinical trial news, Praxis Precision Medicines has reported positive Phase 3 results for ulixacaltamide in treating essential tremor. This outcome reverses prior concerns from interim analyses and illustrates the persistent innovation in neurological disorder treatments. Similarly, AiCuris has announced successful results from its Phase 3 trial of pritelivir for refractory herpes simplex virus infections in immunocompromised patients. This success paves the way for an FDA filing, demonstrating ongoing progress in antiviral therapy development.Novartis is also making strides with favorable outcomes from its Phase 3 trial of fabhalta for IgA nephropathy. As a complement factor B inhibitor, fabhalta has shown efficacy in slowing kidney function decline, which may lead to a new standard of care for this chronic kidney disease. Novartis plans to file these findings with regulatory bodies soon, highlighting its strategic focus on diversifying into rare kidney diseases.Turning to industry trends, there is significant investment activity in antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). French biotech company ADCytherix has raised $122 million to advance these targeted therapies into clinical trials. ADCs are gaining traction due to their precision in targeting cancer cells while minimizing damage to healthy tissues. Such advancements signal a potential shift in cancer treatment paradigms toward more targeted and less toxic therapies. Similarly, Tubulis raised an impressive Series C funding round to advance work on ADCs targeting ovarian and lung cancers, underscoring the growing interest in the potential of ADCs engineered to deliver cytotoxic drugs specifically to cancer cells.In another intriguing development, research has shown that a common diabetes drug can alleviate brain inflammation in female mice with multiple sclerosis. This finding exemplifies the growing interest in drug repurposSupport the show

What happens when the most complex molecules in biotech meet the organizational challenge of managing 300+ analytical scientists? The answer lies not just in the science, but in building systems that turn technical complexity into reliable delivery.In Part 2 of our deep dive with Amanda Hoertz, VP of Analytical and Formulation Sciences at KBI Biopharma, we shift focus from the molecular intricacies of ADCs to the operational mastery required to scale analytical development across multiple sites. Amanda reveals how her team achieves consistency across hundreds of scientists while maintaining the agility to pivot priorities in real time when critical programs need emergency support.This isn't just about managing people; it's about architecting systems that preserve institutional knowledge, accelerate method transfer, and deliver results when regulatory deadlines loom.What you'll discover:Seamless Project Handoffs Without Knowledge Loss: How KBI's stable team assignments eliminate the costly learning curves that plague most CDMO relationships, ensuring your molecule expertise stays with your program from development through commercial manufacturing.Organizational Scale Without Operational Chaos: The decision tree and layered reporting structure that allows 200+ analysts at a single site to function as a coordinated force, capable of rapid reprioritization and flood-level resource deployment when programs reach critical status.Digital Transformation That Actually Works: Beyond the automation buzzwords, Amanda walks through the practical realities of LIMS/ELN implementation, audit-compliant systems, and machine learning databases that transform raw data into defensible, actionable insights for complex biologics.Whether you're evaluating how analytical capabilities scale with program complexity, or seeking practical insights into leading technical teams through digital transformation, this episode delivers the operational intelligence that separates successful ADC programs from expensive failures.Connect with Amanda Hoertz:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/amanda-hoertz-3aba605KBI Biopharma: www.kbibiopharma.comKBI Portal: www.standalone.kbi.bioNext step:Book a 20-minute call to help you get started on any questions you may have about bioprocessing analytics: https://bruehlmann-consulting.com/call

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 major advancements and strategic moves that are shaping the future of healthcare.A significant development comes from AstraZeneca, which has committed a substantial $445 million investment to bolster production at its Texas facility for Lokelma, a treatment designed for hyperkalemia. Hyperkalemia is a condition characterized by elevated potassium levels in the blood, posing serious health risks if not managed properly. This investment highlights AstraZeneca's dedication to meeting growing global demand and enhancing patient access to this vital treatment. By strengthening its production capabilities, the company aims to ensure a more reliable supply chain, potentially leading to better outcomes for patients worldwide.Meanwhile, Pfizer is making noteworthy progress in the realm of oncology. Recent clinical trial results have positioned Tukysa, developed in collaboration with Seagen, as a promising candidate for first-line maintenance therapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. The potential shift from second-line to first-line treatment could significantly alter patient care by offering an effective therapeutic option earlier in the disease management process. This advancement underscores Pfizer's commitment to improving long-term outcomes for patients battling this aggressive form of cancer.In legal news, a dispute between Novo Nordisk and KBP Pharmaceuticals has underscored the critical importance of transparency and thorough due diligence in biotech transactions. The controversy involves "anomalous" phase 2 clinical trial results that Novo Nordisk claims were not adequately disclosed by KBP. Such cases highlight the necessity for rigorous investigation during mergers and acquisitions to prevent costly legal battles and ensure informed decision-making in drug development partnerships.On the HIV prevention front, GSK has released promising data for its long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis drug, Apretude. This new data suggests Apretude holds higher acceptability compared to Gilead's competing product, Yetztugo. Improved patient adherence could shift market dynamics towards GSK's favor, potentially enhancing public health outcomes by preventing HIV infections more effectively.Manufacturing innovations are also taking center stage as Particle Dynamics collaborates with a former EuroAPI plant to introduce Codis, a new contract development and manufacturing organization (CDMO). Codis will offer comprehensive services such as spray drying and particle engineering, aligning with growing demand for specialized pharmaceutical manufacturing capabilities.Turning our attention to diabetes treatment advancements, Eli Lilly's oral GLP-1 candidate Orforglipron has demonstrated superiority over both placebo and AstraZeneca's Farxiga in phase 3 trials for type 2 diabetes. This success strengthens Eli Lilly's portfolio in a highly competitive market and could lead to regulatory approval next year. An oral treatment option could significantly enhance patient compliance compared to existing injectable GLP-1 therapies.In oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim has entered into a deal worth up to $991 million with AimedBio, focusing on antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) that target proteins involved in tumor growth and resistance. This collaboration highlights the increasing interest in ADCs as targeted cancer therapies capable of minimizing systemic toxicity while delivering potent cytotoxic agents directly to cancer cells.The industry continues to be shaped by funding rounds and strategic acquisitions. Novo Nordisk's acquisition of Omeros' MASP-3 inhibitor Zaltenibart for $2.1 billion marks a significant move in rare disease therapeutics. Despite Omeros pausing development, Novo Nordisk sees potential in treating paroxysSupport the show

Featuring an interview with Dr Laura Huppert, including the following topics: General overview of antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) structure and function; mechanisms of resistance to ADCs (0:00) Preventing and managing toxicities associated with trastuzumab deruxtecan (5:44) Selecting between sacituzumab govitecan and datopotamab deruxtecan for patients with metastatic breast cancer; common toxicities associated with these 2 agents (9:30) Potential use of ADCs in the first line for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) (16:13) Case: A woman in her mid 40s with mTNBC receives sacituzumab govitecan and pembrolizumab in the first-line setting (18:25) CNS penetration and activity of ADCs in the treatment of breast cancer (22:27) Use of trastuzumab deruxtecan for HER2-ultralow mTNBC; promising trials of ADCs and other therapies for mTNBC (24:24) Treatment options in the second line and beyond for patients with HR-positive mBC that is HER2-negative, HER2 low or HER2 ultralow (27:05) Case: A woman in her late 50s with HR-positive, HER2-low mBC experiences disease progression on multiple lines of therapy (30:51) Ongoing evaluation of ADCs in the localized disease setting (35:42) Novel therapeutic approaches for leptomeningeal disease in patients with breast cancer (38:38) CME information and select publications

