Podcasts about ALK

Vi har med oss legen Oscar Ohene Asante, Øre-nese-hals-spesialisten – og ikke minst en dedikert løper selv!Lyse morgener, grønne parker og nye treningsmuligheter lokker oss ut i det fri. Men for en pollenallergiker kan denne tiden på året kjennes mer som en kamp enn nytelse. Trøtthet, kløende øyne og rennende nese er ikke akkurat drømmeselskap på trening – så hvordan holder man koken uten at allergien får overtaket?I denne episoden av Treningspodden får du svaret! Oscar forklarer hva pollenallergi egentlig er, hvilke symptomer som er de vanligste – og viktigst av alt: hvordan du kan lindre plagene. God lytt! Denne episoden er laget i samarbeid med ALK – et globalt, forskningsdrevet selskap som jobber med forebygging, diagnostisering og behandling av allergi. ALK står også bak nettsiden pollenkontroll.no, hvor du finner nyttig informasjon og verktøy for å få bedre kontroll på hverdagen med pollenallergi. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join us in this episode of the Oncology Brothers podcast as we dive deep into the rapidly evolving treatment landscape for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with actionable mutations in frontline therapy. Hosted by community oncologists Drs. Rahul and Rohit Gosain, we are thrilled to welcome Dr. Susan Scott, a thoracic medical oncologist from the Johns Hopkins Hospital. In this episode, we covered: •⁠  ⁠Common EGFR mutations and the latest treatment options, including osimertinib, amivantamab, and chemotherapy combinations. •⁠  ⁠The importance of comprehensive NGS testing and the need for retesting at progression. •⁠  ⁠Insights into managing side effects associated with various therapies, including the proactive management of cutaneous toxicities. •⁠  ⁠Treatment strategies for less common mutations such as ALK, ROS1, BRAF, and RET, along with their respective targeted therapies. •⁠  ⁠The role of immunotherapy in specific mutations and the importance of patient choice and preferences in treatment decisions. Whether you're a practicing oncologist or simply interested in the latest advancements in cancer treatment, this episode is packed with valuable information to help guide your practice. YouTube: https://youtu.be/LMYDAjZcn5w Follow us on social media: •⁠  ⁠X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers •⁠  ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers •⁠  Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ Don't forget to like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell for more updates from the Oncology Brothers!

A Biomarker Dialogue Between Patient and Scientist HOST: Hildy Grossman, CO-HOST: Jordan Rich GUEST: Marc Muskavitch, PhD, ALK+ & Zachary Rogers, PhD, Research Fellow, Koch Institute at MIT This episode features a powerful conversation between two scientists, one now navigating life as a Stage 4 ALK+ lung cancer patient. Most lung cancer patients only learn … Continue reading Living with ALK+: Diagnosis, Treatment, & Hope →

Fuld gang i rapporteringen fra de danske selskaber tirsdag, der bringer nyt fra Vestas, ISS, Coloplast, ALK, DFDS og - sidst på dagen - Demant. Millionærklubben tjekker stemningen og tager desuden en tur forbi oliepriserne, der efter sidste nyt fra OPEC+ viger i pris. I studiet: Lau Svenssen og Bodil Johanne Gantzel.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hvordan vet du om barnet ditt har pollenallergi – eller om det bare er en lang vårforkjølelse? Hva er første steg i behandling, og hva kan du gjøre i hverdagen for å lindre plagene?Barnelege og allergiforsker Tonje Reier-Nilsen forklarer hvordan pollenallergi kan påvirke barnets livskvalitet – og hvorfor tidlig diagnose og riktig behandling kan gjøre en stor forskjell.Episoden er laget i samarbeid med ALK, et forskningsdrevet legemiddelselskap som jobber med forebygging, diagnostisering og behandling av allergi – og driver nettsiden www.pollenkontroll.no. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lorlatinib is reshaping first-line treatment for ALK-positive NSCLC—but its distinct side effect profile demands proactive, personalized management. In this episode,  Stefanie Houseknecht, PharmD, BCOP (Johns Hopkins Medicine) and Monica Chintapenta, PharmD, BCOP (Parkland Health)share how they're navigating real-world use of lorlatinib, from interpreting long-term data to counseling patients through CNS effects, weight gain, and metabolic challenges.Highlights:Why lorlatinib is gaining traction in first-line ALK+ NSCLCWhat the long-term CROWN data really means for patient outcomesHow to handle tricky side effects like cognitive changes, weight gain, and hyperlipidemiaReal-world tips for patient counseling and supporting adherenceThe importance of catching drug interactions and staying ahead on labsHow pharmacists are shaping care across the oncology teamBonus: Hear how our guests find balance beyond the clinic, whether in the garden or on the Boston marathon course. About Our Guests:Monica completed her Doctor of Pharmacy at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center and went on to complete PGY-1 and PGY-2 residencies at Tufts Medical Center and Froedtert & the Medical College of Wisconsin, respectively. At Parkland, she supports outpatient hematology/oncology care and leads quality initiatives.   Stefanie earned her PharmD from the University of the Pacific, followed by PGY-1 and PGY-2 residencies at Palomar Medical Center and the University of California-San Diego. Her work focuses on thoracic malignancies, access to oral targeted therapies, and patient outcomes. She is active in the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and serves as a preceptor to pharmacy trainees across the Mid-Atlantic.  