What if the key to unlocking ADC manufacturing success lies in abandoning the platform mindset entirely?Antibody-drug conjugates represent biotech's most promising weapon against cancer: precision-targeted therapeutics that deliver cytotoxic payloads directly to tumor cells while sparing healthy tissue. But beneath the clinical promise lies a manufacturing reality that's rewriting the rules of bioprocess development, demanding analytical strategies that most CDMOs simply aren't equipped to handle.In this deep-dive episode, David Brühlmann sits down with Amanda Hoertz, Vice President of Analytical and Formulation Sciences at KBI Biopharma, where she oversees 300+ scientists across the mammalian network. Amanda's team has cracked the code on some of the industry's most challenging ADC programs, achieving a remarkable 93% batch success rate by rejecting cookie-cutter approaches in favor of molecule-specific development strategies.What you'll discover:The Platform Fallacy: Why treating ADCs like standard monoclonals is costing companies millions and months of development time, and the bespoke analytical framework that's changing everything.Cytotoxic Payload Management: From free drug analysis to employee safety protocols, Amanda reveals the hidden complexities of handling molecules designed to kill cells, including the specialized facilities and analytical methods required for GMP manufacturing.Charge Heterogeneity Mastery: The analytical method that "keeps Amanda up at night," and the development strategies her team uses to achieve robust separation and qualification across multiple sites and analysts.This episode delivers the technical depth and strategic insights that bioprocess engineers need to navigate ADC development successfully. Whether you're evaluating CDMO partnerships, optimizing analytical methods, or scaling complex conjugates, Amanda's proven strategies will transform your approach to these game-changing therapeutics.Ready to master the analytical complexities that make or break ADC programs?Connect with Amanda Hoertz:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/amanda-hoertz-3aba605KBI Biopharma: www.kbibiopharma.comKBI Portal: www.standalone.kbi.bioNext step:Book a 20-minute call to help you get started on any questions you may have about bioprocessing analytics: https://bruehlmann-consulting.com/call

Dr Laura Huppert from the University of California, San Francisco, discusses approved and investigational antibody-drug conjugates in the current and future management of HR-positive and triple-negative metastatic breast cancer. CME information and select publications here.

Dr. Hope Rugo and Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano discuss recent developments in the field of bispecific antibodies for hematologic and solid tumors, including strategies to optimize the design and delivery of the immunotherapy. 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. I am also the editor-in-chief of the Educational Book. Bispecific antibodies represent an innovative and advanced therapeutic platform in hematologic and solid tumors. And today, I am delighted to be joined by Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano to discuss the current landscape of bispecific antibodies and their potential to reshape the future of precision oncology. Dr. Curigliano was the last author of an ASCO Educational Book piece for 2025 titled, "Bispecific Antibodies in Hematologic and Solid Tumors: Current Landscape and Therapeutic Advances." Dr. Curigliano is a breast medical oncologist and the director of the Early Drug Development Division and chair of the Experimental Therapeutics Program at the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. He is also a full professor of medical oncology at the University of Milan. You can find our disclosures in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Curigliano, Giuseppe, welcome and thanks for being here. Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: Thanks a lot for the invitation. Dr. Hope Rugo: Giuseppe, I would like to first ask you to provide some context for our listeners on how these novel therapeutics work. And then perhaps you could tell us about recent developments in the field of bispecific antibodies for oncology. We are at a time when antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are all the rage and, trying to improve on the targeting of specific antigens, proteins, receptors in the field of oncology is certainly a hot and emerging topic. Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: So, thanks a lot. I believe really it was very challenging to try to summarize all the bispecific antibodies that are under development in multiple solid tumors. So, the first thing that I would like to highlight is the context and the mechanism of action of bispecific antibodies. Bispecific antibodies represent a groundbreaking advancement in cancer immunotherapy, because these engineered molecules have the unique ability to target and simultaneously bind to two distinct antigens. That is why we call them bispecific. So typically, one antigen is expressed on the tumor cell and the other one is expressed on the immune effectors, like T-cell or natural killer cells. So this dual targeting mechanism offers several key advantages over conventional monoclonal antibodies because you can target at the same time the tumor antigen, downregulating the pathway of proliferation, and you can activate the immune system. So the primary mechanism through which bispecific antibodies exert their therapeutic effects are: First, T-cell redirecting. I mean, many bispecific antibodies are designed to engage tumor-associated antigens like epidermal growth factor receptor, HER2, on the cancer cell and a costimulatory molecule on the surface of T-cell. A typical target antigen on T-cell is CD3. So what does it mean? That you activate the immune system, immune cells will reach the tumor bed, and you have a dual effect. One is downregulating cell proliferation, the other one is activation of the immune system. This is really important in hematological malignancies, where we have a lot of bispecifics already approved, like acute lymphoblastic leukemia or non-Hodgkin lymphoma.  The second, in fact, is the engagement of the tumor microenvironment. So, if you engage immune effector cells like NK cells or macrophages, usually the bispecific antibodies can exploit the immune system's ability to recognize and kill the immune cells, even if there is a lack of optimal antigen presentation.  And finally, the last mechanism of action, this may have a role in the future, maybe in the early cancer setting, is overcoming immune evasion. So bispecific antibodies can overcome some of the immune evasion mechanisms that we see in cancer. For example, bispecific antibodies can target immune checkpoint receptors, like PD-L1 and CTLA-4. Actually, there is a bispecific under development in breast cancer that has a dual targeting on vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and on PD-L1. So you have a dual effect at the same time. So, what is really important, as a comment, is we need to focus first on the optimal format of the bispecific, the optimal half-life, the stability, because of course even if they are very efficient in inducing a response, they may give also a lot of toxicities. So in clinical trials already, we have several bispecifics approved. In solid tumors, very few, specifically amivantamab for non-small cell lung cancer, but we have a pipeline of almost 40 to 50 bispecifics under development in multiple solid tumors, and some of them are in the context of prospective randomized trials. Dr. Hope Rugo: So this is really a fascinating area and it's really exciting to see the expansion of the different targets for bispecific antibodies. One area that has intrigued me also is that some of the bispecifics actually will target different parts of the same receptor or the same protein, but presumably those will be used as a different strategy. It's interesting because we have seen that, for example, in targeting HER2. Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: Oh, yes, of course. You may consider some bispecifics like margetuximab, I suppose, in which you can target specifically two different epitopes of the same antigen. This is really an example of how a bispecific can potentially be more active and downregulating, let us say, a pathway, by targeting two different domains of a specific target antigen. This is an important point.  Of course, not all the bispecifics work this way, because some of the target antigen may dimerize, and so you have a family of target antigen; an example is epidermal growth factor receptor, in which you have HER1, HER2, HER3, and HER4. So some of them can inhibit the dimerization between one target antigen and the other one, in order to exert a more antiproliferative effect. But to be honest, the new generation of them are more targeting two different antigens, one on the tumor and one on the microenvironment, because according to the clinical data, this is a more efficient way to reduce proliferation and to activate the immune system. Dr. Hope Rugo: Really interesting, and I think it brings us to the next topic, which is really where bispecific antibodies have already shown success, and that is in hematologic malignancies where we have seen very interesting efficacy and these are being used in the clinic already. But the expansion of bispecific antibodies into solid tumors faces some key challenges. It's interesting because the challenges come in different shapes and forms. Tell us about some of those challenges and strategies to optimize bispecific antibody design, delivery, patient selection, and how we are going to use these agents in the right kind of clinical trials. Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: This is really an excellent question because despite bispecific antibodies having shown a remarkable efficacy in hematological malignancies, their application in solid tumors may have some challenges. The first one is tumor heterogeneity. In hematological malignancy, you have a clear oncogene addiction. Let us say that 90% of the cells may express the same antigen. In solid tumors, it is not the same. Tumor heterogeneity is a typical characteristic of solid tumors, and you have high heterogeneity at the genetic, molecular, and phenotypic levels. So tumor cells can differ significantly from one another, even if within the same tumor. And this heterogeneity sometimes makes it difficult to identify a single target antigen that is universally expressed in an hematological malignancy. So furthermore, sometimes the antigen expressed on a tumor cell can be also present on the normal tissue. And so you may have a cross-targeting. So let's say, if you have a bispecific against epidermal growth factor receptor, this will target the tumor but will target also the skin with a lot of toxicity. The second challenge is the tumor microenvironment. The solid tumor microenvironment is really complex and often immunosuppressive. It is characterized by the presence of immunosuppressor cells like the T regulators, myeloid derived suppressor cells, and of course the extracellular matrix. All these factors hinder immune cell infiltration and also may reduce dramatically the effectiveness of bispecific antibodies. And as you know, there is also an hypoxic condition in the tumor. The other challenge is related to the poor tumor penetration. As you know also with antibody-drug conjugate, only 1 to 3% of the drug will arrive in the tumor bed. Unlike hematological malignancies where tumor cells are dispersed in the blood and easily accessible, the solid tumors have a lot of barriers, and so it means that tumor penetration can be very low. Finally, the vascularity also of the tumor can be different across solid tumors. That is why some bispecifics have a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor or vascular endothelial growth factor as a target. Of course, what do we have to do to overcome these challenges? First, we have to select the optimal antigen. So knowing very well the biology of cancer and the tumor-associated antigens can really select a subgroup of epitopes that are specifically overexpressed in cancer cells. And so we need to design bispecifics according to the tumor type. Second, optimize the antibody format. So there are numerous bispecific antibody formats. We can consider the dual variable domain immunoglobulin, we specified this in our paper. The single chain variable fragments, so FC variable fragments, and the diabodies that can enhance both binding affinity and stability. And finally, the last point, combination therapies. Because bispecific antibodies targeting immune checkpoint, we have many targeting PD-1 or PD-L1 or CTLA-4, combined eventually with other immune checkpoint inhibitors. And so you may have more immunostimulating effect. Dr. Hope Rugo: This is a fascinating field and it is certainly going to go far in the treatment of solid tumors. You know, I think there is some competition with what we have now for antibody-drug conjugates. Do you see that bispecifics will eventually become bispecific ADCs? Are we going to combine these bispecific antibodies with ADCs, with chemotherapy? What is the best combination strategy do you think looking forward? Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: So, yes, we have a bispecific ADC. We have actually some bispecifics that are conjugated with a payload of chemotherapy. Some others are conjugated with immunoactivation agents like IL-2. One of the most effective strategies for enhancing bispecific activity is the combination therapy. So which type of combination can we do? First, bispecific antibodies plus checkpoint inhibitors. If you combine a bispecific with an immune checkpoint, like anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, or anti-CTLA-4, you have more activity because you have activation of T-cells, reduction of immunosuppressive effect, and of course, the capability of this bispecific to potentiate the activity of the immune checkpoint inhibitor. So, in my opinion, in a non-small cell lung cancer with an expression of PD-L1 more than 50%, if you give pembrolizumab plus a bispecific targeting PD-L1, you can really improve both response rate and median progression-free survival.  Another combination is chemotherapy plus bispecific antibodies. Combining chemotherapy with bispecific can enhance the cytotoxic effect because chemotherapy induces immunogenic cell death, and then you boost with a bispecific in order to activate the immune system. Bispecific and CAR T-cells, until now, we believe that these are in competition, but this is not correct. Because CAR T-cells are designed to deliver an activation of the immune system with the same lymphocytes engineered of the patients, with a long-term effect. So I really do not believe that bispecifics are in competition with CAR T-cells because when you have a complete remission induced by CAR T-cell, the effect of this complete remission can last for years. The activity of a bispecific is a little bit different. So there are some studies actually combining CAR T-cells with bispecifics. For example, bispecific antibodies can direct CAR T-cells in the tumor microenvironment, improving their specificity and enhancing their therapeutic effect.  And finally, monoclonal antibody plus bispecific is another next generation activity. Because if you use bispecific antibodies in combination with existing monoclonal antibodies like anti-HER2, you can potentially increase the immune response and enhance tumor cell targeting. In hematological malignancies, this has been already demonstrated and this approach has been particularly effective. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's just so fascinating, the whole idea that we have these monoclonal antibodies and now we are going to add them to bispecifics that we could maybe attach on different toxins to try and improve this, or even give them with different approaches. I suppose giving an ADC with a bispecific would sort of be similar to that idea of giving a monoclonal antibody with the bispecific. So it is certainly intriguing. We also will need to understand the toxicity and cost overall and how we are going to use these, the duration of treatment, the assessment of biomarkers. There are just so many different aspects that still need to be explored.  And then with that idea, can you look ahead five or ten years from now, and tell us how you think bispecific antibodies will shape our next generation cancer therapies, how they will be incorporated into precision oncology, and the new combinations and approaches as we move forward that will help us tailor treatment for patients both with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies? Are we going to be giving these in early-stage disease in solid tumors? So far, the studies are primarily focusing on the metastatic setting, but obviously one of the goals when we have successful treatments is to move them into the early stage setting as quickly as possible. Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: Let us try to look ahead five years rather than ten years, to be more realistic. So, personally I believe some bispecifics can potentially replace current approaches in specifically T-cell selected population. As we gather more data from ongoing clinical trials and we adopt a deeper understanding of the tumor immuno microenvironment, of course we may have potentially new achievement. A few days ago, we heard that bispecifics in triple negative breast cancer targeting VEGF and PD-L1 demonstrated an improvement in median progression-free survival.  So, how to improve and to impact on clinical practice both in the metastatic and in the early breast cancer setting or solid tumor setting? First, personalized antigen selection. So we need to have the ability to tailor bispecific antibody therapy to the unique tumor profile of individual patients. So the more we understand the biology of cancers, the more we will be able to better target. Second, bispecific antibodies should be combined. I can see in the future a potential trial in which you combine a bispecific anti-PD-L1 and VEGF with immune checkpoint inhibitor selected also to the level of expression of PD-L1, because integration of antibody bispecific with a range of immunotherapies, and this cannot be only immune checkpoint inhibitors, but can be CAR T-cells, oncolytic viruses, also targeted therapy, will likely be a dominant theme in the coming years. This combination will be based on the specific molecular and immuno feature of the cancer of the patient.  Then we need an enhanced delivery system. This is really important because you know now we have a next generation antibody. An example are the bicyclic. So you use FC fragment that are very short, with a low molecular weight, and this short fragment can be bispecific, so can target at the same time a target antigen and improving the immune system. And so the development of this novel delivery system, including also nanoparticles or engineered viral vectors, can enhance the penetration in the tumor bed and the bioavailability of bispecific antibodies. Importantly, we need to reduce toxicity. Until now, bispecifics are very toxic. So the more we are efficient in delivering in the tumor bed, the more we will reduce the risk of toxicity. So it will be mandatory to reduce off-target effects and to minimize toxicity.  And finally, the expansion in new indication. So I really believe you raised an excellent point. We need to design studies in the neoadjuvant setting in order to better understand with multiple biopsies which is the effect on the tumor microenvironment and the tumor itself, and to generate hypotheses for potential trials or in the neoadjuvant setting or in those patients with residual disease.  So, in my opinion, as we refine design, optimize patient selection, and explore new combination, in the future we will have more opportunity to integrate bispecifics in the standard of care. Dr. Hope Rugo: I think it is particularly helpful to hear what we are going to be looking for as we move forward to try and improve efficacy and reduce toxicity. And the ability to engineer these new antibodies and to more specifically target the right proteins and immune effectors is going to be critical, of course, moving forward, as well as individualizing therapy based on a specific tumor biology.  Hearing your insights has been great, and it really has opened up a whole area of insight into the field of bispecifics, together with your excellent contribution to the ASCO Educational Book. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and background, as well as what we might see in the future on this podcast today. Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: Thank you very much for the invitation and for this excellent interview. Dr. Hope Rugo: And thanks to our listeners for joining us today. You will find a link to the Ed Book article we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. It is also, of course, on the ASCO website, as well as on PubMed. Please join us again next month on By the Book for more insightful views on the key issues and innovations that are shaping modern oncology. 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  @hope.rugo  Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano @curijoey Follow ASCO on social media:       @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)       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. Giuseppe Curigliano: Leadership: European Society for Medical Oncology, European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists, ESMO Open, European Society for Medical Oncology Honoraria: Ellipses Pharma Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Foundation Medicine, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Samsung, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Boerigher, GSK, Seattle Genetics, Guardant Health, Veracyte, Celcuity, Hengrui Therapeutics, Menarini, Merck, Exact Sciences, Blueprint Medicines, Gilead Sciences Speakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Foundation Medicine, Samsung, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Menarini, Gilead Sciences, Exact Sciences Research Funding: Merck Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca      

Featuring a slide presentation and related discussion from Dr Laura Huppert, including the following topics: Overview of approved antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) for metastatic hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer — trastuzumab deruxtecan, sacituzumab govitecan and datopotamab deruxtecan(0:00) Approved and investigational ADCs for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (17:18) Sequencing of ADCs for metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer; future research directions (26:10) CME information and select publications

Please visit answersincme.com/YMJ860 to participate, download slides and supporting materials, complete the post test, and obtain credit. In this activity, experts in gynecologic oncology discuss the evolving clinical roles of antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) in ovarian cancer, focusing on CDH6-targeted ADCs. Upon completion of this activity, participants should be better able to: Identify the rationale for using antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) in the treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC); Evaluate the evidence for emerging CDH6-targeted ADCs in the treatment of patients with PROC; Outline expected clinical implications of the evidence for emerging CDH6-targeted ADCs in the treatment of PROC.