Våren förknippas ofta med glädje och livslust men för en allt för stor del av befolkningen är det faktiskt tvärtom. För pollen försämrar livskvalitén för allergiker som blir mindre produktiva, sjuka och får svårt att delta i sociala aktiviteter. Fast såhär behöver det faktiskt inte vara, det finns hjälp att få mot pollenallergi. I extrakursen i pollenallergi berättar Victoria Strand, som är överläkare och specialist i allergisjukdomar, varför man inte ska trivialisera sin pollenallergi, vilka behandlingsformer det finns och hur kan man hjälpa barn med jobbiga symtom.Avsnittet är ett samarbete med ALK, ett globalt, forskningsdrivet företag som arbetar med prevention, diagnostisering och behandling av allergi. ALK driver också hemsidan Pollenkoll.se och appen Pollenkoll. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This PER® Spectives™ featured podcast reviews the 22nd Annual Winter Lung Cancer Conference® held in January/February 2025. Multiple successive generations of ALK inhibitors have provided increasing benefits as first-line treatment for the thousands of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that harbors rearrangements or mutations in the ALK gene. This program focuses on the practical aspects of managing patients with ALK-positive advanced or metastatic NSCLC, putting recent clinical trial data into clinical context. The program is designed for those who did not attend the live meeting and to help reinforce learnings for those who did.

Featuring an interview with Dr Justin F Gainor, including the following topics: Duration of responses observed with ALK inhibitors in patients with ALK-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) (0:00) Current role of other systemic therapy options for the treatment of ALK-positive mNSCLC; management of oligometastatic disease (8:38) Local therapy approaches for treating CNS disease in ALK-positive mNSCLC (18:32) Tolerability profile of lorlatinib (23:28) Review of clinical investigator survey results (37:08) Novel ALK inhibitors under clinical development (53:22) CME information and select publications

Dr Justin F Gainor from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston reviews available clinical data on ALK inhibitors and first-line treatment strategies for ALK-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. CME information and select publications here.

Featuring a slide presentation and related discussion from Dr Justin F Gainor, including the following topics: Duration of responses observed with ALK inhibitors in patients with ALK-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) (0:00) Current role of other systemic therapy options for the treatment of ALK-positive mNSCLC; management of oligometastatic disease (8:38) Local therapy approaches for treating CNS disease in ALK-positive mNSCLC (18:32) Tolerability profile of lorlatinib (23:28) Review of clinical investigator survey results (37:08) Novel ALK inhibitors under clinical development (53:31) CME information and select publications

Are you up to date on the most optimal management of patients with early-stage ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)? Credit available for this activity expires: 3/24/26 Earn Credit / Learning Objectives & Disclosures: https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/preeclampsia-biomarker-screening-every-trimester-2025a100065r?ecd=bdc_podcast_libsyn_mscpedu

In today's episode, supported by Summit Therapeutics, we had the pleasure of speaking with Xiuning Le, MD, PhD, about the use of ivonescimab (SMT112) in patients with PD-L1–positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Dr Le is an associate professor in the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology in the Division of Internal Medicine at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. The phase 3 HARMONi-2 trial (NCT05499390) investigated ivonescimab vs pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic, PD-L1–positive NSCLC without sensitizing EGFR mutations or ALK translocations. At the preplanned interim analysis, at a median follow-up of 8.7 months (IQR, 7.1-10.3), the median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ivonescimab arm (n = 198) vs the pembrolizumab arm (n = 200), at 11.1 months (95% CI, 7.3-not estimable) vs 5.8 months (95% CI, 5.0-8.2), respectively (stratified HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.69; 1-sided P < .0001). The objective response rates were 50% (95% CI, 43%-57%) and 39% (95% CI, 32%-46%) in these respective arms. In our exclusive interview, Dr Le discussed the rationale for the HARMONi-2 trial, key findings from the study, and where these findings position the potential role of ivonescimab in the PD-L1–positive NSCLC treatment paradigm.

Luftvejsallergi kan forvandle hverdagen til en kamp mod kløende øjne, tilstoppet næse og åndenød. For nogle betyder det at sige farvel til sport, sociale arrangementer og endda kæledyr.20-årige Malou har kæmpet med pollen-, støv- og pelsallergi siden barndommen og ved, hvad det vil sige at få sin hverdag begrænset. Hør, hvordan hun har lært at navigere i allergien og finde strategier og behandlinger, der gør dagligdagen lettere.Podcasten er produceret af SundhedsTV og udgives i samarbejde med Helse. Afsnittet er sponsoreret af ALK. 

Tracey Ryniec, Zacks Value Stock Strategist, looks for stocks with high Zacks Rank and low PEG ratios. (0:30) - Can The PEG Ratio Help You Find Strong Value Stocks For Your Portfolio? (4:20) - Tracey's Top Stock Picks To Keep On Your Watchlist Right Now (24:30) - Episode Roundup: UAL, COOP, FOLD, ALK, AAL

Tracey Ryniec, Zacks Value Stock Strategist, looks for stocks with high Zacks Rank and low PEG ratios. (0:30) - Can The PEG Ratio Help You Find Strong Value Stocks For Your Portfolio? (4:20) - Tracey's Top Stock Picks To Keep On Your Watchlist Right Now (24:30) - Episode Roundup: UAL, COOP, FOLD, ALK, AAL Podcast@Zacks.com

308. TANYA CARMONA DANIELS UPDATES US ABOUT CHLORINE DIOXIDE (CD) She is a top insider with the Andreas Kalcker Institute, his ALK foundation, and their international umbrella organization, COMUSAV. Support the show Writer | Robert Yoho author

308. TANYA CARMONA DANIELS UPDATES US ABOUT CHLORINE DIOXIDE (CD) She is a top insider with the Andreas Kalcker Institute, his ALK foundation, and their international umbrella organization, COMUSAV. Support the show Writer | Robert Yoho author

El Dr. Luis Antonio Lara Mejía, oncólogo médico del INCan en la Ciudad de México, nos habla durante el 7º Taller RISE 2025: Residents In Search of Excellence del Colegio Mexicano de Oncología Médica, sobre CPCNP: tratamiento de enfermedad metastásica (ALK).Gracias al apoyo educativo de Takeda México.La realización integral de este evento fue gracias a: AstraZeneca México y Pfizer México. Fecha de grabación: 1 de febrero de 2025.        Todos los comentarios emitidos por los participantes son a título personal y no reflejan la opinión de ScienceLink u otros. Se deberá revisar las indicaciones aprobadas en el país para cada uno de los tratamientos y medicamentos comentados. Las opiniones vertidas en este programa son responsabilidad de los participantes o entrevistados, ScienceLink las ha incluido con fines educativos. Este material está dirigido a profesionales de la salud exclusivamente.

S&P Futures are trading slightly lower this morning due to weakness in semiconductors. Markets are questioning the numbers and the timing of the recently announced Stargate Project. Key event today will be President Trump's speech today at Davos summit. Trump is schedule to speat at 11:00 am ET. His interview last night was rather uneventful as the focus was on his issues with former president Biden and FEMA. Central Bank meetings are on watch, the BOJ will make an announcement tomorrow, FOMC announcement on Jan 29th, and the ECB announcement is scheduled for Jan 30th. Earnings beats came in from ALK, DFS, GE, and MKC. After the bell today TXN and ISRG will report, and tomorrow morning AXP & VZ will report. European shares are mixed to higher & oil prices are higher by +0.50% this morning.