CME credits: 0.50 Valid until: 11-11-2026 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/rethinking-the-therapeutic-targeting-of-b7-h3-in-es-sclc/37876/ This online CME program will provide the latest clinical updates on B7-H3–directed antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Faculty experts will review the biological rationale for targeting B7-H3 in ES-SCLC and discuss recent clinical evidence on B7-H3 ADCs presented at WCLC and ESMO 2025. Participants will gain practical insights on selecting appropriate patients for B7-H3 ADCs, including efficacy and safety considerations. The program will equip oncology professionals with evidence-based strategies to integrate emerging B7-H3 ADCs into multidisciplinary care for ES-SCLC when they become available.

CME credits: 0.50 Valid until: 11-11-2026 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/emerging-clinical-evidence-for-b7-h3directed-adcs-in-es-sclc-from-wclc-2025/37877/ This online CME program will provide the latest clinical updates on B7-H3–directed antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Faculty experts will review the biological rationale for targeting B7-H3 in ES-SCLC and discuss recent clinical evidence on B7-H3 ADCs presented at WCLC and ESMO 2025. Participants will gain practical insights on selecting appropriate patients for B7-H3 ADCs, including efficacy and safety considerations. The program will equip oncology professionals with evidence-based strategies to integrate emerging B7-H3 ADCs into multidisciplinary care for ES-SCLC when they become available.

CME credits: 0.50 Valid until: 11-11-2026 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/translating-clinical-data-into-multidisciplinary-practice-for-es-sclc/37878/ This online CME program will provide the latest clinical updates on B7-H3–directed antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Faculty experts will review the biological rationale for targeting B7-H3 in ES-SCLC and discuss recent clinical evidence on B7-H3 ADCs presented at WCLC and ESMO 2025. Participants will gain practical insights on selecting appropriate patients for B7-H3 ADCs, including efficacy and safety considerations. The program will equip oncology professionals with evidence-based strategies to integrate emerging B7-H3 ADCs into multidisciplinary care for ES-SCLC when they become available.

JCO PO authors Dr. Abhishek Tripathi and Dr. Salvador Jaime-Casas at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center share insights into their article, “Comparative Genomic Characterization of Small Cell Carcinoma of the Bladder Compared With Urothelial Carcinoma and Small Cell Lung Carcinoma.”  Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Drs. Tripathi and Jaime-Casas discuss a novel understanding of the genomic alterations underlying SCBC, revealing actionable mutations that could serve as potential targets for improved clinical outcomes. 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 am your host, Dr. Dr. Rafeh Naqash, Podcast Editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Associate Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma. Today, I am thrilled to be joined by Dr. Abhishek Tripathi, Associate Professor in the Department of Medical Oncology and Experimental Therapeutics Research at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, as well as his mentee, Dr. Salvador Jaime-Casas, postdoctoral research fellow and first author of the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled "Comparative Genomic Characterization of Small Cell Carcinoma of the Bladder Compared with Urothelial Carcinoma and Small Cell Lung Carcinoma". At the time of this recording, our guest disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Abhishek and Salvador, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us today. This is a very interesting topic given that at least the landscape for neuroendocrine carcinomas, where small cell lung cancer is on one end of the spectrum, has been changing, at least on the lung cancer side, with recent approvals and some new ADCs. So, of course, understanding the genomic and transcriptomic similarities or differences between pulmonary small cell and extrapulmonary small cell is of huge interest. Could you tell us a little bit about small cell bladder cancer, current approaches to treatment of small cell bladder cancer, and then why you wanted to investigate that in this project as far as the genomic differences or similarities are concerned? Dr. Salvador Jaime-Casas: Well, first of all, thank you very much for having me. I am very excited to be here. And really what served as backbone for this research project was the notion that there is a currently evolving genomic landscape in the area of bladder cancer. We know this is a highly heterogeneous disease when it comes to molecular underpinnings and mutational profile. Specifically, we know that the most common histologic subtype is urothelial carcinoma. Small cell bladder cancer represents a histology that is found in less than 1% of all bladder cancer cases. However, it is one of the most aggressive histologies. It presents with a very poor prognosis to patients and very poor response to treatment, which is why we attempted to really elucidate what is the mutational profile behind this and provide a comparison contrast between small cell bladder cancer, small cell lung cancer, and conventional urothelial carcinoma. As your question mentioned, in terms of treatment, the conventional urothelial carcinoma and small cell bladder cancer are two distinct pathways when it comes to treatment algorithms. We know that in the current era there are newer and newer drugs being developed for conventional urothelial carcinoma. We have perioperative immunotherapy in the context of metastatic disease. We have antibody-drug conjugates such as enfortumab vedotin. But really, this amazing track record of drug development hasn't been mirrored in small cell bladder cancer. And here most of the therapy is usually extrapolated from studies from other small cell histologies like you mentioned earlier, small cell lung cancer has given some form of background in terms of what therapies are used here. Cytotoxic chemotherapy, for some patients with localized disease and small cell bladder cancer, concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy or perioperative cytotoxic chemotherapy have been the cornerstone of treatment for many years now. However, like I mentioned, the oncologic outcomes are very suboptimal when it comes to comparing it with other disease histologies, which is why we really wanted to describe the landscape here and provide this comparison across three different groups. For this particular study, we leveraged the Tempus dataset. So, include patients with urothelial carcinoma with small cell bladder cancer and small cell lung cancer. We included their demographic information, as well as the frequency of most common genomic alterations identified. And really, it was a very comparable Table 1. We see the demographic data across the three groups was very similar. One key thing that we identified was the female prevalence was a little bit lower in patients with small cell bladder cancer when compared to small cell lung cancer. But other than that, the age, race, ethnicity, was comparable across groups, and even the smoking history. Most of the patients in this cohort were former smokers, which we believe comes to explain that regardless of any mutational profile that we talked about in a few minutes, there are shared commonalities between these histologies and shared environmental exposures and risk factors that are going to be implicated in the disease biology for these three histologies. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much, Salvador, for that useful background. I would like to shift to Abhishek real quick. Abhishek, you are a practicing clinician, you have led several studies in the GU space, especially bladder. Based on what you see in the small cell lung cancer space, how drug development is shaping up, which aligns with what you are trying to evaluate in this paper as targets, how do you see some of that being implemented for small cell bladder cancer in the current era and age? Abhishek Tripathi: Thanks so much for the excellent question, Rafeh. As a GU investigator, small cell bladder cancer has always lagged behind in some regards regarding enrollment abilities for the novel clinical trials. And small cell lung cancer has paved the way and led the development of a lot of these drugs across the board. With the most recent sort of drugs targeting DLL3 already approved and several antibody-drug conjugates currently in development. That actually translates really well to how we should approach drug development in bladder cancer. What we saw in the study is that although there are overlaps and similarities between small cell lung cancer and small cell bladder cancer, there are also certain differences. So the long-term assumption that all therapies for small cell bladder cancer can be extrapolated to small cell bladder], may or may not be true, and I think it is high time that we specifically investigate these novel agents in tissue-specific small cell carcinomas. To that effect, we are excited to be participating in trials that are looking at some of the novel DLL3 targeted agents, specifically bispecific antibodies and T cell engagers so to speak, and antibody-drug conjugates that are now starting to open enrollment specifically in non-lung cancer cohorts to evaluate its efficacy. So overall, I think studies like this have the opportunity to identify more putative targets for organ-specific development of these novel agents. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Absolutely, I could not agree more. I think tumor-agnostic therapies definitely have a place, but not all therapies work the same in different tumors with a similar histological or genomic background because there are definitely differences. So now going to the comparison that Salvador, you guys did in this project, could you help us understand what are some of the things you looked at, what were some of the commonalities and the differences, and what were some of the conceptual thoughts that come out from those results? Dr. Salvador Jaime-Casas: Of course. So, the first thing that we identified was which were the most frequent molecular alterations across these histologies. We actually provided a table showcasing how the most common mutations that we identified were TP53, TERT, RB1. However, like Dr. Tripathi mentioned, the distinction between these histologies is notable in the sense that some are more predominant in small cell-pertaining cancers such as bladder cancer and lung cancer. While some others are more common in bladder-pertaining malignancies like urothelial carcinoma and small cell bladder cancer. For instance, we saw that TP53 and RB1 were significantly more evident in small cell histologies, both small cell bladder cancer and small cell lung cancer, as opposed to conventional urothelial carcinoma, which really this mirrors what is known about these mutations and what has been published. These are markers associated with more aggressive disease with a worse prognosis and even to resistance to treatment. We also identified how TERT mutations were characteristically more prevalent in small cell bladder cancer as opposed to small cell lung cancer, as well as in urothelial carcinoma. TERT mutations were more commonly identified than in small cell lung cancer. And we give a long list of these mutations that we identified, but really what we wanted to underscore here was, A, the most common mutations across histologies; B, the most common co-occurring mutations where we saw that these are not mutually exclusive. A lot of patients had co-occurring TP53 and RB1 or RB1 and TERT or RB1 and ARID1A, really elucidating how heterogeneous this molecular landscape is across histologies. And the third one that we believe really brings down the clinical impact of this research was evidencing the idea of clinically actionable mutations. We also provided a table here showcasing how mutations like FGFR, DLL notch pathway, HER2, were evident in these histologies, and what is the current status of some clinical trials evaluating different drug designs for these mutations. Like Dr. Tripathi mentioned in the context of FGFR, approximately 6% of our cohort with small cell bladder cancer showcased mutations in FGFR3. However, up to 14% of them had mutations in any FGFR gene, which really underscores the notion that drugs like erdafitinib, which have been introduced in the market in recent years, could potentially showcase some response in the space of small cell bladder cancer. We actually provide the description of two trials, phase two, phase three trials, that are evaluating erdafitinib in the context of high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer and even metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Like Dr. Tripathi mentioned as well, antibody-drug conjugates, another very interesting area of drug development targeting HER2, we included evidence on how disitamab vedotin and trastuzumab deruxtecan are currently being explored across different phase two and phase three clinical trials, both as part of basket trial designs for solid malignancies expressing HER2, but also for patients with urothelial carcinoma where there is evidence of HER2 expression. So, we believe that the landscape is shifting in the right direction in the sense that therapies are becoming much more personalized and targeted against these known molecular profiles. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you, Salvador, for summarizing some of those very interesting results and providing a very unique conceptual context to that. I would like to go to Abhishek this last portion. Of course, I am sure you guys will expand on this work and there are a lot of other interesting things that will likely come out from this work and hopefully you will publish that in JCO PO. But one of the very important things that I wanted to highlight from this podcast specifically was the science is obviously very interesting, but I feel the more important interesting aspect is giving trainees and fellows, residents, mentorship opportunities, mentoring them and giving them lead roles in projects like this, which is what Dr. Tripathi has successfully done for you in this project, Salvador. So, Abhishek, as somebody I have known for a couple of years now, more than a couple of years, as a very successful clinical translational investigator in the GU space in the early phase setting, Abhishek, really briefly, within a minute, could you tell us about your journey and what are some of the things that have worked for you as an early career investigator that you have learned from, and then your journey of mentorship, how has that been for you and what are some of the things that you take home from your mentorship role? Abhishek Tripathi: Absolutely. And as you mentioned, mentorship has been pivotal for all early career investigators for them to really succeed. So, my journey, as you know, I started off as an early career investigator at another institution, and I think I owe it to my mentors even at that time and even now who are helping me develop some of these newer translational and clinical trial ideas, creating opportunities where we could really showcase some of the interesting work that we are doing. That actually goes a long way in terms of creating independence as an established investigator. And I think the sooner we start off with mentorship prospects, I think the better it is. And paying it forward, I think I have been lucky to have mentees like Salvador who are just extremely talented, really committed, and goal-oriented. He really led the project right from the beginning in terms of initial analyses and looking up all the sort of correlative studies that we could do and the contextual data between small cell lung cancer and bladder cancer that we have delved into for the past several years. And it really showcases the ability of young mentees like Salvador to really excel given the right guidance and the support. As a mentor, it has been a really rewarding experience. It is really helpful to actually learn from some of these mentees as well as to approach the same problem from a different angle and different thought process and guide them through the study. So, it has been incredibly helpful and rewarding both being a mentee and a mentor over the past several years as I have transitioned. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you, Abhishek, for those very insightful comments on how both being a mentee and being a mentor helps shape you as an individual as well. And then you take a lot of pride in the success of your mentees. Now real quick, Salvador, could you tell us a little bit about yourself, you know, how you ended up at City of Hope under Dr. Tripathi's mentorship and what are some of the next important things that you are looking forward to doing? Dr. Salvador Jaime-Casas: So, a little bit about who I am. I did medical school in Mexico City. I was born and raised there, and towards the end of my medical training, I started to be engaged in research projects. And through one of my mentors in Mexico, I was actually introduced to the team here at City of Hope, including Dr. Tripathi. And through this, we got the opportunity to have some conversations about what I wanted to do, become a physician-researcher in the area of genitourinary oncology and hopefully my transition to residency in a few years. And that is how I came to be his mentee here at City of Hope. I think it has been a very rewarding experience, like Dr. Tripathi said, having such an incredible mentor and really being with him both in the academic setting and in the clinical setting, in patients with clinic, seeing this curiosity and all these clinical trials, all of this evidence that we have coming together to generate this insight. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much for both the scientific insights, as well as the journey of being a mentee for you, Salvador, and as a mentor for you, Abhishek. I really enjoyed talking to you guys about both aspects here today and hopefully we will see more of your work, Abhishek and Salvador, as far as understanding the transcriptomic heterogeneity in neuroendocrine tumors or neuroendocrine cancers of the bladder. Dr. Salvador Jaime-Casas: Thank you very much. Thank you for having us. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Do not 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/podcasts. 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.   Dr. Abhishek Tripathi Disclosures Consulting or Advisory Role:  Company: Aadi biosciences, Seattle Genetics/Astellas, Exelixis, Bayer, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Deka biosciences Speakers' Bureau: Company: Sanofi

Featuring an interview with Prof Peter Schmid, including the following topics: Response to immunotherapy in breast cancer subtypes (0:00) Tolerability of TROP2 antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) for metastatic breast cancer (mBC) (3:51) Approaches to therapy for patients with HR-negative HER2-low and HER2-ultralow mBC (13:03) ADC structure and treatment-related adverse events (19:02) Available data from the Phase III ASCENT-04 trial evaluating sacituzumab govitecan with pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for patients with PD-L1-positive advanced triple-negative breast cancer (23:06) Novel ADCs and bispecific antibodies under investigation for mBC (28:30) Comparing datopotamab deruxtecan and sacituzumab govitecan for HR-positive disease (33:01) Clinical investigator perspectives on the Phase III DESTINY-Breast09 trial evaluating first-line trastuzumab deruxtecan with or without pertuzumab versus THP (docetaxel/rastuzumab/pertuzumab) for HER2-positive mBC (35:06) CME information and select publications

Drs. Liu and Scott discuss the future of small cell lung cancer treatment, reviewing emerging strategies including immunotherapy, antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs), and bispecific T-cell engagers, as well as other targeted agents.