Dr. Evan Yu presents the new evidence-based guideline on genetic testing for metastatic prostate cancer. He discusses who should receive germline and somatic testing with next-generation sequencing technologies, what samples are preferred for testing, and the therapeutic & prognosistc impacts of genetic testing. Dr. Yu emphasizes the need for awareness and refers to areas of active investigation and future research to improve personalized therapies for patients with metastatic prostate cancer.  Read the full guideline, “Germline and Somatic Genomic Testing for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline” at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-24-02608 Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Evan Yu from the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, lead author on “Germline and Somatic Genomic Testing for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline”. Thank you for being here today, Dr. Yu. Dr. Evan Yu: Thanks for having me on. Brittany Harvey: Great. Then before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the entire guideline, including Dr. Yu, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then, Dr. Yu, to start us off on the content of this guideline, could you first provide an overview of both the purpose and scope of this guideline? Dr. Evan Yu: Yeah, absolutely. So I think the one key thing to recognize is that prostate cancer is the highest incidence of all cancers in males. Additionally, it's the second highest cause of mortality in males, and that's about 35,000 deaths in 2024. So with that being said and done, it's a disease where we need to do better. And part of that is recognizing that we now have many targeted therapies, precision medicine type of therapies, but unlike a lot of other cancers out there, prostate cancer patients are not always getting sequencing, next generation DNA sequencing, let's say, to identify both inherited and also spontaneously develop what we call somatic mutations in their tumor. And I suspect that's partially because other cancers like breast cancer, we're so used to- in the first line, you present the patient, you throw out their estrogen receptor status, progesterone receptor status, HER2, ER/PR HER2; in lung cancer it's EGFR, ALK, ROS1, etc. In things like prostate cancer, things like BRCA2 have major important patient treatment implications and potentially family counseling and downstream cascade testing implications. But it hasn't made their way into that first-line presentation yet. And for that reason, there are some studies out there that show that testing in the community may be as low as 15% of patients with metastatic prostate cancer. We want to bring awareness to that and hopefully increase testing down the road so that we can better help our patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's important to get these targeted therapies to the patients who can benefit most. Using that context, I'd like to next review the key recommendations of this guideline across the six clinical questions that the panel addressed. So, starting with: Who should receive germline testing with next generation sequencing technologies? Dr. Evan Yu: Yeah. We think that it's common enough that everyone with metastatic prostate cancer should receive germline genetic testing. And the reason for that is there have been studies that have looked at this and have shown that 12% of men with metastatic prostate cancer have some sort of inherited germline mutation in a gene, mostly DNA repair genes. But 12% have something that is inherited and that loved ones, first degree relatives, siblings, offspring might have also inherited. Now, most of these are in the DNA repair genes, but that being said and done, there's not only treatment implications for the patient, where there are newer drugs that that patient could get treated with, but other loved ones that might have inherited these gene mutations, that these things can cause other cancers as well - not just prostate cancer, but breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer. So, it's very important to test, with as high of an incidence as 12%, to test, and if you identify it in a patient, it's our job to talk to the patient about it and talk to them about the pros and cons of family counseling and talking to their loved ones and potentially having their loved ones get tested. Because if they test positive, then their doctors may want to know and may screen them very, very aggressively and differently for a whole host of other cancers. And the whole idea is you find the cancer very early and cure the patients before the cancer really takes hold and has the ability to spread so we can save a lot of lives down the road. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. This germline testing is important not just for the patient, but has wider implications for their families as well, as you mentioned. So then, beyond those recommendations for germline testing, which patients should receive somatic testing with next-generation sequencing technologies? Dr. Evan Yu: So let's talk a little bit about somatic testing. So germline again, as we know, is inherited. The patient inherited it in every single cell in their body, then it becomes very easy, many of these are cancer predispositions for them to lose the other allele and then to have biallelic loss and then develop the cancer. Now, somatic just means it spontaneously occurred. Certainly, it's not going to occur in every cell in the body, but you can get one hit, lose one allele and then lose the other allele. And if that gene is truly carcinogenic and leading to that cancer, then that can have implications potentially for treatment as well. So we recommend that all patients with metastatic prostate cancer also undergo somatic next-generation sequencing testing. We recognize that at this point in time it's only those with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer or hormone-resistant prostate cancer, which is a later disease state where there are drugs that may target those mutations, for instance, like PARP inhibitors, but that early identification for a patient population that's fit and that can benefit from these therapies makes sense so that you know it's in place already and you have your treatments outlined and mapped out for the future. So we recommend it for everybody - somatic testing also for everyone with metastatic prostate cancer. Brittany Harvey: Understood. And then when patients are receiving that somatic testing, what is recommended for somatic testing? Primary tumor archival tissue? Fresh metastatic biopsy tissue? Or circulating tumor DNA testing? Dr. Evan Yu: We recommend that in the initial setting when you're first diagnosed, that archival tissue samples are fine and preferred. But circulating tumor DNA is good when there's no accessible archival tissue, or if the archival tissue, let's say, is very old and it's been sitting around for a long time, or you can't get it anymore because it's many years back when maybe a patient had a prostate needle biopsy. So if it's not accessible, then we recommend ctDNA. We believe that is preferred and also that ctDNA is recommended in a situation where you can't easily biopsy a metastatic site. Sometimes it's just not in a safe area to go after. Sometimes it's just a small lesion. So in general, we recommend tissue when available, and when we think that the tissue sample will yield clean results, if not, then we recommend doing ctDNA at that point in time. Brittany Harvey: So you have described who should get germline and somatic genomic testing. But what are the therapeutic impacts of this germline or somatic testing for single gene genetic variants? Dr. Evan Yu: We pulled this panel together and we met like every single month for like 12 months straight, and part of it was to review the literature. And as part of this literature review, we were able to pull a whole bunch of different trials. I think there was like 1713 papers we identified in the literature search. Eventually, we narrowed it down because with ASCO, we want to present the data with the highest level evidence, level 1 evidence, randomized controlled prospective data. And after reviewing 1713 papers, we narrowed it down to 14 papers. With those 14 papers, if you look at it, there are a lot of things that we think may have implications for treatment or prognosis, but we didn't feel was the highest level of evidence that we could support. So the things that have the highest level of evidence that we can support are certain DNA repair gene alterations, especially BRCA2, and treatment with PARP inhibitors because there are many PARP inhibitor prospective trials that show progression-free survival benefit and even overall survival benefit. And so that's the type of study that achieved the level of evidence that we could include. So I would say BRCA1 and BRCA2 highest level of evidence and PARP inhibitor use also is included in that. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you reviewing those therapeutic options. So then, the last clinical question, which you just touched on briefly, but what are the prognostic impacts of germline and/or somatic testing? Dr. Evan Yu: Whenever you do testing, especially if you use panel testing, you find a lot of information. There's a lot of different mutations and some of which are VUSs (variants of unknown significance) where we don't quite know what it means yet, but we can track that, especially if it's germline. But with somatic, we find lots of things that have implications, but maybe just not treatment implications. A perfect example is p53. p53 is one of the most common tumor suppressor gene mutations on all cancers, but in prostate cancer they can occur and they can usually occur late, although there can even be germline inherited p53 alterations. There's no treatment that targets p53 right now, but we know that if you have a p53 mutation that those patients may have more aggressive disease and that prognostic information is important to give to the patient. And I think it's important for future clinical trial design and direction. So we do not recommend making treatment recommendations or changes based on these prognostic only biomarkers at this point in time. But we do recommend that, based on this, we can design intensification trials for those patients who have these poor risk biomarkers and de-intensification trials for patients who may have a good risk biomarker. So for instance, SPOP is a gene where we think these patients may have better outcomes, they might respond better to certain hormonal therapies like abiraterone. I say might because the level of evidence isn't quite there. But what I would say is that these prognostic only biomarkers, we just don't think they cut the mustard yet to be able to make treatment decisions. But we do think that they can drive counseling for the patient and potential selection and trial design for the future to say, “Okay. This is a patient population that has a more aggressive cancer. We need to be more aggressive in treating these patients.” “This patient population might have a less aggressive cancer. Maybe we can de-intensify and say side effects and quality of life may be better for the patients.” Brittany Harvey: Definitely. It's important for thinking through how to personalize care for these patients. So then you've talked about this a little bit in talking through the recommendations, but could you expand on what is the importance of this guideline and how it will impact both clinicians and patients with metastatic prostate cancer? Dr. Evan Yu: Yeah, I think the number one thing is awareness. I think the data's out there and people that are in my field, they know this. But by evidence of the fact that it's not first-line presentation lingo that everyone's talking about things like BRCA status, it means it hasn't necessarily disseminated all the way through. So it's increasing awareness of the fact that both germline and somatic alterations can occur and that these may have impacts on the patient for their treatment and their prognosis, and basically to increase testing for the future. I really think that in the future, there'll be other reasons that we may want to serially even retest and we may find that there may be mutations that develop as mechanisms of resistance that might guide therapy down the road. So we need to get people to start doing this for everyone with metastatic prostate cancer, because someday we might be doing it not just once, but over and over again. Brittany Harvey. Absolutely. We hope this guideline reaches a wide audience and that these recommendations can be put into practice. Finally, you've talked about how not all the data in the field has yet risen to the level of evidence that made it into the guidelines. So what are the outstanding questions in future research areas for both germline and somatic genomic testing for metastatic prostate cancer? Dr. Evan Yu: It was in our discussion, but it clearly- it's not common enough for there to be randomized prospective trials that would reach that level of evidence to make it in this guideline recommendation. But we all know that for any solid tumor, you can get mismatched repair deficiency, microsatellite instability leading to hypermutation or high tumor mutational burden. And that happens in maybe 3 to 5% of patients with metastatic prostate cancer as well. There is evidence and data that these patients can potentially benefit from immunotherapies like pembrolizumab. But again, it's just not common enough for there to be those randomized prospective controlled trials out there. But we mention it because we know it's FDA-approved across all the tumor types, so we felt like we have to mention it because that's something that has treatment implications for the patient. But also, I alluded to this earlier, I think an area of active investigation is the tried and true number one driver of prostate cancer, which is androgen receptor. Testosterone binds to androgen receptors, stimulates it. That's how androgen deprivation therapy works. That's how abiraterone and the amides like enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide, that's how they all work. But even beyond that, we're starting to identify that maybe 15%, 20% of patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer have androgen receptor mutations. And there are newer classes of therapies like androgen receptor degraders like CYP11A1 antagonist that lead to complete adrenal annihilation of other steroid hormones that might promiscuously stimulate these androgen receptor mutants. These things develop as mechanisms of resistance, and in the future, we might want to serially test- and that's an active area of investigation in the future, to say you've been treated, let's say, with androgen deprivation therapy and abiraterone for years. There are certain mutations that might develop as a resistance mechanism. We might need to serially test somebody because you didn't have that mutation earlier on, but later in the disease course you might. And then there might be a new drug X out there that we would want to use. Again, we need the data, we need the randomized prospective controlled trials, but they're happening out there. And somewhere down the road we may rewrite this guideline and have a lot more recommendations to add to it. Brittany Harvey: Yes, we'll look forward to more research in this field to better provide targeted therapies for patients with metastatic prostate cancer across the treatment paradigm. And we'll look forward to report outs from those trials that you mentioned. So I want to thank you so much for your work to develop this guideline and thank you for your time today, Dr. Yu. Dr. Evan Yu: Thank you so much. It's wonderful to be here today. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