Featuring a slide presentation and related discussion from Prof Peter Schmid, including the following topics: Evolution of the therapeutic landscape for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer; age of immunotherapy (0:00) Case: A woman in her early 40s with no actionable mutations (7:29) Evolution of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in the management of metastatic breast cancer (11:13) TROP2-directed ADCs (15:22) Case: A woman in her early 50s with PD-L1-negative, HR-negative, HER2-low de novo metastatic breast cancer (20:21) Novel strategies utilizing approved and investigational ADCs (23:28) Case: A woman in her early 60s with loss of HER2 expression on disease progression (31:39) ADCs in combination with immunotherapy (32:51) CME information and select publications

Michael Glass, RF Systems Sales Engineer at Quantic Wenzel, talks with Pat Hindle about the rising demand for ultra-low phase noise frequency sources in digital RF systems. They cover how ADCs, PLLs, DDS synthesizers, and RF SoCs still depend on clean analog clocks to reach low noise floors, and how newer designs push for higher frequencies, smaller form factors, rugged construction, and multiple coherent outputs. Glass explains how low noise clocks improve radar resolution, SATCOM link reliability, and system performance. Sponsored by Quantic Wenzel.

The OncoAlert Weekly Roundup is your go-to podcast for the latest, most impactful updates in oncology from across the globe

Featuring an interview with Dr Neel Pasricha, including the following topics: Anatomy and physiology of the cornea; intersection of ophthalmology and oncology for patients receiving antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) (0:00) Association of corneal toxicities with ADCs (4:56) Dose and schedule modifications to mitigate ocular toxicities associated with belantamab mafodotin and other ADCs (9:02) Spectrum and severity of corneal toxicities associated with datopotamab deruxtecan (14:44) Role of optometrists and ophthalmologists in screening for and management of ocular toxicities (17:55) Other ocular toxicities associated with cancer therapies (24:26) Prevention and management of corneal toxicity (33:58) Preexisting ophthalmic conditions as potential risk factors for development of ocular toxicities with ADCs (43:39) General clinical pearls on the management of ocular toxicities with cancer therapies (48:04) CME information and select publications

In this podcast, experts Virginia Kaklamani, MD, DSc, and Tiffany A. Traina, MD, FASCO, discuss the rationale for and data to support combining TROP2-targeting antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) to treat triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

In this podcast, experts Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, FASCO, Erika P. Hamilton, MD, and Virginia Kaklamani, MD, DSc, discuss frequently asked questions regarding the use of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Featuring perspectives from Prof Rebecca A Dent, Dr Hans Lee, Dr Neel Pasricha and Dr Tiffany A Richards, including the following topics:  Introduction: The Patient Experience (0:00) Managing Ocular Toxicities Associated with Antibody-Drug Conjugates and Other Cancer Therapies — Dr Pasricha (10:28) Ocular Toxicities in Multiple Myeloma (45:33) Ocular Toxicities in Breast Cancer (50:34) CME information and select publications

In this podcast, experts Filipa Lynce, MD, and Rita Nanda, MD, discuss recent clinical trial and real-world data for antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) used to treat triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

In this podcast, experts Filipa Lynce, MD, and Rita Nanda, MD, discuss unmet needs in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and the rationale for using TROP2-targeting antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in this disease.

Please visit answersincme.com/860/98320325-replay to participate, download slides and supporting materials, complete the post test, and obtain credit. In this activity, experts in oncology discuss the evolving role of HER2-targeted antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) and how to integrate them into clinical practice. Upon completion of this activity, participants should be better able to: Recognize the role of biomarker testing for the management of HER2-overexpressing NSCLC; Evaluate the clinical significance of new and emerging HER2-targeting ADCs for HER2-overexpressing NSCLC; and Apply strategies to optimize the use of HER2 targeting ADCs in patients with NSCLC.