CME credits: 0.25 Valid until: 20-12-2025 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/advancing-alk-inhibition-into-early-stage-nsclc-integrating-biomarker-driven-therapies-to-reduce-recurrence-risk-post-resection/27056/ This animated podcast explores the evolving role of ALK inhibitors in managing early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Dr. Mark Socinski discusses molecular profiling as a cornerstone for identifying ALK fusion–positive cases and highlights clinical data from pivotal trials. He also addresses the challenges of treatment adherence, toxicity management, and the importance of surrogate endpoints in early-stage disease. The discussion concludes with key takeaways on integrating targeted therapies into standard care for early-stage resectable NSCLC.=

La Dre Nathalie Daaboul s'entretient avec Julie Desjardins de la vallée d'Annapolis, en Nouvelle-Écosse, dans notre premier épisode du balado en français Voix du cancer du poumon. Julie lutte contre un cancer du poumon ALK+ de stade IV depuis qu'elle a reçu un diagnostic inattendu en juillet 2022, alors qu'elle n'avait que 39 ans. Elle fait part de son histoire inspirante et de la façon dont le cancer a changé sa vision de la vie dans cet épisode.

In episode 81 of the Summits Podcast, co-hosts Vince Todd, Jr. and Daniel Abdallah are joined by Betsy Beggs of Goldman Sachs. At 23 years old, Betsy was a young professional finding her footing in New York City when she was blindsided by a stage 4 ALK+ lung cancer diagnosis. Tune in as she bravely shares her cancer story. For more, listen to Sarah Beggs, Betsy's mother, share her story from a parent perspective: youtu.be/05CrU4ltf80

In this episode of the Sunday Roast, hosts Phil Carroll and Kevin Hornsby wrap up the week's big news, including Phil's recent trip to NYC amidst election buzz, the latest on Rachel Reeves' historic budget, and its impact on gilt yields and the UK economy. They're joined by Oliver Friesen, CEO of Guardian Metal Resources, to discuss Guardian's expansion with the Tempiute Tungsten Mine acquisition, and by Stefan Bernstein, CEO of GreenRoc Mining, who shares exciting updates on the Amitsoq Graphite Project and its role in Europe's EV supply chain. The team rounds off with market movers and shakers of the week. Tune in! 0:00 - 00:12:38 Weekly News Roundup  00:12:38 #GROC Interview 00:46:14 #GMET Interview 01:18:00 #SALT  01:18:10 #ONDO  01:18:24 #EML  01:18:55 #ALK  01:19:12 #ORCA 01:19:24 #EPP   01:21:18 #FRG  01:22:58 #BZT  01:25:11 #AFP  01:26:19 #XTR  01:26:40 #GLR  01:29:03 #CEL  01:32:38 #BSFA  Disclaimer & Declaration of Interest The information, investment views, and recommendations in this podcast are provided for general information purposes only. Nothing in this podcast should be construed as a solicitation to buy or sell any financial product relating to any companies under discussion or to engage in or refrain from doing so or engaging in any other transaction. Any opinions or comments are made to the best of the knowledge and belief of the commentator but no responsibility is accepted for actions based on such opinions or comments. The commentators may or may not hold investments in the companies under discussion