Dr. Pedro Barata and Dr. Rana McKay discuss the integration of innovative advances in molecular imaging and therapeutics to personalize treatment for patients with renal cell and urothelial carcinomas. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pedro Barata: Hello, I'm Dr. Pedro Barata, your guest host of By the Book, a podcast series featuring insightful conversations between authors and editors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm a medical oncologist at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and an associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. I'm also an associate editor of the ASCO Educational Book. Now, we all know the field of genitourinary cancers (GU) is evolving quite rapidly, and we have new innovations in molecular imaging as well as targeted therapeutics. Today's episode will be exploring novel approaches that are transforming the management of renal cell and urothelial carcinomas and also their potential to offer a more personalized treatment to patients. For that, joining for today's discussion is Dr. Rana McKay, a GU medical oncologist and professor at University of California San Diego. Dr. McKay will discuss her recently published article titled, “Emerging Paradigms in Genitourinary Cancers: Integrating Molecular Imaging, Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-Targeted Therapies, and Antibody-Drug Conjugates in Renal Cell and Urothelial Carcinomas.”  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  And with that, Rana McKay, great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Rana McKay: Oh, thank you so much, Dr. Barata. It's really wonderful to be here with you. So, thanks for hosting. Dr. Pedro Barata: No, thanks for taking the time, and I'm looking forward to this conversation. And by the way, let me start by saying congrats on a great article in the Educational Book. Really super helpful paper. I'm recommending it to a lot of the residents and fellows at my own institution. I would like to first ask you to kind of give our listeners some context of how novel approaches in the molecular imaging as well as targeted therapeutics are actually changing the way we're managing patients with GU, but specifically with renal cell carcinoma and urothelial carcinoma. So, what are the areas you would call out as like being big areas for innovation in this context, and why are they important? Dr. Rana McKay: Very good question. And I think this is really what this article highlights. It highlights where are we going from an imaging diagnostics standpoint? Where are we going from a therapeutic standpoint? And I think if we have to step back, from the standpoint of diagnostics, we've seen PET imaging really transform diagnostics in prostate cancer with the advent of PSMA PET imaging, and now PSMA PET imaging is used as a biomarker for selection for theranostics therapy. And so, we're starting to see that enter into the RCC landscape, enter into the urothelial cancer landscape to a lesser extent. And I think it's going to potentially be transformative as these tools get more refined. I think when we think about therapeutics, what's been transformative most recently in the renal cell carcinoma landscape has been the advent of HIF2α inhibition to improve outcomes for patients. And we have seen the approval of belzutifan most recently that has reshaped the landscape. And now there's other HIF2α inhibitors that are being developed that are going to be further important as they get refined. And lastly, I think when we think about urothelial carcinoma, the greatest transformation to treatment in that context has been the displacement of cisplatin and platinum-based chemotherapy as a frontline standard with the combination of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab. And we've seen antibody-drug conjugates really reshape treatment and tremendously improve outcomes for patients. So, I think those are the three key areas of interest. Dr. Pedro Barata: So with that, let's focus first on the imaging and then we'll get to the therapeutic area. So, we know there's been a paradigm shift, really, when prostate-specific targets emerged as tracers for PET scanning. And so, we now commonly use prostate-specific membrane antigen, or PSMA-based PET scanning, and really transform how we manage prostate cancer. Now, it appears that we're kind of seeing a similar wave in renal cell carcinoma with the new radiotracer against the target carbonic anhydrase IX. What can you tell us about this? And is this going to be available to us anytime soon? And how do you think that might potentially change the way we're managing patients with RCC today? Dr. Rana McKay: First, I'll step back and say that in the context of PSMA PET imaging, we have actually been able to better understand RCC as well. So, we know that PSMA is expressed in the neovasculature of tumors, and it can actually be used to detect renal cell carcinoma tumors. It has a detection rate of about 84% when used for detection. And so, you know, I don't think it's just restricted to carbonic anhydrase IX, but we will talk about that. So, PSMA expressed in the neovasculature has a detection rate of around 84%, particularly if we're looking at clear cell RCC. CAlX is overexpressed in clear cell RCC, and it's actually used in diagnosing renal cell carcinoma when we think of CAlX IHC for diagnosing clear cell RCC. And now there are CAlX PET tracers. The first foray was with the ZIRCON study that was actually an interestingly designed study because it was designed to detect the likelihood of PET imaging to identify clear cell RCC. So, it was actually used in the early diagnostics setting when somebody presents with a renal mass to discriminate that renal mass from a clear cell versus a non-clear cell, and it was a positive study. But when I think about the potential application for these agents, you know, I think about the entire landscape of renal cell carcinoma. This is a disease that we do treat with metastasis-directed therapy. We have certainly seen patients who've undergone metastasectomy have long, durable remissions from such an approach. And I think if we can detect very early onset oligometastatic disease where a metastasis-directed therapy or SABR could be introduced - obviously tested in a trial to demonstrate its efficacy - I think it could potentially be transformative. Dr. Pedro Barata: Wonderful. It's a great summary, and I should highlight you are involved in some of those ongoing studies testing the performance of this specific PET scanning for RCC against conventional imaging, right? And to remind the listeners, thus far, for the most part, we don't really do FDG-PET for RCC. There are some specific cases we do, but in general, they're not a standard scanning. But maybe that will change in the future. Maybe RCC will have their own PSMA-PET. And to your point, there's also emerging data about the role of PSMA-PET scanning in RCC as well, as you very elegantly summarized. Wonderful. So, let me shift gears a little bit because you did, in your introduction, you did highlight a novel MOA that we have in renal cell carcinoma, approved for use, initially for VHL disease, and after that for sporadic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. We're talking about hypoxia-inducible factor 2-alpha inhibitors, or HIF2α inhibitors, such as belzutifan. But there's also others coming up. So, as a way to kind of summarize that, what can you tell us about this breakthrough in terms of therapeutic class, this MOA that got to our toolbox of options for patients with advanced RCC? Tell us a little bit what is being utilized currently in the management of advanced RCC. And where do you see the future going, as far as, is it moving early on? Is it getting monotherapy versus combinations? Maybe other therapies? What are your thoughts about that? What can you tell us about it? Dr. Rana McKay: Belzutifan is a first-in-class HIF2α inhibitor that really established clinical validation for HIF2α as a therapeutic target. When we think about the activity of this agent, the pivotal LITESPARK-005 trial really led to the approval of belzutifan in patients who were really heavily pretreated. It was patients who had received prior IO therapy, patients who had received prior VEGF-targeted therapy. And in the context of this study, we saw a median PFS of 5.6 months, and there did seem to be a tail on the curve when you looked at the 12-month PFS rate with belzutifan. It was 33.7% compared to 17.6% with everolimus. And then when we look at the response rate, it was higher with belzutifan on the order of 22-23%, and very low with everolimus, as we've previously seen. I think one of the Achilles heels of this regimen is the primary PD rate, which was 34% when used in later line. There are multiple studies that are testing belzutifan in combination across the treatment landscape. So, we have LITESPARK-011, which is looking at the combination of belzutifan plus lenvatinib in the second-line setting. We've got the MK-012 [LITESPARK-012] study, which is looking at belzutifan in various combinations in the frontline setting. So there is a combination with IO plus belzutifan. And so this is also being looked at in that context. And then we also have the LITESPARK-022 study, which is looking at pembrolizumab with belzutifan in the adjuvant setting. So there's a series of studies that will be exploring belzutifan really across the treatment landscape. Many of these studies in combination. Additionally, there are other HIF2α inhibitors that are being developed. We have casdatifan, which is another very potent HIF2α inhibitor. You know, I think pharmacologically, these are different agents. There's a different half-life, different dosing. What is going to be the recommended phase 3 dose for both agents, the EPO suppression levels, the degree of EPO suppression, and sustainability of EPO suppression is very different. So, I think we've seen data from casdatifan from the ARC-20 trial from monotherapy with a respectable response rate, over 30%, primary PD rate hovering just around 10%.  And then we've also seen data of the combination of casdatifan with cabozantinib as well that were recently presented this year. And that agent is also being tested across the spectrum of RCC. It's being looked at in combination with cabozantinib in the PEAK-1 study, and actually just at the KCRS (Kidney Cancer Research Summit), we saw the unveiling of the eVOLVE-RCC trial, which is going to be looking at a volrustomig, which is a PD-1/CTLA-4 inhibitor plus casdatifan compared to nivo-ipi in the frontline setting.  So, we're going to see some competition in this space of the HIF2α inhibitors. I think when we think of mechanism of action in that these are very potent, not a lot of off-target activity, and they target a driver mutation in the disease. And that driver mutation happens very early in the pathogenesis. These are going to be positioned much earlier in the treatment landscape. Dr. Pedro Barata: All these studies, as you're saying, look really promising. And when we talk about them, you mentioned a lot of combinations. And to me, when I think of these agents, it makes a lot of sense to combine because there's not a lot of overlapping toxicities, if you will. But perhaps for some of our listeners, who have not used HIF2α inhibitors in practice yet, and they might be thinking about that, what can you tell us about the safety profile? How do you present it to your patients, and how do you handle things like hypoxia or anemia? How do you walk through the safety profile and tolerability profile of those agents like belzutifan? Dr. Rana McKay: I think these drugs are very different than your traditional TKIs, and they don't cause the classic symptoms that are associated with traditional TKIs that many of us are very familiar with like the rash, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, diarrhea. And honestly, these are very nuanced symptoms that patients really struggle with the chronicity of being on a chronic daily TKI. The three key side effects that I warn patients about with HIF2α inhibitors are: (1) fatigue; (2) anemia; and (3) hypoxia and dysregulation in the ability to sense oxygen levels. And so, many of these side effects - actually, all of them - are very dose-dependent. They can be very well-managed. So, we can start off with the anemia. I think it's critically important before you even start somebody on belzutifan that you are optimizing their hemoglobin and bone marrow function. Make sure they don't have an underlying iron deficiency anemia. Make sure they don't have B12 or folate deficiency. Check for these parameters. Many patients who have kidney cancer may have some hematuria, other things where there could be some low-level blood loss. So, make sure that those are resolved or you're at least addressing them and supplementing people appropriately. I monitor anemia very closely every 3 to 4 weeks, at least, when people start on these medications. And I do initiate EPO, erythropoietin, should the anemia start to worsen. And I typically use a threshold of around 10g/dL  for implementing utilization of an EPO agent, and that's been done very safely in the context of the early studies and phase 3 studies as well. Now, with regards to the hypoxia, I think it's also important to make sure that you're selecting the appropriate individual for this treatment. People who have underlying COPD, or even those individuals who have just a very high burden of disease in their lung, lymphangitic spread, pleural effusions, maybe they're already on oxygen - that's not an ideal candidate for belzutifan. Something that very easily can be done in the clinic before you think about initiating somebody on this treatment, and has certainly been integrated into some of the trials, is just a 6-minute walk test. You know, have the patient walk around the clinic with one of the MAs, one of the nurses, put the O2 sat on [measuring oxygen saturation], make sure they're doing okay. But these side effects, like I said, are very dose-dependent. Typically, if a patient requires, if the symptoms are severe, the therapy can be discontinued and dose reduced. The standing dose is 120 mg daily, and there's two dose reductions to 80 mg and 40 mg should somebody warrant that dose modification. Dr. Pedro Barata: This is relatively new, right? Like, it was not that we're used to checking oxygen levels, right? In general, we're treating these patients, so I certainly think there's a learning curve there, and some of the points that you highlight are truly critical. And I do share many of those as well in our practice. Since I have you, I want to make sure we touch base on antibody-drug conjugates as well. It's also been a hot area, a lot of developments there. When I think of urothelial carcinoma and renal cell carcinoma, I see it a little bit different. I think perhaps in urothelial carcinoma, antibody-drug conjugates, or ADCs, are somewhat established already. You already mentioned enfortumab vedotin. I might ask you to expand a little bit on that. And then in renal cell carcinoma, we have some ADCs as well that you include in your chapter, and that I would like you to tell us what's coming from that perspective. So, tell us a little bit about how do you see ADCs in general for GU tumors, particularly UC and RCC? Tell us a little bit about the complexity or perhaps the challenges you still see. At the same time, tell us about the successes. Dr. Rana McKay: Stepping back, let's just talk about like the principles and design of ADCs. So, most ADCs have three components. There's a monoclonal antibody that typically targets a cell surface antigen, which is conjugated by a linker, which is the second component, to a payload drug. And typically, that payload drug has been chemotherapy, whether it be topoisomerase or whether it be MMAE or other chemotherapeutic. We can start in the RCC space. There's been multiple antibody-drug conjugates that have been tested. There's antibody-drug conjugates to CD70, which is expressed on clear cell RCC. There's been antibody-drug conjugates to ENPP3, which is also expressed on RCC. There's antibody-drug conjugates to CDH6. And they have different payloads, like I said, whether it be topoisomerase I or other microtubule inhibitors. Now, when we think about kidney cancer, we don't treat this disease with chemotherapy. This disease is treated with immunotherapy. It is treated with treatments that target the VEGF pathway and historically has not been sensitive to chemo. So, I think even though the targets have been very exciting, we've seen very underwhelming data regarding activity, and in some context, seen increased toxicity with the ADCs. So, I think we need to tread lightly in the context of the integration and the testing of ADCs in RCC. We just came back from the KCRS meeting, and there was some very intriguing data about a c-Kit ADC that's being developed for chromophobe RCC, which is, you know, a huge unmet need, these variant tumors that really lack appropriate therapeutics. But I just caution us to tread lightly around how can we optimize the payload to make sure that the tumor that we're treating is actually sensitive to the agent that's targeting the cell kill. So, that's a little bit on the ADCs in RCC. I still think we have a long way to go and still in early testing. Now, ADCs for UC are now the standard of care. I think the prototypical agent, enfortumab vedotin, is a nectin-4-directed ADC that's conjugated to an MMAE payload and was the first ADC approved for advanced urothelial, received accelerated approval following the EV-201 trial, which was basically a multicenter, single-arm study that was investigating EV in cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma, and then ultimately confirmed in the EV-301 study as well. And so, that study ended up demonstrating the support superiority of EV from an overall survival standpoint, even PFS standpoint. Building on that backbone is the EV-302 study, which tested EV in combination with pembrolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy in the frontline setting. And that was a pivotal, landmark study that, like I said, has displaced platinum therapy as a frontline treatment for people with advanced urothelial carcinoma. And when we think about that study and the median overall survival and just how far we've come in urothelial cancer, the median OS with EV-pembro from that trial was 31 and a half months. I mean, that's just incredible. The control arm survival was 16 and a half months. The hazard ratio for OS, 0.47. I mean this is why when this data was presented, it was literally a standing ovation that lasted for several minutes because we just haven't seen data that have looked that good. And there are other antibody-drug conjugates that are being tested. We've all been involved in the saga with sacituzumab govitecan, which is a trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (Trop-2) targeted ADC with a topoisomerase I payload. It was the second ADC to receive approval, but then that approval was subsequently withdrawn when the confirmatory phase 3 was negative, the TROPiCS-04 trial. So, approval was granted based off of the TROPHY-U-01, single-arm, phase 2 study, demonstrating a response rate of around 28% and a PFS of, you know, about 5 and a half months. But then failure to show any benefit from an OS standpoint. And I think there's a lot of controversy in the field around whether this agent still has a role in advanced urothelial carcinoma. And I think particularly for individuals who do not have molecular targets, like they're not HER2-amplified or have HER2-positivity or FGFR or other things like that. Dr. Pedro Barata: Fantastic summary, Rana. You were talking about the EV, and it came to mind that it might not be over, right, for the number of ADCs we use in clinical practice in the near future. I mean, we've seen very promising data for ADC against the HER2, right, and over-expression. It also can create some challenges, right, in the clinics because we're asking to test for HER2 expression. It's almost like, it's not exactly the same to do it in breast cancer, but it looks one more time that we're a little bit behind the breast cancer field in a lot of angles. And also has vedotin as a payload. Of course, I'm referring to disitamab vedotin, and there's very elegant data described by you in your review chapter as well. And it's going to be very interesting to see how we sequence the different ADCs, to your point as well. So, before we wrap it up, I just want to give you the opportunity to tell us if there's any area that we have not touched, any take-home points you'd like to bring up for our listeners before we call it a day. Dr. Rana McKay: Thank you so much. I have to say, you know, I was so excited at ASCO this year looking at the GU program. It was fantastic to see the progress being made, novel therapeutics that really there's a tremendous excitement about, not just in RCC and in UC, but also in prostate cancer, thinking about the integration of therapies, not just for people with refractory disease that, even though our goal is to improve survival, our likelihood of cure is low, but also thinking about how do we integrate these therapies early in the treatment landscape to enhance cure rates for patients, which is just really spectacular. We're seeing many of these agents move into the perioperative setting or in combination with radiation for localized disease. And then the special symposium on biomarkers, I mean, we've really come a long, long way. And I think that we're going to continue to evolve over the next several years. I'm super excited about where the field is going in the treatment of genitourinary malignancies. Dr. Pedro Barata: Oh, absolutely true. And I would say within the Annual Meeting, we have outstanding Educational Sessions. And just a reminder to the listeners that actually that's where the different teams or topics for the Educational Book chapters come from, from actually the educational sessions from ASCO. And your fantastic chapter is an example of that, right, focusing on advanced GU tumors. So, thank you so much, Rana, for taking the time, sharing your insights with us today on the podcast. It was a fantastic conversation as always. Dr. Rana McKay: My pleasure. Thanks so much for having me, Dr. Barata. Dr. Pedro Barata: Of course.  And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find the link to the article discussed today in the transcript of this episode. I also encourage you to check out the 2025 ASCO Educational Book. You'll find an incredible wealth of information there. It's free, available online, and you'll find, hopefully, super, super important information on the key science and issues that are shaping modern oncology, as we've heard from Dr. McKay and many other outstanding authors. So, thank you, everyone, and I hope to see you soon. 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. Pedro Barata @PBarataMD Dr. Rana McKay @DrRanaMcKay Follow ASCO on social media:        @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)        ASCO on Bluesky       ASCO on Facebook        ASCO on LinkedIn        Disclosures:     Dr. Pedro Barata: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Luminate Medical Honoraria: UroToday Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Caris Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, AVEO, Merck, Ipson, Astellas Medivation, Novartis, Dendreon Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Merck, Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Pfizer/Astellas Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Blue Earth, AVEO, Pfizer, Merck  Dr. Rana McKay: Consulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Novartis, Tempus, Pfizer, Astellas Medivation, Dendreon, Bayer, Sanofi, Vividion, Calithera, Caris Life Sciences, Sorrento Therapeutics, AVEO, Seattle Genetics, Telix, Eli Lilly, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Ambrx, Sumitomo Pharma Oncology, Esiai, NeoMorph, Arcus Biosciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Astrazeneca, Myovant Research Funding (Inst.): Bayer, Tempus, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Oncternal Therapeutics, Artera    