Do you know the latest data on EGFR-mutated and ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)?   Credit available for this activity expires: 10/16/2025 Earn Credit / Learning Objectives & Disclosures: https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/1001752?ecd=bdc_podcast_libsyn_mscpedu

Featuring an interview with Dr Steven Horwitz, including the following topics: Overview of peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) (0:00) Efficacy and safety of brentuximab vedotin in the management of treatment-naïve and relapsed PTCLs (9:57) Emerging therapeutic strategies for PTCLs (19:48) Case: A man in his early 50s with CD30-positive anaplastic large cell lymphoma who experienced complete response (CR) to BV-CHP and continued remission after consolidation with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) (25:53) Management of ALK-positive anaplastic large cell lymphoma (32:14) Case: A man in his late 50s with CD8-positive PTCL not otherwise specified who achieved CR with CHOEP and experienced relapse after ASCT (34:33) Case: A woman in her early 70s with chemorefractory CD30-positive angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (38:26) Ongoing first-line studies for T-cell lymphomas; association of CAR T-cell therapy with T-cell malignancies (42:18) CME information and select publications  

Dr Patil emphasized the significance of the phase 3 CROWN trial (NCT03052608), which compared lorlatinib (Lorbrena) with crizotinib (Xalkori) in patients with ALK-positive metastatic NSCLC. With a hazard ratio of 0.19 (95% CI, 0.13-0.27) for progression-free survival, the trial demonstrated lorlatinib's superior intracranial control and long-term efficacy compared with crizotinib, especially in patients with brain metastases. Drs Park and Patil also discussed challenges associated with managing lorlatinib-related toxicities, including mood changes, weight gain, and hyperlipidemia. Dr Patil suggested that starting at a lower dose and gradually escalating to the recommended dose could help mitigate some of these adverse effects and simultaneously maintain treatment efficacy. The conversation concluded with a shift towards the broader application of targeted therapies in earlier disease stages, drawing parallels between the phase 3 ALINA study (NCT03456076) in patients with ALK-positive

In this episode, Dr. Paul Wheatley-Price sits down with Dr. Geoffrey Liu, Medical Oncologist at Princess Margaret Cancer Center and a Canadian leader in opening dozens of clinical trials. Dr. Liu gives a rundown of everything you need to know about ALK-positive lung cancer - what is ALK, how common is it, how this type of lung cancer is treated, and some of the most recent clinical trial updates.

Featuring perspectives from Dr Ibiayi Dagogo-Jack and Dr Corey J Langer, including the following topics: Introduction: A Model for Targeted Treatment in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) (0:00) NSCLC with ALK, ROS1 and NTRK Rearrangements — Dr Langer (9:10) Current and Future Treatment of Metastatic NSCLC with RET, MET, HER2 and KRAS Alterations — Dr Dagogo-Jack (34:22) CME information and select publications

In today's episode, supported by AstraZeneca, we had the pleasure of speaking with Sandip P. Patel, MD, and Brendon M. Stiles, MD, about the FDA approval of perioperative durvalumab (Imfinzi) for patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Dr Patel is a professor of medicine in the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Diego. Dr Stiles is a professor of cardiothoracic surgery and chief of the Divisions of Thoracic Surgery and Surgical Oncology in the Department of Cardiothoracic & Vascular Surgery, as well as the associate director of Surgical Oncology at the Montefiore Einstein Comprehensive Cancer Center in Bronx, New York. On August 15, 2024, the FDA approved durvalumab plus platinum-containing chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting, followed by durvalumab monotherapy in the adjuvant setting, for the treatment of adult patients with resectable NSCLC with no known EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements. This regulatory decision was backed by findings from the phase 3 AEGEAN trial (NCT03800134), in which the median event-free survival was not reached (95% CI, 31.9 months-not estimable [NE]) in patients who received the durvalumab regimen vs 25.9 months (95% CI, 18.9-NE) in those who received placebo plus chemotherapy (stratified HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.88; P = .0039). In our exclusive interview, Drs Patel and Stiles discussed the significance of this approval, key efficacy and safety findings from AEGEAN, and how the clinical use of perioperative treatment regimens reinforces the importance of involving multidisciplinary teams in every step of a patient's treatment plan.

Even though there are dozens of great value stocks, that doesn't mean you should own them all. (0:45) - Creating The Perfect Long-Term Portfolio: How Many Investments Should You Have? (9:00) - Tracey's Top Investments To Create A Manageable Individual Portfolio (27:20) - Episode Roundup: TAK, ALK, RNG

Even though there are dozens of great value stocks, that doesn't mean you should own them all. (0:45) - Creating The Perfect Long-Term Portfolio: How Many Investments Should You Have? (9:00) - Tracey's Top Investments To Create A Manageable Individual Portfolio (27:20) - Episode Roundup: TAK, ALK, RNG Podcast@Zacks.com

S&P Futures are displaying gains this morning as markets prepares for an ECB announcement on interest rates and this morning's data on Producer Prices. Jobless Claims are also on tap this morning, expectations are for a reading of 225,000. Tech stocks are showing gains. MRNA, NTGR and ALK, all released updated guidance data. After the bell today. ADBE is expected to release earnings. Norfolk Southern (NSC) is lower this morning as CEO was removed due to an improper relationship. An ECB announcement is expected at 8:15 am this morning. In Europe, markets are displaying strong gains, and oil prices are higher as Hurricane Francine is creating numerousness for oil futures.