Featuring an interview with Dr Erika Hamilton, including the following topics: Monitoring, mitigating and managing adverse events with antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) for breast cancer (0:00) Heist RS et al. Clinical management, monitoring, and prophylaxis of adverse events of special interest associated with datopotamab deruxtecan. Cancer Treat Rev 2024;125:102720. Abstract Management protocols for adverse events associated with sacituzumab govitecan (7:49) García JMP et al. Prevention of sacituzumab govitecan (SG)-related neutropenia and diarrhea in patients with triple-negative or HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC; PRIMED): A phase 2 trial. ASCO 2024;Abstract 1101. Pérez-García JM et al. Prevention of sacituzumab govitecan-related neutropenia and diarrhea in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (PRIMED): An open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial. eClinicalMedicine 2025;85:103309. Abstract Datopotamab deruxtecan for patients with breast cancer brain metastases or leptomeningeal disease (10:51) Tarantino P et al. DATO-Base: A phase II study of DATOpotamab deruxtecan for patients with breast cancer brain metastases or leptomeningeal disease. ASCO 2025;Abstract TPS1134. Sequencing ADCs in breast cancer (13:12) Pacholczak-Madej R et al. Sequencing of antibody drug conjugates in breast cancer: Evidence gap and future directions. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer 2025;[Online ahead of print]. Abstract CME information and select publications

Dr Erika Hamilton from Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee, discusses the monitoring, mitigation and management of adverse events with available antibody-drug conjugates and novel strategies incorporating ADCs into the breast cancer treatment paradigm. CME information and select publications here.