In this episode, listen to Alice T. Shaw, MD, PhD, and Jessica J. Lin, MD, share their thoughts on the available and emerging clinical data for second-line and beyond treatments in patients with recurrent ROS1-altered advanced NSCLC including:Assessing ROS1-TKI resistance mutations with tumor and liquid biopsies in patients with ROS1-altered advanced NSCLCPrevious TKI-treated cohort from the TRIDENT-1 study: efficacy of repotrectinib in patients with recurrent ROS1-altered NSCLC and measurable baseline brain metastases   Phase II TRUST-1 trial of taletrectinib: activity in patients with known ROS1 G2032R resistance mutation ROS1-altered advanced NSCLCThe global phase I/II ARROS-1 study of zidesamtinib (NVL-520): safety summary in patients with ROS1-altered advanced NSCLC  Program faculty:Jessica J. Lin, MDAttending PhysicianMassachusetts General HospitalAssociate Professor of MedicineHarvard Medical SchoolBoston, MassachusettsAlice T. Shaw, MD, PhDChief, Strategic PartnershipsAttending Physician, Thoracic OncologyDana-Farber Cancer InstituteHarvard Medical SchoolBoston, MassachusettsResources:To download the slides associated with this podcast discussion, please visit the program page.

In this episode, listen to Alice T. Shaw, MD, PhD, and Jessica J. Lin, MD, share their thoughts on the available clinical data in support of frontline treatments for ROS1-altered NSCLC including:Efficacy and safety data for crizotinib, entrectinib, and repotrectinib in patients with ROS1-altered advanced NSCLCLong-term safety observations for crizotinib and entrectinib CNS activity of entrectinib and repotrectinib in patients with brain metastasesRepotrectinib activity in ROS1-TKI resistance mutations  Program faculty:Jessica J. Lin, MDAttending PhysicianMassachusetts General HospitalAssociate Professor of MedicineHarvard Medical SchoolBoston, MassachusettsAlice T. Shaw, MD, PhDChief, Strategic PartnershipsAttending Physician, Thoracic OncologyDana-Farber Cancer InstituteHarvard Medical SchoolBoston, MassachusettsResources:To download the slides associated with this podcast discussion, please visit the program page.

In episode 76 of the Summits Podcast, co-hosts Vince Todd, Jr. and Daniel Abdallah travel to Indiana University in Bloomington to visit Sarah Beggs, Senior Vice President at the Indiana University Foundation. Tune in as Sarah shares how cancer became personal for her family as her daughter faced a stage 4 ALK+ lung cancer diagnosis.

In this episode, listen to Alice T. Shaw, MD, PhD, and Jessica J. Lin, MD, share their thoughts on the current understanding of ROS1 rearrangements in non-small-cell lung cancer tumor biology and its implications for molecular testing and treatment selection including:ROS1-gene fusions in advanced lung cancerROS1 testing recommendations with DNA NGS, RNA NGS, FISH break apart assay, and IHCComparative specificity of ROS1 and ALK targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitorsAdvantages of RNA- vs DNA-based next-generation sequencing Program faculty:Jessica J. Lin, MDAttending PhysicianMassachusetts General HospitalAssociate Professor of MedicineHarvard Medical SchoolBoston, MassachusettsAlice T. Shaw, MD, PhDChief, Strategic PartnershipsAttending Physician, Thoracic OncologyDana-Farber Cancer InstituteHarvard Medical SchoolBoston, MassachusettsResources:To download the slides associated with this podcast discussion, please visit the program page

It's been a busy old week at Turf Moor with the departures of Berge, Zaroury and Obafemi and the arrival of Humphreys and Worrall so there's plenty for the pod squad to discuss. Is this the ALK model in action? Where will it end? Is there more to come? Simon, Woody, Chris and Justin try to make sense of it all.Plus, Sunderland preview and Justin's ticketing woes. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Prof Solange Peters from the Lausanne University Hospital in Lausanne, Switzerland, and Professor Ben Solomon from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia, discuss treatment approaches for ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer in the localized disease setting.

Prof Solange Peters from the Lausanne University Hospital in Lausanne, Switzerland, and Professor Ben Solomon from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia, discuss treatment approaches for ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer in the localized disease setting, moderated by Dr Neil Love. Produced by Research To Practice. CME information and select publications here (https://www.researchtopractice.com/InsideTheIssue2024/ALKPosNSCLC).

Willkommen zur großen rundfunk17-Sauf-Folge. Wir trinken heute nicht (hört auf zu buhen), sondern reden über unser liebstes Hobby: sich Krawallbrausen in die Rüstung zimmern, aka Alkohol trinken. Zu Beginn dieser hochprozentigen Jubiläumsfolge #rundfunk17 inszenieren anredo und BastiMasti verkatert zu sein vom sogenannten Wochenende. Wie viel Wahrheit dabei ist, müsst ihr selbst entscheiden. Dabei geht es natürlich im Kern um die Auswirkungen ihres gestiegenen Alkoholkonsums bei diesen sommerlichen Temperaturen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Basti hat sogar das Gefühl, in die Alkoholkrankheit abzudriften (weil er aktuell fast jeden Tag ein Radler trinkt). Die beiden diskutieren auch den Trend des Nicht-Trinkens und den Konsum illegaler Substanzen, von denen anredo und Basti grundsätzlich die Pfoten lassen. anredo hat sich auf einem Weinfest völlig abgeschossen. Im Etepetete-Himmel durfte er horrende Summen für allerlei Wein und exklusive Speisen ausgeben und hatte einen netten Abend. Angefahren im kölschen PONY kam er natürlich standesgemäß per E-Scooter, mit dem er zu allem Überfluss fast in die Menschenmenge gerauscht wäre. Zum Glück gibt es überall sogenannte Merkelpoller, die ihn aufhalten könnten (Anmerkung der Redaktion: Wir distanzieren uns davon). Sowohl TikTok-Star anredo, als auch BastiMasti (für einen Titel reicht es nicht) können nur locker werden, wenn sie auf Partys Alkohol trinken. Sie haben Hochachtung vor allen Menschen, die nicht so verklemmt sind wie die beiden und locker-flockig einen schönen Abend mit allerlei Ulk und Schabernack treiben können ohne Alk. Das ist traurig, aber sobald der erste Tropfen ihre Lippen benetzt, wird es gefährlich. Denn dann werden sie zu sogenannten Lebemännern, die sich voll und ganz dem Hedonismus hingeben und wirklich völlig blöde gehen. Zum Schluss gibt es noch einen Aufruf. Basti möchte sich kleine Tattoos stechen lassen und deshalb seid ihr gefragt: Schickt ihm coole, lustige, kleine Motive. Wenn etwas Schönes dabei ist, lässt er sich den Quark stechen. Slidet einfach in unsere DMs!

Talkin' ATLA with ALK! This has been one of our most requested topics and up until now it was exclusive to $10+ members of the patreon! Now it's free to the public. Enjoy!

Welcome to the Oncology Brothers Podcast! Join Drs. Rahul & Rohit Gosain in this episode as they welcome Dr. Balazs Halmos, a thoracic medical oncologist from Montefiore-Einstein Comprehensive Cancer Center, to discuss the current landscape of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with actionable mutations in first-line settings. In this informative episode, they cover a wide range of topics including the importance of NGS testing, treatment options for various actionable mutations such as EGFR, ALK, ROS1, RET rearrangements, and more. Dr. Halmos provides valuable insights into decision-making processes, sequencing treatments, and managing toxicities associated with targeted therapies. Don't miss out on this insightful discussion that sheds light on the rapidly evolving space of precision medicine in lung cancer treatment. Stay informed and learn how identifying and targeting specific mutations can optimize treatment outcomes and improve patient quality of life. Tune in to the Oncology Brothers Podcast for expert insights and discussions on the latest developments in oncology. Subscribe now to stay updated on their informative episodes!

S&P Futures are positive this morning with gains in tech shares. Earnings are in focus today, last night report from TSM was positive, company raised guidance which is helping elevate the sector. this morning. Airline sector is weak as UAL & ALK guided lower yesterday. After the bell today NFLX is expected to report. Odds of President Biden leaving the race have increased over the last 24 hours. Also seeing earnings beats from ASML, JNJ, CFG & USB in the pre-market. Multiple Fed speakers today (Goolsbee, Logan & Daly) which will be their last comments before the July Fed meeting. In Europe, markets are higher ahead of an ECB announcement on monetary policy. Market anticipates two more rate cuts from the ECB this year. Oil prices are ticking lower as oil gives back some of yesterday's gains.

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

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

In this episode, hosts Drs. Rahul and Rohit Gosain are joined by special guest Dr. Joshua Sabari, a thoracic medical oncologist from NYU Langone Health. Together, they dive into the highlights from ASCO 2024, focusing on key studies in lung cancer. Here's a quick summary of what you can expect in this episode: •⁠  ⁠LAURA Trial: Discussing the use of Osimertinib as a consolidation approach after chemoradiation in unresectable stage 3 non-small cell lung cancer patients with common EGFR mutation. •⁠  ⁠MARIPOSA Study: Exploring the potential of Amivantamab and Lazertinib in common EGFR mutations. •⁠  ⁠CROWN Study and other ALK inhibitors: Alectinib, Lorlatinib, and Brigatinib for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. •⁠  ⁠ADRIATIC Study: Examining the use of Durvalumab after concurrent chemoradiation in limited-stage small cell lung cancer. •⁠ PALOMA-3 Trial: Discussing subcutaneous Amivantamab vs. IV Amivantamab with Lazertinib Join the Oncology Brothers and Dr. Sabari as they break down these practice-changing studies and provide insights into the latest advancements in lung cancer treatment. Don't miss out on this informative and engaging discussion! Stay tuned for more ASCO 2024 highlights and updates on GI, GU, and breast cancer in the upcoming episodes. Subscribe to the Oncology Brothers Podcast for the latest in oncology news and research. Thank you for listening! Website: http://www.oncbrothers.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers Contact us at info@oncbrothers.com

Featuring articles on alectinib in ALK-positive lung cancer, minimally invasive removal of cerebral hematomas, and CAR T-cell–mediated responses in recurrent glioblastoma; a review article on energy and macronutrients across the life span; a case report of a woman with falls and cognitive decline; a Medicine and Society on money as medicine; and Perspectives on back to the future in Alabama, on the end of B/Yamagata influenza transmission, and on the plight of DEI leaders.

A proposed merger between Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines could help Alaska take market share over time. (00:21) Jason Moser and Deidre Woollard discuss: - The possibility of the Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines deal going through. - If airlines lose specialness as they grow. - The race to bring GLP-1 drugs to market. (18:35) Deidre Woollard chats with Solo Brands CEO John Merris about the company's collection of brands and where it could be headed next. Companies discussed: HA, ALK, AMZN, DTC, PFE, RHHBY Claim your dividend stocks here: www.fool.com/dividends Host: Deidre Woollard Guests: Jason Moser, John Merris Producer: Mary Long Engineers: Dan Boyd, Desiree Jones Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices