Podcasts about Asco

NPR and three public radio stations in Colorado filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration today. They argue the White House’s executive order calling on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to cease federal funding to NPR and PBS is unconstitutional. The Trump administration has made deep cuts to universities, federal agencies, and cultural and historical institutions. Their goal is to undermine information gathering and education that doesn’t support the MAGA agenda. Opioid overdose deaths dropped nearly a quarter last year, thanks in part to medicines like Narcan. But the Trump administration wants to cut funding for Narcan, and experts worry that progress will be lost.  Four East LA artists in their early 20s formed an art collective called Asco in 1972, exploring police brutality, immigration, gender, and sexuality. They’re the subject of a new documentary.

Dr. Luis Raez and Michael Reff share the newest update to the medically integrated dispensing pharmacy standards from NCODA and ASCO. They review updates to domain one, on key patient-centered quality standards on health equity and social determinants of health, drug access, patient safety, education, and adherence to maximize treatment outcomes and domain two, on key operational quality standards on logistics, care coordination, and waste prevention. We also cover the impact of these updated standards for clinicians, oncology practices, and people receiving oral anti-cancer medications. Read the complete standards, “Medically Integrated Dispensing Pharmacy: ASCO-NCODA Standards.” Transcript These standards, clinical tools, and resources are available on ASCO.org.  Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the JCO Oncology Practice. 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 Michael Reff from the Network of Collaborative Oncology Development and Advancement and Dr. Luis Raez from Memorial Cancer Institute and Florida Atlantic University, co-chairs on "Medically Integrated Dispensing Pharmacy: American Society of Clinical Oncology – Network of Collaborative Oncology Development and Advancement Association Standards Update." Thank you for being here, Michael and Dr. Raez. Dr. Luis Raez: Thanks for inviting us. Michael Reff: Thank you for having us. Brittany Harvey: Then, before we discuss these standards, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its standards and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest policy is followed for each guidance product. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the expert panel, including Michael and Dr. Luis Raez who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the standards in JCO Oncology Practice, which is linked in the show notes. So then, to dive into the content here, Michael, I'd like to start with what prompted an update to these ASCO-NCODA standards and what is the scope of this update? Michael Reff: Thank you, Brittany. What led NCODA and ASCO to endeavor in this, and it started back in 2019 as the amount of oral anticancer medications became more and more prevalent in cancer treatment, we saw the need providing a blueprint for excellence in care for patients prescribed oral anticancer medications, specifically in the outpatient setting. And the update was driven by the rapid growth of these oral oncolytics starting back in the mid to late 2015 through 2019 or so, and then continued on into the 2020s where we are today. We saw the increase in the complexity of the management of these patients with these therapies basically outside the traditional clinical settings. And we wanted to make sure that with more cancer treatments that are taken at home than just at the clinic, like in the oral setting, new challenges had emerged around patient safety, access, adherence, and overall treatment success. The updates now address patient-centered and operational interventions designed to improve access, safety, quality, accountability, and outcomes of oral anticancer and other supportive care medications prescribed for the cancer patient. Dr. Luis Raez: As Mike said, these guidelines help improve patient care tremendously, but also help us a lot as an oncologist, you know, community oncologists that- now that we have opportunity to dispense these oral oncolytics, we need help to create our medical integrated pharmacies, and NCODA is providing here a way that, how to do this safely, efficaciously, good quality, you know? So that's why I think we always do everything for the patients, but also this helps a lot to the doctors. And there are a lot of what we call specialty pharmacies or medical integrated pharmacies now nationwide. Michael Reff: I'll build on what Dr. Raez had mentioned. This is the impetus. If you looked at the innovation that was coming from the pharmaceutical companies, many of it coming in the oral form for anticancer medications, and based on that, taking a look at the infrastructure that is in place in these practices, whether it's in the community or the IDN or health system settings, this amount of innovation that was coming needed to be addressed by taking a look at the medically integrated oncology team. And these standards address not just the pharmacy component, but also the whole continuum of care, starting with a medical oncologist or the hematologist, with the pharmacists, nurses, the pharmacy technicians, others that are involved in the care of the patient. And there were no standards involved. And when we approached ASCO back in 2018 to eventually publish the first version of these standards, the need was identified, and we worked collaboratively with ASCO to create the first set and then the revisions as we talked about. One thing to note regarding the revision plus the original standards, we had a cross-section of the care team on the committee, and we did that very purposefully. So, the ASCO-NCODA team curated a committee to help develop these original standards and the revision of these standards with medical oncologists both from community and health systems, pharmacists from both community and health systems, and also nurses. And we also included a patient that currently has and currently receives oral anticancer medication. And so NCODA and ASCO are very proud of the committee that we put together because of the experts in their field, but also extended the invitation to a current patient. And we embedded everybody's expertise in the curation of these standards. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I appreciate that background and context and how it's critical to improve patient care. And these standards really help oncologists, and we're looking across the continuum of care to provide optimal care for our patients. So then next, Dr. Raez, I'd like to review the key points of the revised standards for our listeners. So for Domain 1, what are the key patient-centered quality standards on health equity and social determinants of health, drug access, patient safety, education, and adherence to maximize treatment outcomes? Dr. Luis Raez: Yeah, this was a great effort, you know, at the multidisciplinary team. And as you can read in the standard, there were more than 240 publications reviewed; more than 55 of them are quoted here. And the standards are in two groups, as you said. With the group one, I'll briefly mention some of them. For example, SDOH, social determinants of health, is very important because as doctors, we prescribe, and sometimes patients don't get the medication, you know? And we prescribe assuming that 100% of the patients will get the medication. But something simple like the patient doesn't have insurance, the patient is underinsured. I have a patient that we didn't have an address to send the medication because he's homeless. Something that as a doctor you say, "Oh, oh my God, this is outside my realm," but it's not outside reality. So that's why, even if we don't think that this is part of our expertise dealing with social determinants of health, the fact that the patients have food insecurity, they don't have transportation, they don't have insurance, they don't have a caregiver, impact tremendously in the outcomes of the therapy. So that's why, basically, in this standard, we want to call attention that SDOH, social determinants of health, needs to be identified. There are in the literature countless examples of why this is important. For example, in the guidelines, we quote two or three examples of prostate cancer studies that, for example, we quote a study of 27,000 people with prostate cancer that were taking oral oncolytics, and how come the fact that the elderly, seniors, the fact that they have high prescription costs, and how all of this affected the adherence to the medication. And that's why it's important to identify the SDOH. And in other sections of the guidelines, we said how to address them, no? Another important thing in this domain is the cultural, you know, we need to be culturally sensitive and to take care of all of these social factors. For example, here in South Florida, we deal with the Haitian culture, Filipino culture, Latin culture, and American culture, and it's a blend, but it's not easy to go from one to the other. Another one is the fact that we have to include new technologies. A lot of patients, for example, we use EMR, EMR Epic, and now Epic has everything in the phone. The fact that we can have now the patient can see her prescription medication over the phone, the fact that they can use the phone to request from you a refill, and from your phone, you send the refill to the pharmacy, and you notify from your phone to the patient that the refill is sent, and the patient can check in his phone that the refill is ready. These things are amazing because that's why it's important that we incorporate these technologies to the patient care, and in this specific case, of dispensation of oral therapies, no? Another crucial point is education. You cannot be sending a patient a package of 300 pills without education. So that's why in our guidelines, mainly pharmacy, clinical pharmacies, or in some centers like mine, we have advanced practice providers, it's mandatory in our centers to have like a one hour of education before you send the prescription. So the patient is aware about side effects and contraindications, all of these things. They provide them also materials and also consent. You know, in the old times, you don't give chemo without a consent. Now, a lot of people say, "Oh, it's only a pill." There is a lot of benefits or side effects that can come from the pill, so you need to consent everybody, you know? So, another aspect is adherence. I already told about that, but we need to provide patients with a baseline assessment, no? So, you cannot send again the prescription and hope, "Oh, I'll figure it out what happened next month when the patient comes back." I tell you, the patient is homeless, where are you going to send it? If the patient is telling you, "I don't have insurance," what good is it for you to send a prescription? The patient will not get it. So that's why you need to do a baseline assessment of adherence. You need to do a calendar. You need to do electronic support, I mentioned already with the EMR and the phones. For example, my MIP, my specialty pharmacist, sends me a message in the EMR, "Dr. Raez, the insurance is not covering, the patient has a high copayment, we are going to delay the dispensation of the medication." So there needs to be a communication. Or sometimes there is a confusion with the insurance, and I cannot wait for the poor patient to call three, four weeks later, "Oh, I didn't get the medication," to know what happened, no? My MIP is very good. They send the clinical pharmacist a message, "Hey, you know, the insurance doesn't believe that the pill is adequate, or you need to provide more documentation. You need to prove the mutation, the genetic aberration." So if you provide us that, the insurance may approve. So that communication with the doctor is very important to improve adherence. And one important thing that we have in this one that we didn't have in the anterior is the tracking of outside medications. A lot of times you say, "Okay, the insurance allowed us to provide the medication it's 100% responsible." But then the insurance says, "Oh, no, no, don't worry. CVS will provide the medication." So it says, "Well, it's you know, it's not my responsibility. CVS will provide the medication, they have to take care." But we know that outside our specialty pharmacies or MIPs, the care is not very good. So that's why we are taking our ownership that, "Okay, the insurance said the patient will get the medication from some outside pharmacy." But our clinical pharmacists track that. What happened? Did the patient get it? The patient didn't get it. The copayment is still high. So even if you get the medication from somewhere else, if the copayment is high, we, our clinical pharmacists, help the patient to navigate and get the foundation or the copayment or finally the maker, the industry partner, provides the drug for free, but somebody needs to do the paperwork. And that's why this is very important. We cannot abort our responsibility because, "Oh, the insurance said somebody else will give it." I work for the public healthcare system, so my patients, some of them don't have insurance, they are underinsured. So we see these problems every day. And finally, the standards talk about the importance of safety, documentation, verification, monitoring, refills, you know, you need to keep track of refills. We already mentioned how important is the technology to facilitate the refills, and the quality. Brittany Harvey: Yes, thank you for touching on those highlights for Domain 1. It's important that all patients have access to care and these oral anticancer medications, and not only just access to care, but safe and effective care. It's really important, as you mentioned, Dr. Raez, to meet patients where they're at and incorporate technology. And I also want to note the coordination with external pharmacies that you mentioned in tracking outside medications as well. It's not only important for multidisciplinary care within the oncology practice itself, but also external to the oncology practice. That's why we put together this multidisciplinary panel to develop these standards. So then, expanding on that, Dr. Raez, for Domain 2, what are the key operational quality standards? Those on logistics, care coordination, and waste prevention. Dr. Luis Raez: Yeah, we have a lot of standards here, but maybe we can summarize in five or six points, no? For example, financial toxicity in cost and waste are very important because the patients, yeah, you put them on therapy, but as you can understand, if there is disease progression, the patient don't need the medications. And sometimes you get refills even if the patient has disease progression. If you do a dose reduction, the same problem. Or you discontinue medication and the patient keeps getting the drugs. So, you're talking about drugs that are between 20 and 30 thousand dollars per month. This is a lot of money. There are studies that we're quoting in the standards that the waste could be from 1 to 3 or 4 thousand per patient, no? Another aspect is dispensing. When you dispense the medication, this is not as easy as, "I'll ship to your house a bag of medications." You know, there needs to be a diagram, a decision tree. You need to train the staff to know what we're doing. There needs to be an auditing of the process. They need to be even packaging and shipping, you know? For example, I'm in Florida today and outside in summer it's going to be 95 degrees. So, everybody leaves the package outside your house, and sometimes you go the whole day until when you come at 6:00 p.m. There are medications that cannot be left outside there, you know? I don't know, it sounds like a joke, but I have a patient that the medication used to be stolen because people thought that that was something important, you know? And of course, it's important because it's a $20,000 medication. So, the poor patient, because he lives in an area that is not safe, has to come and pick up in person. All of these things sound very trivial, but that's real life that affects adherence. Another important thing is shortage. This is something that we just suffered two or three years ago, and we have to think about what happens in the next shortage. What happens if there's going to be a shortage? What do we do or how are we going to do that? Now we know it's something that is happening probably very soon again, and something that we have to consider. Another standard is the care coordination. You need to have probably, if it's possible, a coordinator. I know that for small practices it's very hard, but for big cancer centers, you should have a coordinator of this. I already mentioned before, the communication between the physicians and the doctors to coordinate the care, no? You need to write the prescription again, you need to provide more information, or to be notified, "Hey, you know, the patient is throwing up in the first week, you need to see the patient, please," no? So, this type of communication needs to exist so we can serve the patient better. It's also important, you know, we're improving quality and we're improving care. It's important to try to collect patient-reported outcomes. This is something that now we have the opportunity, if we do things well, to do it and show that we're providing a better care. The other thing is that we already mentioned SDOH in the other standard. In this standard, we mention mainly SDOH to partner. For example, we collect in my center SDOH, and I always get frustrated when the patient doesn't have transportation. But I didn't know that there are local institutions that provide free Uber rides, free Lyft rides. So that's why it's important to partner with these institutions. I have a local grocery chain that provides free food for the patients, and I didn't know that. It's important to be aware what the patient needs and what resources do you have to fulfill the SDOH. That's the part that we mention in here. So that's why, in summary, those are the six probably most important points here. I'll ask Mike for some comments. Michael Reff: Thank you, Dr. Raez. Brittany, to answer your question, and as was pointed out on logistics, care coordination, and prevention of waste, certainly that is an aspect that has changed in the revision that we're here to talk about. There's really two components to waste, and it's cost avoidance and then waste prevention. And as Dr. Raez mentioned several times, the importance of the medically integrated team and having the ability for that practice to fill that prescription internally and have robust documentation. Cost avoidance is a critical component that the medically integrated pharmacy, or the MIP, can help the total cost of care. And that is by preventing errant fills or waste that can occur by intervening in the care of the cancer patient, as we do every day. But when the practice has access to the medication and can fill that prescription in-house in the medically integrated pharmacy, that team, that care coordination that takes place, can prevent those errant fills or additional fills when there's dose reductions, there's holidays, there's things that happen in real time. And it's impossible for a mail-order pharmacy that's in another state that has lead times, when a prescription needs to be mailed 7 days or 10 days before the patient will run out of the medication, it's impossible for them to logistically coordinate that care like we can internally within the medically integrated pharmacy. So, we prevent waste and overall cost of care by cost avoidance and having that coordination or that continuity of care that we talk about. And we prevent waste from the mail-order pharmacies by taking that prescription internally and filling it, but also doing it in a way that's more sustainable and cost-effective for all stakeholders in the oncology ecosystem. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Thank you both for reviewing those key standards for Domain 2 and touching on the importance of distribution logistics and all the things that a medically integrated pharmacy needs to think through in getting oral anticancer agents to patients. Following that, Michael, we've touched on this a little bit earlier, but how will these updated standards impact clinicians and oncology practices? Michael Reff: Yes, and as Dr. Raez and I have discussed throughout this podcast, these additional standards are there to help support that continuity of care by educating the clinicians that are in the oral anticancer medication space to elevate their provision for these oral therapies. What I mean by that is the practice has to perform at a certain level in order for them to, as I call it, deserve the right to fill that prescription by having the processes and procedures in place. And these standards, these updated or revised standards, are the blueprint for better patient care and to help the practices execute on that journey of continuous improvement. Dr. Luis Raez: Yeah, I only want to add, we have practical examples in the guidelines. We quote a couple of studies that have been successful. And this year, for example, I am a lung cancer doctor, we are presenting in World Lung our standards of adherence to oral oncolytics for EGFR therapy, following the NCODA-ASCO standards. We're around 95% of adherence. We are a healthcare system that is public. We have people with no insurance and a lot of social determinants of health. We are trying to show that it's feasible, even in the most difficult circumstance, when you follow the standards, to be successful. Brittany Harvey: Definitely, these standards can help clinicians and oncology practices succeed in providing these medications. So then beyond that, and to wrap us up, Michael, what do these revised standards mean for patients who are receiving oral anticancer medications? Michael Reff: Yes, great point and question, Brittany, because we have covered the benefits to the clinicians and the practices themselves. But how is this going to support better patient care? And it does it in a whole host of ways. I'll cover just a few of them. What I'm about to share with you relates back to what we call at NCODA the "core claims." Like, what's the core claims of having a medically integrated pharmacy within the practice? And there are seven different core claims that we feel practices that are focused on the continuity of care can deliver better outcomes that are embedded in these standards. And it's talking about abandonment, adherence, access and affordability, speed to therapy or time to fill, as we call it, education, patient satisfaction, and cost avoidance that we covered earlier. So those are the core claims that a practice that follows these revised standards can help elevate. So, faster and more affordable access to the oral cancer medications; individualized support to address barriers like transportation, finance, language, or health literacy, and so on; clear, patient-friendly education; something that is near and dear to all clinicians' hearts, and of course, the patient that was on our panel or on our committee, to empower them to manage side effects and recognize when to seek help; and a stronger partnership with a care team, with regular follow-ups focused on their experience, challenges, and successes; and then, greater overall safety through proactive monitoring for medication errors or complications. So all of these aspects, or tenets, as I'll call them, are baked into these quality standards that are totally aligned with NCODA's core claims document that, again, talks about abandonment, adherence, access and affordability, speed to therapy, education, satisfaction for the patients, and also cost avoidance. Dr. Luis Raez: I only want to add and invite the community to adhere to these standards, to practice the standards. You will be providing the best patient care that we can nowadays. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. I think these standards are very important. And Michael, I thank you for touching on those key claims from NCODA. I think those, along with these updated standards, will improve outcomes for patients everywhere. So I want to thank you both so much for your work to update these standards and all the time you put into it. And thank you for your time today too, Michael and Dr. Raez. Michael Reff: I'd like to thank not only the committee, my esteemed committee that helped support the standards and the revision. Many of the original healthcare providers and patient that were on the first go of the standards were part of the second standards. We revised it, of course, and we got additional support from the new committee. And certainly ASCO and their partnership and collaboration with NCODA has been tremendous. And we look forward to the oncology community at large adopting these standards, again, to work together, we do become stronger, and it will improve cancer care for patients receiving oral anticancer medications. So thank you, Brittany. Dr. Luis Raez: I only want to say the same thing. Actually, there is probably more people in NCODA that is not in the publication that has helped. Same in ASCO. Also, we want to give thanks to Dr. Stephen Grubbs, our leader in quality. He's retiring. We're going to miss him, but he has been a key collaborator with Mike organizing these standards for the last five or six years. So, looking forward to these standards in practice. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. A big thank you to the entire panel and everyone who contributed to this, and NCODA as well. And then finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the complete standards, go to www.asco.org/standards. I also encourage you to check out the companion episode on these standards on the PQI podcast by NCODA, which you can find on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also find many of our standards 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.

Silke, Tom and Brian discuss what they are looking forward to at ASCO 2025

In this episode, host Shikha Jain, MD, speaks with Abiola Ibraheem, MD, about the role culture plays in improving global oncology, launching the Best of ASCO in Africa and more. •    Welcome to another exciting episode of Oncology Overdrive 1:34 •    About Ibraheem 1:42 •    The interview 3:02 •    How did you get where you are today?  3:28 •    Can you tell me more about Aortic Africa and your role within the organization? 5:41 •    What are some challenges you have encountered in doing this work, both locally and internationally? 7:33 •    How have you navigated the nuances of global oncology in other countries?  9:51 •    Did you get any pushback when you decided to create these global relationships and inroads? How did you navigate receiving different perspectives on your work? 12:10 •    What are you hoping to achieve with these efforts in global oncology? 16:28 •    Where did the idea for a Best of ASCO Africa come from, and what do you hope to achieve with the event? 17:41 •    Jain and Ibraheem on the importance of providing other countries with tools to implement and drive global change. 22:54 •    If someone could only listen to the last few minutes of this episode, what would you want listeners to take away? 27:29 •    How to contact Ibraheem 28:09 •    Thanks for listening 29:07 Abiola Ibraheem, MD, is a board-certified medical oncologist and assistant professor at the University of Illinois Chicago. Her journey in medicine began in Nigeria, where she earned her MBBS degree from Olabisi Onabanjo University. She then completed her internal medicine residency at Morehouse School of Medicine, focusing on racial health care disparities. We'd love to hear from you! Send your comments/questions to Dr. Jain at oncologyoverdrive@healio.com. Follow Healio on X and LinkedIn: @HemOncToday and https://www.linkedin.com/company/hemonctoday/. Follow Dr. Jain on X: @ShikhaJainMD. Ibraheem can be reached via email at abiolai@uic.edu. Learn more about Best of ASCO Africa, as well as how to sign up for in-person or virtual attendance, happening June 27 & 28 in Addis Abba, Ethiopia. Disclosures: Jain and Ibraheem report no relevant financial disclosures. 

Listen to ASCO's JCO Oncology Practice, Art of Oncology Practice article, "An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last” by Dr. David Johnson, who is a clinical oncologist at University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. The article is followed by an interview with Johnson and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Through humor and irony, Johnson critiques how overspecialization and poor presentation practices have eroded what was once internal medicine's premier educational forum. Transcript Narrator: An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last, by David H. Johnson, MD, MACP, FASCO   Over the past five decades, I have attended hundreds of medical conferences—some insightful and illuminating, others tedious and forgettable. Among these countless gatherings, Medical Grand Rounds (MGRs) has always held a special place. Originally conceived as a forum for discussing complex clinical cases, emerging research, and best practices in patient care, MGRs served as a unifying platform for clinicians across all specialties, along with medical students, residents, and other health care professionals. Expert speakers—whether esteemed faculty or distinguished guests—would discuss challenging cases, using them as a springboard to explore the latest advances in diagnosis and treatment. During my early years as a medical student, resident, and junior faculty member, Grand Rounds consistently attracted large, engaged audiences. However, as medicine became increasingly subspecialized, attendance began to wane. Lectures grew more technically intricate, often straying from broad clinical relevance. The patient-centered discussions that once brought together diverse medical professionals gradually gave way to hyperspecialized presentations. Subspecialists, once eager to share their insights with the wider medical community, increasingly withdrew to their own specialty-specific conferences, further fragmenting the exchange of knowledge across disciplines. As a former Chair of Internal Medicine and a veteran of numerous MGRs, I observed firsthand how these sessions shifted from dynamic educational exchanges to highly specialized, often impenetrable discussions. One of the most striking trends in recent years has been the decline in presentation quality at MGR—even among local and visiting world-renowned experts. While these speakers are often brilliant clinicians and investigators, they can also be remarkably poor lecturers, delivering some of the most uninspiring talks I have encountered. Their presentations are so consistently lackluster that one might suspect an underlying strategy at play—an unspoken method to ensure that they are never invited back. Having observed this pattern repeatedly, I am convinced that these speakers must be adhering to a set of unwritten rules to avoid future MGR presentations. To assist those unfamiliar with this apparent strategy, I have distilled the key principles that, when followed correctly, all but guarantee that a presenter will not be asked to give another MGR lecture—thus sparing them the burden of preparing one in the future. Drawing on my experience as an oncologist, I illustrate these principles using an oncology-based example although I suspect similar rules apply across other subspecialties. It will be up to my colleagues in cardiology, endocrinology, rheumatology, and beyond to identify and document their own versions—tasks for which I claim no expertise. What follows are the seven “Rules for Presenting a Bad Medical Oncology Medical Grand Rounds.” 1.  Microscopic Mayhem: Always begin with an excruciatingly detailed breakdown of the tumor's histology and molecular markers, emphasizing how these have evolved over the years (eg, PAP v prostate-specific antigen)—except, of course, when they have not (eg, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, etc). These nuances, while of limited relevance to general internists or most subspecialists (aside from oncologists), are guaranteed to induce eye-glazing boredom and quiet despair among your audience. 2. TNM Torture: Next, cover every nuance of the newest staging system … this is always a real crowd pleaser. For illustrative purposes, show a TNM chart in the smallest possible font. It is particularly helpful if you provide a lengthy review of previous versions of the staging system and painstakingly cover each and every change in the system. Importantly, this activity will allow you to disavow the relevance of all previous literature studies to which you will subsequently refer during the course of your presentation … to wit—“these data are based on the OLD staging system and therefore may not pertain …” This phrase is pure gold—use it often if you can. NB: You will know you have “captured” your audience if you observe audience members “shifting in their seats” … it occurs almost every time … but if you have failed to “move” the audience … by all means, continue reading … there is more! 3. Mechanism of Action Meltdown: Discuss in detail every drug ever used to treat the cancer under discussion; this works best if you also give a detailed description of each drug's mechanism of action (MOA). General internists and subspecialists just LOVE hearing a detailed discussion of the drug's MOA … especially if it is not at all relevant to the objectives of your talk. At this point, if you observe a wave of slack-jawed faces slowly slumping toward their desktops, you will know you are on your way to successfully crushing your audience's collective spirit. Keep going—you are almost there. 4. Dosage Deadlock: One must discuss “dose response” … there is absolutely nothing like a dose response presentation to a group of internists to induce cries of anguish. A wonderful example of how one might weave this into a lecture to generalists or a mixed audience of subspecialists is to discuss details that ONLY an oncologist would care about—such as the need to dose escalate imatinib in GIST patients with exon 9 mutations as compared with those with exon 11 mutations. This is a definite winner! 5. Criteria Catatonia: Do not forget to discuss the newest computed tomography or positron emission tomography criteria for determining response … especially if you plan to discuss an obscure malignancy that even oncologists rarely encounter (eg, esthesioneuroblastoma). Should you plan to discuss a common disease you can ensure ennui only if you will spend extra time discussing RECIST criteria. Now if you do this well, some audience members may begin fashioning their breakfast burritos into projectiles—each one aimed squarely at YOU. Be brave … soldier on! 6. Kaplan-Meier Killer: Make sure to discuss the arcane details of multiple negative phase II and III trials pertaining to the cancer under discussion. It is best to show several inconsequential and hard-to-read Kaplan-Meier plots. To make sure that you do a bad job, divide this portion of your presentation into two sections … one focused on adjuvant treatment; the second part should consist of a long boring soliloquy on the management of metastatic disease. Provide detailed information of little interest even to the most ardent fan of the disease you are discussing. This alone will almost certainly ensure that you will never, ever be asked to give Medicine Grand Rounds again. 7. Lymph Node Lobotomy: For the coup de grâce, be sure to include an exhaustive discussion of the latest surgical techniques, down to the precise number of lymph nodes required for an “adequate dissection.” To be fair, such details can be invaluable in specialized settings like a tumor board, where they send subspecialists into rapturous delight. But in the context of MGR—where the audience spans multiple disciplines—it will almost certainly induce a stultifying torpor. If dullness were an art, this would be its masterpiece—capable of lulling even the most caffeinated minds into a stupor. If you have carefully followed the above set of rules, at this point, some members of the audience should be banging their heads against the nearest hard surface. If you then hear a loud THUD … and you're still standing … you will know you have succeeded in giving the world's worst Medical Grand Rounds!   Final Thoughts I hope that these rules shed light on what makes for a truly dreadful oncology MGR presentation—which, by inverse reasoning, might just serve as a blueprint for an excellent one. At its best, an outstanding lecture defies expectations. One of the most memorable MGRs I have attended, for instance, was on prostaglandin function—not a subject typically associated with edge-of-your-seat suspense. Given by a biochemist and physician from another subspecialty, it could have easily devolved into a labyrinth of enzymatic pathways and chemical structures. Instead, the speaker took a different approach: rather than focusing on biochemical minutiae, he illustrated how prostaglandins influence nearly every major physiologic system—modulating inflammation, regulating cardiovascular function, protecting the gut, aiding reproduction, supporting renal function, and even influencing the nervous system—without a single slide depicting the prostaglandin structure. The result? A room full of clinicians—not biochemists—walked away with a far richer understanding of how prostaglandins affect their daily practice. What is even more remarkable is that the talk's clarity did not just inform—it sparked new collaborations that shaped years of NIH-funded research. Now that was an MGR masterpiece. At its core, effective scientific communication boils down to three deceptively simple principles: understanding your audience, focusing on relevance, and making complex information accessible.2 The best MGRs do not drown the audience in details, but rather illuminate why those details matter. A great lecture is not about showing how much you know, but about ensuring your audience leaves knowing something they didn't before. For those who prefer the structured wisdom of a written guide over the ramblings of a curmudgeon, an excellent review of these principles—complete with a handy checklist—is available.2 But fair warning: if you follow these principles, you may find yourself invited back to present another stellar MGRs. Perish the thought! Dr. Mikkael SekeresHello and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the oncology field. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami.  What a pleasure it is today to be joined by Dr. David Johnson, clinical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. In this episode, we will be discussing his Art of Oncology Practice article, "An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last."  Our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript.  David, welcome to our podcast and thanks so much for joining us. Dr. David JohnsonGreat to be here, Mikkael. Thanks for inviting me. Dr. Mikkael SekeresI was wondering if we could start with just- give us a sense about you. Can you tell us about yourself? Where are you from? And walk us through your career. Dr. David JohnsonSure. I grew up in a small rural community in Northwest Georgia about 30 miles south of Chattanooga, Tennessee, in the Appalachian Mountains. I met my wife in kindergarten. Dr. Mikkael SekeresOh my. Dr. David JohnsonThere are laws in Georgia. We didn't get married till the third grade. But we dated in high school and got married after college. And so we've literally been with one another my entire life, our entire lives. Dr. Mikkael SekeresMy word. Dr. David JohnsonI went to medical school in Georgia. I did my training in multiple sites, including my oncology training at Vanderbilt, where I completed my training. I spent the next 30 years there, where I had a wonderful career. Got an opportunity to be a Division Chief and a Deputy Director of, and the founder of, a cancer center there. And in 2010, I was recruited to UT Southwestern as the Chairman of Medicine. Not a position I had particularly aspired to, but I was interested in taking on that challenge, and it proved to be quite a challenge for me. I had to relearn internal medicine, and really all the subspecialties of medicine really became quite challenging to me. So my career has spanned sort of the entire spectrum, I suppose, as a clinical investigator, as an administrator, and now as a near end-of-my-career guy who writes ridiculous articles about grand rounds. Dr. Mikkael SekeresNot ridiculous at all. It was terrific. What was that like, having to retool? And this is a theme you cover a little bit in your essay, also, from something that's super specialized. I mean, you have had this storied career with the focus on lung cancer, and then having to expand not only to all of hematology oncology, but all of medicine. Dr. David JohnsonIt was a challenge, but it was also incredibly fun. My first few days in the chair's office, I met with a number of individuals, but perhaps the most important individuals I met with were the incoming chief residents who were, and are, brilliant men and women. And we made a pact. I promised to teach them as much as I could about oncology if they would teach me as much as they could about internal medicine. And so I spent that first year literally trying to relearn medicine. And I had great teachers. Several of those chiefs are now on the faculty here or elsewhere. And that continued on for the next several years. Every group of chief residents imparted their wisdom to me, and I gave them what little bit I could provide back to them in the oncology world. It was a lot of fun. And I have to say, I don't necessarily recommend everybody go into administration. It's not necessarily the most fun thing in the world to do. But the opportunity to deal one-on-one closely with really brilliant men and women like the chief residents was probably the highlight of my time as Chair of Medicine. Dr. Mikkael SekeresThat sounds incredible. I can imagine, just reflecting over the two decades that I've been in hematology oncology and thinking about the changes in how we diagnose and care for people over that time period, I can only imagine what the changes had been in internal medicine since I was last immersed in that, which would be my residency. Dr. David JohnsonWell, I trained in the 70s in internal medicine, and what transpired in the 70s was kind of ‘monkey see, monkey do'. We didn't really have a lot of understanding of pathophysiology except at the most basic level. Things have changed enormously, as you well know, certainly in the field of oncology and hematology, but in all the other fields as well. And so I came in with what I thought was a pretty good foundation of knowledge, and I realized it was completely worthless, what I had learned as an intern and resident. And when I say I had to relearn medicine, I mean, I had to relearn medicine. It was like being an intern. Actually, it was like being a medical student all over again. Dr. Mikkael SekeresOh, wow. Dr. David JohnsonSo it's quite challenging.  Dr. Mikkael SekeresWell, and it's just so interesting. You're so deliberate in your writing and thinking through something like grand rounds. It's not a surprise, David, that you were also deliberate in how you were going to approach relearning medicine. So I wonder if we could pivot to talking about grand rounds, because part of being a Chair of Medicine, of course, is having Department of Medicine grand rounds. And whether those are in a cancer center or a department of medicine, it's an honor to be invited to give a grand rounds talk. How do you think grand rounds have changed over the past few decades? Can you give an example of what grand rounds looked like in the 1990s compared to what they look like now? Dr. David JohnsonWell, I should all go back to the 70s and and talk about grand rounds in the 70s. And I referenced an article in my essay written by Dr. Ingelfinger, who many people remember Dr. Ingelfinger as the Ingelfinger Rule, which the New England Journal used to apply. You couldn't publish in the New England Journal if you had published or publicly presented your data prior to its presentation in the New England Journal. Anyway, Dr. Ingelfinger wrote an article which, as I say, I referenced in my essay, about the graying of grand rounds, when he talked about what grand rounds used to be like. It was a very almost sacred event where patients were presented, and then experts in the field would discuss the case and impart to the audience their wisdom and knowledge garnered over years of caring for patients with that particular problem, might- a disease like AML, or lung cancer, or adrenal insufficiency, and talk about it not just from a pathophysiologic standpoint, but from a clinician standpoint. How do these patients present? What do you do? How do you go about diagnosing and what can you do to take care of those kinds of patients? It was very patient-centric. And often times the patient, him or herself, was presented at the grand rounds. And then experts sitting in the front row would often query the speaker and put him or her under a lot of stress to answer very specific questions about the case or about the disease itself.  Over time, that evolved, and some would say devolved, but evolved into more specialized and nuanced presentations, generally without a patient present, or maybe even not even referred to, but very specifically about the molecular biology of disease, which is marvelous and wonderful to talk about, but not necessarily in a grand round setting where you've got cardiologists sitting next to endocrinologists, seated next to nephrologists, seated next to primary care physicians and, you know, an MS1 and an MS2 and et cetera. So it was very evident to me that what I had witnessed in my early years in medicine had really become more and more subspecialized. As a result, grand rounds, which used to be packed and standing room only, became echo chambers. It was like a C-SPAN presentation, you know, where local representative got up and gave a talk and the chambers were completely empty. And so we had to go to do things like force people to attend grand rounds like a Soviet Union-style rally or something, you know. You have to pay them to go. But it was really that observation that got me to thinking about it.  And by the way, I love oncology and I'm, I think there's so much exciting progress that's being made that I want the presentations to be exciting to everybody, not just to the oncologist or the hematologist, for example. And what I was witnessing was kind of a formula that, almost like a pancake formula, that everybody followed the same rules. You know, “This disease is the third most common cancer and it presents in this way and that way.” And it was very, very formulaic. It wasn't energizing and exciting as it had been when we were discussing individual patients. So, you know, it just is what it is. I mean, progress is progress and you can't stop it. And I'm not trying to make America great again, you know, by going back to the 70s, but I do think sometimes we overthink what medical grand rounds ought to be as compared to a presentation at ASH or ASCO where you're talking to subspecialists who understand the nuances and you don't have to explain the abbreviations, you know, that type of thing. Dr. Mikkael SekeresSo I wonder, you talk about the echo chamber of the grand rounds nowadays, right? It's not as well attended. It used to be a packed event, and it used to be almost a who's who of, of who's in the department. You'd see some very famous people who would attend every grand rounds and some up-and-comers, and it was a chance for the chief residents to shine as well. How do you think COVID and the use of Zoom has changed the personality and energy of grand rounds? Is it better because, frankly, more people attend—they just attend virtually. Last time I attended, I mean, I attend our Department of Medicine grand rounds weekly, and I'll often see 150, 200 people on the Zoom. Or is it worse because the interaction's limited? Dr. David JohnsonYeah, I don't want to be one of those old curmudgeons that says, you know, the way it used to be is always better. But there's no question that the convenience of Zoom or similar media, virtual events, is remarkable. I do like being able to sit in my office where I am right now and watch a conference across campus that I don't have to walk 30 minutes to get to. I like that, although I need the exercise. But at the same time, I think one of the most important aspects of coming together is lost with virtual meetings, and that's the casual conversation that takes place. I mentioned in my essay an example of the grand rounds that I attended given by someone in a different specialty who was both a physician and a PhD in biochemistry, and he was talking about prostaglandin metabolism. And talk about a yawner of a title; you almost have to prop your eyelids open with toothpicks. But it turned out to be one of the most fascinating, engaging conversations I've ever encountered. And moreover, it completely opened my eyes to an area of research that I had not been exposed to at all. And it became immediately obvious to me that it was relevant to the area of my interest, which was lung cancer. This individual happened to be just studying colon cancer. He's not an oncologist, but he was studying colon cancer. But it was really interesting what he was talking about. And he made it very relevant to every subspecialist and generalist in the audience because he talked about how prostaglandin has made a difference in various aspects of human physiology.  The other grand rounds which always sticks in my mind was presented by a long standing program director at my former institution of Vanderbilt. He's passed away many years ago, but he gave a fascinating grand rounds where he presented the case of a homeless person. I can't remember the title of his grand rounds exactly, but I think it was “Care of the Homeless” or something like that. So again, not something that necessarily had people rushing to the audience. What he did is he presented this case as a mysterious case, you know, “what is it?” And he slowly built up the presentation of this individual who repeatedly came to the emergency department for various and sundry complaints. And to make a long story short, he presented a case that turned out to be lead poisoning. Everybody was on the edge of their seat trying to figure out what it was. And he was challenging members of the audience and senior members of the audience, including the Cair, and saying, “What do you think?” And it turned out that the patient became intoxicated not by eating paint chips or drinking lead infused liquids. He was burning car batteries to stay alive and inhaling lead fumes, which itself was fascinating, you know, so it was a fabulous grand rounds. And I mean, everybody learned something about the disease that they might otherwise have ignored, you know, if it'd been a title “Lead Poisoning”, I'm not sure a lot of people would have shown up. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres That story, David, reminds me of Tracy Kidder, who's a master of the nonfiction narrative, will choose a subject and kind of just go into great depth about it, and that subject could be a person. And he wrote a book called Rough Sleepers about Jim O'Connell - and Jim O'Connell was one of my attendings when I did my residency at Mass General - and about his life and what he learned about the homeless. And it's this same kind of engaging, “Wow, I never thought about that.” And it takes you in a different direction.  And you know, in your essay, you make a really interesting comment. You reflect that subspecialists, once eager to share their insight with the wider medical community, increasingly withdraw to their own specialty specific conferences, further fragmenting the exchange of knowledge across disciplines. How do you think this affects their ability to gain new insights into their research when they hear from a broader audience and get questions that they usually don't face, as opposed to being sucked into the groupthink of other subspecialists who are similarly isolated? Dr. David Johnson That's one of the reasons I chose to illustrate that prostaglandin presentation, because again, that was not something that I specifically knew much about. And as I said, I went to the grand rounds more out of a sense of obligation than a sense of engagement. Moreover, our Chair at that institution forced us to go, so I was there, not by choice, but I'm so glad I was, because like you say, I got insight into an area that I had not really thought about and that cross pollination and fertilization is really a critical aspect. I think that you can gain at a broad conference like Medical Grand Rounds as opposed to a niche conference where you're talking about APL. You know, everybody's an APL expert, but they never thought about diabetes and how that might impact on their research. So it's not like there's an ‘aha' moment at every Grand Rounds, but I do think that those kinds of broad based audiences can sometimes bring a different perspective that even the speaker, him or herself had not thought of. Dr. Mikkael SekeresI think that's a great place to end and to thank David Johnson, who's a clinical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and just penned the essay in JCO Art of Oncology Practice entitled "An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last."  Until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of ASCO's shows at asco.org/podcasts.  David, once again, I want to thank you for joining me today. Dr. David JohnsonThank you very much for having me. 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.    Show notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review.  Guest Bio: Dr David Johnson is a clinical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School.

Host Dr. Nate Pennell and his guest, Dr. Chloe Atreya, discuss the ASCO Educational Book article, “Integrative Oncology: Incorporating Evidence-Based Approaches to Patients With GI Cancers,” highlighting the use of mind-body approaches, exercise, nutrition, acupuncture/acupressure, and natural products. Transcript Dr. Nate Pennell: Welcome to ASCO Education: By the Book, our new monthly podcast series that will feature engaging discussions between editors and authors from the ASCO Educational Book. We'll be bringing you compelling insights on key topics featured in Education Sessions at ASCO meetings and some deep dives on the approaches shaping modern oncology.  I'm Dr. Nate Pennell, director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Medical Oncology Program as well as vice chair of clinical research for the Taussig Cancer Institute. Today, I'm delighted to welcome Dr. Chloe Atreya, a professor of Medicine in the GI Oncology Group at the University of California, San Francisco, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, and the UCSF Osher Center for Integrative Health, to discuss her article titled, “Integrative Oncology Incorporating Evidence-Based Approaches to Patients With GI Cancers”, which was recently published in the ASCO Educational Book. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. Atreya, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Thanks for joining me. Dr. Chloe Atreya: Thanks Dr. Pennell. It's a pleasure to be here. Dr. Nate Pennell: Dr. Atreya, you co-direct the UCSF Integrative Oncology Program with a goal to really help patients with cancer live as well as possible. And before we dive into the review article and guidelines, I'd love to just know a little bit about what inspired you to go into this field? Dr. Chloe Atreya: Yeah, thank you for asking. I've had a long-standing interest in different approaches to medicine from global traditions and I have a degree in pharmacology, and I continue to work on new drug therapies for patients with colorectal cancer. And one thing that I found is that developing new drugs is a long-term process and often we're not able to get the drugs to the patients in front of us. And so early on as a new faculty member at UCSF, I was trying to figure out what I could do for the patient in front of me if those new drug therapies may not be available in their lifetime. And one thing I recognized was that in some conversations the patient and their family members, even if the patient had metastatic disease, they were able to stay very present and to live well without being sidelined by what might happen in the future. And then in other encounters, people were so afraid of what might be happening in the future, or they may have regrets maybe about not getting that colonoscopy and that was eroding their ability to live well in the present.  So, I started asking the patients and family members who were able to stay present, “What's your secret? How do you do this?” And people would tell me, “It's my meditation practice,” or “It's my yoga practice.” And so, I became interested in this. And an entry point for me, and an entry point to the Osher Center at UCSF was that I took the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Program to try to understand experientially the evidence for this and became very interested in it. I never thought I would be facilitating meditation for patients, but it became a growing interest. And as people are living longer with cancer and are being diagnosed at younger ages, often with young families, how one lives with cancer is becoming increasingly important.   Dr. Nate Pennell: I've always been very aware that it seemed like the patients that I treated who had the best quality of life during their life with cancer, however that ended up going, were those who were able to sort of compartmentalize it, where, when it was time to focus on discussing treatment or their scans, they were, you know, of course, had anxiety and other things that went along with that. But when they weren't in that, they were able to go back to their lives and kind of not think about cancer all the time. Whereas other people sort of adopt that as their identity almost is that they are living with cancer and that kind of consumes all of their time in between visits and really impacts how they're able to enjoy the rest of their lives. And so, I was really interested when I was reading your paper about how mindfulness seemed to be sort of like a formal way to help patients achieve that split. I'm really happy that we're able to talk about that. Dr. Chloe Atreya: Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. So, each of our patients is more than their cancer diagnosis. And the other thing I would say is that sometimes patients can use the cancer diagnosis to get to, “What is it that I really care about in life?” And that can actually heighten an experience of appreciation for the small things in life, appreciation for the people that they love, and that can have an impact beyond their lifetime. Dr. Nate Pennell: Just in general, I feel like integrative medicine has come a long way, especially over the last decade or so. So, there's now mature data supporting the incorporation of elements of integrative oncology into comprehensive cancer care. We've got collaborations with ASCO. They've published clinical practice guidelines around diet, around exercise, and around the use of cannabinoids. ASCO has worked with the Society for Integrative Oncology to address management of pain, anxiety, depression, fatigue – lots of different evidence bases now to try to help guide people, because this is certainly something our patients are incredibly interested in learning about. Can you get our listeners up to speed a little bit on the updated guidelines and resources supporting integrative oncology? Dr. Chloe Atreya: Sure. I can give a summary of some of the key findings. And these are rigorous guidelines that came together by consensus from expert panels. I had the honor of serving on the anxiety and depression panel. So, these panels will rate the quality of the evidence available to come up with a strength of recommendation. I think that people are at least superficially aware of the importance of diet and physical activity and that cannabis and cannabinoids have evidence of benefit for nausea and vomiting. They may not be aware of some of the evidence supporting these other modalities. So, for anxiety and depression, mindfulness-based interventions, which include meditation and meditative movement, have the strongest level of evidence. And the clinical practice guidelines indicate that they should be offered to any adult patient during or after treatment who is experiencing symptoms of anxiety or depression. Other modalities that can help with anxiety and depression include yoga and Tai Chi or Qigong. And with the fatigue guidelines, mindfulness-based interventions are also strongly recommended, along with exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy, Tai Chi and Qigong during treatment, yoga after treatment.  And some of these recommendations also will depend on where the evidence is. So, yoga is an example of an intervention that I think can be helpful during treatment, but most of our evidence is on patients who are post-treatment. So, most of our guidelines separate out during treatment and the post-treatment phase because the quality of evidence may be different for these different phases of treatment.  With the pain guidelines, the strongest recommendation is for acupuncture, specifically for people with breast cancer who may be experiencing joint pain related to aromatase inhibitors. However, acupuncture and other therapies, including massage, can be helpful with pain as well. So those are a few of the highlights. Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, I was surprised at the really good level of evidence for the mindfulness-based practices because I don't think that's the first thing that jumps to mind when I think about integrative oncology. I tend to think more about physical interventions like acupuncture or supplements or whatnot. So, I think this is really fantastic that we're highlighting this.  And a lot of these interventions like the Qigong, Tai Chi, yoga, is it the physical practice of those that benefits them or is it that it gives them something to focus on, to be mindful of? Is that the most important intervention? It doesn't really matter what you're doing as long as you have something that kind of takes you out of your experience and allows you to focus on the moment. Dr. Chloe Atreya: I do think it is a mind, body and spirit integration, so that all aspects are important. We also say that the best practice is the one that you actually practice. So, part of the reason that it's important to have these different modalities is that not everybody is going to take up meditation. And there may be people for whom stationary meditation, sitting and meditating, works well, and other people for whom meditative movement practices may be what they gravitate to. And so, I think that it's important to have a variety of options. And one thing that's distinct from some of our pharmacologic therapies is that the safety of these is, you know, quite good. So, it becomes less important to say, “Overall, is Tai Chi better or is yoga better?” for instance. It really depends on what it is that someone is going to take up. Dr. Nate Pennell: And of course, something that's been really nice evidence-based for a long time, even back when I was in my training in the 2000s with Jennifer Temel at Massachusetts General Hospital, was the impact of physical activity and exercise on patients with cancer. It seems like that is pretty much a universally good recommendation for patients. Dr. Chloe Atreya: Yes, that's absolutely right. Physical activity has been associated with improved survival after a cancer diagnosis. And that's both cancer specific survival and overall survival.  The other thing I'll say about physical activity, especially the mindful movement practices like Tai Chi and Qigong and yoga, is that they induce physiologic shifts in the body that can promote relaxation, so they can dampen that stress response in a physiologic way. And these movement practices are also the best way to reduce cancer-associated fatigue. Dr. Nate Pennell: One of the things that patients are always very curious about when they talk to me, and I never really feel like I'm as well qualified as I'd like to be to advise them around dietary changes in nutrition. And can you take me a little bit through some of the evidence base for what works and what doesn't work? Dr. Chloe Atreya: Sure. I do think that it needs to be tailored to the patient's needs. Overall, a diet that is plant-based and includes whole grains is really important. And I often tell patients to eat the rainbow because all of those different phytochemicals that cause the different colors in our fruits and vegetables are supporting different gut microbiota. So that is a basis for a healthy gut microbiome. That said, you know, if someone is experiencing symptoms related to cancer or cancer therapy, it is important to tailor dietary approaches. This is where some of the mindful eating practices can help. So, sometimes actually not just focusing on what we eat, but how we eat can help with symptoms that are associated with eating. So, some of our patients have loss of appetite, and shifting one's relationship to food can help with nutrition. Sometimes ‘slow it down' practices can help both with appetite and with digestion. Dr. Nate Pennell: One of the things that you said both in the paper and just now on our podcast, talking about how individualized and personalized this is. And I really liked the emphasis that you had on flexibility and self-compassion over rigid discipline and prescriptive recommendations here. And this is perhaps one of the real benefits of having an integrative oncology team that can work with patients as opposed to them just trying to find things online. Dr. Chloe Atreya: Yes, particularly during treatment, I think that's really important. And that was borne out by our early studies we called “Being Present.” So, after I was observing the benefits anecdotally among my patients of the ability to be present, we designed these pilot studies to teach meditation and meditative practices to patients. And in these pilot studies, the original ones were pretty prescriptive in a way that mindfulness-based stress reduction is fairly prescriptive in terms of like, “This is what we're asking you to do. Just stick with the program.” And there can be benefits if you can stick with the program. It's really hard though if someone is going through treatment and with GI cancers, it may be that they're getting chemotherapy every two weeks and they have one week where they're feeling really crummy and another week where they're trying to get things done. And we realized that sometimes people were getting overwhelmed and feeling like the mindfulness practice was another thing on their to-do list and that they were failing if they didn't do this thing that was important for them. And so, we've really kind of changed our emphasis. And part of our emphasis now is on incorporating mindfulness practices into daily life. Any activity that doesn't require a lot of executive function can be done mindfully, meaning with full attention. And so, especially for some of our very busy patients, that can be a way of, again, shifting how I'm doing things rather than adding a new thing to do. Dr. Nate Pennell: And then another part I know that patients are always very curious about that I'm really happy to see that we're starting to build an evidence base for is the use of supplements and natural products. So, can you take us a little bit through where we stand in terms of evidence behind, say, cannabis and some of the other available products out there? Dr. Chloe Atreya: Yeah, I would say that is an area that requires a lot more study. It's pretty complicated because unlike mindfulness practices where there are few interactions with other treatments, there is the potential for interactions, particularly with the supplements. And the quality of the supplements matters. And then there tends to be a lot of heterogeneity among the studies both in the patients and what other treatments they may be receiving, as well as the doses of the supplements that they're receiving.  One of my earliest mentors at Yale is someone named Dr. Tommy Chang, who has applied the same rigor that that we apply to testing of biomedical compounds to traditional Chinese medicine formulas. And so, ensuring that the formulation is stable and then formally testing these formulations along with chemotherapy. And we need more funding for that type of research in order to really elevate our knowledge of these natural products. We often will direct patients to the Memorial Sloan Kettering ‘About Herbs, Botanicals, and Other Products' database as one accessible source to learn more about the supplements. We also work with our pharmacists who can provide the data that exists, but we do need to take it with a grain of salt because of the heterogeneity in the data. And then it's really important if people are going to take supplements, for them to take supplements that are of high quality. And that's something in the article that we list all of the things that one should look for on the label of a supplement to ensure that it is what it's billed to be. Dr. Nate Pennell: So, most of what we've been talking about so far has really been applying to all patients with cancer, but you of course are a GI medical oncologist, and this is a publication in the Educational Book from the ASCO GI Symposium. GI cancers obviously have an incredibly high and rising incidence rate among people under 50, representing a quarter of all cancer incidence worldwide, a third of cancer related deaths worldwide. Is there something specific that GI oncologists and patients with GI cancers can take home from your paper or is this applicable to pretty much everyone? Dr. Chloe Atreya: Yeah, so the evidence that we review is specifically for GI cancers. So, it shows both its strengths and also some of the limitations. So many of the studies have focused on other cancers, especially breast cancer. In the integrative oncology field, there are definitely gaps in studying GI cancers. At the same time, I would say that GI cancers are very much linked to lifestyle in ways that are complicated, and we don't fully understand. However, the best ways that we can protect against development of GI cancers, acknowledging that no one is to blame for developing a GI cancer and no one is fully protected, but the best things that we can do for overall health and to prevent GI cancers are a diet that is plant-based, has whole grains. There's some data about fish that especially the deep-water fish, may be protective and then engaging in physical activity.  One thing I would like for people to take away is that these things that we know that are preventative against developing cancer are also important after development of a GI cancer. Most of the data comes from studies of patients with colorectal cancer and that again, both cancer specific and overall mortality is improved with better diet and with physical activity. So, this is even after a cancer diagnosis. And I also think that, and this is hard to really prove, but we're in a pretty inflammatory environment right now. So, the things that we can do to decrease stress, improve sleep, decrease inflammation in the body, and we do know that inflammation is a risk factor for developing GI cancers. So, I think that all of the integrative modalities are important both for prevention and after diagnosis. Dr. Nate Pennell: And one of the things you just mentioned is that most of the studies looking at integrative oncology and GI cancers have focused on colorectal cancer, which of course, is the most common GI cancer. But you also have pointed out that there are gaps in research and what's going on and what needs to be done in order to broaden some of this experience to other GI cancers. Dr. Chloe Atreya: Yeah, and I will say that there are gaps even for colorectal cancer. So right now, some of the authors on the article are collaborating on a textbook chapter for the Society for Integrative Oncology. And so, we're again examining the evidence specifically for colorectal cancer and are in agreement that the level of evidence specific to colorectal cancer is not as high as it is for all patients with adult cancers. And so even colorectal cancer we need to study more.  Just as there are different phases of cancer where treatments may need to be tailored, we also may need to tailor our treatments for different cancer types. And that includes what symptoms the patients are commonly experiencing and how intense the treatment is, and also the duration of treatment. Those are factors that can influence which modalities may be most important or most applicable to a given individual. Dr. Nate Pennell: So, a lot of this sounds fantastic. It sounds like things that a lot of patients would really appreciate working into their care. Your article focused a little bit on some of the logistics of providing this type of care, including group medical visits, multidisciplinary clinics staffed by multiple types of clinicians, including APPs and psychologists, and talked about the sustainability of this in terms of increasing the uptake of guideline-based integrative oncology. Talk a little bit more about both at your institution, I guess, and the overall health system and how this might be both sustainable and perhaps how we broaden this out to patients outside of places like UCSF. Dr. Chloe Atreya: Yes, that's a major focus of our research effort. A lot of comprehensive cancer centers and other places where patients are receiving care, people may have access to dietitians, which is really important and nutritionists. In the article we also provide resources for working with exercise therapists and those are people who may be working remotely and can help people, for instance, who may be in, in rural areas. And then our focus with the mind-body practices in particular has been on group medical visits. And this grew out of, again, my ‘being present' pilot studies where we were showing some benefit. But then when the grant ends, there isn't a way to continue to deliver this care. And so, we were asking ourselves, you know, is there a way to make this sustainable? And group medical visits have been used in other settings, and they've been working really well at our institution and other institutions are now taking them up as well. And this is a way that in this case it's me and many of my colleagues who are delivering these, where I can see eight or ten patients at once. In my case, it's a series of four two-hour sessions delivered by telehealth. So, we're able to focus on the integrative practices in a way that's experiential. So, in the clinic I may be able to mention, you know, after we go over the CT scans, after we go over the labs and the molecular profiling, you know, may be able to say, “Hey, you know, meditation may be helpful for your anxiety,” but in the group medical visits we can actually practice meditation, we can practice chair yoga. And that's where people have that experience in their bodies of these different modalities. And the feedback that we're receiving is that that sticks much more to experience it then you have resources to continue it. And then the group is helpful both in terms of delivery, so timely and efficient care for patients. It's also building community and reducing the social isolation that many of our patients undergoing treatment for cancer experience. Dr. Nate Pennell: I think that makes perfect sense, and I'm glad you brought up telehealth as an option. I don't know how many trained integrative oncologists there are out there, but I'm going to guess this is not a huge number out there. And much like other specialties that really can improve patients' quality of life, like palliative medicine, for example, not everyone has access to a trained expert in their cancer center, and things like telemedicine and telehealth can really potentially broaden that. How do you think telehealth could help broaden the exposure of cancer patients and even practitioners of oncology to integrative medicine? Dr. Chloe Atreya: Yes, I think that telehealth is crucial for all patients with cancer to be able to receive comprehensive cancer care, no matter where they're receiving their chemotherapy or other cancer-directed treatments. So, we will routinely be including patients who live outside of San Francisco. Most of our patients live outside of San Francisco. There's no way that they could participate if they had to drive into the city again to access this. And in the group setting, it's not even safe for people who are receiving chemotherapy to meet in a group most times. And with symptoms, often people aren't feeling so well and they're able to join us on Zoom in a way that they wouldn't be able to make the visit if it was in person. And so, this has really allowed us to expand our catchment area and to include patients, in our case, in all of California. You also mentioned training, and that's also important. So, as someone who's involved in the [UCSF] Osher Collaborative, there are faculty scholars who are at universities all over the US, so I've been able to start training some of those physicians to deliver group medical visits at their sites as well via telehealth. Dr. Nate Pennell: I'm glad we were able to make a plug for that. We need our political leadership to continue to support reimbursement for telehealth because it really does bring access to so many important elements of health care to patients who really struggle to travel to tertiary care centers. And their local cancer center can be quite a distance away.  So, sticking to the theme of training, clinician education and resources are really crucial to continue to support the uptake of integrative oncology in comprehensive cancer care. Where do you think things stand today in terms of clinician education and professional development in integrative oncology. Dr. Chloe Atreya: It's growing. Our medical students now are receiving training in integrative medicine, and making a plug for the Educational Book, I was really happy that ASCO let us have a table that's full of hyperlinks. So that's not typical for an article. Usually, you have to go to the reference list, but I really wanted to make it practical and accessible to people, both the resources that can be shared with patients that are curated and selected that we thought were of high-quality examples for patients. At the bottom of that table also are training resources for clinicians, and some of those include: The Center for Mind-Body Medicine, where people can receive training in how to teach these mind-body practices; The Integrated Center for Group Medical Visits, where people can learn how to develop their own group medical visits; of course, there's the Society for Integrative Oncology; and then I had just mentioned the Osher Collaborative Faculty Fellowship. Dr. Nate Pennell: Oh, that is fantastic. And just looking through, I mean, this article is really a fantastic resource both of the evidence base behind all of the elements that we've discussed today. Actually, the table that you mentioned with all of the direct hyperlinks to the resources is fantastic. Even recommendations for specific dietary changes after GI cancer diagnosis. So, I highly recommend everyone read the full paper after they have listened to the podcast today.  Before we wrap up, is there anything that we didn't get a chance to discuss that you wanted to make sure our listeners are aware of? Dr. Chloe Atreya: One thing that I did want to bring up is the disparities that exist in access to high quality symptom management care. So, patients who are racial and ethnic minorities, particularly our black and Latinx patients, the evidence shows that they aren't receiving the same degree of symptom management care as non-Hispanic White patients. And that is part of what may be leading to some of the disparities in cancer outcomes. So, if symptoms are poorly managed, it's harder for patients to stay with the treatment, and integrative oncology is one way to try to, especially with telehealth, this is a way to try to improve symptom management for all of our patients to help improve both their quality of life and their cancer outcomes. Dr. Nate Pennell: Well, Dr. Atreya, it's been great speaking with you today and thank you for joining me on the ASCO Education: By the Book Podcast and thank you for all of your work in advancing integrative oncology for GI cancers and beyond. Dr. Chloe Atreya: Thank you, Dr. Pennell. It's been a pleasure speaking with you. Dr. Nate Pennell: And thank you to all of our listeners who joined us today. You'll find a link to the article discussed today in the transcript of the episode. We hope you'll join us again for more insightful views on topics you'll be hearing at the Education Sessions from ASCO meetings throughout the year and our deep dives on approaches that are shaping modern oncology. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate, 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. Nathan Pennell   @n8pennell  @n8pennell.bsky.social  Dr. Chloe Atreya  Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)    ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures:   Dr. Nate 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 (Institution): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi   Dr. Chloe Atreya: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche Genentech, Agenus Research Funding (Institution): Novartis, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant Health, Gossamer Bio, Erasca, Inc.

Dr. Kimberly Perez and Dr. Jaydira Del Rivero discuss the new guideline from ASCO on symptom management for well-differentiated GEP-NETs. They share the latest recommendations on managing symptoms related to hormone excess, including carcinoid syndrome and carcinoid heart disease, managing symptoms of functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, and also palliative interventions. Dr. Perez and Del Rivero share how to use this guideline in concert with the systemic therapy for tumor control in metastatic well-differentiated GEP-NETs guideline, and hope for the future for the treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Read the full guideline, “Symptom Management for Well-Differentiated Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: ASCO Guideline.” Transcript This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available on ASCO.org. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in JCO Oncology Practice.        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. Kim Perez from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Dr. Jaydira Del Rivero from the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute, co-chairs on “Symptom Management for Well-Differentiated Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: ASCO Guideline.” Thank you for being here today, Dr. Del Rivero and Dr. Perez. Dr. Kim Perez: Thank you. Dr. Jaydira Del Rivero: Thank you so much for the invitation. Brittany Harvey: And 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 guideline panel, including Dr. Perez and Dr. Del Rivero, who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in JCO Oncology Practice, which is linked in the show notes. So then to jump into the content here, first Dr. Del Rivero, could you provide an overview of the scope and purpose of this guideline? Dr. Jaydira Del Rivero: Yeah. Thank you so much. Well, first, we really wanted to thank ASCO for allowing us to develop these guidelines for the management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. I do want to mention that there is also another set of guidelines that I was very fortunate also to co-chair with Dr. Perez on the systemic management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. But when discussing these guidelines as well as with the different panelists, experts in this type of disease, we also realized that the management of these tumors are quite complex, not only from the management of the disease progression, but at the same time, management of the symptoms related to the hormone excess. And because of that, we like to thank ASCO for allowing us to then not only have a discussion on the systemic management of these tumors, but at the same time develop recommendations for the symptoms related to the different hormones that these neuroendocrine tumors may produce. These guidelines are for the management of grade 1 to grade 3 metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. These guidelines include the management of the different aspects and the symptoms related to hormone excess, such as carcinoid syndrome, carcinoid heart disease, how to manage carcinoid crisis, as well as the different symptoms and how to manage the functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and as well as provide recommendations in the different treatments for these tumor types, not only from the systemic management but also from the surgical management as well as for liver-directed therapy options and the different aspects in terms of the palliative care of these patients to improve not only the symptoms related to the hormone excess caused by these tumors, but as well as to improve the quality of life. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And I appreciate that overview. And yes, we'll link the guideline on the Systemic Therapy for Tumor Control for Well-Differentiated Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors in the show notes for our listeners so that they can refer to that companion guideline as well. So then you just described the several different categories of recommendations that this guideline covers on symptom management. So, Dr. Perez, I'd like to start reviewing some of those key recommendations of that guideline. So, starting with what are the key recommendations for carcinoid syndrome and carcinoid heart disease? Dr. Kim Perez: Thank you Brittany. Yeah, I also want to thank ASCO for inviting us to do this podcast today. Just to start, I think these guidelines will really add to what's available in the literature to provide a kind of a quick look for the community provider to manage carcinoid-related symptoms. I think the highlights that I would point out are we've all been using somatostatin analogs for the last few decades to manage symptoms, but with the newer treatments that are now available, we tried to highlight what does the literature support in regards to PRRT, what does the literature support in regards to using systemic therapy for disease management, but also the benefits that you will get from a symptom management perspective using other modalities. I think the highlight really is it's a multidisciplinary approach. We are now considering surgery and embolization or interventional radiology as a critical piece. And I think the third that I'd highlight is the fact that sometimes we get too focused on carcinoid syndrome and the symptoms will actually, may result from other things. And the highlight in the algorithms that we've provided is what other things cause carcinoid-related diarrhea. And let's not forget about that because we will find ourselves treating and patients getting very frustrated with persistence of symptoms when in actuality, we should be treating something else that is causing a very similar symptom. For carcinoid heart disease, I think there are more and more guidelines that are now available to provide guidance there, but I think the major advances are that we should be utilizing heart assessment with echocardiogram with lab values such as BMP. But also critical to this is consulting with our cardiology colleagues and making sure that we're identifying heart related issues that are resulting from hormone excess sooner than later because interventions on the earlier side can really make a significant impact on quality of life and associated comorbidities and mortality. Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing those key points for both carcinoid syndrome and carcinoid heart disease symptom management. So then the next set of recommendations. Dr. Del Rivero, what are the key highlights for symptom management of functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors? Dr. Jaydira Del Rivero: Yes, it's very important to recognize the symptoms related to hormone excess due to pancreas neuroendocrine tumors. Up to 10% of pancreas neuroendocrine tumors may produce different hormones. Among those hormones can be insulin, gastrin, glucagon, somatostatin. So it's important to know and understand that based on what a neuroendocrine tumor is, they may produce different types of hormones. The importance of these guidelines is to also recognize some of these symptoms and how to address that, because it's not necessarily in these tumor types besides the management of metastatic disease, and know the different options that we recommend for metastatic disease from the systemic therapy, such as chemotherapy or targeted therapies or PRRT. It's important to recognize the symptoms because based on the symptoms we may recommend a different approach. That's something that is important to acknowledge and recognize. Moreover, in certain functional pancreas neuroendocrine tumors, as Dr. Perez mentioned, is a multidisciplinary approach. And it's important to also discuss these different cases with your endocrinologist. You may need to have an experienced endocrinologist to manage, for example, the excess of insulin. And also discuss your cases with a surgeon and interventional radiologist because some of these approaches can certainly improve the symptoms related to hormone excess. I understand that sometimes medical oncologists in the communities may not have access to the multidisciplinary approach or have the different teams that can manage these tumors, and that's the reason why with these guidelines we wanted to establish the understanding of different symptoms associated with the hormone excess to these neuroendocrine tumors as well as how to manage this. For example, in the case of insulinoma, I think for the medical oncologist it is important to know that the everolimus is an option to be used for these tumors, not only to manage tumor progressions related to this tumor type at the same time, because everolimus as a side effect causes hyperglycemia, that can also improve some of the symptoms related to the excess of insulin besides the somatostatin agonist. I think these recommendations will allow the medical oncologist to recognize the symptoms and based on what the symptoms cause, then you can have a different approach that could be added to the systemic therapies options as well. Brittany Harvey: Yes, beyond systemic therapy, it's important to be recognizing symptoms to provide an individualized approach for every single patient. So then, following that overview of symptom management for functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, Dr. Perez, what is recommended regarding palliative interventions for patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors? Dr. Kim Perez: Yeah, great question. So I think what's unique to neuroendocrine tumors is that the palliative approach really mirrors what we would be doing for symptom management. Some of these patients are living a very long time with carcinoid related symptoms. And so the approach that we take for the carcinoid symptom control is going to mirror the palliative piece of it. I think for those who develop a burden of disease related symptoms, I think it mirrors what we do across the board for all cancer-related complications. And so I think what we attempted to highlight here and included one of our colleagues who focuses specifically on the field of palliative care and neuroendocrine tumors, was to never really lose sight of what we've been doing to care for symptom management throughout the patient's journey and to always rereview the etiology of the symptoms, ensure that we don't focus solely on carcinoid-related issues, but also the symptom management that we would apply to all patients with cancer-related burden symptoms. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. I think that's a helpful approach to consider when thinking about how to manage these palliative interventions as well. So then Dr. Del Rivero, what should clinicians know as they implement these symptom management recommendations? Dr. Jaydira Del Rivero: Yes, thank you so much for that question. As we have discussed in the last 10 or 15 minutes, we have discussed the different approaches on the management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Clinicians, I think it's important to know that neuroendocrine tumors is a quite complex disease because we're not only addressing the management of tumor growth, but we're also addressing the management of the symptoms related to hormone excess and the complexity associated with that. When medical oncologists or clinicians implement these recommendations it's to understand what symptoms these tumors may cause related to the hormone excess but at the same time, how do we approach those symptoms? As Dr. Perez said that I think is very important is to recognize the different types of diarrhea. It doesn't mean that if the patient has worsening diarrhea, it doesn't mean that this is related to disease progression. So it's important to recognize so that way you can address that, because the type of diarrheas can be related because of the lanreotide or somatostatin agonist, it could be because of the prior surgery. I think it's important to recognize those in order to address the symptom. And the same with the gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. It's important to know what hormones they produce because there are different measurements that may be added to the systemic management of these tumors. I think that there are two aspects here, and that's the reason why these guidelines were implemented in the sense that not only we're going to manage disease progression of these tumors, or how do we manage the metastatic disease of these tumors, but at the same time, how do we manage the symptoms related to the hormone excess and the different complications. Moreover, I think, as we discussed earlier, we need to manage these tumors in a multidisciplinary approach. And something very important is not like one size fits all, because the treatment recommendations, it will depend on different characteristics in terms of the tumor presentations. And hormone excess is one of the important aspects to recognize so that way we can implement these recommendations that will definitely help the quality of life of these patients. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And using these guidelines in concert with the systemic therapy guidelines is key. And then beyond this impact for clinicians that Dr. Del Rivero has just outlined, Dr. Perez, what does this new guideline mean for patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors? Dr. Kim Perez: Yeah, I think that's an important highlight of this guideline. It really gives patients a voice. I think it recognizes the fact that these symptoms can go unmanaged or mismanaged or just missed, and patients commonly will come in feeling very frustrated and feeling very ill. And I think it will provide them a means to open up a conversation with their providers and say, “Hey, this is what I'm experiencing. Let's talk about what's available. How does this apply to me?” And I think that can be very empowering. I think it's really hard nowadays with so many sources and resources online and patients are really left wondering what are the bullet points that they should be bringing to their clinician appointments? And I think that these guidelines provide them a good framework for those discussions. Brittany Harvey: Yes, bringing these discussion points for patients is very important to be able to have those resources. And we have some patient resources and information available on the website for this guideline and we can link that in the show notes for listeners. So then you've both touched on the importance of this guideline for improving quality of life and we continue to see advancements in this field. So Dr. Del Rivera, what are the outstanding questions regarding symptom management and tumor control for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors? Dr. Jaydira Del Rivero: I have to say whenever somebody asks me that question, the word that I will say is I feel hopeful, because more than 10 years ago we didn't have that many options for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. And it has been in the last decade or so that there has been more developments in the management of these tumors as well as the understanding of the symptoms related to these tumors. But that said, yes, we do need more therapies for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Of the treatment options that we have, we all know in the field that even though we have disease control by using the different options for the systemic management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, we need options where we can achieve an objective response, especially for these tumor types. But there is a significant volume of disease and we see a lot of these patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. And now where the field is going is to make some of these therapies more effective, to develop more therapies as well. For example, immunotherapies, a different type of immunotherapy understand the tumor immune microenvironment of these tumors in order to develop therapies as well. From the antibody drug conjugates, I think that's a new way to also address or treat these tumor types, understanding about the different markers found on these tumors that way they can be addressed in different ways. Now with the development of new therapies, I think that's something that can help us as well not only have disease control and as well as having an objective response, but having a better objective response can certainly also help with the symptoms related to hormone excess too. In terms of other therapies, I think some of the issues that we encounter are like the refractory carcinoid diarrhea and how do we manage this. We do have therapies that can help us control the diarrhea in the refractory settings, such as telotristat. Telotristat is one of the newer medications that can help us control the refractory diarrhea. But that said, despite this, that we still encounter situations where it's sometimes difficult to control. I think in those situations it will be good to understand more about the biology of these tumors as well and how we manage. If there is a different time or how do we implement these options. I think there is so much to learn. But that said, I feel we're in hopeful times. We're understanding more about these tumors so that way we can help us develop better therapies not only to have control of the tumor growth as well having control of the symptoms. And it's the same with the pancreas neuroendocrine tumors in the metastatic setting. Sometimes it may be difficult to control this hormone excess. But understanding these and having therapies that can achieve more of an objective response, I think that will definitely help us more and manage these patients. But one aspect I want to mention, and Dr. Perez also mentioned as well, the fact that we have these guidelines that help us understand about the different symptoms related to hormone excess and how to address it, I think is very important because having symptoms related to hormone excess can be detrimental to the quality of life on patients with neuroendocrine tumors that may necessarily be related to disease progression and having this information is so important. And I'm hopeful for the different therapies. There's different clinical trials ongoing for neuroendocrine tumors and especially in the field of PRRT. And a lot of more information will come with the different alpha-PRRT and combination therapy. So more information to come in the next couple of years. So this is, in my opinion, hopeful times for this field. Brittany Harvey: It's great to hear that you're hopeful for all the developments in this field and we'll look forward to the development and discovery of new therapies and further research and then, hopefully incorporate those updates into guidelines in the future. So I want to thank you both so much for your work to develop these guidelines and thank you for your time today. Dr. Del Rivero and Dr. Perez. Dr. Jaydira Del Rivero: Thank you so much for having us. Dr. Kim Perez: Thank you. 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/gastrointestinal-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.

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guest Dr. Harriet Kluger discuss the JCO article "Phase II Trial of Pembrolizumab in Combination With Bevacizumab for Untreated Melanoma Brain Metastases." Transcript The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Davide Soldato Hello and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, Medical Oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by JCO author Dr. Harriet Kluger. Dr. Kluger is a professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine, Director of the Yale SPORE in Skin Cancer, and an internationally recognized expert in immuno-oncology for melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. She leads early-phase and translational trials that pair novel immunotherapies with predictive biomarkers to personalized care. Today, Dr. Kluger and I will be discussing the article titled "Phase 2 Trial of Pembrolizumab in Combination with Bevacizumab for Untreated Melanoma Brain Metastases." In this study, Dr. Kluger and colleagues evaluated four cycles of pembrolizumab plus the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab followed by pembrolizumab maintenance in patients with asymptomatic non-hemorrhagic melanoma brain metastases that had not previously received PD-1 therapy. Thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Kluger. Dr. Harriet Kluger Thank you for inviting me. The pleasure is really all mine. Dr. Davide Soldato So to kick off our podcast, I just wanted to ask if you could outline a little bit the biological and clinical rationale that led you to test this type of combination for patients with untreated brain metastases from metastatic melanoma. Dr. Harriet Kluger Back in approximately 2012, patients who had untreated brain metastases were excluded from all clinical trials. So by untreated, I mean brain metastases that had not received local therapy such as surgery or radiation. The reason for it was primarily because there was this fear that big molecules wouldn't penetrate brain lesions because they can't pass the blood-brain barrier. Turns out that the blood-brain barrier within a tumor is somewhat leaky and drugs sometimes can get in there. When PD-1 inhibitors were first identified as the next blockbuster class of drugs, we decided to conduct a phase 2 clinical trial of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with untreated brain metastases. We actually did it also in lung cancer, and we could talk about that later on. Responses were seen. The responses in the brain and the body were similar. They were concordant in melanoma patients. Now, at approximately that time, also another study was done by the Australian group by Dr. Georgina Long, where they did a randomized trial where patients who didn't require immediate steroid therapy received either nivolumab alone or nivolumab with ipilimumab, and the combination arm was substantially superior. Subsequently, also, Bristol Myers Squibb also conducted a large phase 2 multicenter trial of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with untreated brain metastases. And there, once again, they saw that the responses in the brain were similar to the responses in the body. Now, somewhere along the line there, we completed our anti-PD-1 monotherapy trial. And when we looked at our data, we still didn't have the data on ipilimumab and nivolumab. And our question was, “Well, how can we do better?” Just as we're always trying to do better. We saw two really big problems. One was that patients had a lot of perilesional edema. And the other one was that we were struggling with radiation necrosis in lesions that were previously Gamma Knifed. The instance of radiation necrosis was in excess of 30%. So the rationale behind this study was that if we added bevacizumab, maybe we could treat those patients who had some edema, not requiring steroids, but potentially get them on study, get that PD-1 inhibitor going, and also prevent subsequent radiation necrosis. And that was the main rationale behind the study. We had also done some preclinical work in mouse models of melanoma brain metastases and in an in vitro blood-brain barrier model where we showed that bevacizumab, or anti-VEGF, really tightens up those leaky basement membranes and therefore would be very likely to decrease the edema. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much for putting in context the combination. So this was a phase 2 trial, and you included patients who had at least one lesion, and you wanted lesions that were behind 5 and 20 millimeters. Patients could be included also if the brain metastasis was higher in dimension than 20 millimeters, but it had to be treated, and it was then excluded from the evaluation of the primary objective of the trial. So regarding, a little bit, these characteristics, do you think that this is very similar to what we see in clinical practice? And what does this mean in terms of applicability of these results in clinical practice? Dr. Harriet Kluger So that's an excellent question. The brain metastasis clinical research field has somewhat been struggling with this issue of inclusion/exclusion criteria. When we started this, we showed pretty clearly that 5 to 10 millimeter lesions, which are below the RECIST criteria for inclusion, are measurable if you use MRIs with slices that are 1 to 2 millimeters. Most institutions in the United States do use these high-resolution MRIs. I don't know how applicable that is on a worldwide scale, but we certainly lowered the threshold for inclusion so that patients who have a smattering of small brain metastases would be eligible. Now, patients with single large brain metastases, the reason that we excluded those from the trial was because we were afraid that if a patient didn't respond to the systemic therapy that we were going to give them, they could really then develop severe neurological symptoms. So, for patient safety, we used 20 millimeters as the upper level for inclusion. Some of the other trials that I mentioned earlier also excluded patients with very large lesions. Now, in practice, one certainly can do Gamma Knife therapy to the large lesions and leave the smaller ones untreated. So I think it actually is very applicable to clinical practice. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much for that insight, because I think that sometimes criteria for clinical trials, they have to be very restrictive. But then we know that in clinical practice, the applicability of these results is probably broader. So, going a little bit further in the results of the study, I just wanted a little bit of comment from you regarding what you saw in terms of intracranial response rate and duration of response among patients who obtained a response from the combination treatment. Dr. Harriet Kluger So we were actually surprised. When we first designed this study, as I said earlier, we weren't trying to beat out ipilimumab and nivolumab. We were really just trying to exclude those patients who wouldn't have otherwise been eligible for ipilimumab and nivolumab because of edema or possibly even previous radiation necrosis. So it was designed to differentiate between a response rate of 34%, and I believe the lower bound was somewhere in the 20s, because that's what we'd seen in the previous pembrolizumab study. What we saw in the first 20 patients that we enrolled was actually a response rate that far exceeded that. And so we enrolled another cohort to verify that result because we were concerned about premature publishing of a result that we might have achieved just by chance. The two cohorts were very similar in terms of the response rates. And certainly this still needs to be verified in a second study with additional institutions. We did include the Moffitt Cancer Center, and the response rate with Moffitt Cancer Center was very similar to the Yale Cancer Center response rate. Now, your other question was about duration of response. So the other thing that we started asking ourselves was whether this high response rate was really because the administration of the anti-VEGF will decrease the gadolinium enhancement and therefore we might actually just be seeing prettier scans but not tumor shrinkage. And the way to differentiate those two is by looking at the duration of the response. Median progression-free survival was 2.2 years. That's pretty long. The upper bound on the 95% confidence interval was not reached. I can't tell you that the duration is as good as the duration would be when you give ipilimumab. Perhaps it is less good. This was a fairly sick population of patients, and it included some who might not have been able to receive ipilimumab and nivolumab. So it provides an alternative. I do believe that we need to do a randomized trial where we compare it to ipilimumab and nivolumab, which is the current standard of care in this patient population. We do need to interpret these results with caution. I also want to point out regarding the progression-free survival that we only gave four doses of anti-VEGF. So one would think that even though anti-VEGF has a long half-life of three or four weeks, two years later, you no longer have anti-VEGF effect, presumably. So it does something when it's administered fairly early on in the course of the treatment. Dr. Davide Soldato So, in terms of clinical applicability, do you see this combination of pembrolizumab and bevacizumab - and of course, as we mentioned, this was a phase 2 trial. The number of patients included was not very high, but still you saw some very promising results when compared with the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab. So do you see this combination as something that should be given particularly to those patients who might not be able to receive ipilimumab and nivolumab? So, for example, patients who are very symptomatic from the start or require a high dose of steroids, or also to provide a quicker response in terms of patients who have neurological symptoms, or do you think that someday it could be potentially used for all patients? Dr. Harriet Kluger The third part of your question, whether it can be used someday for all patients: I think we need to be very careful when we interpret these results. The study was substantially smaller than the ipilimumab/nivolumab trial that was conducted by Bristol Myers Squibb. Also going to point out that was a different population of patients. Those were all frontline patients. Here we had a mix of patients who'd had previous anti-CTLA-4 and frontline patients. So I don't think that we can replace ipilimumab and nivolumab with these results. But certainly the steroid-sparing aspect of it is something that we really need to take into consideration. A lot of patients have lesions in locations where edema can be dangerous, and some of them have a hard time coming off the steroids. So this is certainly a good approach for those folks. Dr. Davide Soldato And coming back to something that you mentioned in the very introduction, when you said that there were two main problems, which was one, the problem of the edema, and the second one, the problem of the radionecrosis. In your trial, there was a fair percentage of patients who received some type of local treatment before the systemic one. So the combination of pembrolizumab and bevacizumab. And most of the patients received radiosurgery. So I just wanted a brief comment regarding the incidence of radionecrosis in the trial and whether that specific component of the combination with bevacizumab was reduced. And how do you think that this fares in terms of what we see in clinical practice in terms of radionecrosis? Dr. Harriet Kluger I'm not sure that we really reduced the incidence of radiation necrosis. We saw radiation necrosis here. We saw less of it than in the trial of pembrolizumab monotherapy, but these were also different patients, different time. We saw more than we thought that we were going to see. It was 27%, I believe, which is fairly high still. We only gave the four doses of bevacizumab. Maybe to really prevent radiation necrosis, you have to continue to give the bevacizumab. That, too, needs to be tested. The reason that we gave the four doses of bevacizumab was simply because of the cost of the bevacizumab at the time. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much for that comment on radionecrosis. And I really think that potentially this is a strategy, so continuing the bevacizumab, that really makes a lot of sense, especially considering that the tolerability of the regimen was really very, very good, and you didn't see any significant or serious adverse events related to bevacizumab. So just wondering if you could comment a little bit on the toxicities, whether you had anything unexpected. Dr. Harriet Kluger There was one patient who had a microperforation of a diverticulum, which was probably related to the bevacizumab. It was conservatively managed, and the patient did fine and actually remains alive now, many years later. We had one patient who had dehiscence of a previous wound. So there is some. We did not see any substantial hypertension, proteinuria, but we only gave the four doses. So it is possible that if you give it for longer, we would see some side effects. But still, relative to ipilimumab, it's very, very well tolerated. Dr. Davide Soldato Yeah, exactly. I think that the safety profile is really different when we compare the combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab with the pembrolizumab/bevacizumab. And as you said, this was a very small trial and probably we need additional results. But still, these results, in terms of tolerability and safety, I think they are very interesting. So one additional question that I think warrants a little bit of comment on your part is actually related to the presence of patients with BRAF mutation and, in general, to what you think would be the best course of treatment for these patients who present with the upfront brain metastases. So this, it's actually not completely related to the study, but I think that since patients with BRAF mutation were included, I think that this warrants a little bit of discussion on your part. Dr. Harriet Kluger So we really believe that long-term disease control, particularly in brain metastases, doesn't happen when you give BRAF/MEK inhibitors. You sometimes get long-term control if you've got oligometastatic disease in extracranial sites and if they've previously been treated with a lot of immune checkpoint inhibitors, which wasn't the case over here. So a patient who presents early in the course of the disease, regardless of their BRAF status, I do believe that between our studies and all the studies that have been done on immunotherapy earlier in the course of disease, we should withhold BRAF/MEK inhibitors unless they have overwhelming disease and we need immediate disease control, and then we switch them very quickly to immunotherapy. Can I also say something about the toxicity question from the bevacizumab? I have one more comment to make. I think it's important. We were very careful not to include patients who had overt hemorrhage from brain metastases. So melanoma brain metastases relative to other tumor types tend to bleed, and that was an exclusion criteria. We didn't see any bleeding that was attributable to the bevacizumab, but we don't know for sure that, if this is widely used, that that might not be a problem that's observed. So I would advise folks to use extreme caution and perhaps not use it outside of the setting of a clinical trial in patients with overt hemorrhage in the melanoma brain metastases. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much. I think that one aspect that is really interesting in the trial is actually related to the fact that you collected a series of biomarkers, both circulating ones, but also some that were collected actually from the tissue. So just wondering if you could explain a little bit which type of biomarkers you evaluated and whether you saw any significant results that could suggest higher or lower efficacy of the combination. Dr. Harriet Kluger Thank you for that. So yes, the biomarker studies are fairly exploratory, and I want to emphasize that we don't have anything that's remotely useful in clinical practice at this juncture. But we did see an association between vessel density in the tumors and improved response to this regimen. So possibly those lesions that are more vascular are more fed by or driven by VEGF, and that could be the reason that there was improved response. We also saw that when there was less of an increase in circulating angiopoietin-2 levels, patients were more likely to respond. Whether or not that pans out in larger cohorts of patients remains to be determined. Dr. Davide Soldato Still, do you envision validation of these biomarkers in a potentially additional trial that will evaluate, again, the combination? Because I think that the signals were quite interesting, and they really make sense from a biological point of view, considering the mechanism of action of bevacizumab. So I think that, yeah, you're right, they are exploratory. But still, I think that there is very strong biological rationale. So really I wanted to congratulate you on including that specific part and on reporting it. And so the question is, really, do you envision validation of these biomarkers in larger cohorts? Dr. Harriet Kluger I would hope to see that, just as I'd like to see validation of the clinical results as well. The circulating biomarkers are very easy to do. It's a simple ELISA test. And the vessel density on the tumor is essentially CD34 staining and units per area of tumor. Also very simple to do. So I'd love to see that happen. Dr. Davide Soldato Do you think that considering the quality of the MRI that we are using right now, it would be possible to completely bypass even the evaluation on the tissue? Like, are we going in a direction where we can, at a certain point, say the amount of vessels that we see in these metastases is higher versus lower just based on MRI results? Dr. Harriet Kluger You gave me an outstanding idea for a follow-up study. I don't know whether you can measure the intensity of gadolinium as a surrogate, but certainly something worth asking our neuroradiology colleagues. Excellent idea. Thank you. Dr. Davide Soldato You're welcome. So just moving a step further, we spoke a lot about the validation of these results and the combination. And just wanted your idea on what do you think it would be more interesting to do: if designing a clinical trial that really compares pembrolizumab/bevacizumab with ipilimumab and nivolumab or going directly for the triplet. So we know that there has been some type of exploration of triplet combination in metastatic melanoma. So just your clinical impression: What would you do as an investigator? Dr. Harriet Kluger So it's under some discussion, actually. It's very difficult to compare drugs from different companies in an investigator-initiated trial. Perhaps our European colleagues can do that trial for us. In the United States, it's much harder, but it can be done through the cooperative groups, and we are actually having some discussions about that. I don't have the answer for you. It would be lovely to have a trial that compared the three drugs to ipi/nivo and to pembrolizumab/bevacizumab. So a three-arm trial. But remember, these are frontline melanoma patients. There aren't that many of them anymore like there used to be. So accrual will be hard, and we have to be practical. Dr. Davide Soldato Yeah, you're right. And in the discussion of the manuscript, you actually mentioned some other trials that are ongoing, especially one that is investigating the combination of pembro and lenvatinib, another one that is investigating the combination of nivolumab and relatlimab. So just wondering, do you think that the molecule in terms of VEGF inhibition, so bevacizumab versus lenvatinib, can really make a difference or is going to be just a mechanism of action? Of course, we don't have the results from this trial but just wondering if you could give us a general comment or your opinion on the topic. Dr. Harriet Kluger So that's a really great question. The trial of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib was our answer to the fact that bevacizumab is not manufactured by the same company as pembrolizumab, and we're trying to give a practical answer to our next study that might enable us to take this approach further. But it does turn out from our preclinical studies that bevacizumab and VEGF receptor inhibition aren't actually the same thing in terms of the effects on the blood-brain barrier or the perilesional tumor microenvironment in the brain. And these studies were done in mice and in in vitro models. Very different effects. The lenvatinib has stronger effect on the tumors themselves, the tumor cells themselves, than the bevacizumab, which has no effect whatsoever. But the lenvatinib doesn't appear to tighten up that blood-brain barrier. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you. I think that's very interesting, and I think it's going to be interesting to see also results of these trials to actually improve and give more options to our patients in terms of different mechanism of action, different side effects. Because in the end, one thing that we discussed is that some combination may be useful in some specific clinical situation while others cannot be applicable, like, for example, an all immunotherapy-based combination. Just one final comment, because I think that we focused a lot on the intracranial response and progression-free survival. You briefly mentioned this but just wanted to reinforce the concept. Did you see any differences in terms of intracranial versus extracranial response for those patients who also had extracranial disease with the combination of pembro and bevacizumab? Dr. Harriet Kluger So the responses were almost always concordant. There were a couple of cases that might have had a body response and not an intracranial response and vice-versa, but the vast majority had concordant response or progression. We do believe that it's a biological phenomenon. The type of tumor that tends to go to the brain is going to be the type of tumor that will respond to whatever the regimen is that we're giving. In the previous trial also, we saw concordance of responses in the body and the brain. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much. Just to highlight that really the combination is worth pursuing considering that there was not so much discordant responses, and the results, even in a phase 2 trial, were very, very promising. So thank you again, Dr. Kluger, for joining us today and giving us a little bit of insight into this very interesting trial. Dr. Harriet Kluger Thank you for having me. Dr. Davide Soldato So we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled "Phase 2 Trial of Pembrolizumab in Combination with Bevacizumab for Untreated Melanoma Brain Metastases," which gave us the opportunity to discuss current treatment landscape in metastatic melanoma and future direction in research for melanoma brain metastasis. If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and review and be sure to come back for another 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.

El presidente Sánchez dió ayer un discurso plagado de mentiras, lo propio en un psicópata manipulador, pero Operador Nuclear (un operador de la central nuclear de Asco) se ha molestado en contestarle.Este podcast está asociado a la red de Sospechosos Habituales donde podréis encontrar otros muchos podcast de diferentes temáticas.

El presidente Sánchez dió ayer un discurso plagado de mentiras, lo propio en un psicópata manipulador, pero Operador Nuclear (un operador de la central nuclear de Asco) se ha molestado en contestarle.Este podcast está asociado a la red de Sospechosos Habituales donde podréis encontrar otros muchos podcast de diferentes temáticas.

Faronilla on käynnissä historiansa tärkeimmät soidintanssit. Lääkekehitysyhtiö neuvottelee potentiaalisten yhteistyökumppaneiden kanssa bexmarilimabin seuraavista askeleista. Kyse on isoista rahoista, parhaassa tapauksessa miljardeista.Faronin lääkeaihio on käynyt läpi toisen vaiheen eli faasi II:n tutkimukset. Yhtiö on kertonut tuloksista makupaloja, mutta perinpohjaisesti ne esitellään touko-kesäkuun taitteessa Chicagossa järjestettävässä merkittävässä ASCO-toimialatapahtumassa. Päärivitulokset ovat lupaavia. Bexmarilimab edennee lääketutkimuksen kolmanteen vaiheeseen eli faasi III:een.Voiko pienellä turkulaisfirmalla olla käsissään blockbuster, yli miljardin dollarin vuosimyyntiä takova lääke?Entä miksi ihmeessä Faron keräsi rahaa juuri ennen toisen vaiheen tutkimustulosten julkistamista?Ja milloin Faron alkaa tehdä tulosta - tällä hetkellä kun tase osoittaa 200 miljoonan euron tappiokertymää?Grillattavana Faronin toimitusjohtaja Juho Jalkanen.Yhteistyössä: Faron#lääkekehitys #verisyöpä #blockbuster

Dr. Rohan Garje shares the updated recommendations for the ASCO guideline on systemic therapy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. He discusses the systemic therapy options for patients based on prior therapy received in the castration-sensitive and non-metastatic castration-resistant settings. He emphasizes personalizing treatment choices for each individual, considering patient-specific symptoms and signs, treatment-related toxicities, potential drug interactions, cost, and access. He also reviews recommendations on response assessment. The conversation wraps up with a discussion of potential future updates to this guideline, as the guideline transitions into a “living guideline” on mCRPC. Read the full guideline update, “Systemic Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update”. Transcript This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at 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.      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. Rohan Garje from Miami Cancer Institute Baptist Health South Florida, lead author on, “Systemic Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.” Thank you for being here today, Dr. Garje. Dr. Rohan Garje: Absolutely. Thank you so much for having me, Brittany. Brittany Harvey: And 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 guideline panel, including Dr. Garje, 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, to start on the content of this guideline, first, could you provide us an overview of the purpose of this guideline update? Dr. Rohan Garje: Sure. So ASCO has guidelines for prostate cancer and the specific guideline which we have updated for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer was originally published in 2014. It's almost a decade. It's been a long time due for an update. Over the last decade, we have seen a lot of advances in the treatment of prostate cancer, specifically with regards to genomic testing, newer imaging modalities, and also the treatment landscape. Now we have newer options based on genomic targets such as PARP inhibitors, we have radiopharmaceuticals, a newer variant of chemotherapy, and also some specific indications for immunotherapy which were not addressed previously. Because all these advances have been new, it was really important for us to make an update. In 2022, we did make a rapid update with lutetium-177, but these additional changes which we have seen made it an appropriate time frame for us to proceed with a newer guideline. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's great to hear about all these advances in the field to provide new options. So I'd like to next review the key recommendations from this guideline. So let's start with the overarching principles of practice that the panel outlined. What are these key principles? Dr. Rohan Garje: As a group, all the panel members came up with some ground rules: What are necessary for all our patients who are being treated for metastatic CRPC? First, the founding aspect was a definition for what is metastatic CRPC. So we defined metastatic CRPC as castrate level of testosterone with evidence of either new or progressive metastatic disease on radiological assessments or patients who have two consecutive rising PSAs in the setting of existing metastatic disease. We also emphasized on the need for germline and somatic testing for patients with metastatic prostate cancer at an earliest available opportunity because it is critical to select appropriate treatment and also right treatment for patients at the right time. And we actually have a concurrent guideline which addresses what genes to be tested and the timing. The other principles are patients should continue to receive androgen deprivation therapy or undergo surgical castration to maintain castrate level of testosterone. Now the key aspect with these guidelines is personalizing treatment choices. As you can see the evolution of treatment options for prostate cancer, the drugs that were initially developed and approved for prostate cancer were primarily in castrate-resistant settings, but now most of these drugs are being utilized in castrate-sensitive. So, when these patients develop castration resistance, the challenges are there are no appropriate particular drug-specific guidelines they meet. So, it's very important for the clinicians to be aware of what treatments have been received so far prior to castration resistance so that they can tailor the treatment to patient specific situations. In addition, prior to choosing a therapy, it is important for the physicians to consider patient specific symptoms or signs, treatment-related toxicities, potential drug interactions, cost, and also access to the drugs. There may be multiple treatment options available for the patients, but for a patient specific scenario, there may be a drug that may be more promising than the others. So, it is important to tailor the drug choices based on patients' unique circumstances. The panel also recommends to early integrate palliative and supportive care teams for symptom management and also discuss goals of care with the patient as each patient may have unique needs and it's important for physicians to address those concerns upfront in the care. The panel also suggests patients to receive RANK ligand inhibitors such as denosumab or bisphosphonates such as zoledronic acid to maintain the bone strength to prevent skeletal-related events. Finally, I would like to also emphasize this point about the lack of randomized clinical trial data for optimal sequencing of therapies for patients with metastatic CRPC. As I previously alluded, we have taken into account all ongoing clinical trials, prior published data, and came up with a format of preferred drugs based on prior treatments and, I think, by following these several clinical principles which I just mentioned, we can optimally choose and utilize best treatments for patients with metastatic CRPC. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. These principles that you just outlined are important for optimal patient care, and then I want to touch on one of those things. You talked importantly about the treatments received so far. So in the next set of recommendations, the role of systemic therapy was stratified by the prior therapy received in the castration-sensitive and non-metastatic castration-resistant setting. So starting with what does the panel recommend for patients who are previously treated with androgen deprivation therapy alone in these previous settings and whose disease has now progressed to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? Dr. Rohan Garje: There are multiple treatment options based on prior treatment received. So for patients who received only ADT for their castration-sensitive disease, the panel strongly urges to get HRR testing to check for homologous recombinant repair related changes, specifically for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, because we have three studies which have really shown significant clinical benefit for patients who have BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with drugs such as the combination of talazoparib and enzalutamide or olaparib with abiraterone or niraparib with abiraterone. Unless we test for those mutations, we'll not be able to give these agents upfront for the patients. In the HRR testing, if patients have HRR alterations but they are in genes which are non-BRCA, the guideline panel recommends to utilize talazoparib and enzalutamide based combination therapies. Now, if they don't have HRR alterations then there are multiple treatment choices available. It could either include androgen receptor pathway inhibitors such as abiraterone with prednisone. We could also consider docetaxel chemotherapy. The alternate choices for androgen receptor pathways include enzalutamide or the newer agents such as apalutamide and docetaxel. So, as you can see there are multiple options available, but the panel definitely emphasizes to test for HRR testing because this gives patients access to more precision therapies at this point. There may be various scenarios where a unique drug may be available for a specific patient situation. For example, patients who have very limited disease burden and may have one or two metastatic lesions, after a multidisciplinary discussion, targeted local therapies such as radiation or potentially surgery could also be offered. In select patients who have very indolent disease where they are castrate-resistant based on slow rising PSA, low-volume disease or asymptomatic disease can consider sipuleucel-T. And in patients who have bone-only metastatic disease, we could also consider radium-223, which is primarily now utilized for patients who have symptomatic bone disease. Brittany Harvey: Great. I appreciate you reviewing all those options and talking about how important it is to tailor treatment to the individual patient. So then the next category of patients, what is recommended for those who have been previously treated with ADT and an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor and whose disease has now progressed to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? Dr. Rohan Garje: So for patients who received ADT along with an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor, which we consider would be a most common cohort because most patients now in castration-sensitive setting are receiving androgen receptor pathway inhibitor. It was different in the past where five or six years back ADT alone was the most common treatment, but fortunately, with enough awareness and education, treatment choices have improved. Patients are now receiving ADT and ARPI as the most common choice of drug. Once again, at this point the panel emphasizes to consider HRR testing in there is enough data for us to suggest that patients who have alterations in the HRR pathway definitely will benefit with the PARP inhibitor. You know the multiple options, but specifically we speak about olaparib. And then if they are HRR-negative, we prefer patients receive agents such as docetaxel or if they are intolerant to docetaxel, consider cabazitaxel chemotherapy, options such as radium-223, and if they have a specific scenario such as MSI-high or mismatch repair deficiency, pembrolizumab could also be considered. The panel also discussed about the role of a second ARPI agent. For example, if patients progressed on one androgen receptor pathway inhibitor, the second androgen receptor pathway inhibitor may not be effective and the panel suggests to utilize alternate options before considering androgen receptor pathway inhibitor. There may be specific scenarios where a second ARPI may be meaningful, specifically, if alternate choices are not feasible for the concern of side effects or toxicities or lack of access, then a potential ARPI could be considered after progression on ARPI, but the panel definitely encourages to utilize alternate options first. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for outlining those options as well for those patients. So then the next category, what is recommended for patients who have been previously treated with ADT and docetaxel? Dr. Rohan Garje: For patients who received ADT and docetaxel and were never treated with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, the panel again emphasizes on HRR testing. If they have BRCA1 and 2 mutations, the combination therapies of talazoparib with enzalutamide, olaparib with abiraterone, or niraparib with abiraterone are all good choices. If they don't have BRCA mutations but they have other HRR mutations, the panel suggests to potentially utilize talazoparib with enzalutamide. And if they do not have any HRR alterations, the options could include androgen receptor pathway inhibitors such as abiraterone or enzalutamide. I want to emphasize that these are preferred options, but not the only options. As you can see, there are multiple options available for a particular clinical situation - so the ability of the physicians to access particular combinations, the familiarity of those drugs or the patient's unique situation where they have other medications which can potentially interact with a choice of agents. So I think based on access, based on cost and patients' concurrent illness with potential drug interactions can make one particular combination of therapy better over the other options. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. That's key to keep in mind that access, contraindications, and cost all play a role here. So then the next set of recommendations. What are the key recommendations for patients who have previously been treated with ADT, an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor, and docetaxel who now have mCRPC? Dr. Rohan Garje: Yes. In this group, the options remain, again, broad. We utilize PSMA imaging here specifically and if they are positive on PSMA imaging, lutetium-177 is a good option. If they do not have PSMA-positive disease on PSMA imaging but if they have HRR alterations, olaparib could be utilized. And if they are negative on PSA imaging, they don't have HRR alterations, then alternate options could include cabazitaxel, radium-223. And if they have MSI-high or deficiency in mismatch repair, pembrolizumab could be utilized in this setting. Brittany Harvey: Thank you for outlining those options as well. So then next the panel addressed treatment options for de novo or treatment emergent small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the prostate. What are those key recommendations? Dr. Rohan Garje: Yes. This is a very high unmet need group because there are limited clinical trials, especially prospective clinical trials addressing treatment options for this group. Most of our current guidelines are always an extrapolation from lung small cell cancer based guidelines, but the panel recommends to utilize cisplatin or carboplatin along with etoposide as a preferred choice for this group. Also, an alternate option of carboplatin along with cabazitaxel could be considered for this cohort. The panel also encourages participation in clinical trials. There are numerous trials ongoing now in smaller phase studies and I think it's important for patients to consider these trials as well, because this will give them access to newer agents with potential biological targets. In addition to these agents in specific scenarios or potentially case by case basis, because we don't have prospective data, so we have made it as a select case by case basis to consider adding immunotherapy along with platinum-based chemotherapy followed by maintenance immunotherapy, which is currently a standard of care in small cell lung cancer. But the data is so limited in prostate cancer, so the panel suggested that it has to be a case by case basis only. The alternate options also include lurbinectedin, topotecan, tarlatamab upon progression on platinum-based chemotherapy. Brittany Harvey: Yes. It's important to have these recommendations in these unique situations where there is really a lack of data. So then the final set of recommendations I'd like to cover, what does the panel recommend for how clinicians should assess for response while patients are on systemic therapy and what scans are recommended for this response assessment? Dr. Rohan Garje: Yes. Again, this is another strong emphasis of the panel for global assessment of the patients. Traditionally, patients and physicians per se are heavily reliant on PSA as an accurate marker for response. This is in fact true in earlier phases of prostate cancer either in castrate-sensitive setting or localized prostate cancer setting. But as patients evolve into castrate-resistant, we don't want to heavily rely on PSA alone as a marker of response. The panel suggests to incorporate clinical response, radiological response, and also include PSA as a component, but not just rely primarily on PSA. So the panel also suggests that patients should get a bone scan and a CT scan every three to six months while on treatment to assess for appropriate response or for progression. And now one key important aspect, we are all aware about the evolving role of PSMA-based imaging with several of these new agents that are currently available. We do acknowledge these scans definitely have an important role in the care for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Currently, the utility is primarily to select patients for lutetium-based therapy and also in situations where the traditional scans such as technitium 99 bone scan or CT scan are equivocal, then a PSMA-based imaging can be helpful. Now we are also aware that there are newer studies coming up, prospective data coming up for the role of PSMA-based imaging for response assessment. We are hoping to update the guidelines if we get access to newer data, but currently we have not recommended the utility of PSMA-based imaging for response assessments. Brittany Harvey: Understood. And I appreciate you describing where there is data here and where there's a lack of data to currently recommend. And we'll look forward to future updates of this guideline. Coming back to – at the start you mentioned how much has changed since the last guideline update. So Dr. Garje, in your view, what is the importance of this update and how will it impact both clinicians and patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? Dr. Rohan Garje: The updated guidelines are designed to have a significant impact on clinical practice and also patient outcomes by providing clinicians with a comprehensive evidence-based framework for managing patients with metastatic CRPC. And also, by using these guidelines can make informed decisions, can select therapies tailored to patients' unique genomic status, clinical situation, where they are in the course of the cancer based on what they received previously. Also utilizing these guidelines, we can potentially improve patient outcomes, improve survival, and importantly have efficient use of healthcare resources. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. We're always looking for ways to improve patient outcomes and survival. I want to wrap us up by talking a little bit about the outstanding questions in this field. So earlier you had mentioned about prospective data to come about PSMA PET scans, but what other outstanding questions are there for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? And what evidence is the panel looking forward to for future updates? Dr. Rohan Garje: We do have now rapidly evolving data specifically about the utility of the radiopharmaceutical lutetium-177 prior to chemotherapy. We are hoping that with newer data we can make some changes to the guideline based on that. We are also looking at newer drugs that are coming up in the pipeline, for example, androgen receptor degraders. We are looking at data that might potentially help based on bispecific T-cell engagers and newer radiopharmaceuticals. So I think in the next few years, we will definitely update all the guidelines again. But this time we are trying to do it more proactively. We are following a newer model. We are calling it as ‘living guidelines' where we are actually utilizing week by week updates where we look at the literature and see if there is any potential practice impacting change or publication that comes up. And we are trying to incorporate those changes as soon as they are available. That way patients and practicing physicians can get the latest information available through the guidelines as well. Brittany Harvey: That's great to hear. Yes, we'll await this data that you mentioned to continuously update this guideline and continue to improve patient outcomes for the future. So Dr. Garje, I want to thank you so much for your time to update this guideline. It was certainly a large amount of recommendations, and thank you for your time today, too. Dr. Rohan Garje: Thank you so much for having me here. And it's always nice talking to you. Brittany Harvey: And finally, thank you to 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.

As biological technologies continue to advance, many growers are exploring how best to integrate them into their farming operations. Nevada Smith, Head of Marketing North America, and Robert Blundell, Research Plant Pathologist, both with Pro Farm Group, highlight the role of biological pesticides and biofertilizers in sustainable winegrowing. Biological pesticides, derived from microbial sources or natural products such as plants, fungi, bacteria, or nematodes, play a crucial role in pest management by inhibiting or delaying growth or directly causing pest mortality. Understanding which biological products to use and when to apply them within an integrated pest management system is essential for maximizing their effectiveness. Biofertilizers, which enhance plant health and resilience to abiotic stresses, are another key tool for sustainable viticulture. Nevada and Robert discuss the growing importance of these technologies in improving soil health and supporting long-term agricultural productivity. Resources:         REGISTER: 5/9/25 Biochar Field Day 117: Grapevine Mildew Control with UV Light 123: What is Happening in Biologicals for Pest Management and Plant Health 266: Soft Pesticide Trial: Powdery Mildew, Downy Mildew, Botrytis, and Sour Rot Healthy Soils Playlist Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Principles ProFarm What are Biopesticides? Vineyard Team Programs: Juan Nevarez Memorial Scholarship - Donate SIP Certified – Show your care for the people and planet   Sustainable Ag Expo – The premiere winegrowing event of the year Vineyard Team – Become a Member Get More Subscribe wherever you listen so you never miss an episode on the latest science and research with the Sustainable Winegrowing Podcast. Since 1994, Vineyard Team has been your resource for workshops and field demonstrations, research, and events dedicated to the stewardship of our natural resources. Learn more at www.vineyardteam.org.   Transcript [00:00:00] Beth Vukmanic: As biological technologies continue to advance, many growers are exploring how to best integrate them into their farming operations. [00:00:13] Welcome to Sustainable Wine, growing with Vineyard Team, where we bring you the latest in science and research for the wine industry. I'm Beth Vukmanic, executive director. [00:00:23] In today's podcast, Craig McMillan, critical resource Manager at Niner Wine Estates. With Longtime SIP certified Vineyard in the first ever SIP certified winery speaks with Nevada Smith Head of Marketing North America and Robert Blundell research plant pathologist, both with Pro Farm Group. Together, they highlight the role of biological pesticides and bio fertilizers in sustainable wine. Growing [00:00:49] biological pesticides are derived from microbial sources or natural products such as plants, fungi, bacteria, or nematodes. They play a crucial role in pest management by inhibiting or delaying growth or directly causing pest mortality [00:01:04] Understanding which biological products to use and when to apply them within an integrated pest management system is essential for maximizing their effectiveness. [00:01:13] Bio fertilizers, which enhance plant health and resilience to abiotic stresses are another key tool for sustainable viticulture, Nevada and Robert discussed the growing importance of these technologies and improving soil health and supporting long-term agricultural productivity. [00:01:30] If you're gonna be in Paso Robles, California on May 9th, 2025. Join us at Niner Wine Estates for a Biochar Field day. This interactive morning features live demonstrations and expert discussions on the benefits of biochar for soil health and sustainable farming. Learn how to integrate biochar into your farming operations through practical insights and hands-on experiences. Go to vineyard team.org/events or look for the link in the show notes to get registered. [00:02:00] Now let's listen in.   [00:02:05] Craig Macmillan: My guest today are Nevada Smith. He is Head of Marketing North America and Robert Blundell, who's a research plant pathologist, both with Pro Farm Group. Thank you for being on the podcast [00:02:15] Rob Blundell: Thank you, Craig. [00:02:16] Nevada Smith: Thank you. [00:02:18] Craig Macmillan: Today we're gonna be talking about bio pesticides and we might as well start with the the basics. What is a biological pesticide? Robert, why don't you start? [00:02:26] Rob Blundell: Yeah, that's a good question, Craig. And and you know, honestly, it's. So when I first was kind of thinking about this, it's not as simple explanation as you might think. It's a constantly kind of evolving term and depending on who you are asking, you can get a, a very different answer. And it's, it's really kind of this large umbrella term. [00:02:42] . It's kind of a microbially based product or natural product typically derived from a plant, fungi, bacteria, nematode, you know. That pretty much has the ability to inhibit or delay the growth or, you know, cause the death of a pest. [00:02:56] And you know, with the term biological pesticide, pesticide being extremely broad whether it's, you know, insect, fungi, even rodent, you know, rodent sides, things like that. So yeah, again, it's a very broad term and different, different grooves, different commodities are gonna kind of have their own explanation. [00:03:09] Even the EU has a different, I think definition versus the EPA as well. So it's an evolving, evolving term. [00:03:15] Craig Macmillan: What about you, Nevada? Do you have anything to add to that? [00:03:17] Nevada Smith: I'm kind of with Robert, it's almost like sustainability. What does that mean? It means to me, I get to keep farming every year. But I think for everyone else it might have different definitions. And I think basically the, the premise is, is it's biologically based. It's based on a living organism, something that we can repeat, regrow, and, you know, the societal part of it, bio pesticide, it means it's acting or killing or helping mitigate pest. For proform have a biologically based strategy. And so we, that's what we deliver is those type of tools. [00:03:50] Craig Macmillan: One of the major pets on grapes is powdery mildew. Around the globe. Probably the major pest overall, I would say fungal disease. I have been seeing a lot of increase in the use of bio pesticides specifically for powdery mildew, some in organic systems, some in more traditional sustainability oriented systems. [00:04:09] What kind of mechanisms are there out there in the biological world for managing powdery mildew and how does that, how do they work? Nevada, do you wanna start? [00:04:18] Nevada Smith: Yeah, so for biological pesticides, there's sort of different categories and I'll even. Even throwing some sort of organic pesticides as well into this whole mix. I think as a grower or a wine processor, you have a choice and it's like, either I'm going conventional, I'm looking to maximize my value proposition on my vineyard or my process my wines. And so one of the ways we really think about this is how do you integrate bio pesticides into the overall spray for bio mildew, like our winemaker at our place they always say, Hey, if it's more than 3% power mildew it's a no go. It's a bad day for us. And so for us to take the risk on our farm. For a biologicial pesticide, we had to have some data to really get us excited about it. [00:05:02] Overall, we wanna see performance. We need to see at least seven to 10 days. And I think that's maybe the biggest challenge a powerdy mildew issue is depending on what sort of climate and what variety of grapes you're growing is how long does it take me to get across the vineyard? [00:05:17] It's really what it comes down to. [00:05:18] And you know, maybe from a pathology point of view, Robert has some perspective. [00:05:24] Rob Blundell: The way we want to kind of think about powdery mildew is it's, you know, it's, it's always gonna be there. It's gonna be present. And biologicals, when used in the right way, can be a fantastic you know, tool in the arsenal. For, for growers or farmers against a deadly pathogen like this. [00:05:38] Growers really need to kind of consider the goal of using a biological, because there's so many different mechanisms of action of a biological, I mean, it can be live, it can be live, it can be the, you know, the spent fermentation product of a biological, which is gonna work very differently versus an actual liable organism you're gonna put in your field. [00:05:53] So kind of having a clear mindset from the, from the start is gonna be crucial to knowing. What kind of biological do you use? And also importantly, kind of when to use it as well. Because you can have drastically different outcomes based on like the time of your, you know, the time of venue production and then, and then the time of the season as well. [00:06:09] But yes yeah, ultimately there's broad, broad mechanism of actions. So if we're putting something on there live you know, you know, with something like powder mildew, this, pathogen functions because it attaches onto leaves. So we have these overwintering structures called cassia. [00:06:24] So these are basically the dormant structures that are gonna help powerdy mildew, survive. That's why it's been around for so long. That's why it's, it comes back every year. So it basically shuts down, it's fungal mycelium into these dormant hard structures. And then every year it basically reawakens around spring when we get the rainfall. [00:06:39] So we're gonna get ASCO spores. These are specialized spore structures within that kind of dormant structure. They get released out. So, you know, with the, with the weather coming in this week, that's gonna be, huge out there right now. So we're gonna get the release of those spores. [00:06:51] They're gonna land on that leaf. So really that's kind of our prime target of having protection is when they're gonna be landing and then adhesing to that leaf. So with something like a biological, if we can get that onto that leaf and then, you know, that's kind of our line of defense really. We want to be setting like a line of defense early in the season. [00:07:08] Know we have a product regalia. So that gets on there. It has these antimicrobial compounds, which the first point of contact is gonna. Prevent you know, it's gonna help mitigate that interaction between the leaf and the pathogen acts as kind of that medium layer. And then it's also gonna boost the plant's natural defense. [00:07:24] So how powdery mildew you kind of functions it. Once it gets on that leaf, it has a very specialized structure. Call it, they would call it a whole story or an appium, depending on where you are in the world and specialized structure that will kind of get through that cell wall, under that cell membrane and then sucks out the nutrients from the leaf so we can get a biological on the early to boost that plant defense, boost those, you know, defense fight hormone pathways. [00:07:46] We're gonna kind of mitigate that as a an initial point of contact. And then hopefully that's gonna set us off for a you know, a good season after that. But the time, yeah, the timing is definitely crucial. [00:07:55] Nevada Smith: I think to add to Robert's point is really to start your season off right and clean. So that's why as growers or as winemakers, you choose to use some sulfur to kind of mitigate, which is not necessarily a bio pesticide, but it could be organic, you know, depending on what your source of there. But those tools to me, are foundational for getting a clean start if you start bad, and it's gonna be a hell of a year all year long. [00:08:20] And I think that's the biggest challenge of bio pesticide uses overall is. Where do they fit, what growers they fit in? And it's not a solution for all, for sure. I mean, if you're growing Chardonnay or Pinot Noir on the Sonoma Coast in a foggy bank off of Bodega Bay, tough times, you know? But if you're in Pastor Robles, maybe in the Napa Valley in the valley where it's a little bit drier, you go in cab. Issue. You probably can integrate a nice bio pesticide program into it, and I think that's the secret. [00:08:58] Craig Macmillan: You mentioned regalia. What is the actual ingredient in regalia? What does it come from? [00:09:03] Rob Blundell: Yeah, so for Regalia the active ingredient comes from giant knotweed, so Ray Nectria. So that's a giant knotweed extract essentially that's been procured and then optimized in r and d and then applied typically as a folia spray for, for grape vines. [00:09:17] Craig Macmillan: And then the plant reacts to that, and that's what increases the plant defense mechanism. [00:09:22] Rob Blundell: Yeah, yeah, pretty much. There's kind of a few, few tiers of how, you know, Regilia kind of functions. So yeah, so we do that kind of initial application pretty much as soon as you, you have any green tissue, you know, really that's a great time to kind of get that on there. And then so the plant is gonna respond to that so typically a plant, defence pathway. [00:09:39] We have salicylic acid, so that is a key phyto hormones. So phyto hormones are kind of the driving force behind the plant defense. And this is very, you know, this is typical for all kind of pathogens, all kind of crops really. So you're gonna have a pathogen interact and we'll have its initial interaction with a plant. [00:09:55] And then you're gonna get this initial, like, response straight away from a plan. It's gonna be, Hey, I, my defenses are up. I, I sense this as a foreign agent. Basically I need to, you know, protect myself. So you get this upregulation of fighter hormones. They're very regulated. Pathways that then have these cascading effects to ultimately kind of therefore have longer term defense. [00:10:14] So you have an upregulation of fighter hormones. This is gonna signal to the plant that, Hey, I need to strengthen my cell walls, for example. So I'm gonna send more liening cell lignin being a crucial component a cell. wall . That's something we see upregulated as a result of regalia. So we get that increase in phyto hormones, we'll get lignin sent to the cell wall. [00:10:32] We get an increase in antioxidants as well to kinda help break down the pathogen as well. Limiteds effects we get polyphenols various other kind of antimicrobials as a result. So we have kind of direct effects, but then crucially with regalia, so we're gonna have the plant initially respond to its application, and then when the pathogen does. [00:10:50] Come around for a, an attack. That plan already kind of is, is heightened its responses, it's ready for it, so it's gonna be a faster kind of response time and therefore what we kind of consider more of a, a longer term defense response. [00:11:02] Craig Macmillan: Are there other modes of action, perhaps ones that are live? [00:11:05] Nevada Smith: Yeah. And that, I think that's a great point. Is there, you know, the, the bacillus category has been a big category the last dozen years or so. And this could be anything waiting from a bacillus subtles to bacillus Emli. There's other bacilli out there too. And I think they're more of an integrated approach. [00:11:22] So I conventional our farm vineyards. We're gonna just rotate it in there. So just like if you're straight organic or you're straight bio pesticide, it'd be a regalia, as an example, rotated with a bacillus product. We happen to have one as well, a very nice one called Sargus. But there's other great solutions out there in the marketplace today. There's other living organisms as well. There's some products in the Streptomyces categories as well. They're used in grow rotation, but I think to me as a grower and as a winemaker myself. I'm just looking for integration, IPM strategy all the way along. And depend on how, what your guard rails are for farming that would dictate what your options are overall. [00:12:07] Craig Macmillan: So, , to you, Robert, , how do these actually work? Like bacillus subtilis and things? [00:12:11] How do they actually either prevent or treat powdery mildew in grape. [00:12:15] Rob Blundell: Yeah, good question. So for Bacillus with Star in particular so we're actually not looking to treat powdery mildew kind of outright with this product itself. That's more where regalia is gonna come as a benefit. So actually Bacillus is great for something like botrytis in grapes. So, and this is really, really where we can kind of combine regalia and stargus together for a very effective program. [00:12:34] Kind of a one-two punch. So we, you have a live bacillus product. So we have spores that are gonna colonize a surface. So whether that's being the soil, you know, microbia the leaves or the berries, and with botrytis infecting berries causing damage, necrotic lesions in those berries, that's where something like stargus , a bacillus product can be applied to those berries to effectively colonize it. [00:12:55] And again, kind of creating like a nice. Kind of shield essentially from pretty much all fungal pathogens work the same. They have to attach, then they have to penetrate to essentially, hold on. So if we can kind of form a physical, kind of physical barrier, that's gonna be great. So for a lot of the Bacillus products they produce a suite of antimicrobials. [00:13:13] So star for our company we have a suite of antimicrobials that produces, so we have things like Itur, Phin, these are all really good antimicrobials. They're gonna have a direct effect on it. So those spores will be able to, you know, colonize the berry, for example, and then help Yeah. Prevent prevent powerdy mildew So you have this live culture essentially that's on the grapes and it's producing compounds, and that's where the, the antimicrobial comes in or the antifungal comes in. [00:13:40] Nevada Smith: Yes. And. [00:13:47] So there's two registrations from an EPA standpoint. There's the live bacteria count, which people are familiar with from back in the day when there was bts, right cells ths for worm protection. And so we measure the CFUs, which is a colony forming unit. So the bacteria, and there's a minimum threshold that we have for our product as well as anybody else that registers their bacteria. Just sort of a quality control thing for the grower to know this is the level we produce. What we. Seeing the production for our solution is really around the chemical compounds being created in the fermentation process, this lipopeptides cycle. And so that's what's important to know that there's some differentiation. [00:14:25] And I always use the example, I'm a huge basketball fan and you know, there's a difference between Michael Jordan and myself. I'm not at his level. And so not all bacilli are created equal, but they all do have some performance values for them. And obviously, you know, the more you can look into science and whether it be uc, extension and the Gubler Eskalen models and local trial researchers will give you the value proposition each of these products brings to you. [00:14:50] Craig Macmillan: Now, this is something that I, I don't think I've heard before and I wanna make sure that I heard it correctly. So, some of the protection is actually coming from things that are being produced during the fermentation production of the bacteria themselves. And so these are side things. And then that makes it into the final product. [00:15:05] Nevada Smith: Yeah, that's actually the most important thing on foliar. So holistically for bacillus, and this is a very broad brush here unless you're in a tropical environment like bananas in. Columbia or Costa Rica, you're not growing more spores on the leaf surface. You might have that happen a little bit depending on sort of your micro environments. What you really want is coverage and then that eradicates. [00:15:29] The way that the the bacillus really works, it really pokes holes into the cell wall of power mildew. So that's, and it just kinda leaks out and dies. And so it's botrytis , and or powder mildew. That's the major effects that it has on these pest diseases. [00:15:43] But in those rare examples, I'll tell you, we've seen some results of our products being used in crops and tropical environments. If it can grow, it's creating more value. Now let's talk about something different. You put bacillus. Sargus into the ground in a soil treatment. It has tremendous effects on colonizing around the roots. [00:16:01] And so that's where bacillus is actually known in its natural environment into the soil profile. So that's where we really see that the one two value. Now, that's not what we're using it for in grapes. Grapes, is for foliar control of. And mild diseases. But we have many other crops that we use bacillus for like corn, for root management and prolification around the diseases down there. [00:16:27] Craig Macmillan: Do you have anything to add to that, Robert?  [00:16:29] Rob Blundell: Yeah, so that's, yeah, excellent points from Nevada. So yeah, kind, kind of getting, talking about how we can use bacillus, you know, actually to go into the soil. So something like nematodes, you know, that's, that's a huge issue in grapes always has been. It's where we have, you know, root stocks engineered over the years to have, you know, nematode resistant root stocks. [00:16:43] Again, not, not kind of the primary purpose of what we'd be looking to use stargus, and vineyards, but again, having a soil colonizer is fantastic. You know, a lot of the. The majority of diseases, especially in like the row crops, they're coming from the below ground. You know, you've got the pythium and lettuce. [00:16:57] You've got like sclero, things like that, huge kind of soil-borne pathogens. So again, having something that you can add to the soil, you know, the soil already has its own fantastic suite of, naturally present. You know, bacteria, fungi, that's, you know, like Nevada said, that's what we got ab baus from, stargus from. [00:17:12] So we're just kind of adding to that to kind of help boost the fight. And we can always kind of think of the interaction between pathogens and plants as kind of this arms race. There's a ways, you know, the pathogen kind of gets ahead by evolving slightly, and then you have the ho response from the plant and then the, the microbiome as well. [00:17:27] So we're just trying to kind of tip the scales and our balance is how a good way to kind of think of biologicals as well. And I think as you were mentioning, kind of the, the fermentation process, and that's where we get our microbials from. [00:17:37] Every microbe has primary metabolites. That's what's key to basically the survival of a microbe. But then we have secondary metabolites, and these are very highly specialized products that get produced. For bacillus, during that fermentation process, this is a, you know, these are unique metabolites. You know, metabolites are produced by the majority of. Micros, but the in particular can produce these like fantastic suite of very unique metabolites. So that's where the, a non-life product kind of comes into itself as well. By us able to understand what are those metabolites we're producing same fermentation, can we optimize those? And then do we, do we even need a live product as a result of that? [00:18:12] Craig Macmillan: Um, it sounds like this could have a really dramatic impact or role in fungicide resistance management. I. What is that role? Or are we talking about going over completely to biological for a program or are we including in a rotation with other materials? What about organic growing where we have a, a little smaller suite of things that we can use? [00:18:35] Nevada Smith: , I'll start with that if you don't mind. [00:18:36] I think it's a great question and where I see it fitting is most synthetic pesticides for disease control are really affecting the mitochondria on the inside of the dupo. And where I see it fitting is the sort of one, two, I would say contact plus systemic. That's an a de-risk, your resistance management issues. But B, increase the likelihood that those products work better and longer. [00:19:02] So today we position a product like Sargus other bacillus products in the marketplace to be in combination with a. SDHI chemistry, like Luna would be an example of that, or Pristine. We would see those integrated in the cycle of sprays, which is, it's very similar to why you use sulfur with those products as well. [00:19:23] But I think, you know, as a winemaker, I want less sulfur my crop as possible, but obviously I want, as a farmer too, I want it to be clean as can be. So it's kind of this yin and yang overall. [00:19:33] But for resistance management, I think you have to really think about the whole approach. And once again, back guardrails. Of what your restrictions are for you as a farmer and maybe the winemaker working together with them. How do you really get to the. And, you know, I, it's kind of a joke too, but we talked about earlier the word sustainability be very broad. Stroke. Well, I'm wanna farm into the future years. I wanna have that vineyard for a hundred years and not to replant it. So I'm really trying to keep as clean as possible all the time, especially for the over wintering stuff. And so to me early often protection, control contact plus systemic is the approach that we take at our farm as well. [00:20:10] Craig Macmillan: When we say earlier, are we talking bud break, two inches, four leaves?   [00:20:15] Nevada Smith: For powder. Yeah. But then we could debate, you know, on these opsis issues and can cane issues. [00:20:24] Craig Macmillan: When would I wanna put on a bacillus? [00:20:27] Nevada Smith: I would start with a sulfur spray about bud break here, and then kind of rotate back into the bloom time for the first bloom spray, about 50% bloom, more or less. I kind of time it too, and if it's a little later, I'm okay with that. That would be the major time where I get the first shots on and that we, I would start with regalia, for example, just because it's a different mode of action. And then I'd come back with the bacillus here about seven to 10 days later. [00:20:51] Craig Macmillan: And would you then include synthetic materials as well, I'm assuming. [00:20:55] Nevada Smith: Yeah, on our farm we would typically our biggest issue is getting across the, the vineyard. And so we're looking to start off with a synthetic material first, just so we can get a nice, well, sulfur first, sorry. That probably like A-S-D-H-I chemistry. And then I'd start to think about how can I integrate my approaches to, being softer chemistry based through the rest of the season. [00:21:17] Craig Macmillan: Does that make sense to you, Robert? [00:21:19] Rob Blundell: Yes. And actually I'm just gonna jump back a little bit in our conversation. I just add a few more details kind of on this approach as well. So yeah, a little bit earlier, I kinda mentioned this arms race between the pathogen and the host and, you know, the available treatments that we have and really kind of a huge benefit of. Adding a biological, say, into your conventional program or just introducing more biologicals in general for your, your fungicides is you know, as, as Nata was saying, you know, a lot of the conventional chemistry is targeted in that mitochondria. It's a very specialized kind of function. It's there, it does a great job when it works well, but then. [00:21:51] We get pathogen resistance, obviously. So there's kind of two types of resistance. You get qualitative resistance and quantitative. So qualitative is when there is a kind of sudden or abrupt loss in the ability of say, a fungicide to work. And then you have quantitative where it's kind of more of a gradual decline in effectiveness. [00:22:08] And then you get kind of these varying levels of fungicide sensitivity versus that qualitative where you're having either resistant or a sensitive is isolate. And this. It's great. We're talking about grapes and powerdy mildew, 'cause this is one of like, this is like the classic textbook example. We kind of get taught in pathology about this because powerdy mildew, it has these really quick cycling times, produces a number of generations per season, very easily dispersed. [00:22:28] So this is such a high risk kind of category for this fungicide resistance. So again, if we have just a whole range of availabilities in terms of different fungicide options, you know, chemistry, soft chemistry, biologicals various other options, we're just kind of increasing our chances of really. Just well, and one not having any pathogen resistance. [00:22:49] Because again, as soon as you have that, then you have you, you really lose your options for your chemistries. So again, just, you know, introducing a few biologicals here and there, especially for, you know, grapes on the West coast, which is the amount of sprays we're having to do in other states where you have less sprays, you can kind of get away with kind of not considering your approach a little bit more. [00:23:05] You don't have to kind of. Do your frack checks as much because maybe you're only doing one or two sprays. But here we have to be very, very concerned with our, you know, what products we're using and then at what timing they're using. So again, just having a biological to really kind of take the pressure off some of those chemistries is a, is a huge a huge, valuable source of preserving the life of your chemistry. [00:23:23] And then have, like Nevada said, you know, having sustainable wines for the years to come. [00:23:28] Craig Macmillan: Actually, that made me think of something. Is there a risk of resistance being developed to biological strategies? [00:23:38] Rob Blundell: Yeah, that's, that's a really good question. So yes. [00:23:41] It's kind of a newer question. Yeah. So again, with a lot of these chemistries being very, very site specific function, all you have to do is have a very small mutation in your, say, powerdy mildew, to overcome that. And typically with biologicals, the typically, I say typically the mode of action is a little bit more broad. [00:23:57] So very rarely are you gonna have an extremely like. , so like a lot of the chemistries buy into certain receptors that their job that do that really well. Biologicals don't tend to do that as much. They're more of a broad spectrum. That's why we see a, like for our fungicides, we see a range of control against a lot of different, you know, powerd mildew, we've got ascomiscies,, Presidio, my seeds, they pretty much do well across a range because they are more broad spectrum. [00:24:19] Not to say that in time we're gonna start to see a decline. It's, you know, again, it's kind of really how we consider using them. And we. Whether we wanna like, fully rely on them or hey, that's, let's, let's use more of a, a combined approach. So again, we just really make that sustainable as well. [00:24:33] So kind of to answer your question definitely it comes with risk but kind of inherently due to the more broad spectrum nature of biologicals, we're not too worried about the kind of resistance that we've seen developed as a result of c chemistries in that very, very specific function of a chemistry. [00:24:48] Craig Macmillan: That makes a lot of sense. I know that you had mentioned you're farming in a more traditional fashion, Nevada, but your products, and obviously I know some folks in the organic area. What role do biologicals play in an organic fungicide program? Nevada? [00:25:03] Nevada Smith: I think it's definitely at the core of your foundation of seeing how you are gonna approach powerdy, mildew and botrytus. Is it a typical, you know, seven spray system, which I'd say it's kind of typical for the northern coast markets or the coastal range. Or if you're in the valley floor are you more in that three to five applications for bio pesticides and, and what timing and how you're approaching those things are critical overall to assessing those on the organic. [00:25:30] You don't have to be just organic. You could be, from a theoretical point of view, you can just choose to be this type of farmer, which is, I want to choose softer chemistries. And I think that's the mixed bag that we deal with with customers, a crop and the crop advisors out there. [00:25:44] Rob Blundell: Yeah, and I was gonna say just to kinda add to that as well. So again, regardless whether you're doing organic or chemistry or biologicals, you know. Really key as well. Foundation is just having good cultural control as well. Something we haven't really touched on today, but again, you can really increase the effectiveness of your biological, your chemistry based on what you're doing in, in the vineyard. [00:26:02] So, you know, things like, you know, canopy thinning, so if you're using say, a biological, you wanna try to colonize those berries, you wanna kind of thin out that kind of piece. You're getting a better spray coverage. You're also gonna, you know, reduce the humidity and that kind of pee of things like mildew you know, effective pruning in dry conditions. [00:26:18] Navar was kind of talking about opsis, some of those canker pathogens. So those grapevine trunk diseases, that is still the most effective way to control a grapevine trunk disease is just to prune under the right conditions. 'cause you need that wound, that pruning wound to heal when it's, you're not gonna get a, let's see, you know, we got that ring coming in this week. [00:26:33] So, grapevine trunk disease is dormant on those on the, on the parts of the vine. They're gonna be airborne. So you need to make sure there's a very good dry window. So again, like cultural practice is always, always key to whatever approach or biologicals or chemicals. [00:26:46] Nevada Smith: I think the add to that, one of the biggest things I remember, I wanna say it's like in 2010, I saw Gubler trials, Gubler, uc, Davis, you know, famous for everything. And he had the trial and all he did was pull leaves. On the bunch closures, and I was like, wow, that looked amazing. And I said, what? What spray did you have on there? [00:27:02] And they're like, nothing. We just pulled leaves and just literally that airflow coming across there, drying out, I assume it was just drying out the spores was amazing. I was like, wow. But then I started doing the cost analysis as a grower. I'm like, I can't send a crew there and pull leaves all the time. So, [00:27:19] Craig Macmillan: Yeah, it's true. I mean, and that's why it's a mix of things. I think. It's integrated pest management. You, you know, you do want to get some airflow through there. You will probably do some canopy management, whether you do shoot thinning or leaf removal. Some of that also helps with coverage. [00:27:32] Right. So using a mix of cultural and chemical or pesticide techniques is probably, probably wise. I'm not a pest control advisor, so I probably shouldn't say that. I. But I think I, you, they're not the first folks that have, have reminded me of that. And sometimes I know that, I think we kind of forget. [00:27:49] I wanna change topics a little bit. There's a, I don't wanna say new, but new to me. Area bio fertilizers a totally different kind of strategy for plant nutrition Nevada. What is a bio fertilizer? What, how do they work? What is it and how does it work? [00:28:05] Nevada Smith: So bio fertilizers can be a multitude of things, but once again, back to bio based on living organisms prior living organisms. We happen to have one that we're just launching this year into the grape industry called Illustra. It's based on this unique technology, UBP. Universal biological platform. I'm not trying to be a billboard ad here, but the reason why I'm bringing it up is it, it's really is a platform, which is interesting about it because it's, it's a technology that we can change and manipulate depending on how we go through the production cycle. And so we're creating tools that are more made for abiotic stresses. [00:28:39] And so we're trying to deal with different stresses that. Crop can deal with. And so right now the core market that we've been using these products , for is like soybeans and corn. [00:28:49] But as we think about the permanent crop markets of grapes, tree nuts, citrus, it's a little bit different as far as cycle and how you approach it. And so what we've seen through the data, these bio fertilizers is really trying to mitigate abiotic stresses. So what we're really mitigating is one, like you, you think about herbicide applications. You kind do a banded application near the tree trunk into about a third of the spray row. That herbicide usually hits that tree trunk. [00:29:14] There is a cause and effect on the grapevine itself. What if you could put a tool down that was sprayed on the same time to mitigate that stress or de-stress it from even how much time and pressure it's having? So. Our product is really one of those tools today that's really focused on mitigating biotic stresses. [00:29:30] Other things I can think about as a farmer is like salinity in the soil. The roots are pushing. You have water issues in California. We all talk about that. How do you mitigate the plant that still maximize the yield? So. Choosing the bio fertilizer today that's really focused on that, not just being a typical, you know, can 17 or un 30 twos based nitrogen based products. [00:29:51] This is something else to bring into the marketplace. They're kind of more niche based, depending on what you're dealing with. But there there's several out there. There's, seaweed extracts would be a big one, right? That people use a lot around farms. There's humic, andic acids, organic acids in general. So those are the kind of the buckets of items today that farmers are choosing for bio fertilizers. [00:30:14] Rob Blundell: Hmm. Yeah. And I can yeah, touch a little bit more on the, on the UBP illustrate product as well in terms of kind of how, how that really functions. And as Navar said, it's, you know, helping bounce back after, say, some herbicide damage, promoting that early season boost in biomass. [00:30:27] So, you know, a product like this, this UBP will basically kind of. Inducing cell division. So in you know, increasing mitochondrial activity, more cell division essentially leads to more chlorophyll, more photosynthesis graded by a mass production. And it's actually done by acidifying the cell wall. So we acidify a cell wall. You get more what we have these, there's proton pumps on these cell wall. [00:30:48] We're basically pumping in more protons, increasing the rate of that cell division. So we're basically yeah, boosting that in ocean season biomass. Therefore having that. You know, quicker resilience to say, you know, abiotic stresses like no said, whether it's salinity, salt, drought, water, things like that. [00:31:02] So yeah, numerous, numerous benefits of some of these fertilizers. [00:31:07] Craig Macmillan: Which actually talking about antibiotic stress, that it reminds me of something. I want to apply it to this, but I also want to go back. If you're using a live material, a bacillus or something, or if you have a, a bio fertilizer that may is are there living things in bio fertilizers. [00:31:22] Nevada Smith: There can be, [00:31:24] uh [00:31:24] Craig Macmillan: be. Okay. [00:31:25] Nevada Smith: We don't have anything in ours today, but I think there are, let's call the word impregnated Fertilizers. With living organisms. It could be trico, dermas, it could be other things, bacillus. And those are good, good tools to use. [00:31:39] The hard part is like, you know, now we start to open the can of worms around like compost tea, like what's in there. And I think that's the biggest challenge that growers, those things do work as a whole. But then you start to run into the quality assurance, quality control. And I think that's where companies invest in the bio pesticide industry are really trying to. Tell the story and not just be perceived as snake oils and saying, Hey, replicated work we measure to this level, like CFU content and here's what we expect results to be consistently. [00:32:08] And this is sort of the shelf life issues and we're kind of getting as a, you know, the world evolves. I think there's just this environmental things that people choose to do. And I think, you know, everything works. Just a question of how you integrate it into your own farming systems. [00:32:24] Craig Macmillan: So speaking of environmental factors and antibiotic stress one thing that's occurred to me is that if I have something that's that's out there, either that's living or maybe maybe a fragile compound, how do things like drought and heat affect these materials in the field? [00:32:38] Rob Blundell: Yeah. Yeah, very good question. I think historically that was always kind of. What people thought of the negative of biologicals were like, well, is only gonna work under certain conditions. You know, where, where have you tested it? So yeah, it's, it's a good question as well. [00:32:50] It's , case by case dependent you know, certain extremes and temperatures, various conditions as well are gonna have effects on, you know, the, the longevity of that. But we, you know, we try to test it under. There a variety of conditions. And then for particularly something you know, with our fungicides as well for, for the grape industry, you know, these new be tested on a variety of key varietals as well. [00:33:10] You know, it's, Hey, it might work for Chardonnay but not for Sauvignon Blanc. So that's important to evaluate as well, rather than just bring a product to market that like you, it's only gonna work on very certain aspects of a, of the single industry. [00:33:22] Craig Macmillan: So heat as an example, , you have a fair amount of confidence that I can apply something in the, in the heat if I have a hot, dry condition in the summer that it's not going to. Break down those materials that are there from the fermentation or kill the live organism. We, we think there's a fair amount of resilience here. [00:33:39] Rob Blundell: Yeah, again, definitely gonna be dependent on the, the type of microbe and the type of metabolite that it's producing. But you know, microbes in nature are exposed to these extreme conditions just naturally anyway, you know, so we have epi amplified slipping on the surface of products. So on the surface of. [00:33:54] Structures. So like a grapevine, like a leaf. They're obviously out there and exposed to the elements every single day. And then the soil is a, is a chaotic environment. There's a lot going on in the soil. So microbes are just, you know, extremely resilient in nature themselves. So there's gonna be a, again it's gonna vary depending on, you know, the microbe and, and the product we're using. [00:34:12] But there's good efficacy. [00:34:16] Craig Macmillan: What's the future? What is the future looking like for biological products, living or extra? [00:34:23] Nevada Smith: for the marketing hat on myself, not the farmer side. [00:34:27] It, I think everything's coming down to specialized sprays. And if I had to vision what the features look like to me, it's gonna be about. Seeing robots down the vineyard. They have 18 different things and their little mechanisms and there's, they're just, they're analogizing what's going on in that grape cluster itself. [00:34:44] They're spot spraying three or four things and they're going down the next level. That to me, is where we're gonna get down to the future, where the grapes themselves will naturally grow less chemicals to be used overall. [00:34:54] but if you need to go through and really take care of a problem, you're gonna go through and take care of a problem. And I think that's where it's become very exciting to me. You're gonna put less of a prophylactic spray across all systems, and you're kind of really create some microenvironments where you think that Vine number seven got sprayed a lot. Vine number 21 has not been sprayed all season. Wonder why? Let's go check it out. Let's understand and investigate. [00:35:18] The other big thing I think in grapes that's really interesting from exploratory research and development side for our company is like viruses. Viruses have not been addressed and it's becoming an issue. It's something I want to kind of explore and put on our docket of, you know, assessment stuff and how we can take new technologies to really improve virus transmissions. How do you mitigate once you have a virus? And it still produce that vine for another 10 plus years. So it gets quality and quantity out of it. Those are the kind of things interesting to me. [00:35:50] Craig Macmillan: Robert. [00:35:51] Rob Blundell: Yeah, definitely. Yeah, really good point, Sarah as well. And yeah, viruses in particular is, is something we see about in the grapevine industry. And yeah, often biological companies we're focused on, you know, the, the fungal issues, the bacteria, the, the nematodes. So that's, that's a huge area that really needs some more dedication. [00:36:06] So there's gonna be some great technologies available for that in the future. Yeah, I think to speak to no Nevada's points on kind of the future of it, I think like a really kind of custom tailored approach is gonna be available for those that want it. Particularly from the pathology side of my interest. [00:36:19] I think precision monitoring and detection of disease is just, I. Advancing leaps and bounds. So again, like, you know, going out there and doing scouting, hopefully people are gonna have a lot better tools available, available to 'em in the near future to really kind of understand crucial times in their season where disease is coming in. [00:36:36] And then again, like I. Just having better tools to kind of really actually di inform us of the pathogen as well that's present rather than just again, a lot of, a lot of diseases is hard to pinpoint to an exact pathogen. We're lucky in grapes, powerdy, mildew, and, botrytis are very obvious. We know what those are, we think are some of the row crops. [00:36:52] It could be a whole host of things. We've got nematodes, we've got various sore pathogens that we can't actually see. So I think yeah, improving disease diagnosis and detection, having these precision tools is gonna be a huge part of the future where biologicals can integrate themselves in as well. [00:37:07] Craig Macmillan: That sounds pretty exciting. I wanna thank you both for being on the program. This has been a really great conversation. My guests today we're Nevada Smith. He is the head of Marketing North America and Robert Blande, who's a research plant pathologist, both with Pro Farm Group. Thanks for being on the podcast. [00:37:22] Nevada Smith: Appreciate you. [00:37:23] Rob Blundell: Thank you very much, Craig. It was a pleasure. [00:37:25] Craig Macmillan: And to our listeners, thank you for listening to Sustainable Wine Growing Vineyard team. [00:37:29] Nevada Smith: Craig, one more thing. We gotta just drink more wine.  [00:37:40] Beth Vukmanic: Thank you for listening. [00:37:41] Today's podcast was brought to you by Vineyard Industry Products serving the needs of growers since 1979. Vineyard industry products believes that integrity is vital to building long-term customer, employee, and vendor relationships. And they work hard to provide quality products at the best prices they can find. Vineyard industry products gives back investing in both the community and the industry. [00:38:06] Make sure you check out the show notes for links to Pro Farm, an article titled, what are Bio Pesticides Plus Related Sustainable Wine Growing Podcast episodes. 117 Grapevine Mildew Control with UV Light 123. What's happening in biologicals for pest management and plant health? 266 Soft pesticide trial for powdery mildew, downy mildew, botrytis and sour rot, and a healthy soils playlist. [00:38:34] If you'd like the show, do us a big favor by sharing it with a friend, subscribing and leaving us a review. You can find all of the podcasts on vineyard team.org/podcast, and you can reach us at podcast@vineyardteam.org. Until next time, this is Sustainable Wine Growing with the Vineyard team.   Nearly perfect transcription by Descript

In this JCO PO Article Insights episode, host Harold Tan summarizes Low Kynurenine Levels Among Exceptional Responders on Phase Ib Trial of the HDAC Inhibitor Abexinostat with Pazopanib by Tsang et al, published November 07, 2024. Transcript Harold Nathan Tan: Welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights, where we explore cutting-edge discoveries in the world of cancer treatment and research. I'm Harold Nathan Tan, your host, and today we're taking a focused look at a compelling phase Ib trial led by Dr. Tsang, which investigates a combination of abexinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, with pazopanib, a VEGF-targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. VEGF inhibition has long been an established therapeutic strategy across a wide range of tumor types, including colorectal, ovarian, sarcoma, and renal cell carcinoma. These agents function by disrupting tumor angiogenesis, effectively limiting oxygen and nutrient delivery to malignant cells and contributing to improved survival outcomes. However, over time, acquired resistance remains a significant challenge. A key mechanism implicated in this resistance involves the upregulation of hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha, or HIF-1-alpha for short, a master regulator of angiogenesis that restores VEGF signaling under hypoxic conditions. Interestingly, HIF-1-alpha overexpression is mediated by histone deacetylases, especially HDAC2. Preclinical studies suggest that HDAC2 inhibition can suppress tumor cell migration and downregulate HIF-1-alpha activity, effectively disabling a critical escape pathway used by tumors under VEGF pressure. Moreover, combining HDAC inhibition with VEGF blockade has demonstrated synergy in pazopanib-resistant tumor models, forming a compelling rationale for this dual approach. The phase Ib trial by Tsang et al. was designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of this dual-targeted approach in patients with heavily pretreated advanced solid tumors. A dose-expansion cohort focused on individuals with renal cell carcinoma, allowing for more detailed evaluation in this population. A central component of this study was the incorporation of biomarker analysis, particularly regarding HDAC2 expression levels. The results were noteworthy. Patients with high HDAC2 expression achieved a progression-free survival of 7.7 months compared to only 3.5 months in those with low expression. Even more compelling, overall survival reached 32.3 months for those with a high HDAC2 expression versus just 9.2 months for those with low expression. This suggests the potential role for HDAC2 as a predictive biomarker for response to combination HDAC and VEGF-targeted therapy. The authors also explored the metabolic landscape of these patients, conducting metabolomic analysis focused on kynurenine, a key tryptophan catabolite known to contribute to the immune suppression in the tumor microenvironment. Its reduction is driven by HIF-1-alpha and inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha. What they found was striking. Exceptional responders, defined as patients with treatment responses lasting more than 3 years, had consistently lower levels of kynurenine both before and after treatment. This finding introduces kynurenine as a potential metabolic biomarker. It suggests that patients with lower kynurenine levels may have a less immunosuppressive microenvironment, making them more responsive to the combined effects of HDAC inhibition and VEGF blockade. Of note, VEGF levels themselves did not significantly differ between responders and nonresponders, highlighting that the treatment benefit is not purely VEGF-mediated but likely driven by epigenetic and metabolic modulation. On the safety front, the combination of abexinostat and pazopanib was generally well tolerated. However, this study did report a correlation between higher plasma concentrations of abexinostat and an increased incidence of thrombocytopenia, a class effect associated with HDAC inhibitors. This trial introduces several key considerations for future research. First, it calls for validation of HDAC2 as a predictive biomarker. If confirmed in larger cohorts, HDAC2 expression could be used to select patients most likely to benefit from HDAC inhibitor-based regimens, transforming how we approach trial enrollment and treatment planning. Second, the link between low kynurenine and exceptional response supports further investigation into how metabolic pathways can influence treatment response to combined HDAC and VEGF inhibition. Overall, HDAC inhibitors hold significant promise in precision oncology. Realizing their full therapeutic potential requires a deeper understanding of HDAC biology, refined combination strategies, and thorough preclinical and clinical evaluations tailored to individual patient profiles. This study exemplifies the potential of epigenetic-metabolic crosstalk as a therapeutic vulnerability and underscores the importance of precision stratification in clinical trial design. As research in this space progresses, the integration of molecular, epigenetic, and metabolic profiling will be essential in optimizing the use of HDAC inhibitors and expanding their role within precision oncology. Thank you for tuning into JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. Don't forget to subscribe and join us next time as we explore more groundbreaking research shaping the future of oncology. Until then, stay informed and stay inspired.   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. Nimish Mohile and Dr. Jaishri Blakeley share the new rapid recommendation update to the therapy for diffuse astrocytic and oligodendroglial tumors in adults guideline. They review the evidence from the INDIGO trial that prompted this update, and how to incorporate the use of vorasidenib into clinical practice. They discuss the importance of molecular testing, particularly for IDH1 or IDH2 mutations and outstanding questions for treatment of patients with oligodendrogliomas and astrocytomas. Read the latest update, “Therapy for Diffuse Astrocytic and Oligodendroglial Tumors in Adults: ASCO-SNO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update.” Transcript This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in Journal of Clinical Oncology.   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. Jaishri Blakeley from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Dr. Nimish Mohile from the Department of Neurology and Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester Medical Center, co-chairs on “Therapy for Diffuse Astrocytic and Oligodendroglial Tumors in Adults: American Society of Clinical Oncology-Society for Neuro-Oncology Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update.”  Thank you for being here today, Dr. Blakeley and Dr. Mohile.  Dr. Jaishri Blakeley: Thank you.  Dr. Nimish Mohile: Thank you for having us.  Brittany Harvey: And 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 guideline panel, including Dr. Blakeley and Dr. Mohile who have 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, to jump into the content here, Dr. Mohile, could you start us off by describing what prompted this rapid update to the ASCO-SNO therapy for diffuse astrocytic and oligodendroglial tumors in adults guideline, which was previously published in 2021?  Dr. Nimish Mohile: Yeah. So the key reason for this update is the publication of a study in 2023. And this was a study called the INDIGO study that looked at a new class of therapies, something called IDH inhibitors. And in this study with a drug called vorasidenib, changed how we think about the treatment of oligodendrogliomas and astrocytomas, so particularly the grade 2 oligodendrogliomas and grade 2 astrocytomas. Because of the results of that study, we decided that we needed to do an update to inform clinicians about some of these changes and how we might approach these tumors differently today.  Brittany Harvey: Great. I appreciate that background. So then, based off the new data from the INDIGO study, what are the updated and new recommendations from the expert panel?  Dr. Nimish Mohile: So the key findings from the INDIGO study involved people who had grade 2 astrocytomas and grade 2 oligodendrogliomas. And in the setting after surgery, they were treated with vorasidenib, and what they found is that this delayed the time to next intervention. And the key aspect of that is that it delayed when we could start radiation and chemotherapy in these patients.   So what we did in the guidelines is that for both low grade oligodendrogliomas and low grade astrocytomas, we added one additional guideline statement. Our previous guideline in 2021 offered the options for observation or treatment with radiation and chemotherapy. And now in this guideline, we have options for observation, treatment with vorasidenib in those in whom we feel it is safe to defer radiation and chemotherapy, and then treatment with radiation and chemotherapy. So we've added in an additional option here. And the key message of the guideline is really on how, as clinicians, we think about using the vorasidenib and what the ideal setting for using the vorasidenib is.  Brittany Harvey: Excellent. It's great to hear about this new option for patients. So then you were just talking about how we think about who to offer this IDH inhibitor to. So, Dr. Blakeley, what should clinicians know as they implement these new recommendations into practice?  Dr. Jaishri Blakeley: Yes. So, first and foremost, let's go back to 2021, and a key note from those guidelines was the importance of molecular testing. And at that point, the importance of molecular testing, which in large part was focused on IDH1 or IDH2 mutations, was prognostic. We could say there's a difference in an IDH1 mutant astrocytoma and an IDH1 wild type astrocytoma, but we didn't have a specific therapeutic recommendation attached to that, like Dr. Mohile just said. And the big shift here is now we have a specific therapeutic for that population with IDH1 or IDH2 mutant glioma.   So for clinicians, we hope that they've been getting molecular testing on newly diagnosed glioma already, but now there's an additional motivation to do so because it may change your treatment plan in the right circumstance. So since the publication of the phase III INDIGO study that Dr. Mohile mentioned, and the FDA approval of vorasidenib, if you meet the specified criteria in the clinical trial - which the guidelines point out is a little different than what's on the FDA label, so clinicians might want to dig into that a little bit - then there is a treatment option that is new and different than combined chemoradiation or radiation alone or observation.  Brittany Harvey: I appreciate those clarifications there.   So then also, Dr. Blakeley, how does this update impact patients with astrocytic or oligodendroglial tumors?  Dr. Jaishri Blakeley: So first, patients also should know if they have IDH mutant gliomas. And this update only applies to people with IDH1/2 mutant glioma. Perhaps, we're not sure, it might only apply to people who are in the newly or newly-ish diagnosed category because the INDIGO study required that people were within the first five years of their surgical diagnosis and had not had other treatment. So there are a lot of people who have astrocytoma or oligodendroglioma who may or may not know their IDH1/2 status and may have already had another therapy - this update doesn't apply to them. We hope that future research will teach us about that. This update is for people who are newly diagnosed and just starting the journey to figure out the best therapy. It does say that if you do have that IDH1/2 alteration in your tumor, there is a drug therapy that is different from the drug therapies we would offer gliomas that do not have the IDH1/2 mutation.  Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I think both that emphasis on molecular testing is very important and also thinking about that study inclusion criteria and how it impacts who's eligible for this treatment.   So then finally, Dr. Mohile, what are the outstanding questions about vorasidenib or other interventions for gliomas in adults?  Dr. Nimish Mohile: I think the key question for clinicians is exactly who we're going to use this in. The challenges with inclusion criteria in clinical trials is they don't actually always match what we're seeing in the clinic. And I think it brings up the question of, in low grade oligodendrogliomas which we think of as very slow growing tumors, do we have the option outside of the strict inclusion criteria to use that drug in other settings? I think it brings up the question for some clinicians in some of the higher grade tumors, in the grade 3 tumors, we don't yet have data in that area and our guideline doesn't address that. But I think some will be asking what the clinical activity of vorasidenib is in that setting. There are some suggestions that the IDH inhibitors may impact seizure control, and I think that that's data that we're continuing to wait on.   So I think that there's several outstanding questions there that we will have answers for hopefully in the next several years. I think the big question that we don't have an answer for and that will take a long time to know is whether the addition of vorasidenib in this setting actually improves how long people live. And given how long people with low grade oligodendrogliomas and low grade astrocytomas live today, we probably won't have an answer to that question for more than a decade.  Brittany Harvey: Definitely. We'll look forward to these ongoing developments and eventually longer term data on overall survival on these agents.   So, I want to thank you both so much for your work to rapidly include this information from this new trial. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Blakeley and Dr. Mohile.  Dr. Jaishri Blakeley: Thank you so much.  Dr. Nimish Mohile: Thank you Brittany.  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/neurooncology-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. 

In this JCO Article Insights episode, host Jospeh Mathew summaries Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Long-Term Outcomes of Adjuvant Therapy in the ESPAC4 Phase III Trial, by Palmer, et al published December 5, 2024. Transcript Joseph Matthew: Hello and welcome to the Journal of Clinical Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host, Joseph Matthew, and today we will be discussing the article "Long-Term Survival in Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma with Adjuvant Gemcitabine plus Capecitabine Compared to Modified FOLFIRINOX from the ESPAC-4 and the PRODIGE 24 Trials" by Dr. Palmer et al. To summarize the relevant evidence, the ESPAC-4 was a European phase 3 multicenter randomized clinical trial published in 2017 comparing adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine (GemCap) with gemcitabine monotherapy following macroscopic margin-negative resections for operable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The trial had included non-metastatic patients aged 18 years or older, World Health Organization (WHO) performance scores of 2 or less, creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min, and a life expectancy of over three months who had not received any prior anticancer treatment. Patients who had undergone R2 resections were selectively excluded. Eligible participants were randomized 1:1 within 12 weeks of pancreatectomy to one of the two treatment arms, with chemotherapy initiated within two weeks from the date of randomization. The regimens involved six cycles, each lasting four weeks, for an overall duration of 24 weeks. In the monotherapy arm, gemcitabine dosed at 1 g/m² was given as an intravenous infusion once a week for three weeks, followed by one week off. In the GemCap arm, capecitabine dosed at 1660 mg/m² was added to gemcitabine, given daily for three weeks, followed by one week off. Patients were followed up every three months, with the primary endpoint being overall survival (OS). The study showed that at a median follow-up of 43.2 months, GemCap was associated with a significantly longer OS than gemcitabine alone. Subsequently, in 2018, the Phase 3 randomized PRODIGE 24 trial was conducted in centers across France and Canada, comparing adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX) with gemcitabine in a similar subset of patients with resected PDAC and reported longer OS with the mFOLFIRINOX regimen. This study, however, had more restrictive eligibility criteria when compared to ESPAC-4, including patients aged under 80 years, WHO performance status of 0 or 1, with no significant cardiovascular disease, and a postoperative serum CA 19-9 of less than 180 U/mL. There was hence a subset of ESPAC-4 patients who did not meet the eligibility criteria for mFOLFIRINOX as set by the PRODIGE 24. The present study was conducted to estimate the overall 5-year survival rates for patients of ESPAC-4 receiving GemCap and gemcitabine, further stratifying survival in either arm according to the status of the surgical margins (R status) and the resected nodes (N status), and also to investigate whether GemCap retained a survival benefit over gemcitabine in PRODIGE 24-ineligible patients. A total of 732 patients, evenly distributed between both arms, were followed up for a median period of 104 months. Adjuvant GemCap was found to retain its survival advantage over gemcitabine, with a significantly longer median OS of 31.6 months when compared to 28.4 months with gemcitabine alone. Further subgroup analysis was performed with reference to the resection margins and the nodal status. As a reminder, in the ESPAC-4 trial, 60% of patients were found to have microscopically positive margins (an R1 resection), and 80% were node-positive. The difference in survival was greater in patients undergoing microscopic margin-negative resections (R0) who experienced a median OS of 49.9 months with GemCap when compared to 32.2 months with gemcitabine. Node-negative patients also had a significantly greater 5-year OS rate with GemCap of 59% versus 53% with gemcitabine monotherapy. However, it is important to note that no significant difference in survival outcomes was observed in margin-positive (R1) or node-positive patients in the two arms. The investigators also evaluated GemCap in the subgroup of 193 patients (comprising 26.4% of the ESPAC-4 cohort) who were not considered to have met the eligibility criteria for PRODIGE 24. The survival benefit of combination therapy was retained in this group, with patients receiving GemCap experiencing a median survival of 25.9 months compared to 20.7 months with adjuvant gemcitabine. Although cross-trial comparisons have limited validity, good agreement was noted in adverse grade 3 or greater toxicity associated with the control gemcitabine arms of ESPAC-4 and PRODIGE 24, serving as the basis for a qualitative comparison of toxicities between mFOLFIRINOX and GemCap. Neutropenia was more prevalent in the GemCap arm, affecting 40.8% of patients compared to 28.4% with mFOLFIRINOX. However, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was administered to 62.2% of patients in PRODIGE 24. Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) was also more prevalent with GemCap. Patients on mFOLFIRINOX were more likely to observe grade 3 or greater fatigue, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, sensory peripheral neuropathy, and paresthesias. The investigators concluded that GemCap was the standard adjuvant treatment for patients with PDAC undergoing an upfront resection who were not feasible for mFOLFIRINOX. Further exploratory analysis revealed that patients under the age of 70 who had undergone a microscopic margin-negative (R0) resection for node-negative PDAC were likely to derive an OS benefit from the addition of capecitabine to gemcitabine in the adjuvant setting. In contrast, mFOLFIRINOX would be more effective than gemcitabine in patients with positive margins (R1) or involved nodes, as per the PRODIGE 24 trial. Thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries, and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit 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.

Jamie Ku, MD joins to discuss the latest advancements in treating oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, including transoral robotic surgery, and her recent ASCO publication. The episode also explores Dr. Ku's VeloSano-funded research on improving outcomes for tongue cancer patients and reducing treatment burden for oral cancer patients.

Send us a textWelcome to The Oncology Journal Club Podcast Series 3Hosted by Professor Craig Underhill, Dr Kate Clarke & Professor Christopher Jackson | Proudly produced by The Oncology NetworkThe Oncology Journal Club team take a deep dive into three standout papers:Craig kicks us off with a timely perspective on the long-term toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors—are we ready to widen the lens? He highlights the need for more comprehensive research on survivorship issues including quality of life, financial impact and psychological outcomes.Kate brings us the exciting results from the INFINITY study on gastric and gastroesophageal cancers which shows impressive complete response rates in dMMR gastric cancers but at prohibitive costs — and poses a big question: are we ready to rethink treatment paradigms?And CJ unpacks the Common Sense Oncology principles for designing better phase 3 trials — Common Sense Oncology principles offer a patient-centred framework for designing and reporting clinical trials.Of course, we've also got our Quick Bites—those quirky, surprising papers that made us raise an eyebrow or two. From RNA vaccines in pancreatic cancer to updated ASCO guidelines for small cell lung cancer, it's a rapid-fire segment you won't want to miss.For links to the papers discussed and bios of our hosts, head to the show notes on oncologynetwork.com.au.Subscribe to The Oncology Newsletter for regular updates on the latest cancer research and join our community at oncologynetwork.com.au.The Oncology Podcast - An Australian Oncology Perspective

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology Art of Oncology article, "Writing a Medical Memoir: Lessons From a Long, Steep Road” by David Marks, consultant at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust. The article is followed by an interview with Marks and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Marks shares his challenging journey of writing a memoir describing his patients and career. Transcript Narrator: Writing a Medical Memoir: Lessons From a Long, Steep Road, by David Marks, PhD, MBBS, FRACP, FRCPath  The purpose of this essay is to take hematologist/oncologist readers of the Journal on my challenging journey of trying to write a memoir describing my patients and career. This piece is not just for those who might wish to write a book, it also can be generalized to other creative writing such as short stories or other narrative pieces intended for publication. My experience is that many of my colleagues have considered doing this but do not know where to start and that many embarking on this journey lack the self-confidence most writers require. I also describe other issues that unexpectably arose, particularly my struggle to get the book to its intended target audience, and of writing about myself in such a personal way. In my book of semifiction, I tell the stories of my patients with leukemia, but also describe what it is like to be a physician looking after young patients with curable but life-threatening diseases. I recount my medical career and working in the United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS), a very different health system to the one I experienced when I worked in Philadelphia during the early 1990s. Telling the stories of my patients with leukemia (and my story) was my main motivation but I also wanted to challenge my creative writing skills in a longer format. As a young person, I wrote essays and some poetry. As a hemato-oncologist, the major outputs of my writing have been over 300 scientific papers and a 230-page PhD thesis. The discipline required to write papers does help with writing a nonfiction book, and as with writing scientific papers, the first step is having a novel idea. I admired the work of Siddhartha Mukherjee (“The Emperor of all Maladies”) and Mikkael Sekeres (“When Blood Breaks Down”), but I wanted to write about my patients and their effect upon me from a more personal perspective. I obtained written consent from the patients I wrote about; nearly all of them were happy for me to use their first name; they trusted me to tell their stories. All of the patients' stories have a substantial basis in fact. I also wrote about colleagues and other people I encountered professionally, but those parts were semifiction. Names, places, times, and details of events were changed to preserve anonymity. For example, one subchapter titled “A tale of two managers” comprises events that relate to a number of interactions with NHS medical managers over 30 years. The managers I wrote about represent a combination of many people, but it would not have been possible to write this while still working at my hospital. I had wanted to write a book for years but like most transplanters never had the sustained free time to jot down more than a few ideas. In the second UK lockdown of 2020 when we were only allowed to go out to work and for an hour of exercise, we all had more time on our hands. A columnist in the Guardian said that people should have a “lockdown achievement”; this would be mine. This is how I went about it. I knew enough about writing to know that I could not just go and write a book. I considered a university writing degree, but they were all online: There was not the nourishment of meeting and interacting with fellow writers. I joined two virtual writing groups and got some private sessions with the group's leader. We had to write something every week, submitted on time, and open for discussion. In one writing group, there was a no negative criticism rule, which I found frustrating, as I knew my writing was not good enough and that I needed to improve. I had no shortage of ideas, stories to tell, and patients and anecdotes to write about. I have a pretty good memory for key conversations with patients but learned that I did not have to slavishly stick to what was said. I also wrote about myself: my emotions and the obstacles I encountered. To understand how I guided my patients' journeys, my readers would need to understand me and my background. I carried a notebook around and constantly wrote down ideas, interesting events, and phrases. Every chapter underwent several drafts and even then much was totally discarded. I was disciplined and tried to write something every day, realizing that if I did not make progress, I might give up. Most days the words flowed; refining and editing what I wrote was the difficult part. Very different to Graham Greene in Antibes. He would go to his local café, write 200-400 words, then stop work for the day and have his first glass of wine with lunch before an afternoon siesta. How would I tell the story? My story was chronological (in the main), but I felt no need for the patient stories to be strictly in time order. The stories had titles and I did not avoid spoilers. “Too late” is the story of a patient with acute promyelocytic leukemia who died before she could receive specialist medical attention. This had a devastating effect on the GP who saw her that morning. So, there were plenty of patient stories to tell, but I needed to learn the craft of writing. Visual description of scenes, plots, and giving hints of what is to come—I had to learn all these techniques. Everything I wrote was looked at at least once by my mentor and beta readers, but I also submitted my work for professional review by an experienced editor at Cornerstones. This person saw merit in my work but said that the stories about myself would only interest readers if I was “somebody like David Attenborough.” Other readers said the stories about me were the most interesting parts. So far, I have focused on the mechanics and logistics of writing, but there is more to it than that. My oncology colleague Sam Guglani, who has successfully published in the medical area, was very useful. I asked him how his second book was progressing. “Not very well.” “Why?” “It takes a lot of time and I'm not very confident.” Sam writes such lovely prose; Histories was positively reviewed yet even he still has self-doubt. Hematologists/oncologists, transplanters, and chimeric antigen receptor T cell physicians are often confident people. Most of the time we know what to do clinically, and when we give medical advice, we are secure in our knowledge. This is because we have undergone prolonged training in the areas we practice in and possess the scientific basis for our decisions. This is not the case when doctors take on creative writing. Few of us have training; it is out of our comfort zone. Nearly all new writers are insecure, in a constant state of worry that our outpourings are not “good enough,” that “nobody will like it.” Even high-quality memoirs may be hard to get published. I did not enter this thinking I would fail, and I have received feedback that I “can write.” But when you look at people who can really write, who have already been published, and earn a living from writing, you think that you will never be as good. Does this matter for a medical memoir? Yes, it does. I came to realize to improve it is important to surround yourself with people who read a lot and preferably with some who are well-regarded published writers. These people should offer unrestrained feedback, and you should take note. However, I learned you do not need to do everything they say—it is not like responding to the reviewers of scientific papers—your book should retain your individual stamp and cover what you think is important. I found there are risks in writing a memoir. Private matters become public knowledge to your family and friends. In a hospital you have lots of work relationships, not all of which are perfect. It can be a tense environment; you often have to keep quiet. Writing about them in a book, even if colleagues and events are disguised or anonymized, runs the risk of colleagues recognizing themselves and not being happy with how they are portrayed. Writing a book's first draft is hard; getting it to its final draft even harder but perhaps not harder than writing a major paper for JCO or Blood. (For me writing the discussion section of a paper was the most difficult task). However, finding an agent is perhaps the hardest of all. Every agent has their own laborious submission system. About a third of agents do not respond at all; they may not even read your book. Another third may send you a response (after up to 3 months) saying that the book is “not for me.” Three agents told me that their own experiences with cancer made it impossible for them to read the book while others said it was a worthwhile project but it was not their area of interest. That encouraged me. It required resilience to get Life Blood published. I did not have the skills to self-publish, but I found a publisher that would accept the book, provided I contributed to the costs of publishing. This was not easy either because my book did not have as much final editing as a conventional publisher provides. Getting the book to its target audience was another major challenge. A number of hematologic journals agreed to consider reviews of the book, and my colleagues were generous in offering to review it. However, I wanted my book to be read by people with cancer and their families: nearly all of us at some point in our lives. A digital marketing consultant helped me publicize the book on social media and construct a user-friendly Web site. I hope this reflection offers some encouragement for budding authors who are hematologists/oncologists. However, as all writers reading this will know, writing is a lonely pursuit; it is something you do on your own for long periods and you cannot be sure your work will ever see the light of day. One of the main ingredients is persistence; this is probably the main difference between people who finish books and those who do not. Of course there may be benefits to physicians from writing per se, even if it is never published, although most hematologists/oncologists I know are quite goal oriented. Was it all worthwhile? Yes, I think so. Writing about my career stirred up lots of memories and has been quite cathartic. Physicians often feel they have insufficient time to reflect on their practice. It made me reflect on my achievements and what I could have done better. Could I have worked harder for my patients (rarely) or thought of therapeutic interventions earlier (sometimes)? What about my professional relationships? In my efforts to do the best for my patients, was I sometimes too impatient (yes)? I hope the book inspires young people contemplating a career in hematology/oncology but also gives them a realistic idea of the commitment it requires; even relatively successful doctors encounter adversity. To all my hematologic/oncologic and transplant colleagues worldwide, if you think you have a book in you, find the time and the intellectual space, start writing but also get help. In telling the story of your patients you honor them; it is a very satisfying thing to do but there are risks. I have had lots of feedback from friends and colleagues, the great majority of it positive, but when my book was published, I prepared myself for more critical reviews. I learned a lot from writing Life Blood; at the end, I was a stronger, more secure writer and hematologist/oncologist, more confident that the story of my patients and career was worth telling and relevant to a wider audience. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Hello, and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the oncology field. I'm your host, Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. And what a pleasure it is today to be joined by Professor David Marks, a consultant at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust in the UK. In this episode, we will be discussing his Art of Oncology article, "Writing a Medical Memoir: Lessons from a Long, Steep Road." Our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. David, welcome to our podcast, and thanks so much for joining us. Professor David Marks: Thank you very much for inviting me. It's a real honor. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: David, I really enjoyed your piece. We've never had a "how to write a memoir" sort of piece in Art of Oncology, so it was a great opportunity. And, you know, I think 30 years ago, it was extraordinarily rare to have a doctor who also was a writer. It's become more common, and as we've grown, still among our elite core of doctor-writers, we've also birthed some folks who actually write in long form—actual books, like you did. Professor David Marks: I'd sort of become aware that I wasn't the only person doing this, that there were lots of people who liked creative writing, but they had difficulties sort of turning that into a product. This was the reason for sort of writing this. I'm hardly an expert; I've only written one book, but I sort of hope that my experiences might encourage others. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I think it's a terrific idea. And before we get started about the book, I, of course, know you because you and I run in some of the same academic circles, but I wonder if you could tell our listeners a little bit about yourself. Professor David Marks: So, I'm Australian. That's where I did my internal medical and hematology training in Melbourne. And then I did a PhD to do with acute lymphoblastic leukemia at the University of Melbourne. I then moved to London for three years to do some specialist training in bone marrow transplantation and some lab work, before spending three years in Philadelphia, where I did transplant, leukemia, and some more lab work. And then, mainly for family reasons, moved back to the UK to take up a post in Bristol. I have retired from patient-facing practice now, although I still give medical advice, and I'm doing some consulting for a CAR T-cell company based in LA. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Great. And can I ask you, what drew you to focus on treating people with leukemia and doing research in that area? Professor David Marks: I think leukemia is just such a compelling disease. From really the first patient I ever looked after, there was a person who is both life-threateningly ill, has had their life turned upside down. Yet, there is—increasingly now—there's an opportunity to cure them or, at the very least, prolong their life significantly. And also, its sort of proximity to scientific research—that was the attraction for me. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: There is something compelling about cancer stories in general. I think we talk about the privilege of doing what we do, and I think part of that is being invited into people's lives at probably one of the most dramatic moments of those lives. We're, of course, unwelcome visitors; nobody wants a diagnosis of cancer and having to have that initial conversation with an oncologist. But I wonder if, as doctors and as writers, we feel compelled to share that story and really celebrate what our patients are going through. Professor David Marks: So, that absolutely is one of my main motivations. I thought- there aren't, to my mind, all that many books out there that sort of try and tell things from both the patient with leukemia's point of view and the doctors looking after them. And I thought that their stories should be told. It's such a dramatic and frightening time, but I think the struggles that people go through in dealing with this—I think this is something I sort of felt people should have the opportunity to learn about. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah, we're really honoring our patients, aren't we? Professor David Marks: Absolutely. When you think of the patients you've looked after, their courage, their steadfastness in dealing with things, of just battling on when they're not well and they're scared of things like dying—you've just got to admire that. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah, yeah. David, you have a tremendous number of academic publications and have been transformative in how we treat people who have acute lymphoblastic leukemia. How did you first get into writing narrative medicine? Professor David Marks: Although I have written quite a lot scientifically, although that is incredibly different to creative writing, some of the same sort of care that one needs with a scientific paper, you do need for creative writing. I always liked English at school, and, you know, even as a teenager, I wrote some, you know, some poetry; it frankly wasn't very good, but I had a go. I came to a point where I wanted to write about my patients and a bit about my career. I had trouble finding the time; I had trouble finding the sort of intellectual space. But then COVID and lockdown occurred, and, you know, all of us had a lot more time; you know, we weren't even allowed to leave the house apart from working. So, at that point, I started writing. Prior to that, though, I had sort of kept a notebook, a quite big notebook, about stories I wanted to tell and events in my career and life that I wanted to tell. So there was something of a starting point there to go from. But when I first started writing, I realized that I just didn't know enough about writing. I needed to learn the craft of writing, and so I also joined a couple of writing groups. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: That's—I find that absolutely fascinating. I think there are a lot of people who want to write, and there are some who have the confidence to go ahead and start writing, right? Whether they know the craft or not. And there are others who pause and say, "Wait a second, I've done a lot of reading, I've done a lot of academic writing, but I'm not sure I know how to do this in a creative way." So, what was your first step? Professor David Marks: I had sort of notes on these stories I wanted to write, and I did just try and write the sort of two- to five-page story, but I then sort of realized that it was just—it just wasn't very good. And I needed to learn really all the basic things that writers need, like developing a plot, like giving hints of what's to come, using visual description. Those things are obviously completely different to scientific writing, and I—it was a bit like going back to school, really. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: And how did you even find writing groups that were at the right level for someone who was starting on this journey? Professor David Marks: So, I got a recommendation of a sort of local group in Bristol and a very established sort of mentor who has actually mentored me, Alison Powell. But it is difficult because some people on the group had written and published a couple of books; they were way ahead of me. And some people were just really starting out. But there were enough people at my level to give me sort of useful criticism and feedback. But yes, finding the right writing group where there's a free interchange of ideas—that is difficult. And, of course, my—what I was writing about was pretty much different to what everybody else was writing about. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: So, you joined a writing group that wasn't specific to people in healthcare? Professor David Marks: There was something at my hospital; it was a quite informal group that I joined, and that had a whole number of healthcare professionals, but that didn't keep going. So, I joined a group that was really a mixture of people writing memoirs and also some people writing fiction. And I actually found a lot of the things that people writing fiction write, I needed to learn. A lot of those skills still apply to a sort of non-fictional or semi-fiction book. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: You write in your Art of Oncology piece—I think a very insightful portion of it—where you're identifying people who can give you feedback about your writing, and you're looking for honest feedback. Because there are a lot of people where you might show them a piece and they say, "Gee, this is David Marks, I better say something nice. I mean, it's David Marks after all.” Right? So, you don't want that sort of obsequiousness when you're handing over a piece of writing because you need truth to be told if it's compelling or if it's not compelling. How did you identify the people who could give you that honest feedback, but also people you trust? Because there are also people who might read a piece and might be jealous and say, "Gee, David's already going on this journey, and I wish I had done this years ago," and they might not give you the right kind of feedback. Professor David Marks: Yeah, I mean, one of the writing groups I joined, there was a sort of "no criticism, no negative criticism" rule, and I did not find that to be useful because I knew my writing, frankly, wasn't good enough. So, funnily enough, my wife—she's very lucky—she has this reading group that she's had for 25 years, and these are—they're all women of her age, and they are just big, big readers. And those were my principal beta readers. And I sort of know them, and they knew that I wanted direction about, you know, what was working and what was not working. And so they were fairly honest. If they liked something, they said it. And if there was a chapter they just didn't think worked, they told me. And I was really very grateful for that. The other thing I did at a sort of critical moment in the book, when I just thought I was not on track, is I sent it to a professional editor at Cornerstones. And that person I'd never met, so they had no—you know, they didn't need to sort of please me. And that review was very helpful. I didn't agree with all of it, but it was incredibly useful. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: That's fascinating. So, I've submitted pieces in venues where people can post comments, and I always force myself to read the comments. And sometimes that hurts a little bit when you get some comments back and think, "Oh my word, I didn't mean that." Sometimes those comments illuminate things that you never intended for people to take away from the piece. And sometimes you get comments where people really like one aspect, and you didn't even know that would resonate with them. So, any comments you can think of that you got back where you thought, "Oh my word, I never intended that," or the opposite, where the comments were actually quite complimentary and you didn't anticipate it? Professor David Marks: I was reviewed by an independent reviewer for The Lancet Haematology. And you've read my book, so you sort of know that looking after people with leukemia, you do encounter quite a lot of people who die. And she sort of, almost as a criticism, said, "Professor David Marks seems to have encountered an extraordinary number of people who've died." And I thought—almost as a sort of criticism—and I thought, "I'm sort of sorry, but that's the area we occupy, unfortunately." There's lots of success, but there is, you know, sometimes we don't succeed. So I found that—I found that hard to read. But when you open yourself up as a writer, when you talk about your personal things, you've got to develop a bit of a thick skin. And I really haven't ego about my writing. I sort of still feel it's very much in its formative stages, so I'm quite open to criticism. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: And were there comments that you got that were—you were pleasantly surprised that people liked one aspect of the book, and you didn't know it would really hit with them that way? Professor David Marks: I think they particularly liked the patient stories. There's one thing in the book about a young woman who has this amazing experience of being rescued by CAR T-cell therapy. This young lady's still alive. And that very much sort of captured the imagination of the readers. They really identified her and wanted to sort of know about her and, you know, was she still okay and so on. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I remember there was a piece I wrote, and included a patient, and it was an entree to write about a medical topic, and my editor got back to me and said, "What happened to the patient?" Right? People get invested in this. We've done this our entire careers for, for decades for some people who've been in the field for that long, and you forget that it's still a diagnosis, a disease that most people don't encounter in their lives, and they get invested in the patients we describe and are rooting for them and hope that they do okay. Professor David Marks: Yeah, I found people got very involved with the patients, and I've had actually several sort of inquiries; they want to know if the patients are still okay. And I think that I can definitely understand that from a sort of human level. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: So, you wrote a memoir. How long did it take you? Professor David Marks: I suppose from the time I really started writing properly, I'd say about two and a half years. So, quite a long time. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Two and a half years. That can be daunting to some people. What advice would you give them if they're thinking about going down this path? Professor David Marks: I think it's a very rewarding thing to do. It is hard work, as you and I know, and it's sort of extra work. The only way to find out if you can do it is to try to do it. And try and find some time to do it, but get help. You know, seek the company of other people who are more experienced writers and sort of find a mentor. Somehow, you've got to, I guess, believe in yourself, really, and trust yourself that what you're writing about is worthwhile. And yeah, I don't know that I have specific advice for people about that aspect of things. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, I think that's a great place actually to end: to tell people to believe in themselves and trust in themselves. And I want to encourage everyone listening to this podcast to please check out Professor David Marks' book, Lifeblood: Tales of Leukemia Patients and Their Doctor. It's a terrific read. David, thank you so much for joining us today. Professor David Marks: Thanks very much, Mikkael. It's been a pleasure. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It's been delightful from my perspective. Until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of ASCO's shows at asco.org/podcasts. Until next time, thank you, everyone.   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.   Show Notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. ADD URLhttps://ascopubs.org/journal/jco/cancer-stories-podcast Guest Bio: Professor David Marks is a consultant at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust in the UK.   Additional Reading: Life Blood: Stories of Leukaemia Patients and Their Doctor, by David Marks

Dr. John Sweetenham, Dr. Larry Shulman, and Dr. Rebecca Maniago discuss the integration of clinical pathways and decision support tools into the cancer center workflow, challenges to implementation at the point of care, and the promise of AI to further unlock these tools for clinicians. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Over the last decade or so, there has been a great deal of work and a lot of discussion about the implementation of oncology clinical care pathways at the point of care, which are designed to reduce variability in care, reduce costs, and improve the quality of care and outcomes. Although clinical pathways aim to guide treatment decisions, current data suggests that the utilization of these pathways at the point of care is very low. There are many reasons for this, which we will get into on the episode today.   My guests today are Dr. Larry Shulman and Rebecca Maniago. Dr. Shulman is a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center. He's also the immediate past chair of the Commission on Cancer and serves on the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Rebecca Maniago is the director of clinical oncology at Flatiron Health, a technology platform that collects and analyzes real-world clinical data from electronic health records to facilitate decision making and research.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Larry and Rebecca, welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast and many thanks for being here.  Dr. Larry Shulman: Thank you, John.  Rebecca Maniago: Thank you for having me.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Larry, I'm going to start out, if I may, with a question for you. You and I, in a previous podcast, have discussed some of these issues regarding pathway implementation before. But to start out with, it's certainly, I think, helpful for the listeners to remind us all of what are the benefits of oncology clinical pathways and why are we still talking about this 10 years or more on.  Dr. Larry Shulman: Yeah, and that's a great question, John. I think the good news is, and all of us who live in the oncology sphere know this, that there's been tremendous progress in cancer therapies over the last decade. But what that has entailed is the introduction of many new therapies. Their complexity is becoming really very tough for people to manage.  And so what we have are oncologists who are really trying to do their best to deliver care to patients that will give them the best chance for survival and quality of life. But it's really, really hard to keep up with everything that's happening in oncology in the context of what we all know is a very busy clinic schedule. Lots of patients coming through and decisions need to be made quickly. Pathways really could help us to guide us into recommending and delivering the best therapies for our patients for a particular disease. You know, cancer is complicated. There are many different types and there are many different therapies. It's just a lot to deal with without some assistance from pathways or pathway tools.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. So, knowing that's the case and knowing that these tools reduce variability, improve costs, improve quality of care as well. Starting with you again, Larry, if I may, why do you think it's been so difficult for so many oncologists to use these pathways effectively at the point of care?  Dr. Larry Shulman: So, I just wanted to step back a little bit. There are very extensive guidelines that tell us what the best therapies are for really all of the cancers. These guidelines come from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network or NCCN and the American Society of Clinical Oncology or ASCO and other professional organizations. And they're there. They're there, in free information off their websites.  But the problem is how to translate those pretty dense documents into something that will work in the clinic for a patient, for the physician who's working in the electronic health record. And the tools that are available, and there are a number of tools that can integrate with electronic health records, are expensive. You need to purchase them from the vendor and there are yearly fees.  And they're also difficult to implement. You need to work with the vendor to integrate them into your own rendition of your electronic health record. And there's a lot of customization that needs to be done. So, it's a financial challenge and it's also a time challenge for people to integrate these tools into their workflow, into their electronic health records.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. So speaking from my own past experience of pathway implementation, it certainly has been a major challenge for the reasons that you mentioned and also because of the, I think resistance may or may not be too strong a word, of many of the clinicians to use these for a number of reasons, part of which are the time it takes, part of which many of them feel that the pathways aren't really changing decisions that they might make anyway. So, you know, the uptake of pathway utilization, even in those centers which have been successful in getting something installed and plugged into their EHR, on the whole, hasn't been as good as it could have been. So maybe I'll turn to you, Rebecca, because I know that this is something that you've worked on a lot.  And it's a kind of double-barreled question. I think the first part of it is, you know, what do you think are the major roadblocks to high physician uptake in the use of these pathways platforms? And maybe you could talk a little bit about what the various software platforms do to make them more physician-friendly and to enhance utilization right on the front line.  Dr. Rebecca Maniago: Yeah, that's a great question. And so, you know, I've worked with a number of customers and physicians over the past five and a half years on implementing these pathways. And the number one pushback is really about the time it takes in the workflow. So, if I had a dollar for every time I heard “every click counts,” I'd be a rich person and it does come down to clicks. And so, you know, as a software vendor, we really have to focus on how do we reduce that friction?  How do we make sure that the clicks we are asking for are the ones that actually matter? And how do we continue to streamline that process? And so, you know, while there is a fine balance, because as part of a Pathways platform, at the end of the day, we do need to understand some data about that patient. You need to understand the clinical scenario so you can surface the right treatment recommendation, which means there is some amount of data capture that has to happen. In some circumstances, you know, we can pull some of that data in from the EHR.  But unfortunately, the reality is that a lot of that data is messy and it's sort of stuck in documents and unstructured places. And so it doesn't easily flow in, which means we rely on the provider to give us that information. And oftentimes they've already entered it other places. So what's more frustrating than entering data twice? But, you know, I do see a great opportunity here. And this is certainly where software companies are focused is with AI.  So, know, for, especially for this data aggregation, a lot of these AI tools can actually scan through the chart instead of relying on the physician to sort of manually skim through and aggregate and find all that pertinent information. That's what AI is really good at. And almost instantaneously, it can find the messy data that lives in those unstructured documents. And wouldn't it be nice if that was automatically populated within these applications so that really all we're asking of the clinician is to validate that that information is accurate. And then choose the treatment that cuts down on the number of clicks, it cuts down on frustration. You know, again, the physician will be the one that needs to make that decision. AI is not there to replace that, but it certainly has a great opportunity to reduce some of this manual documentation and the things that physicians find the most frustrating, especially as it relates to using these pathways tools.  Dr. John Sweetenham: One of the pretty common pushbacks that I heard during my time in a couple of institutions was, “Well, you know, I'm sitting here at the point of care with my patients and I already know what I want to do and how I'm going to treat that patient if it's not in the context of a clinical trial. So I don't need to go through, you know, X number of clicks to get me to where I know I'm going to be anyway.”  Does either of you have any thoughts about that? I think you've sort of partially answered it, but what do you think, Rebecca? Do you think that this is something that is more easily overcome-able, if that's even a word, than it was a few years back?  Rebecca Maniago: Yeah, I do. And I think this is where the customization comes into play. So while they may know what an appropriate treatment for their patient is, there are more options now than ever, which means at a local level, there may be multiple options that are clinically equivalent. And so when you think about things like payer pathways or drug margins as an organization, they have to drive some of that from within. But having the capability to do so can then start to sort of sell the value to the provider that, yes, you may know what you want to order for your patient, but would you consider something else if it was clinically equivalent, but it had other benefits to either the patient or the organization?  Dr. Larry Shulman: The other thing I would add to that, John, if I can jump in here is that the data is the data and the data shows us that guideline concordant care is not always prescribed to the US. And in fact, in some circumstances, the gaps between what should be prescribed and what is being prescribed are quite wide. So, you know, people feel like they're always doing the best job and making the best recommendations. And I think, you know, I think I am. But, you know, like many of my colleagues at academic cancer centers, I'm highly specialized. I only see patients with breast cancer. But many oncologists throughout the country are more generalists. They're seeing patients with multiple diseases. And it's harder for them to be completely on top of what the current recommendations are in any particular circumstance. Our diseases are complicated. They're getting more complicated all the time with molecular and genomic testing and subcategorizations of different cancers. So, I don't think that we can be too cocky about it, quite frankly. I think we ought to use technology that Rebecca describes for the tools and for AI to really help us. I think if we turn our backs on that, I think we're making a big mistake. You just got to look at the data. The data is pretty convincing.  Dr. John Sweetenham: You know ever since we started looking seriously at decision support through pathways a number of years ago, the word has always been around the payers role in this and the day will come where we are going to get reimbursed based on pathway and concordance and I'm not sure that that day has arrived. So I have a question for both of you in this regard actually. And the first of those is maybe I'll start with you for this part of it, Larry. Where do you think we are in that regard? And are you hearing more and more of payers starting to look at pathway compliance? And then on the other end of that, and maybe I'll ask Rebecca about this, is one of the other pushback issues that I used to experience from physicians I worked with was they may go through the pathways platform and come up with a treatment recommendation. The best example of this I can think might be that the recommendation might be a biosimilar. Let's just use that as an example. But the next stage in the process would be to find out whether the patient's insurance would actually cover that particular biosimilar, which opened up a whole new can of worms. So there are two kinds of payer aspects of that. Maybe Larry, I'll ask you to start off by talking about that kind of coverage issue. And then I'll ask Rebecca, if you have any thoughts about the flow the other way in terms of getting drugs approved and what we can do to help from an insurance perspective.  Dr. Larry Shulman: Sure, that's really an important point, John. Our current state of affairs with the payers and their attempt to be sure that we're providing responsible, guideline concordant care is the use of prior authorization processes, which are incredibly costly, both for the oncology practices and for the payers.  They have an army of nurses sitting at the phone talking to us in the oncology practices to decide whether they're going to pay for something. And frankly, generally, the payers will pay for things that are part of either the NCCN or ASCO or other professional organizations' guidelines. But you need to prove to them over the phone that in fact the patient qualifies for that.  We have actually had some experiments with some of the payers to prove that to them in different ways by auto transmission of data. And this would be a big savings for them and for us, it would take away some of the delays in therapy while we're waiting for prior authorizations to go through. And we shouldn't have to do this by phone.   The EHR and the pathway tools should aggregate the data, aggregate the potential treatment and be able to transmit those data to the payer. And if in fact it meets the appropriate criteria for guideline concordant care would be approved. Right now, it's a terrible, costly, timely manual process that they should be able to fix.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. And have you, you know, from a broader perspective, so not thinking necessarily about individual patients and specific issues around prior authorization, have you seen any movement among the payers to kind of get more aggressive about this and say, okay, you know, we are going to want to see your numbers, we want to know how many of your physicians are now using their pathways platform and so on. Are you seeing any word that that might be happening? Because certainly a few years back, that was the word on the street, as it were, that this day was coming.  Dr. Lawrence Shulman: And that's the proposal that we've made to several of our payers. Let us give you the aggregate data. If our guideline concordance is above a certain level, give us a gold card, give us a pass, and we won't need to do pre-authorizations. We've actually done that at my institution in radiology. Aggregate data gives individual physicians that pass if their guideline concordance was appropriate. I got to pass. So I don't need to go through those radiology pre-authorizations for my patients. And I think we can do the same thing with therapeutics. It's been a little bit more cumbersome to do it, and there's some detailed reasons why that is. But that's really what they want to know. And the payers want to know that patients are getting guideline concordant care, but they also realize it's not going be 100%. There are always a few outlier patients who require some variation from the guidelines. But if we get above 80% guideline concordant care, I think many of the payers would be happy to accept that as long as we continue to feed them the data. And that's the case in our radiology process with one of the payers is, you know, I get a gold card, but they continue to look at my data. And if I don't continue to perform well, they'll take that away.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. And Rebecca, just returning to you, this issue of prior authorization and facilitating life for the physician at the point of care in terms of knowing, you know, which specific treatment might be covered for a patient. Do you have any thoughts or maybe you could give us some insights on what software vendors are doing to facilitate that part of the process, the communication back to the payers to take some of that burden off the physician and the physician staff?  Rebecca Maniago: Yeah, absolutely. And this is a problem we've been trying to tackle for years. And it's not easy. We've tackled it in a couple ways. So first, we try to sort of link up to the payer portal where the information that was being attested to within the application could then be automatically sent. Because at the end of the day, the data points that are being collected to surface treatment recommendations ultimately are the same data points that the payer wants.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of data interoperability challenges within that space. So that was not something that was going to be sustainable. However, in current state, because as I mentioned, the customization is key for these products, focusing more on how can we allow practices to embed payer pathways within the application. So again, you kind of start with the backbone of your standard guidelines but then having the capability of adding in a payer pathway that will only show up as that preferred option for a patient who has that insurance, at least at the point of care, the provider sees what the insurer would then approve. So while it's not automatically assuring authorization, we are at least steering the decision in a direction where we think most likely this is going to be approved based upon the pathway that they have access to. So that sort of current state, I agree. We've been talking about this idea of gold carding for years.  Presumably the data is there today, right? Like we are able to capture structured data with every order placed to recognize concordance to Larry's point. All those reports are available to provide to payers. I just haven't seen a lot of practices have a lot of success when they tackle it on their own from that direction.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Right, thanks. Larry, you and I were at the NCCN annual meeting recently and I know that you've been quite heavily involved in the policy program and in the policy forums and so on at NCCN. Are you able to share anything from this year's meeting in terms of care pathways implementation and what you think might happen next in that regard?  Dr. Larry Shulman: NCCN, in my own opinion, has really led the way in defining what guideline concordant care is through their guidelines, which are very extensive, covering basically every cancer and every situation with every cancer. And it's really an astounding amount of amazing work that all of us use and the payers largely use as well. But they've increasingly understood that there's a gap between their guidelines and the implementation of their guidelines. And they are working on some things. They are working on the digitalization of their guidelines to make them more accessible, but also thinking about ways that they may, in fact, fit into the work processes that all of us have when we go to clinic.  They're acutely aware that the country is not where it needs to be in regard to a translation, if you will, of their guidelines in the practice. And I think we're all thinking really hard about whether there are things that we can team up to do, if you will, to try to close those gaps.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Great, thank you. Just switching gears a little bit back to you, if I can, Rebecca. I think you've said a little bit about this already. What do you think are the next steps that we need to take to more effectively implement these tools in the clinic? I think we've discussed a little bit some of the roadblocks to that. But where do you think we need to go next in terms of getting better use of these pathways?  Rebecca Maniago: Yeah, I will say one thing that we haven't really touched on is the pharmacy team. So the biggest blocker that I see is actually the pre-implementation. So there's a lot of focus on how do we get physicians to use this? How do we increase adoption? But often the first barrier is the regimen library. So no matter what the pathways platform is, the backbone of it will be those regimens. And so, really helping organizations and we partner with pharmacies, they're doing all the backend configuration. And so how can we make that piece of the technology easier for them to implement because that's really the lead up and there's a ton of cleanup and maintenance. You know, as a pharmacist, I empathize, but really that's where it all begins. And so I think, you know, continuing to focus on not only the front end user and the physician, but everybody that's going to be involved in order to make a pathway program successful needs to be, you know, at the table in the beginning, helping set up those processes and, and buying into the why this is important.  Dr. John Sweetenham: That's a great point.  Dr. Larry Shulman: So could I just jump in one quickly here, John? So pathways, as we've discussed, the tools are expensive. There is a person cost, as Rebecca is just describing, about customization and implementation. But there are very good data in the literature to show that when you follow pathways, care is less costly. Survival is better, which is obviously our primary goal, but also cost is less. And the payers can benefit from that. And the question is, can they figure out ways to use that to help to fund the purchase and maintenance of pathway products that will give their patients better care, but also less costly care? And so I think that is a potential solution. I've had that conversation with some payers as well. And it would be great to see that happen. I think that would be a huge step.  Rebecca Maniago: Yeah, we have some, if they're able to set it up in the right way and really optimize, you know, from the pharmacy perspective, we have practices who the application is more than, you know, paying for itself just by way of using it to the fullest potential that it has.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, that's a really great point. A couple of other more general questions. I'm going to start with you, Rebecca, and Larry ask you to respond as well. Are you hearing anything from patients around this issue? Are they aware or becoming more aware that pathways are being used in the clinic when they're seen by their physicians? And do they have a say, are there patient advocates involved in this part of the process? Rebecca, maybe you could start.  Rebecca Maniago: I haven't had as much exposure to that side of it. So, you know, I would love to hear what Larry thinks because most of my exposure is at the physician level, which of course they are the ones who are making the decision with the patient. So my assumption is that there is at least some level of understanding that there are options and that, you know, together let's decide on the best one for you. But again, I would love to hear what Larry has to say.  Dr. Larry Shulman: Yeah, so that's a really interesting question. I actually was discussing that at the cancer center last week, particularly around the utilization of AI in this process. And, you know, right now, as you know, if you submit a journal article or, you know, many other things, ask you whether you used AI to generate it. If in fact we use tools that include AI, we're not.  Are we obligated to tell the patient that you're making this recommendation together with computer assist, if you will, that helps you to make the recommendation you are making to them? Ultimately, I think it's the physician who's responsible for the choice, but should we disclose it? I have to tell you personally, I haven't thought about doing that. But I think it's a really, really good question is whether we should upfront tell the patients that we've had assistance in making the recommendations that we have.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Right, very interesting point. To close it out, one more question for both of you and again, it's the same one. Rebecca, to start with, we've all been, as I said right up front, talking and, you know, working on this issue for more than 10 years now. In 10 years from now, how would you like it to look and how do you think it might look?  Rebecca Maniago: Great question. I think we may get to where I would like to see it quicker than 10 years. I think AI provides a lot of opportunity and excitement. I'd love to turn a corner where physicians no longer see tools like this as a hindrance, rather they rely on them, they trust them, they help them get through their day. They continue to improve quality of care and reduce costs and patient burden. Obviously, that's the pipe dream, but I think we may get there before 10 years, given what I think AI is going to enable.  Dr. Larry Shulman: Yeah, I want to add to Rebecca's comments. One of the things that I worry about, and ASCO worries about a lot, is the oncology workforce, which is progressively strained in their attempts to care for all the cancer patients in the US. And for all of us who practice oncology, for many reasons, it's become more and more inefficient, whether it's use of the EHR, pre-authorization work, and so on.  And we really need to turn that around. We need to make practice not only better, which I think these tools can do, including AI, as Rebecca says, but make it much more efficient because that's going to allow us to both deliver more high-quality care to our patients, but also to care for more patients and have them benefit from our expertise and what we have to offer. So I think this is really an obligation on our part. I think it's an imperative that we move in this direction for both quality reasons and efficiency reasons.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. Well, I've really enjoyed the conversation today and I think, you know, it's been great to think about some of the challenges that we still have in this regard. But it's also great to hear what I'm sensing is quite a lot of optimism about how things may play out over the next few years. And it does sound as if there's a lot of hard work going on to bring us to a point where the clinical decision support tools are going to truly support what our oncologists are doing and no longer be seen as an obstruction. So, I want to thank you both for sharing your insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast.  Dr. Larry Shulman: Thank you so much, John.  Rebecca Maniago: Thank you so much.  Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. 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.   Find out more about today's speakers:  Dr. John Sweetenham  Dr. Lawrence Shulman  Rebecca Maniago  Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  @ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn        Disclosures:  Dr. John Sweetenham:  No relationships to disclose    Dr. Lawrence Shulman:  Consulting or Advisory Role: Genetech     Rebecca Maniago:   No relationships to disclose.     

JCO PO author Dr. Timothy Showalter at Artera and University of Virginia shares insights into his JCO PO article, “Digital Pathology–Based Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Scores and Outcomes in a Randomized Phase III Trial in Men With Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer” . Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Showalter discuss how multimodal AI as a prognostic marker in nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer may serve as a predictive biomarker with high-risk patients deriving the greatest benefit from treatment with apalutamide. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations where we'll bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, podcast Editor for JCO Precision Oncology and assistant professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma. Today, we are excited to be joined by Dr. Timothy Showalter, Chief Medical Officer at Artera and professor of Radiation Oncology at the University of Virginia and author of the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled, “Digital Pathology Based Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Scores and Outcomes in a Randomized Phase 3 Trial in Men with Non-Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer.” At the time of this recording, our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Dr. Showalter, it's a pleasure to have you here today. Dr. Timothy Showalter: It's a pleasure to be here. Thanks for having me. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I think this is going to be a very interesting discussion, not just from a biomarker perspective, but also in terms of how technologies have evolved and how we are trying to stratify patients, trying to escalate or deescalate treatments based on biomarkers. And this article is a good example of that. One of the things I do want to highlight as part of this article is that Dr. Felix Feng is the first author for this article. Unfortunately, Dr. Felix Feng passed away in December of 2024. He was a luminary in this field of prostate cancer research. He was also the Chair of the NRG GU Committee as well as Board of Directors for RTOG Foundation and has mentored a lot of individuals from what I have heard. I didn't know Dr. Feng but heard a lot about him from my GU colleagues. It's a huge loss for the community, but it was an interesting surprise for me when I saw his name on this article as I was reviewing it. Could you briefly talk about Dr. Feng for a minute and how you knew him and how he's been an asset to the field? Dr. Timothy Showalter: Yeah. I'm always happy to talk about Felix whenever there's an opportunity. You know, I was fortunate to know Felix Feng for about 20 years as we met during our residency programs through a career development workshop that we both attended and stayed close ever since. And you know, he's someone who made an impact on hundreds of lives of cancer researchers and other radiation oncologists and physicians in addition to the cancer patients he helped, either through direct clinical care or through his innovation. For this project in particular, I first became involved soon after Felix had co-founded Artera, which is, you know the company that developed this. And because Felix was such a prolific researcher, he was actually involved in this and this research project from all different angles, both from the multimodal digital pathology tool to the trial itself and being part of moving the field forward in that way. It's really great to be able to sort of celebrate a great example of Felix's legacy, which is team science, and really moving the field forward in terms of translational projects based on clinical trials. So, it's a great opportunity to highlight some of his work and I'm really happy to talk about it with you. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thanks, Tim. Definitely a huge loss for the scientific community. And I did see a while back that there was an international symposium organized, showcasing his work for him to talk about his journey last year where more than 200, 250 people from around the globe actually attended that. That speaks volumes to the kind of impact he's had as an individual and impact he's had on the scientific side of things as well. Dr. Timothy Showalter: Yes. And we just had the second annual Feng Symposium the day before ASCO GU this year with, again, a great turnout and some great science highlighted, as well as a real focus on mentorship and team science and collaboration. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much for telling us all about that. Now going to what you guys published in JCO Precision Oncology, which is this article on using a biomarker approach to stratify non-metastatic prostate cancer using this artificial intelligence based H&E score. Could you tell us the background for what started off this project? And I see there is a clinical trial data set that you guys have used, but there's probably some background to how this score or how this technology came into being. So, could you superficially give us an idea of how that started? Dr. Timothy Showalter: Sure. So, the multimodal AI score was first published in a peer reviewed journal back in 2022 and the test was originally developed through a collaboration with the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group or Energy Oncology Prostate Cancer Research Team. The original publication describes development and validation of a risk stratification tool designed to predict distant metastasis and prostate cancer specific mortality for men with localized prostate cancer. And the first validation was in men who were treated with definitive radiation therapy. There have been subsequent publications in that context and there's a set of algorithms that have been validated in localized prostate cancer and there's a test that's listed on NCCN guidelines based on that technology. The genesis for this paper was really looking at extending that risk stratification tool that was developed in localized prostate cancer to see if it could one, validate in a non-metastatic castrate refractory prostate cancer population for patients enrolled on the SPARTAN trial. And two, whether there was a potential role for the test output in terms of predicting benefit from apalutamide for patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer. For patients who are enrolled on the SPARTAN study, almost 40% of them had H&E stain biopsy slide material available and were eligible to be included in this study. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Going a step back to how prostate cancer, perhaps on the diagnostic side using the pathology images is different as you guys have Gleason scoring, which to the best of my knowledge is not necessarily something that most other tumor types use. Maybe Ki-67 is somewhat of a comparison in some of the neuroendocrine cancers where high Ki-67 correlates with aggressive biology for prognosis. And similarly high Gleason scores, as we know for some of the trainees, correlates with poor prognosis. So, was the idea behind this based on trying to stratify or sub-stratify Gleason scoring further, where you may not necessarily know what to do with the intermediate high Gleason score individual tumor tissues? Dr. Timothy Showalter: Well, yeah. I mean, Gleason score is a really powerful risk stratification tool. As you know, our clinical risk groupings are really anchored to Gleason scores as an important driver for that. And while that's a powerful tool, I think, you know, some of the original recognition for applying computer vision AI into this context is that there are likely many other features located in the morphology that can be used to build a prognostic model. Going back to the genesis of the discovery project for the multimodal AI model, I think Felix Feng would have described it as doing with digital pathology and computer vision AI what can otherwise be done with gene expression testing. You know, he would have approached it from a genomic perspective. That's what the idea was. So, it's along the line of what you're saying, which is to think about assigning a stronger Gleason score. But I think really more broadly, the motivation was to come up with an advanced complementary risk stratification tool that can be used in conjunction with clinical risk factors to help make better therapy recommendations potentially. So that was the motivation behind it. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Sure. And one of the, I think, other important teaching points we try to think about, trainees of course, who are listening to this podcast, is trying to differentiate between prognostic and predictive scores. So, highlighting the results that you guys show in relation to the MMAI score, the digital pathology score, and outcomes as far as survival as well as outcomes in general, could you try to help the listeners understand the difference between the prognostic aspect of this test and the predictive aspect of this test? Dr. Timothy Showalter: So let me recap for the listeners what we found in the study and how it kind of fits into the prognostic and the predictive insights. So, one, you know, as I mentioned before, this is ultimately a model that was developed and validated for localized prostate cancer for risk stratification. So, first, the team looked at whether that same tool developed in localized prostate cancer serves as a prognostic tool in non-metastatic castrate-refractory prostate cancer. So, we applied the tool as it was previously developed and identified that about 2/3 of patients on the SPARTAN trial that had specimens available for analysis qualified as high risk and 1/3 of patients as either intermediate or low risk, which we called in the paper ‘non-high risk'. And we're able to show that the multimodal AI score, which ranges from 0 to 1, and risk group, was associated with metastasis free survival time to second progression or PFS 2 and overall survival. And so that shows that it performs as a prognostic tool in this setting. And this paper was the first validation of this tool in non-metastatic castrate-refractory prostate cancer. So, what that means to trainees is basically it helps you understand how aggressive that cancer is or better stratify the risk of progression over time. So that's the prognostic performance. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for trying to explain that. It's always useful to get an example and understand the difference between prognostic and predictive. Now again, going back to the technology, which obviously is way more complicated than the four letter word MMAI, I per se haven't necessarily done research in this space, but I've collaborated with some individuals who've done digital pathology assessments, and one of the projects we worked on was TIL estimation and immune checkpoint related adverse events using some correlation and something that one of my collaborators had sent to me when we were working on this project as part of this H&E slide digitalization, you need color deconvolution, you need segmentation cell profiling. Superficially, is that something that was done as part of development of this MMAI score as well? Dr. Timothy Showalter You need a ground truth, right? So, you need to train your model to predict whatever the outcome is. You know, if you're designing an AI algorithm for Ki-67 or something I think you mentioned before, you would need to have a set of Ki-67 scores and train your models to create those scores. In this case, the clinical annotation for how we develop the multimodal AI algorithm is the clinical endpoints. So going back to how this tool was developed, the computer vision AI model is interpreting a set of features on the scan and what it's trying to do is identify high risk features and make a map that would ultimately predict clinical outcomes. So, it's a little bit different than the many digital pathology algorithms where the AI is being trained to predict a particular morphological finding. In this case, the ground truth that the model is trained to predict is the clinical outcome. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Sure. And from what you explained earlier, obviously, tumors that had a high MMAI score were the ones that were benefiting the most from the ADT plus the applausive. Is this specific for this androgen receptor inhibitor or is it interchangeable with other inhibitors that are currently approved? Dr. Timothy Showalter: That's a great question and we don't know yet. So, as you're alluding to, we did find that the MMAI risk score was predictive for benefit from apalutamide and so it met the statistical definition of having a significant interaction p value so we can call it a predictive performance. And so far, we've only looked in this population for apalutamide. I think you're raising a really interesting point, which is the next question is, is this generalizable to other androgen receptor inhibitors? There will be future research looking at that, but I think it's too early to say. Just for summary, I think I mentioned before, there are about 40% of patients enrolled on the SPARTAN study had specimens available for inclusion in this analysis. So, the SPARTAN study did show in the entire clinical trial set that patients with non-metastatic castrate-refractory prostate cancer benefited from apalutamide. The current study did show that there seems to be a larger magnitude of benefit for those patients who are multimodal AI high risk scores. And I think that's very interesting research and suggests that there's some interaction there. But I certainly would want to emphasize that we have not shown that patients with intermediate or low risk don't benefit from apalutamide. I think we can say that the original study showed that that trial showed a benefit and that we've got this interesting story with multimodal AI as well. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Sure. And I think from a similar comparison, ctDNA where ctDNA shows prognostic aspects, I treat people with lung cancer especially, and if you're ctDNA positive at a 3 to 4-month period, likely chances of you having a shorter disease-free interval is higher. Same thing I think for colorectal cancers. And now there are studies that are using ctDNA as an integral biomarker to stratify patients positive/negative and then decide on escalation/de-escalation of treatment. So, using a similar approach, is there something that is being done in the context of the H&E based stratification to de-intensify or intensify treatments based on this approach? Dr. Timothy Showalter: You're hitting right on the point in the most promising direction. You know, as we pointed out in the manuscript, one of the most exciting areas as a next step for this is to use a tool like this for stratification for prospective trials. The multimodal AI test is not being used currently in clinical trials of non-metastatic castrate-refractory prostate cancer, which is a disease setting for this paper. There are other trials that are in development or currently accruing where multimodal AI stratification approach is being taken, where you see among the high-risk scores, at least in the postoperative setting for a clinical trial that's open right now, high risk score patients are being randomized to basically a treatment intensification question. And then the multimodal AI low risk patients are being randomized to a de-intensification experimental arm where less androgen deprivation therapy is being given. So, I think it's a really promising area to see, and I think what has been shown is that this tool has been validated really across the disease continuum. And so, I think there are opportunities to do that in multiple clinical scenarios. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Then moving on to the technological advancements, very fascinating how we've kind of evolved over the last 10 years perhaps, from DNA based biomarkers to RNA expression and now H&E. And when you look at cost savings, if you were to think of H&E as a simpler, easier methodology, perhaps, with the limitations that centers need to digitalize their slides, probably will have more cost savings. But in your experience, as you've tried to navigate this H&E aspect of trying to either develop the model or validate the model, what are some of the logistics that you've experienced can be a challenge? As we evolve in this biomarker space, how can centers try to tackle those challenges early on in terms of digitalizing data, whether it's simple data or slides for that matter? Dr. Timothy Showalter: I think there's two main areas to cover. One, I think that the push towards digitalization is going to be, I think, really driven by increasing availability and access to augmentative technologies like this multimodal AI technology where it's really adding some sort of a clinical insight beyond what is going to be generated through routine human diagnostic pathology. I think that when you can get these sorts of algorithms for patient care and have them so readily accessible with a fast turnaround time, I think that's really going to drive the field forward. Right now, in the United States, the latest data I've seen is that less than 10% of pathology labs have gone digital. So, we're still at an early stage in that. I hope that this test and similar ones are part of that push to go more digital. The other, I think, more interesting challenge that's a technical challenge but isn't about necessarily how you collect the data, but it certainly creates data volume challenges, is how do you deal with image robustness and sort of translating these tools into routine real-world settings. And as you can imagine, there's a lot of variation for staining protocols, intensity scanner variations, all these things that can affect the reliability of your test. And at least for this research group that I'm a part of that has developed this multimodal AI tool can tell you that the development is sophisticated, but very data and energy intensive in terms of how to deal with making a tool that can be consistent across a whole range of image parameters. And so that presents its own challenges for dealing with a large amount of compute time and AI cycles to make robust algorithms like that. And practically speaking, I think moving into other diseases and making this widely available, the size of data required and the amount of cloud compute time will be a real challenge. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for summarizing. I can say that definitely, you know, this is maybe a small step in prostate cancer biomarker research, but perhaps a big step in the overall landscape of biomarker research in general. So definitely very interesting. Now, moving on to the next part of the discussion is more about you as a researcher, as an individual, your career path, if you can summarize that for us. And more interestingly, this intersection between being part of industry as well as academia for perhaps some of the listeners, trainees who might be thinking about what path they want to choose. Dr. Timothy Showalter: Sure. So, as you may know, I'm a professor at the University of Virginia and I climbed the academic ladder and had a full research grant program and thought I'd be in academia forever. And my story is that along the way, I kind of by accident ended up founding a medical device company that was called Advaray and that was related to NCI SBIR funding. And I found myself as a company founder and ultimately in that process, I started to learn about the opportunity to make an impact by being an innovator within the industry space. And that was really the starting point for me. About four years ago, soon after Felix Feng co-founded Artera, he called me and told me that he needed me to join the company. For those who were lucky to know Felix well, at that very moment, it was inevitable that I was going to join Artera and be a part of this. He was just so persuasive. So, I will say, you know, from my experience of being sort of in between the academic and industry area, it's been a really great opportunity for me to enter a space where there's another way of making an impact within cancer care. I've gotten to work with top notch collaborators, work on great science, and be part of a team that's growing a company that can make technology like this available. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much, Tim, for sharing some of those thoughts and insights. We really appreciate you discussing this very interesting work with us and also appreciate you submitting this to JCO Precision Oncology and hopefully we'll see more of this as this space evolves and maybe perhaps bigger more better validation studies in the context of this test. Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

On the inaugural episode of ASCO Education: By the Book, Dr. Nathan Pennell and Dr. Don Dizon share reflections on the evolution of the ASCO Educational Book, its global reach, and the role of its new companion podcast to further shine a spotlight on the issues shaping the future of modern oncology. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Nathan Pennell: Hello, I'm Dr. Nate Pennell, welcoming you to the first episode of our new podcast, ASCO Education: By the Book. The podcast will feature engaging discussions between editors and authors from the ASCO Educational Book. Each month, you'll hear nuanced views on key topics in oncology featured in Education Sessions at ASCO meetings, as well as some deep dives on the advances shaping modern oncology. Although I am honored to serve as the editor-in-chief (EIC) of the ASCO Educational Book, in my day job, I am the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and vice chair for clinical research for the Taussig Cancer Center here in Cleveland. I'm delighted to kick off our new podcast with a discussion featuring the Ed Book's previous editor-in-chief. Dr. Don Dizon is a professor of medicine and surgery at Brown University and works as a medical oncologist specializing in breast and pelvic malignancies at Lifespan Cancer Institute in Rhode Island. Dr. Dizon also serves as the vice chair for membership and accrual at the SWOG Cancer Research Network. Don, it's great to have you here for our first episode of ASCO Education: By the Book. Dr. Don Dizon: Really nice to be here and to see you again, my friend. Dr. Nathan Pennell: This was the first thing I thought of when we were kicking off a podcast that I thought we would set the stage for our hopefully many, many listeners to learn a little bit about what the Ed Book used to be like, how it has evolved over the last 14 years or so since we both started here and where it's going. You started as editor-in-chief in 2012, is that right? Dr. Don Dizon: Oh, boy. I believe that is correct, yes. I did two 5-year stints as EIC of the Educational Book, so that sounds about right. Although you're aging me very clearly on this podcast. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I had to go back in my emails to see if I could figure out when we started on this because we've been working on it for some time. Start out a little bit by telling me what do you remember about the Ed Book from back in the day when you were applying to be editor-in-chief and thinking about the Ed Book. What was it like at that time? Dr. Don Dizon: You know, it's so interesting to think about it.  Ten years ago, we were both in a very different place in our careers, and I remember when the Ed Book position came up, I had been writing a column for ASCO. I had done some editorial activities with other journals for sure, but what always struck me was it was very unclear how one was chosen to be a part of the education program at ASCO. And then it was very unclear how those faculty were then selected to write a paper for the Educational Book. And it was back in the day when the Educational Book was completely printed. So, there was this book that was cherished among American fellows in oncology. And it was one that, when I was newly attending, and certainly two or three years before the editor's position came up, it was one that I referenced all the time. So, it was a known commodity for many of us. And there was a certain sense of selectivity about who was invited to write in it. And it wasn't terribly transparent either. So, when the opportunity to apply for editor-in-chief of the Educational Book came up, I had already been doing so much work for ASCO. I had been on the planning committees and served in many roles across the organization, and editing was something I found I enjoyed in other work. So, I decided to put my name in the ring with the intention of sort of bringing the book forward, getting it indexed, for example, so that there was this credit that was more than just societal credit at ASCO. This ended up being something that was referenced and acknowledged as an important paper through PubMed indexing. And then also to provide it as a space where we could be more transparent about who was being invited and broadening the tent as to who could participate as an author in the Ed Book. Dr. Nathan Pennell: It's going to be surprising to many of our younger listeners to learn that the Educational Book used to be just this giant, almost like a brick. I mean, it was this huge tome of articles from the Education Sessions that you got when you got your meeting abstracts book at the annual meeting. And you can always see people on the plane on the way out of Chicago with their giant books. Dr. Don Dizon: Yes. Dr. Nathan Pennell: That added lots of additional weight to the plane, I'm sure, on the way out. Dr. Don Dizon: And it was not uncommon for us to be sitting at an airport, and people would be reading those books with highlighters. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I fondly remember being a fellow and coming up and the Ed Book was always really important to me, so I was excited. We'll also let the listeners in on that. I also applied to be the original editor-in-chief of the Ed Book back in 2012, although I was very junior and did not have any real editorial experience. I think I may have been section editor for The Oncologist at that point. And I had spoken to Dr. Ramaswamy Govindan at WashU who had been the previous editor-in-chief about applying and he was like, “Oh yeah. You should absolutely try that out.” And then when Dr. Dizon was chosen, I was like, “Oh, well. I guess I didn't get it.” And then out of the blue I got a call asking me to join as the associate editor, which I was really always very thankful for that opportunity. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, it was a highly fruitful collaboration, I think, between you and I when we first started. I do remember taking on the reins and sort of saying, “You know, this is our vision of what we want to do.” But then just working with the authors, which we did, about how to construct their papers and what we were looking for, all of that is something I look back really fondly on. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I think it was interesting too because neither one of us had really a lot of transparency into how things worked when we started. We kind of made it up a little bit as we went along. We wanted to get all of the faculty, or at least as many of them as possible contributing to these. And we would go to the ASCO Education Committee meeting and kind of talk about the Ed Book, and we were thinking about, you know, how could we get people to submit. So, at the time it wasn't PubMed indexed. Most people, I think, submitted individual manuscripts just from their talk, which could be anywhere from full length review articles to very brief manuscripts. Dr. Don Dizon: Sometimes it was their slides with like a couple of comments on it. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And some of them were almost like a summary of the talk. Yeah, exactly. And so sort of making that a little more uniform. There was originally an honorarium attached, which went away, but I think PubMed indexing was probably the biggest incentive for people to join. I remember that was one of the first things you really wanted to get. Dr. Don Dizon Yeah. And, you know, it was fortuitous. I'd like to take all the credit for it, but ASCO was very forward thinking with Dr. Ramaswamy and the conversations about going to PubMed with this had preceded my coming in. We knew what we needed to do to get this acknowledged, which was really strengthening the peer review so that these papers could meet the bar to get on PubMed. But you know, within the first, what, two or three years, Nate, of us doing this, we were able to get this accepted. And now it is. If you look at what PubMed did for us, it not only increased the potential of who was going to access it, but for, I think the oncology community, it allowed people access to papers by key opinion leaders that was not blocked by a paywall. And I thought that was just super important at the time. Social media was something, but it wasn't what it is now. But anybody could access these manuscripts and it's still the case today. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I think it's hard to overstate how important that was. People don't realize this, but the Ed Book is really widely accessed, especially outside the US as well. And a lot of people who can't attend the meeting to get the print, well, the once print, book could actually get access to essentially the education session from the annual meeting without having to fly all the way to the US to attend. Now, you know, we have much better virtual meeting offerings now and whatnot. But at the time it was pretty revolutionary to be able to do that. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah, and you know, it's so interesting when I think back to, you know, this sort of evolution to a fully online publication of the Ed Book. It was really some requests from international participants of the annual meeting who really wanted to continue to see this in print. At that time, it was important to recognize that access to information was not uniform across the world. And people really wanted that print edition, maybe not for themselves, but so that access in more rural areas or where access in the broadband networks were not established that they still could access the book. I think things have changed now. We were able, I think, in your tenure, to see it fully go online. But even I just remember that being a concern as we went forward. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, we continued with the print book that was available if people asked for it, but apparently few enough people asked for it that it moved fully online. One of the major advantages of being fully online now is of course, it does allow us to publish kind of in real time as the manuscripts come out in the months leading up to the meeting, which has been, I think, a huge boon because it can build momentum for the Education Sessions coming in. People, you know, really look forward to it. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah, that was actually a concern, you know, when we were phasing out Ed Book and going to this continuous publication model where authors actually had the ability to sort of revise their manuscript and that would be automatically uploaded. You had a static manuscript that was fully printed, and it was no longer an accurate one. And we did have the ability to fix it. And it just goes to show exactly what you're saying. This idea that these are living papers was really an important thing that ASCO embraced quite early, I think. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And with the onset of PubMed indexing, the participation from faculty skyrocketed and almost within a couple of years was up to the vast majority of sessions and faculty participating. Now I think people really understand that this is part of the whole process. But at the time I remember writing out on my slides in all caps, “THIS IS AN EXPECTATION.” And that's about the best word I could give because I asked if we could make people do it, and they were like, no, you can't make people do it. Dr. Don Dizon: So right.  Actually, I don't think people are aware of the work on the back end every year when I was on as EIC, Nate and myself, and then subsequently Dr. Hope Rugo would have these informational sessions with the education faculty and we would tout the Ed Book, tout the expectation, tout it was PubMed indexed and tout multidisciplinary participation. So, we were not seeing four manuscripts reflecting one session. You know, this encouragement to really embrace multidisciplinary care was something that very early on we introduced and really encouraged people not to submit perspective manuscripts, but to really get them in and then harmonize the paper so that it felt like it was, you know, one voice. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I consider that after PubMed indexing, the next major change to the Ed Book, that really made it a better product and that was moving from, you know, just these short individual single author manuscripts to single session combined manuscript that had multiple perspectives and topics, really much more comprehensive review articles. And I don't even remember what the impetus was for that, but it was really a success. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah, I mean, I think in the beginning it was more of a challenge, I think, because people were really not given guidance on what these papers were supposed to look like. So, we were seeing individual manuscripts come forward. Looking back, it really foreshadowed the importance of multidisciplinary management. But at the time, it was really more about ensuring that people were leaving the session with a singular message of what to do when you're in clinic again. And the goal was to have the manuscripts reflect that sort of consensus view of a topic that was coming in. There were certain things that people still argued would not fit in a multidisciplinary manuscript. You know, if you have someone who's writing and whose entire talk was on the pathology of thyroid cancer. Another topic was on survivorship after thyroid cancer. It was hard to sort of get those two to interact and cover what was being covered. So, we were still getting that. But you're right, at the end of my tenure and into yours, there were far fewer of those individual manuscripts. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And I think it's even made it easier to write because now, you know, you just have to write a section of a manuscript and not put together an entire review. So, it has helped with getting people on board. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, the other thing I thought was really interesting about the process is when you're invited to do an Education Session at ASCO, you're either invited as a faculty speaker or as the chair of the session. And the responsibility of the chair is to ensure that it flows well and that the talks are succinct based on what the agenda or the objectives were as defined by the education committee for that specific group. But that was it. So really being named “Chair” was sort of an honor, an honorific. It really didn't come with responsibility. So, we use the Ed Book as a way to say, “As chair of the session, it is your responsibility to ensure A, a manuscript comes to me, but B, that the content of that paper harmonizes and is accurate.” And it was very rare, but Nate, I think we got dragged into a couple of times where the accuracy of the manuscript was really called into question by the chair. And those were always very, very tricky discussions because everyone that gets invited to ASCO is a recognized leader in their field. Some of us, especially, I would probably say, dating back 10 years from today, the data behind Standards of Care were not necessarily evidence-based. So, there were a lot of opinion-based therapies. You know, maybe not so much in the medical side, but certainly some of it. But when you went to, you know, surgical treatments and maybe even radiotherapy treatments, it was really based on, “My experience at my center is this and this is why I do what I do.” But those kinds of things ended up being some of the more challenging things to handle as an editor. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And those are the– I'll use “fun” in a broad sense. You know, every once in a while, you get an article where it really does take a lot of hands-on work from the editor to work with the author to try to revise it and make it a suitable academic manuscript. But you know what? I can't think, at least in recent years, of any manuscripts that we turned down. They just sometimes needed a little TLC. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah. And I think the other important thing it reminds me of is how great it was that I wasn't doing this by myself. Because it was so great to be able to reach out to you and say, “Can you give me your take on this paper?” Or, “Can you help me just join a conference call with the authors to make sure that we're on the same page?” And then on the rare example where we were going to reject a paper, it was really important that we, as the editorial team, and I include our ASCO shepherder, through the whole process. We had to all agree that this was not salvageable. Fortunately, it happened very rarely. But I've got to say, not doing this job alone was one of the more important facets of being the EIC of ASCO's Educational Book. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Well, it's nice to hear you say that. I definitely felt that this was a partnership, you know, it was a labor of love. So, I want to go to what I consider sort of the third major pillar of the changes to the Ed Book during your tenure, and that was the introduction of a whole new kind of manuscript. So up to, I don't know, maybe seven or eight years ago, all the articles were authored just by people who were presenting at the Annual Meeting. And then you had an idea to introduce invited manuscripts. So take me through that. Dr. Don Dizon: Yeah, well, you know, again, it went to this sort of, what can people who are being asked to sort of lead ASCO for that year, what can they demonstrate as sort of a more tangible contribution to the Society and to oncology in general? And I think that was the impetus to use the Ed Book for everyone who was in a leadership position to make their mark. That said, I was here, and I was either president of the society or I was Education Program Chair or Scientific Program Chair, and they got to select an article type that was not being covered in the annual meeting and suggest the authors and work with those authors to construct a manuscript. Never did any one of those folks suggest themselves, which I thought was fascinating. They didn't say, “I want to be the one to write this piece,” because this was never meant to be a presidential speech or a commemorative speech or opportunity for them as leaders. But we wanted to ensure that whatever passion they had within oncology was represented in the book. And again, it was this sort of sense of, I want everyone to look at the Ed Book and see themselves in it and see what they contributed. And that was really important for those who were really shepherding each Annual Meeting each year for ASCO that they had the opportunity to do that. And I was really pleased that leadership really took to that idea and were very excited about bringing ideas and also author groups into the Educational Book who would not have had the opportunity otherwise. I thought that was just really nice. It was about inclusiveness and just making sure that people had the opportunity to say, “If you want to participate, we want you to participate.” Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, I agree. I think the ASCO leadership jumped on this and continues to still really appreciate the opportunity to be able to kind of invite someone on a topic that's meaningful to them. I think we've tried to work in things that incorporate the presidential theme each year in our invited manuscript, so it really allows them to put kind of a stamp on the flavor of each edition. And the numbers reflect that these tend to be among our more highly read articles as well. Dr. Don Dizon: You know, looking back on what we did together, that was something I'm really, really quite proud of, that we were able to sort of help the Educational Book evolve that way. Dr. Nathan Pennell: I agree. You brought up briefly a few minutes ago about social media and its role over time. I think when we started in 2012, I had just joined Twitter now X in 2011, and I think we were both sort of early adopters in the social media. Do you feel like social media has had a role in the growth of the Ed Book or is this something that you think we can develop further? Dr. Don Dizon: When we were doing Ed Book together, professional social media was actually a quite identified space. You know, we were all on the same platform. We analyzed what the outcomes were on that platform and our communities gathered on that platform. So, it was a really good place to highlight what we were publishing, especially as we went to continuous publishing.  I don't remember if it was you or me, but we even started asking our authors for a tweet and those tweets needed work. It was you. It was you or I would actually lay in these tweets to say, “Yeah, we need to just, you know, work on this.” But I think it's harder today. There's no one preferred platform. Alternate platforms are still evolving. So, I think there are opportunities there. The question is: Is that opportunity meaningful enough for the Ed Book to demonstrate its return on an investment, for example? What I always thought about social media, and it's still true today, is that it will get eyes on whatever you're looking at far beyond who you intended to see it. So, you know, your tweets regarding a phase 3 clinical trial in lung cancer, which were so informative, were reaching me, who was not a lung oncologist who doesn't even see lung cancer and getting me more interested in finding that article and more and more pointing to the Educational Book content that speaks to that piece, you know. And I think coupling an impression of the data, associating that with something that is freely accessed is, I think, a golden opportunity not only for our colleagues, but also for anyone who's interested in a topic. Whether you are diagnosed with that cancer or you are taking care of someone with that cancer, or you heard about that cancer, there are people who would like to see information that is relevant and embedded and delivered by people who know what they're talking about. And I think our voices on social media are important because of it. And I think that's where the contribution is. So, if we had to see what the metric was for any social media efforts, it has to be more of the click rates, not just by ASCO members, but the click rates across societies and across countries. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yeah, social media is, I mean, obviously evolving quite a bit in the last couple of years. But I do know that in terms the alt metrics for the track access through social media and online, the ones that are shared online by the authors, by the Ed Book team, do seem to get more attention. I think a lot of people don't like to just sit with a print journal anymore or an email table of contents for specific journals. People find these articles that are meaningful to them through their network and oftentimes that is online on social media. Dr. Don Dizon: Yes, 100%. And you know what I think we should encourage people to do is look at the source. And if the Ed Book becomes a source of information, I think that will be a plus to the conversations in our world. We're still dealing with a place where, depending on who sponsored the trial, whether it was an industry-sponsored trial, whether it was NCI sponsored or sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, for example, access to the primary data sets may or may not be available across the world, but the Ed Book is. And if the Ed Book can summarize that data and use terms and words that are accessible no matter what your grade level of education is. If we can explain the graphs and the figures in a way that people can actually easily more understand it. If there's a way that we structure our conversations in the Ed Book so that the plethora of inclusion/exclusion criteria are summarized and simplified, then I think we can achieve a place where good information becomes more accessible, and we can point to a summary of the source data in places where the source is not available. Dr. Nathan Pennell: One of the other things that I continue to be surprised at how popular these podcasts are. And that gives you an opportunity pretty much the opposite. Instead of sort of a nugget that directs you to the source material, you've got a more in-depth discussion of the manuscript. And so, I'm delighted that we have our own podcast. For many years, the Ed Book would sort of do a sort of a “Weird Al takeover” of the ASCO Daily News Podcast for a couple of episodes around the Annual Meeting, and I think those were always really popular enough that we were able to argue that we deserved our own podcast. And I'm really looking forward to having these in-depth discussions with authors. Dr. Don Dizon: It's an amazing evolution of where the Ed Book has gone, right? We took it from print only, societally only, to something that is now accessed worldwide via PubMed. We took it from book to fully online print. And now I think making the content live is a natural next step. So, I applaud you for doing the podcast and giving people an opportunity actually to discuss what their article discusses. And if there's a controversial point, giving them the freedom and the opportunity to sort of give more nuanced views on what may not be something that there's 100% consensus over. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Yes. Well, I hope other people enjoy these as well. Just want to highlight a few of the things that have happened just in the couple years since you stepped down as editor-in-chief. One of them, and I don't know if you noticed, but last year we started adding manuscripts from the ASCO thematic meetings, so ASCO GI and ASCO GU, something we had certainly talked about in the past, but had lacked bandwidth to really do. And they seem to be pretty widely accessed. Dr. Don Dizon: That's fantastic. Yes, I do remember talking about the coverage of the thematic meetings and you're right, this takes a long time to sort of concentrate on the Annual Meeting. It may seem like everything happens in the span of like eight weeks. Dr. Nathan Pennell: It does feel like that sometimes. Dr. Don Dizon: Right? But this is actually something that starts a year before, once the education program is set. We're in the room when they set it. But then it's really chasing down manuscripts and then making sure that they're peer reviewed because the peer review is still really important, and then making sure that any revisions are made before it's finalized and goes to press. That is a many months process. So, when we're trying to introduce, “Oh, we should also do ASCO GU or-,” the question was, how do you want to do that given this very, very involved process going forward? So, I'm glad you were able to figure it out. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Well, it's challenging. I don't think people realize quite the compressed timeline for these. You know, the Education Session and authors and invited faculty are picked in the fall, and then basically you have to start turning in your manuscripts in February, March of the following year. And so, it's a really tight turnaround for this. When we talk about the ASCO thematic meetings, it's an even tighter window. Dr. Don Dizon: Right, exactly. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And so, it's challenging to get that moving, but I was really, really proud that we were able to pull that off. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, congratulations again. And I think that is a necessary step, because so much of what's going on in the various disease management sites is only covered cursorily through the Annual Meeting itself. I mean, there's just so much science breaking at any one time that I think if we want to comprehensively catalog the Year in Review in oncology, it kind of behooves us to do that. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Some other things that are coming up because we now have manuscripts that are going to be coming in year-round, and just to kind of make it easier on the editorial staff, we're going to be forming an editorial board. And in addition to our pool of reviewers who get ASCO points, please feel free to go online to the ASCO volunteer portal and sign up if you are interested in participating. So, moving forward, I'm really excited to see where things are going to go. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, that's great. That's great. And I do remember talking about whether or not we needed to have an editorial board. At least when I was there, having this carried by three people was always better than having it carried by one person. And I think as you expand the potential for submissions, it will be very helpful to have that input for sure. And then it gives another opportunity for more members to get involved in ASCO as well. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Absolutely. People want involvement, and so happy to provide that. Dr. Don Dizon: Yes. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Is there anything we didn't cover that you would like to mention before we wrap up? Dr. Don Dizon: Well, I will say this, that ASCO and through its publications not only has had this real emphasis on multidisciplinary management of cancers, especially where it was relevant, but it also always had a stand to ensure representation was front and center and who wrote for us. And I think every president, every chair that I've worked with naturally embraced that idea of representation. And I think it has been a distinct honor to say that during my tenure as EIC, we have always had a plethora of voices, of authors from different countries, of genders, that have participated in the construction of those books. And it stands as a testament that we are a global community and we will always be one. Dr. Nathan Pennell: Well, thank you for that. And I'm happy to continue that as we move forward. Well, Don, thank you. It's been great speaking with you. You played such a pivotal role in the Ed Book's evolution and I'm so glad you were able to join me for our inaugural episode. Dr. Don Dizon: Well, I'm just tickled that you asked me to be your first guest. Thank you so much, Nate. Dr. Nathan Pennell: And I also want to thank our listeners for joining us today. We hope you'll join us again for more insightful views on topics you'll be hearing at the Education Sessions from ASCO meetings throughout the year, as well as our periodic deep dives on advances that are shaping modern oncology. Have a great day. 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. Nathan Pennell  @n8pennell @n8pennell.bsky.social   Dr. Don Dizon @drdondizon.bsky.social  Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)   ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures:  Dr. Nathan Pennell:      Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron     Research Funding (Inst): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi  Dr. Don Dizon: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Midi, Doximity Honoraria: UpToDate, American Cancer Society Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Kronos Bio, Immunogen Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb          

The International Psycho-Oncology Society (IPOS) deemed April 9th, 2025, the first-ever World Psycho-Oncology Day (WPOD). This day was meant to spread awareness of the importance of prioritizing psychosocial care for patients with all types of cancer as well as to honor Jimmie C. Holland, MD. Prior to WPOD, CancerNetwork® spoke with Cristiane Decat Bergerot, PhD, BS, MS, a psychologist and the head of supportive care at Grupo Oncoclinicas in Brazil, and a member of IPOS, about the importance of psychosocial care and the impact it has on patients with cancer. As stated by Bergerot and listed on the official IPOS website, the primary goals of WPOD are as follows: raise awareness, honor Jimmie Holland, engage stakeholders, promote action, and support fundraising efforts.1 These goals are geared towards paying homage to the history of psycho-oncology and pushing for a more advanced future. “We aim to empower patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals, fostering a future where psychosocial support is an integral part of oncology worldwide,” Bergerot said.  Psycho-oncology has become more prevalent as a cancer care field since Jimmie C. Holland, MD, worked to help found it in the 1970s. Holland, a “pioneer” of psycho-oncology, was the first ever Chief of Psychiatry Services—a department that was the first of its kind anywhere in the world—at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and a founding member of IPOS.  Bergerot stated that, in her work, she sees that patients who receive psychological support exhibit improved pain management and quality of life. Trials now focus more on end points such as quality of life and patient-reported outcomes, and guidelines have emerged to create standards of care. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology each offer guidelines that detail how to manage patient distress as they progress through cancer therapy.2,3 Distress screenings and earlier recommendations for palliative care have also become more standard in treatment.  As for the future, Bergerot highlighted that psychosocial care needs to be more integrated into care as a necessary, rather than optional, component. New developments around the world, however, have created a landscape where telehealth and new research demonstrate the potential to help psycho-oncology grow rapidly.  References 1.        World Psycho-Oncology Day (WPOD). IPOS. Accessed April 2, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/43c9rr2c 2.        Distress during cancer care. NCCN. 2024. Accessed April 2, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/ycxxvnmt 3.        Andersen BL, Lacchetti C, Ashing K, et al. Management of anxiety and depression in adult survivors of cancer: ASCO guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(18):3426-3453. doi:10.1200/JCO.23.00293

Dr. Ko Un “Clara” Park and Dr. Mylin Torres present the latest evidence-based changes to the SLNB in early-stage breast cancer guideline. They discuss the practice-changing trials that led to the updated recommendations and topics such as when SLNB can be omitted, when ALND is indicated, radiation and systemic treatment decisions after SLNB omission, and the role of SLNB in special circumstances. We discuss the importance of shared decision-making and other ongoing and future de-escalation trials that will expand knowledge in this space. Read the full guideline update, “Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update” at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-25-00099       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. Ko Un "Clara" Park from Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Dr. Mylin Torres from Glenn Family Breast Center at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, co-chairs on “Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.” Thank you for being here today, Dr. Park and Dr. Torres. Dr. Mylin Torres: Thank you, it's a pleasure to be here. Brittany Harvey: And 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 guideline panel, including Dr. Torres and Dr. Park, who have 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. To start us off, Dr. Torres, what is the scope and purpose of this guideline update on the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer? Dr. Mylin Torres: The update includes recommendations incorporating findings from trials released since our last published guideline in 2017. It includes data from nine randomized trials comparing sentinel lymph node biopsy alone versus sentinel lymph node biopsy with a completion axillary lymph node dissection. And notably, and probably the primary reason for motivating this update, are two trials comparing sentinel lymph node biopsy with no axillary surgery, all of which were published from 2016 to 2024. We believe these latter two trials are practice changing and are important for our community to know about so that it can be implemented and essentially represent a change in treatment paradigms. Brittany Harvey: It's great to hear about these practice changing trials and how that will impact these recommendation updates. So Dr. Park, I'd like to start by reviewing the key recommendations across all of these six overarching clinical questions that the guideline addressed. So first, are there patients where sentinel lymph node biopsy can be omitted? Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: Yes. The key change in the current management of early-stage breast cancer is the inclusion of omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with small, less than 2 cm breast cancer and a negative finding on preoperative axillary ultrasound. The patients who are eligible for omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy according to the SOUND and INSEMA trial are patients with invasive ductal carcinoma that is size smaller than 2 cm, Nottingham grades 1 and 2, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative in patients intending to receive adjuvant endocrine therapy, and no suspicious lymph nodes on axillary ultrasound or if they have only one suspicious lymph node, then the biopsy of that lymph node is benign and concordant according to the axillary ultrasound findings. The patients who are eligible for sentinel lymph node biopsy omission according to the SOUND and INSEMA trials were patients who are undergoing lumpectomy followed by whole breast radiation, especially in patients who are younger than 65 years of age. For patients who are 65 years or older, they also qualify for omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy in addition to consideration for radiation therapy omission according to the PRIME II and CALGB 9343 clinical trials. And so in those patients, a more shared decision-making approach with the radiation oncologist is encouraged. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you outlining that criteria for when sentinel lymph node biopsy can be omitted and when shared decision making is appropriate as well. So then, Dr. Torres, in those patients where sentinel lymph node biopsy is omitted, how are radiation and systemic treatment decisions impacted? Dr. Mylin Torres: Thank you for that question. I think there will be a lot of consternation brought up as far as sentinel lymph node biopsy and the value it could provide in terms of knowing whether that lymph node is involved or not. But as stated, sentinel lymph node biopsy actually can be safely omitted in patients with low risk disease and therefore the reason we state this is that in both SOUND and INSEMA trial, 85% of patients who had a preoperative axillary ultrasound that did not show any signs of a suspicious lymph node also had no lymph nodes involved at the time of sentinel node biopsy. So 85% of the time the preoperative ultrasound is correct. So given the number of patients where preoperative ultrasound predicts for no sentinel node involvement, we have stated within the guideline that radiation and systemic treatment decisions should not be altered in the select patients with low risk disease where sentinel lymph node biopsy can be omitted. Those are the patients who are postmenopausal and age 50 or older who have negative findings on preoperative ultrasound with grade 1 or 2 disease, small tumors less than or equal to 2 cm, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who undergo breast conserving therapy. Now, it's important to note in both the INSEMA and SOUND trials, the vast majority of patients received whole breast radiation. In fact, within the INSEMA trial, partial breast irradiation was not allowed. The SOUND trial did allow partial breast irradiation, but in that study, 80% of patients still received whole breast treatment. Therefore, the preponderance of data does support whole breast irradiation when you go strictly by the way the SOUND and INSEMA trials were conducted. Notably, however, most of the patients in these studies had node-negative disease and had low risk features to their primary tumors and would have been eligible for partial breast irradiation by the ASTRO Guidelines for partial breast treatment. So, given the fact that 85% of patients will have node-negative disease after a preoperative ultrasound, essentially what we're saying is that partial breast irradiation may be offered in these patients where omission of sentinel node biopsy is felt to be safe, which is in these low risk patients. Additionally, regional nodal irradiation is something that is not indicated in the vast majority of patients where omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy is prescribed and recommended, and that is because very few of these patients will actually end up having pathologic N2 disease, which is four or more positive lymph nodes. If you look at the numbers from both the INSEMA and the SOUND trial, the number of patients with pathologic N2 disease who did have their axilla surgically staged, it was less than 1% in both trials. So, in these patients, regional nodal irradiation, there would be no clear indication for that more aggressive and more extensive radiation treatment. The same principles apply to systemic therapy. As the vast majority of these patients are going to have node-negative disease with a low risk primary tumor, we know that postmenopausal women, even if they're found to have one to three positive lymph nodes, a lot of the systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy decisions are driven by genomic assay score which is taken from the primary tumor. And therefore nodal information in patients who have N1 disease may not be gained in patients where omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy is indicated in these low risk patients. 14% of patients have 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes in the SOUND trial and that number is about 15% in the INSEMA trial. Really only the clinically actionable information to be gained is if a patient has four or more lymph nodes or N2 disease in this low risk patient population. So, essentially when that occurs it's less than 1% of the time in these patients with very favorable primary tumors. And therefore we thought it was acceptable to stand by a recommendation of not altering systemic therapy or radiation recommendations based on omission of sentinel nodes because the likelihood of having four more lymph nodes is so low. Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: I think one thing to add is the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors to that and when we look at the NATALEE criteria for ribociclib in particular, where node-negative patients were included, the bulk majority of the patients who were actually represented in the NATALEE study were stage III disease. And for stage I disease to upstage into anatomic stage III, that patient would need to have pathologic N2 disease. And as Dr. Torres stated, the rate of having pathologic N2 disease in both SOUND and INSEMA studies were less than 1%. And therefore it would be highly unlikely that these patients would be eligible just based on tumor size and characteristics for ribociclib. So we think that it is still safe to omit sentinel lymph node biopsy and they would not miss out, if you will, on the opportunity for CDK4/6 inhibitors. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I appreciate you describing those recommendations and then also the nuances of the evidence that's underpinning those recommendations, I think that's important for listeners. So Dr. Park, the next clinical question addresses patients with clinically node negative early stage breast cancer who have 1 or 2 sentinel lymph node metastases and who will receive breast conserving surgery with whole breast radiation therapy. For these patients, is axillary lymph node dissection needed? Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: No. And this is confirmed based on the ACOSOG Z0011 study that demonstrated in patients with 1 to 3 positive sentinel lymph node biopsy when the study compared completion axillary lymph node dissection to no completion axillary lymph node dissection, there was no difference. And actually, the 10-year overall survival as reported out in 2017 and at a median follow up of 9.3 years, the overall survival again for patients treated with sentinel lymph node biopsy alone versus those who were treated with axillary lymph node dissection was no different. It was 86.3% in sentinel lymph node biopsy versus 83.6% and the p-value was non-inferior at 0.02. And so we believe that it is safe for the select patients who are early stage with 1 to 2 positive lymph nodes on sentinel lymph node biopsy, undergoing whole breast radiation therapy to omit completion of axillary lymph node dissection. Brittany Harvey: Great, I appreciate you detailing what's recommended there as well. So then, to continue our discussion of axillary lymph node dissection, Dr. Torres, for patients with nodal metastases who will undergo mastectomy, is axillary lymph node dissection indicated? Dr. Mylin Torres: It's actually not and this is confirmed by two trials, the AMAROS study as well as the SENOMAC trial. And in both studies, they compared a full lymph node dissection versus sentinel lymph node biopsy alone in patients who are found to have 1 to 2 positive lymph nodes and confirmed that there was no difference in axillary recurrence rates, overall survival or disease-free survival. What was shown is that with more aggressive surgery completion axillary lymph node dissection, there were higher rates of morbidity including lymphedema, shoulder pain and paresthesias and arm numbness, decreased functioning of the arm and so there was only downside to doing a full lymph node dissection. Importantly, in both trials, if a full lymph node dissection was not done in the arm that where sentinel lymph node biopsy was done alone, all patients were prescribed post mastectomy radiation and regional nodal treatment and therefore both studies currently support the use of post mastectomy radiation and regional nodal treatment when a full lymph node dissection is not performed in these patients who are found to have N1 disease after a sentinel node biopsy. Brittany Harvey: Thank you. And then Dr. Park, for patients with early-stage breast cancer who do not have nodal metastases, can completion axillary lymph node dissection be omitted? Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: Yes, and this is an unchanged recommendation from the earlier ASCO Guidelines from 2017 as well as the 2021 joint guideline with Ontario Health, wherein patients with clinically node-negative early stage breast cancer, the staging of the axilla can be performed through sentinel lymph nodal biopsy and not completion axillary lymph node dissection. Brittany Harvey: Understood. So then, to wrap us up on the clinical questions here, Dr. Park, what is recommended regarding sentinel lymph node biopsy in special circumstances in populations? Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: One key highlight of the special populations is the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy for evaluation of the axilla in clinically node negative multicentric tumors. While there are no randomized clinical trials evaluating specifically the role of sentinel lymph nodal biopsy in multicentric tumors, in the guideline, we highlight this as one of the safe options for staging of the axilla and also for pregnant patients, these special circumstances, it is safe to perform sentinel lymph node biopsy in pregnant patients with the use of technetium - blue dye should be avoided in this population. In particular, I want to highlight where sentinel lymph node biopsy should not be used for staging of the axilla and that is in the population with inflammatory breast cancer. There are currently no studies demonstrating that sentinel lymph node biopsy is oncologically safe or accurate in patients with inflammatory breast cancer. And so, unfortunately, in this population, even after neoadjuvant systemic therapy, if they have a great response, the current guideline recommends mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I appreciate your viewing both where sentinel lymph node can be offered in these special circumstances in populations and where it really should not be used. So then, Dr. Torres, you talked at the beginning about how there's been these new practice changing trials that really impacted these recommendations. So in your view, what is the importance of this guideline update and how does it impact both clinicians and patients? Dr. Mylin Torres: Thank you for that question. This update and these trials that inform the update represent a significant shift in the treatment paradigm and standard of care for breast cancer patients with early-stage breast cancer. When you think about it, it seems almost counterintuitive that physicians and patients would not want to know if a lymph node is involved with cancer or not through sentinel lymph node biopsy procedure. But what these studies show is that preoperative axillary ultrasound, 85% of the time when it's negative, will correctly predict whether a sentinel lymph node is involved with cancer or not and will also be negative. So if you have imaging that's negative, your surgery is likely going to be negative. Some people might ask, what's the harm in doing a sentinel lymph node biopsy? It's important to recognize that upwards of 10% of patients, even after sentinel lymph node biopsy will develop lymphedema, chronic arm pain, shoulder immobility and arm immobility. And these can have a profound impact on quality of life. And if there is not a significant benefit to assessing lymph nodes, particularly in someone who has a preoperative axillary ultrasound that's negative, then why put a patient at risk for these morbidities that can impact them lifelong? Ideally, the adoption of omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy will lead to more multidisciplinary discussion and collaboration in the preoperative setting especially with our diagnostic physicians, radiology to assure that these patients are getting an axillary ultrasound and determine how omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy may impact the downstream treatments after surgery, particularly radiation and systemic therapy decisions, and will be adopted in real world patients, and how clinically we can develop a workflow where together we can make the best decisions for our patients in collaboration with them through shared decision making. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's great to have these evidence-based updates for clinicians and patients to review and refer back to. So then finally, Dr. Park, looking to the future, what are the outstanding questions and ongoing trials regarding sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer? Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: I think to toggle on Dr. Torres's comment about shared decision making, the emphasis on that I think will become even more evident in the future as we incorporate different types of de-escalation clinical studies. In particular, because as you saw in the SOUND and INSEMA studies, when we de-escalate one modality of the multimodality therapy, i.e., surgery, the other modalities such as radiation therapy and systemic therapy were “controlled” where we were not de-escalating multiple different modalities. However, as the audience may be familiar with, there are other types of de-escalation studies in particular radiation therapy, partial breast irradiation or omission of radiation therapy, and in those studies, the surgery is now controlled where oftentimes the patients are undergoing surgical axillary staging. And conversely when we're looking at endocrine therapy versus radiation therapy clinical trials, in those studies also the majority of the patients are undergoing surgical axillary staging. And so now as those studies demonstrate the oncologic safety of omission of a particular therapy, we will be in a position of more balancing of the data of trying to select which patients are the safe patients for omission of certain types of modality, and how do we balance whether it's surgery, radiation therapy, systemic therapy, endocrine therapy. And that's where as Dr. Torres stated, the shared decision making will become critically important. I'm a surgeon and so as a surgeon, I get to see the patients oftentimes first, especially when they have early-stage breast cancer. And so I could I guess be “selfish” and just do whatever I think is correct. But whatever the surgeon does, the decision does have consequences in the downstream decision making. And so the field really needs to, as Dr. Torres stated earlier, rethink the workflow of how early-stage breast cancer patients are brought forth and managed as a multidisciplinary team. I also think in future studies the expansion of the data to larger tumors, T3, in particular,reater than 5 cm and also how do we incorporate omission in that population will become more evident as we learn more about the oncologic safety of omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy. Dr. Mylin Torres: In addition, there are other outstanding ongoing clinical trials that are accruing patients right now. They include the BOOG 2013-08 study, SOAPET, NAUTILUS and the VENUS trials, all looking at patients with clinical T1, T2N0 disease and whether omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy is safe with various endpoints including regional recurrence, invasive disease-free survival and distant disease-free survival. I expect in addition to these studies there will be more studies ongoing even looking at the omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy in the post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy setting. And as our imaging improves in the future, there will be more studies improving other imaging modalities, probably in addition to axillary ultrasound in an attempt to accurately characterize whether lymph nodes within axilla contain cancer or not, and in that context whether omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy even in patients with larger tumors post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be done safely and could eventually become another shift in our treatment paradigm. Brittany Harvey: Yes. The shared decision making is key as we think about these updates to improve quality of life and we'll await data from these ongoing trials to inform future updates to this guideline. So I want to thank you both so much for your extensive work to update this guideline and thank you for your time today. Dr. Park and Dr. Torres. Dr. Mylin Torres: Thank you. Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: Thank you. 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/breast-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology Art of Oncology article, "Tamales” by Megan Dupuis, an Assistant Professor of Hematology and Oncology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. The article is followed by an interview with Dupuis and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dupuis reflects on how patients invite their doctors into their culture and their world- and how this solidified her choice to be an oncologist. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: Tamales, by Megan Dupuis, MD, PhDI do not know if you know this, but tamales are an important—nay, critical—part of the Mexican Christmas tradition. Before I moved to Texas, I certainly did not know that. I did not know that the simple tamal, made of masa flour and fillings and steamed in a corn husk, is as essential to the holiday season as music and lights. Whole think pieces have been written in The Atlantic about it, for God's sake. But, I did not know that. A total gringa, I had grown up in upstate NY. We had the middle-class American version of Christmas traditions—music, snow, Santa, and a Honey Baked Ham that mom ordered 2 weeks before the holiday. I had never tried a homemade tamal until I moved to Texas. We had relocated because I was starting a fellowship in hematology/oncology. A central part of our training was the privilege of working at the county hospital cancer clinic. Because we were the safety-net hospital, our patients with cancer were often under- or uninsured, frequently had financial difficulty, and were almost always immigrants, documented or otherwise. In a typical clinic day, over 90% of my patients spoke Spanish; one or two spoke Vietnamese; and typically, none spoke English. From meeting my very first patient in clinic, I knew this was where I needed to be. Have you ever been unsure of a decision until you have been allowed to marinate in it? That is how I felt about cancer care; I had not been sure that my path was right until I started in the county oncology clinic. I loved absorbing the details of my patients' lives and the cultures that centered them: that Cuban Spanish is not Mexican Spanish and is not Puerto Rican Spanish; that many of my patients lived in multigenerational homes, with abuelos and tios and nietos all mixed together; and that most of them continued to work full-time jobs while battling cancer. They had hobbies they pursued with passion and lived and died by their children's accomplishments. I learned these details in the spaces between diagnosis and treatment, in the steady pattern woven in between the staccato visits for chemotherapy, scans, pain control, progression, and hospice.  In one of those in-betweens, my patient Cristina told me about tamales. She had faced metastatic breast cancer for many years. She was an impeccable dresser, with matching velour tracksuits or nice slacks with kitten heels or a dress that nipped in at the waist and flared past her knees. Absolutely bald from treatment, she would make her hairlessness look like high fashion rather than alopecia foisted upon her. Her makeup was always painstakingly done and made her look 10 years younger than her youthful middle age. At one visit in August, she came to clinic in her pajamas and my heart sank. This was a familiar pattern to me by now; I had taken care of her for 2 years, and pajamas were my canary in the coal mine of progressing cancer.  So on that sunny day, I asked Cristina what her goals would be for the coming months. The cancer had circumvented many of her chemotherapy options, and I only had a few left. “Doctora D, I know my time is limited…” she started in Spanish, with my interpreter by my side translating, “but I would really like to make it to Christmas. My family is coming from Mexico.” “Oh that's lovely. Do you have any special Christmas plans?” I ventured, wanting to understand what her holidays look like. “Plans? Doctora D, of course we are making tamales!” She laughed, as though we were both in on a joke. “Tamales? At Christmas?” I asked, signaling her to go on.  “Yes yes yes, every year we make hundreds and hundreds of tamales, and we sell them! And we use the money to buy gifts for the kids, and we eat them ourselves too. It is tradicio´ n, Doctora D.” She underlined tradicio´ n with her voice, emphasizing the criticality of this piece of information. “Okay,” I said, pausing to think—December was only four months away. “I will start a different chemotherapy, and we will try to get you to Christmas to make your tamales.” Cristina nodded, and the plan was made.  Later that evening, I asked one of my cofellows, a Houston native, about tamales. He shared that these treats are an enormous part of the Houston Christmas tradition, and if I had any sense, I would only purchase them from an abuela out of the trunk of a car. This was the only way to get the best homemade ones. “The ones from restaurants,” he informed me, “are crap.”  So summer bled into fall, and fall became what passes for winter in Texas. On 1 day in the middle of December, Cristina came into clinic, dressed in a colorful sweater, flowing white pants, black boots, and topped off with Barbie-pink lipstick. “Cristina!” I exclaimed, a bit confused. “You don't have an appointment with me today, do you?”  She grinned at me and held up a plastic grocery bag with a knot in the handles, displaying it like a prize.  “Tamales, Doctora D. I brought you some tamales so you can join our Christmas tradition.” I felt the sting of tears, overwhelmed with gratitude at 11:30 in a busy county clinic. I thanked her profusely for my gift. When I brought them home that night, my husband and I savored them slowly, enjoying them like you would any exquisite dish off a tasting menu. Sometimes, people think that oncologists are ghouls. They only see the Cristinas when they are in their pajamas and wonder why would any doctor ever give her more treatment?  My answer is because I also got to see her thriving joyfully in track suits and lipstick, because I got to spend countless in-betweens with her, and because I helped get her to the Christmas tradiciones I only knew about because of her. And in return, she gave of herself so easily, sharing her life, her passion, her struggles, and her fears with me. Caring for Cristina helped me marinate in the decision to become an oncologist and know that it was the right one. And if you are wondering—yes. Now tamales are a Christmas tradicio´n in the Dupuis household, too. Mikkael Sekeres: Hello, and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the oncology field. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm a professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. What a pleasure it is today to be joined by Dr. Megan Dupuis from Vanderbilt University Medical Center. She is Assistant Professor of Hematology and Oncology and Associate Program Director for the Fellowship program. In this episode, we will be discussing her Art of Oncology article, "Tamales." Our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Both she and I have talked beforehand and agreed to refer to each other by first names. Megan, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us. Megan Dupuis: Oh, thanks so much for having me, Mikkael. I'm excited to be here. Mikkael Sekeres: I absolutely loved your piece, "Tamales," as did our reviewers. It really did resonate with all of us and was beautifully and artfully written. I'm wondering if we could just start—tell us about yourself. Where are you from, and where did you do your training? Megan Dupuis: Sure. I'm originally from upstate New York. I grew up outside of Albany and then moved for college to Buffalo, New York. So I consider Buffalo home. Big Buffalo Bills fan. And I spent undergrad, medical school, and my PhD in tumor immunology at the University of Buffalo. My husband agreed to stick with me in Buffalo for all twelve years if we moved out of the cold weather after we were done. And so that played some factor in my choice of residency program. I was lucky enough to go to Duke for residency—internal medicine residency—and then went to MD Anderson for fellowship training. And then after Anderson, I moved up to Nashville, Tennessee, where I've been at Vanderbilt for almost four years now. Mikkael Sekeres: That's fantastic. Well, I have to say, your Bills have outperformed my Pittsburgh Steelers the past few years, but I think I think we have a chance this coming year. Megan Dupuis: Yeah. Yep. Yep. I saw they were thinking about signing Aaron Rodgers, so we'll see how that goes. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah, not going to talk about that in this episode. So, I'm curious about your story as a writer. How long have you been writing narrative pieces? Megan Dupuis: I have always been a writer—noodled around with writing and poetry, even in college. But it was when I started doing my medicine training at Duke that I started to more intentionally start writing about my experiences, about patients, things that I saw, things that weighed either heavily on me or made a difference. So when I was at Duke, there was a narrative medicine writing workshop—it was a weekend workshop—that I felt like changed the trajectory of what my interest is in writing. And I wrote a piece at that time that was then sort of critiqued by colleagues and friends and kicked off my writing experience. And I've been writing ever since then. We formed a narrative medicine program at Duke out of this weekend workshop experience. And I carried that through to MD Anderson when I was a fellow. And then when I joined at Vanderbilt, I asked around and said, "Hey, is there a narrative medicine program at Vanderbilt?" And somebody pointed me in the direction of a colleague, Chase Webber, who's in internal medicine, and they said, "Hey, he's been thinking about putting together a medical humanities program but needs a co-conspirator, if you will." And so it was perfect timing, and he and I got together and started a Medical Humanities Certificate Program at Vanderbilt about four years ago. And so- Mikkael Sekeres: Oh, wow. Megan Dupuis: Yeah. So I've been doing this work professionally, but also personally. You know, one of the things that I have been doing for a long time is anytime there's an experience that I have that I think, “Gosh, I should write about this later,” I either dictate it into my phone, “write about this later,” or I write a little message to myself, “Make sure that you remember this experience and document it later.” And I keep a little notebook in my pocket specifically to do that. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, it's really a fabulous, updated use of technology compared to when William Carlos Williams used to scribble lines of poetry on his prescription pad and put it in his rolltop desk. Megan Dupuis: Although I will admit, you know, I don't think I'm much different. I still do prefer often the little leather notebook in the pocket to dictating. It'll often be when I'm in the car driving home from a clinic day or whatever, and I'll go, “Oh, I have to write about this, and I can't forget.” And I'll make myself a little digital reminder if I have to. But I still do keep the leather notebook as well for the more traditional type of writing experience. Mikkael Sekeres: I'm curious about what triggers you to dictate something or to scribble something down. Megan Dupuis: I think anything that gives me an emotional response, you know, anything that really says, “That was a little bit outside the normal clinical encounter for me.” Something that strikes me as moving, meaningful—and it doesn't have to be sad. I think a lot of novice writers about medical writing think you have to write only the tragic or the sad stories. But as often as not, it'll be something incredibly funny or poignant that a patient said in clinic that will make me go, “Ah, I have to make sure I remember that for later.” I think even surprise, you know? I think all of us can be surprised in a clinical encounter. Something a patient says or something a spouse will reflect on will make me sit back and say, “Hmm, that's not what I expected them to say. I should dive into why I'm surprised by that.” Mikkael Sekeres: It's a great notion as a starting point: an emotional connection, a moment of surprise. And that it doesn't have to be sad, right? It can be- sometimes our patients are incredibly inspirational and have great insights. It's one of the marvelous things about the career we've chosen is that we get to learn from people from such a variety of backgrounds. Megan Dupuis: That's it. It's a privilege every day to be invited into people's most personal experiences, and not just the medical experience. You know, I say to my patients, “I think this cancer diagnosis is in some ways the least interesting thing about you. It's not something you pick. It's not a hobby you cultivate. It's not your family life. It's a thing that's happened to you.” And so I really like to dive into: Who are these people? What makes them tick? What's important to them? My infusion nurses will say, "Oh, Dr. D, we love logging in and reading your social histories," because, yeah, I'll get the tobacco and alcohol history, or what have you. But I have a little dot phrase that I use for every new patient. It takes maybe the first five or six minutes of a visit, not long. But it's: Who are you? What's your preferred name? Who are your people? How far do you live from the clinic? What did you used to do for work if you're retired? If you're not retired, what do you do now? What are the names of your pets? What do you like to do in your spare time? What are you most proud of? So those are things that I ask at every new patient encounter. And I think it lays the foundation to understand who's this three-dimensional human being across from me, right? What were they like before this diagnosis changed the trajectory of where they were going? To me, that's the most important thing. Mikkael Sekeres: You've so wonderfully separated: The patient is not the diagnosis; it's a person. And the diagnosis is some component of that person. And it's the reason we're seeing each other, but it doesn't define that person. Megan Dupuis: That's right. We're crossing streams at a very tough point in their life. But there was so much that came before that. And in the piece that I wrote, you know, what is the language? What is the food? What is the family? What are all of those things, and how do they come together to make you the person that you are, for what's important to you in your life? And I think as oncologists, we're often trying to unravel in some way what is important. I could spend all day talking to you about PFS and OS for a specific drug combination, but is that really getting to meeting the goals of the patient and where they're at? I think it's easy to sort of say, “Well, this is the medicine that's going to get you the most overall survival.” But does it acknowledge the fact that you are a musician who can't have neuropathy in your fingers if you still want to play? Right? So those things become incredibly important when we're deciding not just treatment planning, but also what is the time toxicity? You know, do you have the time and ability to come back and forth to clinic for weekly chemotherapy or what have you? So those things, to me, become incredibly important when I'm talking to a person sitting across from me. Mikkael Sekeres: Do your patients ever get surprised that you're asking such broad questions about their life instead of narrowing down to the focus of their cancer? Megan Dupuis: Sometimes. I will say, sometimes patients are almost so anxious, of course, with this new diagnosis, they want to get into it. You know, they don't want to sit there and tell me the name of the horses on their farm, right? They want to know, “What's the plan, doc?” So I acknowledge that, and I say to them in the beginning, “Hey, if you give me five minutes of your time to tell me who you are as a person, I promise this will come back around later when we start talking about the options for treatments for you.” Most of the time, though, I think they're just happy to be asked who they are as a person. They're happy that I care. And I think all of us in oncology care—I think that's... you don't go into a field like this because you're not interested in the human experience, right? But they're happy that it's demonstrable that there is a... I'm literally saying, “What is the name of your dog? What is the name of your child who lives down the street? Who are your kids that live far away? You know, do you talk to them?” They want to share those things, and they want to be acknowledged. I think these diagnoses can be dehumanizing. And so to rehumanize somebody does not take as much time as we may think it does. Mikkael Sekeres: I 100% agree with you. And there can be a selfish aspect to it also. I think we're naturally curious people and want to know how other people have lived their lives and can live those lives vicariously through them. So I'm the sort of person who likes to do projects around the house. And I think, to the dismay of many a professional person, I consider myself an amateur electrician, plumber, and carpenter. Some of the projects are actually up to code, not all. But you get to learn how other people have lived their lives and how they made things. And that could be making something concrete, like an addition to their house, or it can be making a life. Megan Dupuis: Yeah, I love that you say that it is selfish, and we acknowledge that. You know, sometimes I think that we went into internal medicine and ultimately oncology... and I don't mean this in a trite way: I want the gossip about your life. I want the details. I want to dig into your hobbies, your relationships, what makes you angry, what makes you excited. I think they're the fun things to learn about folks. Again, in some ways, I think the cancer diagnosis is almost such a trite or banal part of who a human is. It's not to say that it's not going to shape their life in a very profound way, but it's not something they picked. It's something that happened to them. And so I'm much more excited to say, “Hey, what are your weekend hobbies? Are you an amateur electrician?” And that dovetails deeply into what kind of treatment might help you to do those things for longer. So I think it is a little bit selfish that it gives me a lot of satisfaction to get to know who people are. Mikkael Sekeres: So part of what we're talking about, indirectly, is the sense of otherness. And an undercurrent theme in your essay is otherness. You were an 'other' as a fellow in training and working in Texas when you grew up in upstate New York. And our patients are also 'others.' They're thrust into this often complicated bedlam of cancer care. Can you talk about how you felt as an 'other' and how that's affected your approach to your patients? Megan Dupuis: I think in the cancer experience, we are 'other,' definitionally, from the start, for exactly the reasons that you said. I'm coming to it as your physician; you're coming to it as my patient. This is a new encounter and a new experience for both of us. I think the added layer of being this person from upstate New York who didn't... I mean, I minored in Spanish in college, but that's not the same thing as growing up in a culture that speaks Spanish, that comes from a Spanish-speaking country—the food, the culture. It's all incredibly different. And so the way that I approached it there was to say, “I am genuinely curious. I want to know what it's like to be different than the culture that I was raised in.” And I'm excited to know about that thing.   And I think we can tell—I think, as humans—when somebody is genuinely curious about who you are and what's important to you, versus when they're kind of just checking the boxes to try to build a relationship that's necessary. I think my patients could tell that even though I'm not necessarily speaking their language, I want to know. I ask these questions because I want to know. I think if you go to it from a place of curiosity, if you are approaching another person with a genuine sense of curiosity... You know, Faith Fitzgerald wrote her most remarkable piece on curiosity many, many years ago. But even the quote-unquote “boring” patient, as she put it, can have an incredible story to tell if you're curious enough to ask. And so I think that no matter how different I might be culturally from the patient sitting across from me, if I approach it with a genuine sense of curiosity, and they can sense that, that. that's going to build the bond that we need truly to walk together on this cancer journey. I think it's curiosity, and I think it's also sharing of yourself. I think that nobody is going to open up to you if they feel that you are closed to sharing a bit of yourself. Patients want to know who their doctor is, too. So when I said I asked those five or six minutes' worth of questions at the beginning of a new patient encounter, I share that info with them. I tell them where I live, how long it takes for me to get to clinic, who my people are, the name of my dog, what I like to do in my spare time, what I'm proud of. So I share that with them too, so it doesn't feel like a one-way grilling. It feels like an introduction, a meeting, the start of a... I don't want to say friendship necessarily, but a start of a friendliness, of a shared communal experience. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, it's a start of a relationship. And you can define 'relationship' with a broad swath of definitions, right? Megan Dupuis: That's right. Mikkael Sekeres: It can be a relationship that is a friendship. It can be a relationship that's a professional relationship. And just like we know some personal things about some of our colleagues, the same is true of our patients. I was wondering if I could pick up on... I love that notion of curiosity that you brought out because that's something I've thought a lot about, and I've thought about whether it could be at least one way to combat burnout. So could you put that in context of burnout? Do you think maintaining that curiosity throughout a career is one potential solution to burnout? And do you think that being open with yourself also helps combat burnout, which is counterintuitive to what we've always been taught? Megan Dupuis: Wow. I think that this is such an important question, and it's almost like you read my justification for a Medical Humanities Certificate Program. One of the foundational arguments for why I thought the GME should support the creation of this program at Vanderbilt was because we hypothesized that it would improve burnout. And one of the arms of that is because it engenders a sense of genuine curiosity. When you're thinking about the arms of burnout: it's loss of meaning in your work; it's depersonalization of patients, right, when they're treated as objects or numbers or a ticket in the system that you have to shuffle through; when it's disconnection from the work that you do. I absolutely think that curiosity is an antidote to burnout. I don't think it's the whole solution, perhaps, because I think that burnout also includes systemic injury and structures of our medical healthcare system that no individual can fix in a vacuum. But I do think when we're thinking about what are the changes that we as individual physicians can make, I do think that being open and curious about your patient is one of the best salves that we have against some of these wounds. You know, I've never left a room where a patient has shared a personal story and felt worse about it, right? I've always felt better for the experience. And so I do think curiosity is an incredibly important piece of it. It's hard, I will acknowledge. It's hard for the speed that we move through the system, the pace that we move through the system. And I'm thinking often about my trainees—my residents, my fellows—who are seeing a lot, they're doing a lot, they are trying to learn and drink from the fire hose of the pace of medical development, checking so many boxes. And so to remain curious, I think at times can feel like a luxury. I think it's a luxury I have boomeranged back into as an attending. You know, certainly as a resident and a fellow, I felt like, “Gosh, why does this attending want to sit and chitchat about this person's music career? I'm just trying to make sure their pain is controlled. I'm trying to make sure they get admitted safely. I'm trying to make sure that they're getting the right treatment.” And I think it's something that I've tried to teach my trainees: “No, we have the time. I promise we have the time to ask this person what their childhood was like,” if that's something that is important to the narrative of their story. So it sometimes feels like a luxury. But I also think it's such a critical part of avoiding or mitigating the burnout that I know all of us face. Mikkael Sekeres: I think you touched on a lot of really important points. Burnout is so much more complicated than just one inciting factor and one solution. It's systemic. And I love also how you positioned curiosity as a bit of a luxury. We have to have the mental space to also be curious and engaged enough in our work that we can take interest in other people. I wanted to touch on one more question. You write in your essay that a patient in pajamas is a canary in the coal mine for deteriorating health. And I completely, completely agree with that. I can vividly recall a number of patients where I saw them in my clinic, and I would look down, and they had food spilled on their sweatshirt, or they were wearing mismatched socks, or their shoes weren't tied. And you thought to yourself, “Gee, this person is not thriving at home.” Do you think telemedicine has affected our ability to recognize that in our patients? Megan Dupuis: Yes, I do think so. I can remember vividly being a fellow when COVID first began in 2020, and I was training in an environment where most of my patients spoke Spanish or Vietnamese. And so we were doing not just telemedicine; we were doing telephone call clearance for chemotherapy because a lot of the patients didn't have either access to the technology or a phone that had video capability. A lot of them had flip phones. And trying to clear somebody for chemotherapy over the phone, I'll tell you, Mikkael, was the number one way to lead to a recipe of moral injury and burnout. As a person who felt this deep responsibility to do something safe... I think even now with telemedicine, there are a lot of things that you can hide from the waist down, right? If you can get it together enough to maybe just put a shirt on, I won't know that you're sitting there in pajama bottoms. I won't know that you're struggling to stand or that you're using an assistive device to move when you used to be able to come into clinic without one, or that your family member is helping you negotiate stepping over the curb in clinic. These are real litmus tests that you and I, all of us, use when we're deciding whether somebody is safe to receive a treatment. And I think telemedicine does mask some of that. Now, on the other hand, does telemedicine provide an access point for patients that otherwise it would be a challenge to drive into clinic for routine visits and care? It does, and I think it's been an incredible boon for patients who live far away from the clinic. But I think we have to use it judiciously. And there are patients where I will say, “If you are not well enough to get yourself to clinic, I worry that you are not well enough to safely receive treatment.” And when I'm thinking about the rules of chemo, it's three: It has to be effective, right? Cancer decides that. It has to be something the patient wants. They decide. But then the safety piece—that's my choice. That's my responsibility. And I can't always decide safety on a telemedicine call. Mikkael Sekeres: I completely agree. I've said to my patients before, “It's hard for me to assess you when I'm only seeing 40% of you.” So we will often negotiate them having to withstand the traffic in Miami to come in so I can feel safe in administering the chemotherapy that I think they need. Megan Dupuis: That's exactly right. Mikkael Sekeres: Megan Dupuis, it has been an absolute delight getting to chat with you. It has been just terrific getting to know you and talk about your fabulous essay, "Tamales." So thank you so much for joining me. Megan Dupuis: Thank you for having me. It was a wonderful time to chat with you as well. Mikkael Sekeres: Until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of ASCO's shows at asco.org/podcasts. Thank you again.   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.  Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr Megan Dupuis is an Assistant Professor of Hematology and Oncology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.  

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guests Dr. Jessica Burris discuss the article "Longitudinal Results from the Nationwide Just ASK Initiative to Promote Routine Smoking Assessment in American College of Surgeons Accredited Cancer Programs" and how persistent smoking following cancer diagnosis causes adverse outcomes while smoking cessation can improve survival. TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Davide SoldatoHello and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, medical oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today we are joined by JCO author Dr. Jessica Burris. Dr. Burris is an Associate professor of Psychology at the University of Kentucky and co leader of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Program at the Markey Cancer Center. Her research focuses on smoking cessation among cancer survivors, health disparities, and behavioral interventions to promote health equity. She also leads the BIRDS Lab, which explores the intersection of smoking, social determinants of health, and cancer survivorship. Today I will be discussing with Dr. Burris on the article titled Longitudinal Results from the Nationwide Just Ask Initiative to Promote Routine Smoking Assessment in American College of Surgeons Accredited Cancer Program. So, thank you for Speaking with us, Dr. Burris. Dr. Jessica BurrisThank you for inviting me. Dr. Davide SoldatoSo today we'll be discussing an important study on the implementation of smoking assessment in cancer care and specifically through the Just Ask Initiative. So, we know that tobacco use is a critical factor in cancer treatment outcomes in general, and yet integrating systematic smoking assessment into oncology care has faced various challenges. So, Dr. Burris, to start off our interview, I would like to ask you to briefly introduce the Just Ask Initiative for those of our readers and listeners who may not be familiar with it. So, a little bit about the primary goals and why do you think that routine smoking assessment is such an important aspect of cancer care and why the Just Ask Initiative focuses on this specific issue? Dr. Jessica BurrisSure. So, as you mentioned before, smoking is a really critical factor in terms of cancer care and cancer outcomes. It impacts a lot of things, from complications after surgery up into cancer mortality, but it also impacts patient's quality of life. Their pain may be more severe, they're more tired, their distress levels are higher. So, there's just a lot of different reasons why we need to understand and address smoking in the context of cancer care. But like you said too, there's a lot of barriers as well. But in order to effectively treat nicotine dependence and tobacco use, we really need to know who is currently smoking. And so that was really the driver for Just Ask, wanting to make sure that we are asking every person with cancer at their diagnosis and as they go through treatment, what their smoking history is, if they are currently smoking, which we usually consider to be any smoking or other tobacco use in the past 30 days, so that once we can identify that person, then we know who we need to help. Dr. Davide SoldatoThank you very much. That was very clear. And in terms of methodology, Just Ask was really a quality improvement type of initiative that involved the programs that were contacted and approached to participate in this type of initiative. And the methodology is pretty standard for this type of implementation science, which is the Plan Do Study Act methodology. So just a little bit of background on this type of methodology and why do you think it might be so successful when implementing these types of changes at the structural level and when we are implementing these types of programs. Dr. Jessica BurrisRight. So, the American College of Surgeons requires all the accredited cancer programs, both Commission on Cancer and the NAPBC or the ones that focus on breast cancer, to do at least one quality improvement project annually. And most of the programs do use the evidence-based Plan Do Study Act approach. I think it's a great one. It has a lot of evidence behind it, but it also is very practical or pragmatic. So, you're using data from your local healthcare system or clinic or program to inform what it is that you do. And then you're constantly pulling data out to see how well you're addressing the clinical practice change that you're hoping to achieve. And so, data is going in and coming out and you're using that to inform exactly what it is that you're doing over time. So, it's an iterative approach to practice change and again, one that has proven successful time and time again. And so that's the program that these programs and Just Ask used in order to increase the frequency by which they ask patients about smoking. Dr. Davide SoldatoSo as you were saying, the main objective of the initiative was really to understand if we are asking patients diagnosed with cancer and survivors if they are smoking. And how can we better report this information inside of the medical chart of the patient. So, what was the primary endpoint or the objective that you had for this type of intervention? And can you give us a little bit of results? So, what did you find the implementation of this quality improvement? How did it change the percentages of patients that were asked about smoking habits? And a little bit, what is your opinion on the results that you obtain in the study? Dr. Jessica BurrisSure. So, the goal was simple and that was to have an ask rate that was at least 90%. The way that we defined an ask rate is among all newly diagnosed cancer patients, how many were asked about their smoking history and their current status at that initial visit? And so, we wanted all of the participating programs who opted in to Just Ask in 2022 to achieve that 90% ask rate by the end of this one-year quality improvement project. And again, using the Plan Do Study Act approach, it was a very pragmatic study in some ways. So, what we did was we provided an intervention change package that we made available online. And programs could access that whenever they needed to and pull-down educational resources, patient facing materials, practical tools for changing the EHR or pulling data out of the EHR, any of those number of things. And then we also hosted webinars over the course of the year. And those webinars were great because half the time they were in response to questions that programs were asking as they went through the Just Ask QI project. And the other half of time we were really just reminding programs of the rationale and the reason for making sure that they're asking. And then of course, letting them know that they don't have to stop there, they should be advising patients to quit and assisting them with cessation. Even though that wasn't the goal of Just Ask, the goal again of Just Ask was getting that 90% rate. And so, we had over 750 programs who opted in to Just Ask and did this QI study with us, and it was successful. So, we met the goal, or rather the programs met the goal of that 90% ask rate. And that was maintained over time. And that was just fantastic. So again, we know that the end goal is really to assist patients with quitting, but we can't do that unless we know who to help. And so, you have to ask first. And again, they were able to do that. Dr. Davide SoldatoSo thank you very much. The quality improvement program was absolutely successful. And to go a little bit in the numbers, by the end of the one-year implementation of the program, you report a 98% rate of asking patients who first approached the centers or over time if they were or not smokers. So, you said before that you targeted a 90% ask rate in terms of smoking habits. But when looking at the data, I noticed that you already had in the baseline survey where you asked the programs about what were the practice before the implementation of the Just Ask initiative, already something that was quite close to the 90%. And yet, despite starting from such a good point, which was basically your endpoint, you still observed a major change over the years of the implementation. So, I wanted to just underline a little bit what is the value of this type of programs. And still starting from such a very high standard still, we managed to further improve. And as you were saying, this is pivotal and I think it's fundamental to really understand and see who are the patients that we need to refer and then to help in the smoking cessation. So, I just wanted a little bit of a comment on these very important results, despite already starting from a very good background from the centers. Dr. Jessica BurrisYeah, I'm glad that you brought up the baseline. So, I think one thing that's important about this study is that we looked at our ask rate or the asking as a clinical practice in two different ways. So, the 98% that you referred to that we found at the final survey is based on a response to a question on the frequency of asking. So, it's a Likert type question. And essentially what we did was we combined programs that reported usually asking or almost always asking into one, and that's where we arrived at the 98%. And at baseline it was 92%. What's interesting though is that we also asked them to report the specific number of patients who were seen in their cancer program during the prior six months and the number of patients who were asked about smoking in the prior six months. And with that we could get a proportion. And in every case, the self-report Likert question had a higher outcome than the raw data based on the data that was pulled from the EHR. And so, we saw this increase significantly over time, both in the self-report Likert question, but also in the EHR based data. And so, it was a win in two ways. What I think is really interesting though is that at baseline, even though 92% of programs said that they regularly ask about their patient smoking status, 16% of programs could not provide data that would allow calculation of an ask rate. So, they were reporting that they were able to do so but then could not actually do so. So, I think what that means essentially is that there's a disconnect between what programs are doing regularly or they believe that they're doing regularly and what their data actually shows. And it could be an issue with the quality of the data that's going into the EHR, or it could be an issue with pulling the data out of the EHR. And so one of the things that we saw that I think is a second indicator of success of Just Ask is that the quality of the data that programs were inputting into the EHR related to their patients smoking history and smoking status did improve over time, which meant that by the end it really was the case that the vast majority of programs were asking. And not only that, but they were also documenting it in a way to where it could inform patient care. Does that make sense? Dr. Davide SoldatoAbsolutely. And I think that that explanation really is truly important because I think that it also connects a little bit to how the initiative was able also to change things at the structural level, to be sure that there was the best possible way of asking, but also of having that information readily available inside of the EHR. This also connects a little bit to my next question, which was a little bit about organizational structure and also implementation barriers, which you report also as a self-reported information by the specific programs. So, there was a little bit of implementation barriers that was reported by the programs and this was not a specific endpoint of the Just Ask initiative, but you kind of mentioned it a little bit. The difficulties in pulling data from the EHR in understanding whether the information was collected and how it was collected. This might be one of the implementation barrier when we are looking at initiatives like Just Ask. So, I just wanted a little bit of your opinion if you think that these implementational barriers are more on the organizational side or on the provider side. And how can we use these quality improvement programs to really tackle this type of barriers to improve overall the reach and the importance of our action regarding smoking cessation. Dr. Jessica BurrisThe devils in the details, right? So I think it's a “both and” situation and not either or I think for providers, for individual providers, oncologists, nurses, supportive care providers, the issue of feeling like they're not fully trained in tobacco use assessment and treatment, and also feeling because of a lack of training that they don't feel confident or competent or even comfortable having conversations with their patients about their smoking history or being in the position to where they can really help someone who wants to quit in choosing the best path and way forward to do that that really matters. And so organizational readiness, these programs that participated were pretty high even at baseline in terms of the organizational readiness. They understood that it's a problem and they wanted to do something about it. And they were really eager and chomping at the bit to do so. But that has to trickle down to individual providers. And so, I think one of the implementation strategies that was used was staff training and provider education. And a lot of the participating programs chose that strategy. And I think as staff and providers are trained in how to ask and how to do so in a way that is nonjudgmental and that doesn't lean into things like stigma or blame or making patients feel guilty that perhaps their behavior led to their cancer, but really just understanding tobacco history and understanding nicotine dependence and the best strategies that we have to address those things that helped and that made a difference but it also is things at the system level, like having good EHR data, being able to pull those data out at a regular interval every three months or every four months, or even every six months to make sure that you're tracking smoking and also quitting over time. Both of those things need to happen. And I think those were things that we saw change as a result of Just Ask participation. Dr. Davide SoldatoRelating to this, provider readiness also to counsel patients on how to stop smoking or what is the best strategy. Despite, as you said in the very beginning, this was not the objective of Just Ask because you just wanted to improve the rate of smoking assessment and the quality of reporting of smoking assessment. You still observed higher rates of patients and survivors that were actually referred to some kind of intervention for smoking cessation. So, I was just wondering, why do you think that even though that was not required, you still observe this type of improvement? Like, is it just inherent to the fact that we are improving and we are placing more interest and more attention on the fact that patients should quit smoking, or do you think that it relates to something else completely? Dr. Jessica BurrisI think there's probably multiple things going on. One is once you're fully aware of the fact of the impact of smoking after a cancer diagnosis, you're going to be compelled to do something, I think. And so just the simple fact of knowing now that the patient sitting in front of you has smoked in the past week or two, they may be under a lot of stress because they're coping with cancer and they're coping with the side effects of their treatment. They may even have increased their smoking since their cancer diagnosis. And now you have this information. I think people who are providing cancer care, they want to improve the health and the life of the person sitting in front of them. And if they understand that smoking is a detriment or a hurdle to their doing so, then they're also more inclined to try and help that person quit smoking. And so, I think the asking and the documenting likely led to an increase in assistance and referrals to tobacco treatment specialists or to a state quit line, which was also common, simply because that's part of providing quality care. I think also there's been a greater emphasis nationally, in part led by the National Cancer Institute and a cancer moonshot initiative that it led, they're really focused on getting more treatment to more patients with smoking and increasing the reach and the effectiveness of the treatments that we provide. And so, I think there has been a shift in oncology care broadly to put more attention on smoking and smoking cessation as part of standard cancer care. And so, I think this kind of shift in the field also informed things as well as, again, thinking about the patient and the individual who's in the room and wanting to do something about the problem that you've just identified. Dr. Davide SoldatoAnd one thing that I believe is truly exceptional about the Just Ask initiative is really also the diversity of the type of programs that you involved. Like, you went from community centers to more academic centers. And really, I did not have the impression reading the manuscript that there was any difference in the way this type of quality improvement initiative can really benefit all these programs and all these centers. So, I was just wanting to have your opinion or comment on how do you think this type of initiative could be transferable across the country and across different settings and different types of cancer care? Dr. Jessica BurrisYeah, I'm really glad that you brought that up, because I think most of the clinical trials that are done in this area are done at academic medical centers, which are admittedly kind of resource rich places to receive cancer care. And so, what works in academic medical center may not work in a small rural practice in the middle of Kansas, for example, or in Mississippi. And it may not work in other community-based practices, even if they're larger and set in an urban setting. And so, one of the things that frankly I loved about Just Ask is that it was very heterogeneous in terms of the sites and the participating groups. And so not only was it national and by far the largest initiative in this area, again with over 750 different programs, but the programs were diverse. So, we had large community-based programs, integrated networks, smaller community programs. And then the academic centers were actually the smallest. Only like 10 or 12 out of the 750 plus were academic. And so, it was very different than what is the norm in this research area and in this area generally in terms of clinical practice. And we were able to show that the type of program that participated had no bearing on their success. And so, when we think about initiatives that work and interventions that work, we also really have to think about what is scalable and what could be disseminated across different practices. And this is one of those things that can. It worked and it worked across different swaths of group, which was great. Dr. Davide SoldatoAbsolutely. And just one last comment about the intervention, and it's also a point that you raised in the manuscript. This initiative, like many others also at the national levels that have been reported previously, they rarely had really the participation or the perspective of the patients embodied inside of them. So, I was wondering, how do you see the field moving forward. Like you envision something that would implement sort of a co-creation with patients or cancer survivors in order to really create something that is more appealing and takes more into consideration what is the patient perspectives when we are approaching something like smoking cessation, which as you were mentioning before, it can have a lot of stigma or already some negative feelings by the patients and feelings of guilt regarding the fact that they smoked and that might have caused that cancer. So just a little bit of your opinion as to how you see the implementation science in smoking cessation moving forward while integrating also the patient perspectives. Dr. Jessica BurrisYeah, that's a great question. So, this is something that I've thought about a lot in my lab and at Market Cancer center, which I'll use as an example. But oftentimes what we see is that even when tobacco treatment is offered as part of standard cancer care, even when we try to remove barriers like the financial cost of treatment at Markey, we embed it within our psych oncology program. And so, all of those services are offered for free. The rate at which patients say, yes, they want to engage in treatment is much, much lower than what we would want. And so that means two things. One, we need to offer help repeatedly to patients and understand that their willingness to quit and their willingness to accept treatment likely would change over time. And so, we need to keep coming back to people. It's not a one and done situation. But then also we need to understand what the barriers are from a patient's perspective. So why are they saying no? That they're either not ready or that they don't want treatment. They want to, quote, unquote, go it alone. And oftentimes what we hear is that patients want to be able to do this by themselves. They want to feel like, I quit smoking and I did it all by myself. And this is this huge thing that I've overcome. Not too different from the perspective that a lot of patients have about fighting cancer. They want to fight this addiction, this dependence that they've had oftentimes for multiple decades. And so, I think one thing that might be beneficial is to think about having peer led tobacco treatment. So have a patient who was able to quit successfully and have them provide counseling alongside a trained provider so that patients see someone like them who's went through it in the context of cancer care and who was able to overcome and to fight and win against tobacco, essentially. I think the other thing is trying to make sure that when we're asking about smoking and when we're offering treatment that we are not accidentally harming patients by bringing up feelings of stigma or guilt or shame. And I think one way to make sure we don't do that is to really lean on clinicians who are trained in addressing social determinants of health and other supportive care. So, our social workers, I think would be great. They're oftentimes embedded within oncology care. They are surely able to be trained as tobacco treatment specialists. They're already working with patients; they're addressing other barriers to care. They're sensitive in how they ask questions oftentimes. And so, they're really an ideal partner for this work. And we have found in a lot of settings that social workers are great in terms of being tobacco treatment specialists, including what we saw in Just Ask. Dr. Davide SoldatoThank you very much. That was really very, very interesting. And so, last question, moving forward, we improved the rate of asking patients. We are able to document this addiction more clearly in the EHR. So how do you see the field moving forward? In the manuscript, you speak a little bit about the Beyond Ask initiative. So just a little bit of a background about what is this initiative, what you are planning to do, and what do you think would be the best way to really act on this information that we are starting to collect in a better way and more frequently. Dr. Jessica BurrisYeah. So Beyond Ask really took everything that we did in Just Ask and amplified it. So instead of focusing on asking, we really said to make a difference and to improve cancer outcomes, ultimately patients need to be able to quit smoking. It's not enough that we know who is smoking, but that we help that individual or those groups of people quit. And so Beyond Ask had the goal to increase cessation assistance. So, either prescribing medication to help with smoking cessation, referring to a quit line, or another evidence-based program, or personally providing cessation counseling on site at that cancer program and to try and improve again within assistance. It was another one-year study, but we increased the frequency of surveys. I think we ended up with five total surveys. So, we were capturing two to three months at a time instead of a six-month period. And the data that we were capturing was very similar to what we did in Just Ask. And I can say we're still doing the data analysis, but it was another major success. So, with Beyond Ask, we had about 350 participating programs, many of whom not all, but many did participate in Just Ask. So, I think Just Ask kind of energized people around addressing the issue of smoking in their patient population. And again, they were really chomping at the bit to do more. And so, we offered Beyond Ask just after Just Ask. So Just Ask was 2022. Beyond ask was 2023. It ended in the spring of 2024. And again, another success. Dr. Davide SoldatoThank you very much. So, we are eager to see the results of this study. So that leads us to the end of this interview. So, thank you again, Dr. Burris for joining us today and speaking about your work. Dr. Jessica BurrisThank you. Dr. Davide SoldatoSo we appreciate you sharing more on the JCO article titled Longitudinal Results from the Nationwide Just Ask Initiative to Promote Routine Smoking Assessment in American College of Surgeons Accredited Cancer Program. If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and a review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

In this episode of The Patient From Hell, host Samira Daswani speaks with oncology nurse Joshua Carter about his path into cancer care, shaped by personal experiences with family illness. They explore the differences between palliative and hospice care, the complexities of pain management, and the vital role nurses play as advocates. Josh also discusses misconceptions around pain medication, the promise and challenges of e-health tools, and the often-invisible workflows nurses navigate daily. He shares practical advice for patients, caregivers, and fellow clinicians, emphasizing the importance of early palliative care and being a bold advocate within the healthcare system.About Our GuestJosh Carter is an Oncology Nurse at Stanford Women's Cancer Center. His entire 17-year nursing career has been in oncology, with inpatient, industry, and outpatient experiences in Cleveland, Chicago, San Diego, and San Francisco. Josh holds undergraduate degrees from Kent State University and Ohio University and is currently on track to complete his Master's at the University of Michigan School of Nursing this Fall. He is a certified Oncology and Breast Care Nurse. His interests include Nursing Innovation, Digital Health, Patient Advocacy, Patient Education, Patient-Centered Design, Healthcare Improvement, Quality, and Implementation Science. With his interests in Healthcare Quality, Josh is currently a Site Assessor for the Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium. Josh has spoken at the National Oncology Nursing Society Congress and Authored Chapters of Oncology Nursing Society Text Books. Josh has been involved with research for caregivers of Cancer patients and has helped in the launch of newly approved cancer treatments. Josh has experience working on a cancer care delivery team at ASCO and has been awarded the DAISY Award for Extraordinary Nurses. Resources & Links:This episode was supported by the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and features the PCORI study “A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Controlled Trial: Effects of eHealth Interventions for Pain Control Among Adults With Cancer in Hospice”Sections00:00 - Journey into Oncology Nursing03:22 - Understanding Palliative vs. Hospice Care07:04 - Pain Management in Cancer Care10:23 - Pain Management Strategies and Misconceptions20:32 - E-Health Interventions in Pain Management23:19 - The Complex Workflow of Oncology Nursing27:48 - Quick Tips for Patients and CaregiversConnect with Us:Enjoyed this episode? Make sure to subscribe, rate, and review! Follow us on instagram, facebook, or linkedin @mantacares and visit our website at mantacares.com for more episodes and updates.Listen Across Platform:Website: https://mantacares.com/pages/podcast?srsltid=AfmBOopEP5GJ-Wd2nL-HYAInrwerIVhyJw67salKT-r9Qb_gadBvbHie YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@mantacares Spotify:  https://open.spotify.com/show/6gM1GxDBUgXrHwlO0Zvnzs?si=9edb8680461d4eaa Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/patient-from-hell/id1622669098 Disclaimer:All content and information provided in connection with Manta Cares is solely intended for informational and educational purposes only. This content and information is not intended to be a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition.This episode was supported by an award from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

“There have been many changes since the '70s that have shaped the nurse's role in administering chemo, and in supporting patients. The major change early on was the transition from that of nurses mixing chemo to that of pharmacists. Regulatory agencies like NIOSH and OSHA defined chemotherapy as hazardous drugs, and professional organizations became involved, leading to the publication of the joint ASCO and ONS Standards of Safe Handling,” ONS member Scarlott Mueller, MPH, RN, FAAN, secretary of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network Board and member of the Oncology Nursing Foundation Capital Campaign Cabinet, told Darcy Burbage, DNP, RN, AOCN®, CBCN®, ONS member and chair of the ONS 50th Anniversary Committee during a conversation about the evolution of chemotherapy treatment. Along with Mueller, Burbage spoke with John Hillson, DNP, NP, Mary Anderson, BSN, RN, OCN®, and Kathleen Shannon-Dorcy, PhD, RN, FAAN, about the changes in radiation, oral chemotherapy, and cellular therapy treatments they have witnessed during their careers. Music Credit: “Fireflies and Stardust” by Kevin MacLeod Licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 3.0  Episode Notes  This episode is not eligible for NCPD. ONS Podcast™ episodes: 50th anniversary series Episode 330: Stay Up to Date on Safe Handling of Hazardous Drugs Episode 59: Blood and Marrow Transplant Nursing Episode 16: Navigating the Challenges of Oral Chemotherapy ONS Voice article:Safe Handling—We've Come a Long Way, Baby! ONS books: Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy Guidelines and Recommendations for Practice (second edition) Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Manual for Nursing Practice (third edition) Oncology Nurse Navigation: Delivering Patient-Centered Care Across the Continuum (second edition) Safe Handling of Hazardous Drugs (fourth edition) ONS courses: ONS Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation™ ONS/ONCC® Chemotherapy Immunotherapy Certificate™ ONS/ONCC® Radiation Therapy Certificate™ Safe Handling Basics Oral Anticancer Medication Toolkit Oral Anticancer Medication Care Compass Patient education guides created as a collaboration between ONS, HOPA, NCODA, and the Association of Community Cancer Centers: IV Cancer Treatment Education Sheets Oral Chemotherapy Education Sheets Connie Henke Yarbro Oncology Nursing History Center To discuss the information in this episode with other oncology nurses, visit the ONS Communities.  To find resources for creating an ONS Podcast Club in your chapter or nursing community, visit the ONS Podcast Library. To provide feedback or otherwise reach ONS about the podcast, email pubONSVoice@ons.org. Highlights From This Episode Hillson: “I remember as a new grad, from back in '98, walking up to the oncology floor. We had patients with pink labels on the chart and that was the radiation oncology service. I hadn't heard of such a thing before. … I'd gone through nursing school and hospital orientation and unit orientation without ever hearing of these therapies. At the time, both the management and the union had no interest in specialist nurses, and the really weren't any books that were targeting the role. And it was very isolating and frightening. I was very glad to find ONS when I moved to the U.S. Right now, the Oncology Nursing Society Manual for Radiation Oncology, Nursing Practice, and Education, it's in its fifth edition and a sixth is underway. There's nothing else like it. Most books are very much geared towards other professions.” TS 5:34 Mueller: “We mixed our chemo in a very small medication room on the unit, under a horizontal laminar flow hood, which we later discovered should have been a vertical laminar flow hood. Initially, we did not use any personal protective equipment. I remember mixing drugs like bleomycin and getting a little spray that from the vial onto my face. And to this day, I still have a few facial blemishes from that.” TS 14:28 Anderson: “As the increasing number of these actionable mutations continue to grow, so will the number of oral anticancer medications that patients are going to be taking. And we are already seeing that there's multiple combination regimens and complex schedules that the patients have to take. So this role the oral oncolytic nurse and the nursing role, like you said, it cannot be owned by one individual or discipline. So it's not a pharmacist; the pharmacies aren't owning this. The nurses are not owning this. It takes a village.” TS 32:12 Shannon-Dorcy: Then as immunotherapy comes into the picture, we start to learn about [cytokine release syndrome]. All of a sudden, we had no concept that this was a deadly consequence. ONS was on the front lines, convening people across the country together so we could speak to the investigative work with science and find ways that we could intervene, how we can look for signs of it early on with handwriting testing.” TS 39:58

Miriam "Mimi" Knoll, M.D., DABR, is the co-founder and CEO of JOWMA and a radiation oncologist at Northwell Health in New York.Dr. Knoll earned her medical degree from New York University School of Medicine and completed her radiation oncology training at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.She serves as a section editor for Advances in Radiation Oncology, the peer-reviewed journal of the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and is an active volunteer with ASCO, ASTRO, NRG, and the RTOG Foundation.An international speaker and researcher, Dr. Knoll focuses on the medical workforce, women in medicine, and social media in medicine. She is a Forbes Healthcare contributor and writes for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Connection and various other media outlets.You can follow her on Twitter @MKnoll_MD and on Instagram @Dr.Mimi.K.Sponsor the JOWMA Podcast! Email digitalcontent@jowma.orgBecome a JOWMA Member! www.jowma.org Follow us on Instagram! www.instagram.com/JOWMA_org Follow us on Twitter! www.twitter.com/JOWMA_med Follow us on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/JOWMAorgStay up-to-date with JOWMA news! Sign up for the JOWMA newsletter! https://jowma.us6.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=9b4e9beb287874f9dc7f80289&id=ea3ef44644&mc_cid=dfb442d2a7&mc_eid=e9eee6e41e

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti and Dr. Charu Aggarwal discuss the evolution of ctDNA as a critical tool in precision oncology and its implications for lung cancer management, including its potential role in the early-stage setting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Hello. I am Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I am a professor of medicine and director of thoracic medical oncology at the Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health.  The management of small cell lung cancer has rapidly evolved over the past few decades, and today, molecular testing and biomarker testing for lung cancer are absolutely critical in terms of designing treatment options for our patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Today, I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Charu Aggarwal for a discussion on ctDNA (circulating tumor DNA) and the role of ctDNA in lung cancer management. Dr. Aggarwal is the Leslye Heisler Professor of Lung Cancer Excellence and section chief of thoracic and head and neck oncology at University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center.  You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of that episode.  Dr. Agrawal, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Thank you for being here. Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Thank you for having me. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Let's start off with setting the stage for ctDNA technology. These technologies have rapidly evolved from experimental conceptual stage to essential clinical tools for day-to-day clinical practice. Could you briefly discuss how recent advancements in ctDNA technologies are shaping our approach to precision medicine, especially in lung cancer? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Absolutely. And you know, I think we need to just level set a little bit. What exactly is circulating tumor DNA? This is a way to assess exactly that. Every tumor sheds little pieces of tumor-derived DNA into the bloodstream, and this occurs in a variety of solid tumors. But now we have the technology to be able to derive this DNA that's actually being shed from the tumor into the bloodstream, these minute fragments of DNA, take them out, amplify them and sequence them with a variety of different mechanisms. They can be DNA sequencing alone, they can be DNA and RNA sequencing, they can be whole transcriptome sequencing. The technology, as you rightly pointed out, Dr. Velcheti, has significantly improved from just being able to look at circulating tumor DNA to now being able to amplify it, sequence it, and use it to offer personalized therapy. I think lung cancer is definitely the poster child for such an approach as we have a lot of data that has shown clinical utility and validity of being able to use circulating tumor DNA next-generation gene sequencing to guide therapy. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: There have been so many technological leaps. It's really impressive how far we've come to advance these sequencing platforms. Recent advances with AI and machine learning are also playing important roles in interpreting ctDNA data. How are these computational advances really enhancing clinical decision-making in day-to-day clinical practice? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: I think while we have firmly established the role of ctDNA in the management of patients with metastatic lung cancer, some of the approaches that you talked about are still experimental. So let me backtrack a little bit and set the stage for how we use ctDNA in clinical practice right now. I think most patients, when they come in with a new diagnosis of stage IV lung cancer, we want to test for biomarkers. And this should actually be the established standard. Now included in the NCCN guidelines and actually also international guidelines, is to consider using blood-based testing or plasma-based testing to look for biomarkers, not just tissue-based testing which had been our historical standard, but to use these plasma guided approaches to identify the seven to nine biomarkers that may be truly implicated in either first- or second-line therapy that are called as your immediately actionable mutations.  What you're talking about is AI computational methods. I think there's a lot of excitement about how we can use genomic signatures that are derived from either tissue or ctDNA-based biomarker testing, combine it with radiomic features, combine it with histologic features, look at H & E patterns, use AI algorithmic learning to be able to actually predict recurrence scores, or can we actually come up with predictive signatures that may be extremely helpful?  So, I think some of the techniques and technologies that you're talking about are incoming. They are provocative. I think they're very exciting, but very early. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I think it's really amazing how many advances we have with these platforms. You know, the challenge really is the significant gap in terms of uptake of molecular testing. Even today, in 2025, there are significant gaps in terms of all metastatic lung cancer patients being tested for all biomarkers.  So, why do you think there's such a challenge in testing patients with lung cancer? In most academic practices, we try to achieve 100% testing for all our patients, but we know from recent studies that that's not the case across the country. What do you think the gaps are? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Biomarker testing is so essential, like you pointed out, for us to be able to guide the right therapy for our patients. And we see this in our practice every day as you and I see patients with lung cancer, that a large proportion of our patients either don't get tested or they start therapy before their test results come back. So, I think this is a real problem.  However, to add some optimism to this problem, I do think that we are making a move in the right direction. So, four or five years ago, there was a lot of data being presented at national meetings, including ones from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where we saw that, nationally, the rates of biomarker testing were probably in the rate of 40 to 50%. However, now with the availability of both tissue and plasma, I do think that the rates of biomarker testing are increasing. And if you were to survey a sample or even perform retrospective data research, I believe that the number is closer to 70% of all patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.  And you know, you asked why is it not 100%? I think there are many reasons. I think the number one reason is tissue availability. Many times, the biopsies are small, or the tumor is very necrotic. So, either the tissue quantity itself is small, or the tissue quantity is insufficient to perform gene sequencing. And that's exactly where plasma comes in. When you don't have tissue availability, we have shown, as have others, that you can use plasma effectively to increase the proportion of patients who are not only tested but also receive the right therapy. I think there are also other barriers, including inertia. You know, I think this is both patient and physician inertia, where patients want to get started quickly, they don't want to wait. Physicians are very busy and sometimes want to be able to deliver treatment as soon as possible. We have seen there are some institutional barriers. Not every institution has in-house gene sequencing testing. So how do you really operationalize, send out these tests in a fast, efficient manner so that you get results back? Is it a pathologist who sends out the test? Is it the medical oncologist? Is it the pulmonologist or the interventionalist? I think there is this need to develop reflex testing mechanisms which some institutions do really well and some don't. And then finally, there are financial implications as well. How do we do this in a most cost-efficient fashion?  So there are many barriers, but I'm happy to say that we are making a move in the right direction as we are understanding that it's important to do it, it's easy to do it maybe with a value add of plasma, and finally, as you said, you know, as these technologies become more available, they're actually getting more cost-effective. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Dr. Aggarwal, you've been at the cutting edge of these advanced platforms and testing. So, what do you do in UPenn? How do you handle all these barriers and what is your workflow for patients in University of Pennsylvania? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: One of the things that I mentioned to you was there may be institutional barriers when it comes to gene sequencing. So, we actually, several years ago now, instituted a very robust reflex testing paradigm where almost all of our patients, regardless of stage, with a non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer diagnosis, would automatically be reflexively sent to our molecular pathology lab where they would get gene sequencing both for the DNA as well as with an RNA fusion-based platform. And the reason we did this was because we wanted to expedite and reduce the turnaround time. We also wanted to ensure that we were not just doing DNA testing, which I think is really important for our listeners here. There are many fusions as well as certain skipping mutations like MET exon 14 that may be missed on DNA testing alone. So, it's really incredibly important to run both DNA and RNA samples.  So, we do this routinely, and based on our research and others, what we also do routinely is that we send concurrent tissue and liquid biopsies or plasma MGS testing upon initial diagnosis. For example, if a patient comes in with a diagnosis of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer, their tissue might already be at my molecular pathology lab based on the reflex mechanism that I just described to you. But upon their initial meeting with me, we will send off plasma. And I will tell you this, that Penn is not just one institution, right? We have a large network of sites. And as part of my research, one of the things that we wanted to do was implement wide scale means to improve biomarker testing. And we have done this with the use of technology like you mentioned, Dr. Velcheti: How can we actually use AI? How can we leverage our electronic medical record to identify these patients? So, we have a nudge-based mechanism which actually facilitates the pending of orders for biomarker testing for patients with new diagnosis of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. And we are looking at our rates of biomarker testing but also rates of completion of biomarker testing before first-line therapy started. So many of our participating sites are clusters for our randomized control trial to increase molecular testing. And I'm really excited about the fact that we're able to implement it not just at our main satellite, downtown Penn Hospital, but also across our community. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I think that's great. Thank you so much for those insights, Dr. Aggarwal. I think it's so important because having the best technology is just not enough. I think implementation science is actually a real thing. And I think we need to all learn from each other, advance these things.  So, I want to ask you about the new emerging paradigm in terms of using ctDNA. Of course, in the metastatic setting, we've been using ctDNA for molecular profiling for a while now. But the recent data around monitoring early-stage disease, especially post-operative monitoring, is an exciting area. There are a lot of opportunities there. Could you please talk us through the emerging data in lung cancer and how do we incorporate ctDNA-based monitoring MRD or should we even do that right now? Is the data ripe enough for us to kind of deploy this in a clinical setting? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: I think using ctDNA in the early-stage setting is our next frontier in lung cancer. I think naturally we have been able to successfully deploy this in the stage 4 setting. It made a meaningful difference in the lives of our patients, and we are a little bit behind the A ball in terms of how MRD is used in lung cancer. Because, you know, colorectal cancer has already done large-randomized trials based on ctDNA and MRD. It's routinely used in hematological malignancy. So, it makes sense that we should start to use it.  However, when I say this, I say this with excitement, but also a little bit of gentle caution saying that we actually don't quite have the prospective randomized data just yet on how to deploy. Yes, intuitively we would say that if you detect ctDNA and MRD, that patient is at higher risk. So, we identify that, but we actually don't know what to do with the second part of that information once you identify a patient with high risk. Are there other techniques that we can then come in with or other drugs that we can come in with to modify that risk? And that's the thing that I think we don't have right now. The other thing that we don't have right now is the timing of the assay, when to use it. Is it to be tested in the pre-op setting? Is the post-op test the best timing, or is it monitoring and dynamics of ctDNA that are most important? And the third thing I will say in terms of precautionary cause is that we don't know which test just yet. There are actually a few commercially available tests out in the market right now. We know about them and I'm sure our community colleagues know about them. Some of them even have Medicare approval. However, many of these tests are currently tissue informed. We don't have tissue uninformed tests. And what does that mean? Tissue uninformed means that you actually take a piece of tumor tissue, you sequence that tumor and based on the gene profile of that tumor, you actually design a panel that can then be used to track the mutations in the blood-based pack. This requires, as the name implies, a tumor. So can this be used in the pre-op setting is a large question. Because coming back to the idea of tissue availability, you and I both know that when we get FNAS and we use it for PDL-1 testing and we use it for gene sequencing, there often isn't enough tissue left for us to then either do whole genome sequencing or even whole transcriptome sequencing, which may be required to build some of these assays.  I think the future lies in this idea of tumor uninformed assays because if we could go to a blood only or a plasma only approach using novel signatures like proteomics or methylation, I think that's where the future is. But we're still a little bit early in the discovery stages of those, as well as to come are the validation stages so that we can be confident that these blood-only assays may actually give us an answer.  So, with those three cautionary notes, I would say that optimism is still very high. I think ctDNA MRD is the right place to think about. We need to do this for our patients to better identify high-risk patients and to think about means to escalate treatment for them. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I completely agree, and I think with all the changes and evolution of treatments in the management of early-stage lung cancer now with neoadjuvant and adjuvant, there's really a need for an escalation and de-escalation of therapies post-operatively. And I think it's a huge opportunity. I think we all could learn from our colorectal colleagues. I think they've done a really good job at actually doing prospective trials in this setting. I think we're kind of a little behind here.  Dr. Charu Aggarwal: I think in the metastatic setting there are ongoing trials to look at this exact question. How do you choose an appropriate first-line therapy, a monitor ctDNA at the six-week trial? It's being evaluated in a trial called the “Shedders” trial, where if patients are still ctDNA positive at six weeks, then you can escalate treatment because they haven't “cleared” their ctDNA. There has been a lot of research that has shown that lack of ctDNA clearance in the metastatic setting may be a poor prognostic factor. We and others have shown that if you do clear your ctDNA or if you have a reduction in ctDNA load overall, that that is directly related to both an improved progression-free survival and overall survival. This has been shown with both tissue informed and uninformed assays. So I think it's very clear that yes, you can track it. I think the question is: Can you apply that data to the early-stage setting? And that's an open research question. A lot of groups are looking at that and I think it's completely reasonable, especially to determine duration of therapy, to determine optimal timing, optimal timing of scans even. And I think these are just such interesting questions that will be answered in the future. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: And also like a kind of early detection of resistance patterns that might inform early initiation of combination strategies. And I think it's a lot of opportunities I think yet to be explored. A lot of exciting things to come and I'm sure we'll kind of see more and more data in the next few years.  Dr. Aggarwal, thank you so much for sharing your fantastic insights today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. It's been a pleasure to have you on the podcast today. Hope to see you at ASCO. Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Thank you so much. This was great and I remain so excited by all of the possibilities to improve outcomes for our patients. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thank you to all the listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear from the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Thank you so much. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:  Dr. Vamsidhar Velcheti  @VamsiVelcheti  @vamsivelcheti.bsky.social Dr. Charu Aggarwal @CharuAggarwalMD   Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)  ASCO on Bluesky ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures: Dr. Vamsidhar Velcheti:  Honoraria: Glavanize Therapeutics Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, GSK, Amgen, Taiho Oncology, Novocure, Takeda, Janssen Oncology, Picture Health, Regeneron 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. Charu Aggarwal: Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Regeneron/Sanofi, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Arcus Biosciences, Gilead Sciences, Novocure, Abbvie Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca (an immediate family member) Research Funding (Inst): Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Lilly@Loxo, Candel Therapeutics  

With so many rumors swirling around about traveling to México, we got down to the facts. Joining us in studio today was Oscar Palacio, CEO of Playa Bonita Resort in Puerto Peñasco, and he explained what you need to know before you go. 

With so many rumors swirling around about traveling to México, we got down to the facts. Joining us in studio today was Lizette Ibarra, director of the Puerto Peñasco convention and visitors bureau and  Oscar Palacio, CEO of Playa Bonita Resort in Puerto Peñasco, and they explained what you need to know before you go. 

 In this JCO Article Insights episode, Lauren Shih summaries "Longitudinal Results From the Nationwide Just ASK Initiative to Promote Routine Smoking Assessment in American College of Surgeons–Accredited Cancer Programs" by  Jessica L. Burris, et al published November 19, 2024. Come back for the next episode where JCO After Hours host, Dr. Davide Soldato interviews the author of the JCO article discussed, Dr. Jessica Burris. TRANSCRIPT Lauren Shih: Hello and welcome to JCO Article Insights. I'm your host Lauren Shih, and today we will be discussing the article, “Longitudinal Results From the Nationwide Just ASK Initiative to Promote Routine Smoking Assessment in American College of Surgeons–Accredited Cancer Programs” by Dr. Jessica Burris and colleagues published in the March issue of JCO. This study reports the finding of the Just ASK Initiative, an effort aimed at improving universal smoking assessment in cancer programs nationwide. We know that smoking after a cancer diagnosis is associated with numerous negative outcomes including worse survival, increased treatment related complications, poorer quality of life and higher healthcare costs. Patients who smoke are also at increased risk for cancer recurrence and second primary malignancies. Despite these risks, data show that a significant number of patients with newly diagnosed cancer still smoke and around 15% of cancer survivors continue smoking. Recognizing this discrepancy, national oncology organizations strongly recommend routine smoking assessment and cessation support as part of standard cancer care. However, despite these guidelines, smoking assessment and cessation assistance remain inconsistent across oncology practices. Surveys show that most National Cancer Institute designated cancer centers have insufficient resources to effectively support smoking cessation efforts. To address this gap, several large scale initiatives have been launched, including efforts by the National Cancer Institute, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, and the American College of Surgeons. The largest of these initiatives, through the American College of Surgeons, is the subject of our report today. In 2022, the American College of Surgeons introduced the Just ASK Quality Improvement Program with the goal of increasing routine smoking assessment. As member institutions, accredited programs are required to complete at least one quality improvement program annually. And in 2022, 40% of programs chose to participate in Just ASK. The primary goal of this quality improvement program was to ask at least 90% of newly diagnosed cancer patients about their smoking status. Offering smoking cessation support was encouraged, but not a mandatory component or primary endpoint for the initiative. To implement Just ASK, participating programs used a well-established Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology which is a structured, iterative approach for improving healthcare processes. Programs used local quality improvement teams and resources for implementation and had access to online training, educational webinars, and technical resources to help integrate smoking assessment into routine care. Programs completed three surveys: a baseline survey reflecting smoking assessment practices in the year before Just ASK; a midpoint survey after six months of participation; and a final survey after one year in the program. The surveys assess program characteristics, barriers to smoking assessment, readiness to change, and the frequency of smoking related clinical practices such as asking about smoking, documenting smoking status, and advising smoking cessation. Programs reported on implementation strategies they adopted to improve smoking assessment. Finally, programs reported the number of newly diagnosed cancer patients they saw, how many were asked about their smoking status and how many were identified as current smokers during each reporting period. Results from 762 participating cancer center programs were analyzed. The programs represented a diverse mix of practice sites with over 50% identified as community based. Retention in the program was high, with nearly 90% of programs completing the final survey. Most programs reported moderate organizational readiness at baseline along with an average of 4.6 implementation barriers to conducting routine smoking assessment. Barriers included factors such as lack of time, competing clinical priorities, and lack of designated tobacco treatment specialists. At baseline, the ask rate was 87.8% and this increased to 91.9% at the final survey, meeting the previously identified goal for the initiative. Throughout the initiative, programs reported increases over time in assessing smoking status, in advising patients who smoked and quit, and in documenting these assessments and recommendations in the medical record. Importantly, the smoking rate among patients asked ranged from 18.5% to 19.8% across the three surveys, demonstrating a high rate of current smoking among newly diagnosed cancer patients. The most common implementation strategies adopted by programs to promote change included gaining leadership support, improving documentation on the electronic health record, and training staff and providers. There were no major differences in implementation strategies based on program type. Organizational readiness was positively associated with better smoking assessment practices, and implementation barriers had a negative impact, although not always statistically significant. The number of implementation strategies used by programs showed a positive, significant association with smoking assessment practices at the final survey. Exploratory analyses did not suggest that program type or patient volume had a consistent relationship with the outcomes. Although the primary goal of Just ASK was smoking assessment and not cessation assistance or intervention, programs did report on cessation related practices. For example, programs reported providing education or self-help materials increased from 26% to 48%, referrals to tobacco treatment specialists increased from 25% to 35%, and referrals to quit lines increased from 27% to 45%. Prescribing or recommending FDA approved cessation medications increased from 17% to 21%. In conclusion, Just ASK is the largest nationwide initiative to standardize and improve smoking assessment in cancer care. It successfully improves smoking assessment across a diverse range of cancer practices, ensuring that hundreds of thousands of newly diagnosed cancer patients were asked about their smoking status. As nearly 20% of the cohort reported smoking, this represents a critical first step in helping patients access smoking cessation resources. Participating programs demonstrated small but sustained practice changes in smoking assessment, meeting the a priori determined goal of a 90% ask rate. However, as a quality improvement initiative, Just ASK was not designed as a clinical trial, so conclusions regarding the efficacy of the program as an intervention are limited. Selection bias may have also played a role in the findings as program participation was voluntary. Additionally, the initiative lasted just one year and while the initial improvements were steady during that time, the long term impacts of Just ASK on smoking assessment remain uncertain. Looking ahead, the American College of Surgeons recently completed the Beyond ASK initiative. This initiative is designed to go a step further and focuses on improving smoking cessation assistance and we await the results. The Just ASK initiative demonstrates the routine smoking assessment is feasible to complete as routine cancer care. This assessment is essential as identifying patients that smoke is the first and critical step towards offering smoking cessation support, which in turn can improve health outcomes and reduce cancer treatment costs. While Just ASK was a success in increasing assessment, the challenge now is ensuring that smoking cessation support is readily available for all patients who need it. Thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please give us a rating or review and subscribe so you never miss a JCO 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.  

In this JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights episode, Natalie DelRocco summarizes "Digital Pathology–Based Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Scores and Outcomes in a Randomized Phase III Trial in Men With Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer" by Felix Y. Feng, et al published January 31, 2025. Come back for the next episode where JCO Precision Oncology Conversations host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash interviews the author of the JCO PO article discussed, Dr. Tim Showalter. TRANSCRIPT Natalie DelRocco: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host Natalie Del Rocco. Today, we'll be discussing the article, “Digital Pathology-Based Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Scores and Outcomes in a Randomized Phase III Trial in Men With Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.” We will also be discussing the accompanying editorial, “Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to Improve Risk Stratification in Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.” So, we're going to start by summarizing the original report and then we'll jump into a few of the high-level interpretations that were supplied by the editorial.   The original report by Feng et. al. describes the application of multimodal artificial intelligence to data collected on a nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We will call this disease moving forward NMCRPC, a Clinical Trial. So, we're looking at data from an NMCRPC clinical trial. The SPARTAN trial was a randomized phase three trial and this study compared metastasis-free survival as the primary endpoint for those treated with traditional androgen deprivation therapy or ADT to those treated with androgen deprivation therapy plus apalutamide. Other secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and overall survival, but the primary endpoint there was metastasis-free survival or MFS. This study found that the addition of apalutamide resulted in a significantly longer median metastasis-free survival compared to androgen deprivation therapy alone. And we should note that this is a double-blind placebo-controlled trial. In the overall study, 1,207 patients participated and over the course of this study histopathology slides were collected and they were digitized for future use. And that future use is what we are going to be discussing today.  The authors do note that there are currently no good biomarkers for use in NMCRPC. The authors seem to be inspired by the ArteraAI prostate test, which was a recent application of multimodal artificial intelligence models. But in localized prostate cancer as opposed to NMCRPC, the authors constructed a multimodal artificial intelligence model or an MMAI model. They applied this to the SPARTAN trial with the intention of developing a risk score that could be used for risk stratification in NMCRPC. And we should note here that multimodal artificial intelligence or MMAI is a broad class of artificial intelligence models, and they can analyze different types of data at one time, hence the term multimodal. So in this example, the author's primary data source of interest were those digitized histopathology images because histopathology tells you a lot about NMCRPC. The authors though also wanted their model to consider traditional clinical factors that are known to be prognostic such as Gleason score, tumor stage, PSA level, and age. So those two different types of data, those histopathology images and that traditional clinical data are the two different types of data that make this model multimodal. So we should note here importantly, after dropping missing data, 420 patients contribute to this model, the MMAI model.  The authors generate a risk score from this MMAI model and they categorize that risk score into low, intermediate, and high risk groups using clinical knowledge. The authors found in their results that an increase in this MMAI risk score was associated with an increased hazard of metastasis-free survival event with a hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model of 1.72. To summarize how the authors arrived here, they derived a risk score from this MMAI model which incorporates both imaging and regular data. They plugged this risk score into a Cox proportional hazards mode,l modeling metastasis-free survival and they found that an increase in that MMAI based risk score is associated with increased hazard of metastasis-free event with a hazard ratio of 1.72, which is quite large. Additionally, the risk score seemed to be associated with PFS2 and OS, which were two of the secondary endpoints from the SPARTAN clinical trial, though the effect sizes were more modest. Those are the highlights from the original report, the methods and the results.  The accompanying editorial notes that both histopathology and Gleason score specifically are very critical to understanding prostate cancer, and Gleason score alone is not sufficient to summarize the complexity of the disease, although it is a well validated prognostic factor for prostate cancer. So this makes MMAI an excellent tool in the setting described by the authors. We have an existing prognostic factor that doesn't describe the entire picture of the disease by itself and so we can use those digitized histopathology slides to help bolster our understanding and provide the model more information. MMAI allows you to do this because it can take in different types of data. So that was the main conclusion of the editorial.  They also summarize a number of recent validations of MMAI models in prostate cancer research, noting that it will be an important tool for risk stratification and has already been shown to outperform classical techniques. The editorial though does highlight a number of weaknesses of this paper, limitations and I think the most important one to highlight, and we touched on this earlier, is that 420 patients from the SPARTAN clinical trial contributed to the development of this MMAI score. That is a small proportion of the roughly 1200 patients that did participate in the SPARTAN clinical trial. So we have a small subgroup analysis that can be limiting and this model will need to be validated in a broader population in the future.   Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. Don't forget to give us a rating or a review and be sure to subscribe so that 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.      

Con Javier Gomá. 

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology Art of Oncology poem, "The First Hero” by Christopher Kim, who is a research assistant at Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine at Stanford University. The poem is followed by an interview with Kim and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Kim reflects on his post-surgery sonnet. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: The First Hero, by Christopher Kim, BS  When he is like this—eyes closed, face still— he is unfamiliar. He wears a face younger than usual; fragile limbs washed in fluorescent light, eyes blurred with a diagnosis or ripe hyacinths or the last words we shared. Be good, son. Be bright. When he is still, anesthetized into memory, so too are the aphids in the garden. Lines of buzzing bodies descended from flight but clustered in quiet surrender. Fathers of sons who are trying to heal, who are failing, who retreat into the silence of sterile rooms. A heartbeat stutters and everything sings. Like the birds we watch outside the ICU window: how they peck at unyielding concrete and fill themselves with sharpness, their bodies frenzied, their bodies temporary.   Mikkael Sekeres: Hello and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the oncology field. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. Today, I am so thrilled to be joined by Christopher Kim. He's a research assistant at the Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine at Stanford University. In this episode, we will be discussing his Art of Oncology poem, “The First Hero.” At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. Both he and I have agreed to address each other by first names during the podcast. Chris, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us. Christopher Kim: Of course. Thank you so much for having me. It's just such an honor to be here. Mikkael Sekeres: We absolutely loved your poem. It was incredible and addressed a topic I think a lot of us face at some point in our lives and that's when we see a family member who's sick. Before we get into that, I was wondering if you can tell us a little bit about yourself. Where are you from and how did you get to this point? Christopher Kim: Absolutely, yeah. As you mentioned before, I'm working as a research assistant at the Stanford Medical School and I pretty much only recently graduated from college so I feel like I'm still in this like ‘in between' stage. I'm a Bay Area native. I went to Stanford for undergrad, just kind of stayed on with the lab that I worked with while I was an undergrad. I would like to go on to medical school in the future. I'm learning a lot working as a research assistant, getting some hands-on experience with basic biology research. And another thing about myself is I'm an avid musician, play violin, play guitar. I like to sing. And of course, I really enjoy writing as well. Mikkael Sekeres: That's a great background. Well, we definitely need more doctors who are writers, musicians and singers. So you fit that bill. And then the fact that you do some lab based research is just amazing. You sound like a polymath. Christopher Kim: Oh, I don't know about that. I try my best. Mikkael Sekeres: Can you tell us a little bit about your own story as a writer? How long have you been writing poetry? When did you get started? And how did you get started? Christopher Kim: Yeah, absolutely. So, I've always written sort of on my own, so I don't think I ever had the courage to share my writing with others because, you know, it's kind of a vulnerable thing to share your inner thoughts with someone. So I have been kind of writing on my own since maybe late middle school and early high school. That's when I started putting my thoughts onto paper. But I only recently started to submit my poetry to, you know, these journals because, you know, after a while I was thinking, I think they're worth sharing with others because maybe some people may be going through similar situations where they can feel a little bit encouraged by the words that I write in terms of, you know, feeling the emotions that they feel. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, lucky for us, you made that decision. So when you were an undergrad, did you take any writing courses? Because it's interesting, you've been in the area of writing since you were in middle school, high school. That must have continued through college. And sometimes formal courses help us refine those skills. But then there are also plenty of examples of people who just did it on their own. Christopher Kim: Absolutely. The main writing course I took, funnily enough, they weren't really creative writing courses. They were more rhetoric based or kind of just like the regular English writing classes at college undergraduates take. However, I did have a group of friends who I would share my writing with. I think that was like the most important part of my sort of evolution as a writer. Because before I would just kind of write on my own and maybe kind of hide it away, you know, in my little locked box, I guess. But then having this opportunity to meet other people my age, my peers, who, you know, I finally gained enough kind of courage to– I say courage, but I really mean, like I finally gained enough comfort to share it with them. And, you know, gaining their feedback and seeing their response was really the most important part of, I think, my writing in college. So not necessarily like formal classes, but more like the people I met and how they responded to my writing, which is- I'm really thankful for them. Mikkael Sekeres: You know, it's so interesting because there is this temptation to be like Emily Dickinson and write your poems and squirrel them away in your desk and never show them to anyone. And then, you know, the body of your work is discovered posthumously, which I think is kind of sad. I mean, you know, great that we have Emily Dickenson poetry, but it would have been nice that, you know, she had known how appreciated she was during her lifetime. Christopher Kim: Oh, absolutely. Mikkael Sekeres: And I think the hardest first step is that word that you use, courage. The courage to identify people outside of ourselves, to share our poetry with, or our narrative pieces. So how did you find those people? Christopher Kim: It's often the case that, you know, you make your closest friends when you kind of struggle together. So I think a lot of these friends I met were through taking courses together that were difficult and that sort of combined, I don't want to say misery, that's maybe too strong a word, combined struggle against one common goal. I think that's when we started becoming close. And then it was like outside of a writing context. But I think, I don't know, it's like part luck and part finding these people in these classes and then having conversations with them late at night and then eventually going towards sharing your arts, whatever. Some of them are musicians. They share their music. Some of us share our writing. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah. No, I hear you. There's that shared experience of being in difficult situations. I think a lot of us who've gone through undergrad and med school and then became doctors and started our training, we have incredibly close friends. We met in our residencies and fellowship because those were major stressor points in our lives and major transitional phases also when we felt that we grew. The other aspect that I've heard in identifying people to be first readers of your poetry or prose is to identify people you trust. People who are friends will give you a good read, will be appropriately critical, and will also be encouraging. You need those people to feed back to you truth about the quality of your writing and provide substantive criticism that helps you grow as a writer. Christopher Kim: Definitely agree. You know, you've found your true friends when they're not afraid to criticize you because they're so close to you and they really want you to be better. So, yeah, I definitely agree with that. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah. And those who will take it seriously where, I think plenty of times in my own life where I've given a piece of writing to somebody, hoping for good feedback, and then you feel like you have to hound them to finally get that feedback. And obviously they're not invested in it, as opposed to a trusted body of readers where they are going to take it seriously, they're going to read it closely, and then they're going to get back to you without you feeling as if you're imposing on them. Christopher Kim: Absolutely. Yeah. It's very valuable once you've found that group of people or friends, and you know, I still contact them regularly today. So, yeah, as you mentioned, you know, I think it's definitely like maybe a lifelong process or lifelong friendship where you can always go back to them for sort of that support. And you also are able to provide that support for your friends, too. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah. I'm curious about your writing process. What triggers you to start a poem? And, you know, how do you face that dreaded blank page? Christopher Kim: Bay Area traffic can be very long and the commute can be pretty rough. Mikkael Sekeres: Not at all like that in Miami, by the way. In Miami, we just breeze through traffic. Yeah, not at all. Christopher Kim: I would love to visit someday to compare. But yeah, Bay Area traffic can be pretty rough. As much as I love podcasts and music, there comes a point where I kind of run out of things to listen to after a while. So I really found myself driving along, but then letting my thoughts wander. And funnily enough, that's when my creative inspirations hit. Maybe it's because there's something about driving that's like the perfect amount of not thinking. You know, it's like an automatic process and that let's your– obviously I'm paying attention to the road - but you kind of let your mind wander through creative thoughts, and that's on place of creative inspiration. I've had close family members who have struggled with cancer specifically, and other serious health issues, and I've had experiences being a caretaker for them, like ‘The First Hero'. Being in that position really inspires you to write, I think, for me. Mikkael Sekeres: So I wonder if I could follow up on that and if you're only comfortable doing so. Can you tell us what prompted you to write “The First Hero”? Christopher Kim: So it's kind of a combination of experiences. My grandfather struggled with cancer for a long time, and eventually he passed away from cancer. Mikkael Sekeres: I'm sorry. Christopher Kim: I appreciate that. Thank you. And he had cancer when I was a young child, which luckily went into remission for a couple years. But then later on, you know, as I started college, that's when it came back, and that's when he passed. And I think seeing his struggles with cancer, that was one big part of inspiration for this poem. But also another thing was my father also went through some health issues where he had to go through surgery and a long period of recovery, and he still kind of struggles with some issues today. And seeing people that you love that much in a position where it's really hard, especially when they're father figures in your life. They're your grandfather and your father. And, you know, when you're a kid, you know, your dad is like, they're a superhero. Your dad is the hero who can do anything, who can achieve any answer, any question you have, who can build anything you want, can buy you things, you know, all that stuff. But now seeing them in this reverse state of being vulnerable and not being able to do too much, it really affected me. And those two experiences were my main inspiration for this poem. Mikkael Sekeres: That was really beautifully said, Chris. I'm a parent of three, and I think that it comes with a lot of responsibility to remember that just carrying the title of mom or dad implies so much to one of your own children that you have to remember the import of everything that you do for them, for your kids, and everything that you say. And it carries just that much added significance because of the role we play as parents. It's so interesting to hear it enunciated by you in that way as well. And I think part of what makes good parents, there are a thousand things that go into the formula of a good parent, and we only know for sure if we made it, if, depending on the amount of therapy our kids have to go through when they're older, right? I think part of that, though, is remembering the great responsibility that comes with just simply the title of being a parent. Christopher Kim: Absolutely. Mikkael Sekeres: You started to talk a little bit about this. I'm curious about how the dynamic between parents and children changes when a parent is sick. Christopher Kim: Yeah, it's kind of a reversal of roles in a way, because your parents, when you're born, you're the most vulnerable. They're responsible for sort of ushering you into this world, keeping you alive. Seeing your parents grow older and seeing them aging is a tough experience. And my mom often tells me whenever she would see her parents, after a while, in her mind, she still sees her parents as when they were their younger selves, when she was younger. But then suddenly it would hit her that they're, like, much older and that also makes you feel a little bit more aware of how you are aging and how much older you are. But at the end of the day, they're always going to be your parents. Mikkael Sekeres: They really are. Our parents age and we age with them, and we evolve in how we view parents, and we all go through this, and I don't think it ever ends until your parents pass. I'm sure you're familiar with this. There's a saying that you never really become an adult until your parents pass. Christopher Kim: You mentioned that you're more aware of what parenthood is as you get older. I mean, obviously I don't have any kids myself, but I'm sure my parents always USED say to me, you know, “You'll understand when you have kids.” Mikkael Sekeres: You sort of do. You sort of do. Christopher Kim: I sort of do. Right, exactly. Mikkael Sekeres: My dad always said to me that parenting is unskilled labor. So you sort of get it when you're a parent, you're still really figuring it out. Christopher Kim: Absolutely. Yeah. And the older I get, it's like I realize. I think I've gained more appreciation for the sacrifices my parents have made for me, and I've definitely taken their parenthood lessons to heart for whenever, if I choose to have kids later on. Mikkael Sekeres: So that's great. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to hear that, Chris. I wanted to end with one last question for you. Are there poets who've been a particular influence on you or favorite poets you want to name? Christopher Kim: One name that kind of comes to mind is there's a poet named Ocean Vuong. Their work blends together personal history and like, family history with beautiful lyricism. They always feel like musical in a way. Their words kind of often linger on with you long after. Mikkael Sekeres: That's great. Well, listen, Chris Kim, I'd like to thank you so much for joining us on today's podcast and for your absolutely beautiful poem, “The First Hero.” Christopher Kim: Thank you so much for having me. I'm super thrilled to be on. This is my first podcast ever, so it was such a great experience. I felt so welcomed. So thank you for, you know, hearing my thoughts or listening to my thoughts. I appreciate it. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, you're good at them. Keep them up. Until next time. Thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of the ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. Until next time. Thanks so much for joining us.   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. Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review.  Guest Bio: Christopher Kim is a research assistant at the Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine at Stanford University.

Dr. Irene Su and Dr. Alison Loren present the latest evidence-based recommendations on fertility preservation for people with cancer. They discuss established, emerging, and investigational methods of fertility preservation for adults and children, and the role of clinicians including discussing the risk of infertility with all patients. Dr. Su and Dr. Loren also touch on other important aspects of fertility preservation, including the logistics of referral to reproductive specialists, navigating health insurance, and costs. They also discuss ongoing research and future areas to explore, including risk stratification, implementing screening, referral, and navigation processes in lower resource settings, fertility measurements, and health care policy impacts. Read the full guideline update, “Fertility Preservation in People with Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update” at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines." TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/survivorship-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-24-02782   In this guideline, the terms "male" and "female" were defined based on biological sex, specifically focusing on reproductive anatomy at birth. "Male" refers to individuals born with testes, while "female" refers to those born with ovaries. The guideline, and this podcast episode, we will refer to individuals as "males" or "females" based on this definition. 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. Irene Su from the University of California, San Diego, and Dr. Alison Loren from the University of Pennsylvania, co-chairs on “Fertility Preservation in People With Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.” Thank you for being here today, Dr. Su and Dr. Loren. Dr. Irene Su: Thanks for having us. Dr. Alison Loren: Thanks for having us. Brittany Harvey: 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 guideline panel, including Dr. Su and Dr. Loren, who have 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, to jump into the content here, Dr. Loren, this is an update of a previous ASCO guideline. So what prompted this update to the 2018 guideline on fertility preservation? And what is the scope of this particular update? Dr. Alison Loren: Yeah, thanks, Brittany. So, yeah, a couple of things, actually. I would say the biggest motivation was the recognition that the field was really moving forward in several different directions. And we felt that the previous guidelines really hadn't adequately covered the need for ongoing reproductive health care in survivorship, including the fact that fertility preservation methods can be engaged in even after treatment is finished. And then also recognizing that there is increasing data supporting various novel forms of fertility preservation in both male and female patients. And we wanted to be able to educate the community about the wide array of options that are available to people with cancer, because it really has changed quite a bit even in the last six years. And then lastly, as I'm sure this audience, and you definitely know, ASCO tries to update the guidelines periodically to make sure that they're current. So it sort of is due anyhow, but I would say motivated largely by those changes in the field. Brittany Harvey: Great. I appreciate that background information. So then I'd like to dive a little bit more into those updates that you discussed. So, Dr. Su, I'd like to review the key recommendations across the main topics of this guideline. So starting with what are the recommendations regarding discussing the risk of infertility with patients undergoing cancer treatment? Dr. Irene Su: Thanks, Brittany. So for every child, adolescent, and adult of reproductive age who's been diagnosed with cancer, the recommendation remains that healthcare clinicians should discuss this possibility of infertility as early as possible before treatment starts, because that allows us, as reproductive endocrinologists and fertility specialists, to preserve the full range of options for fertility preservation for these young people. Where it's possible, I think risk stratification should be a part of the clinical infertility risk counseling and then the decision making. And then for patients and families who have an expressed interest in fertility preservation, and for those who are uncertain, the recommendation is to refer these individuals to reproductive specialists. And it turns out this is because fertility preservation treatments are medically effective for improving post-treatment fertility and counseling can ultimately reduce stress and improve quality of life, even for those who don't undergo fertility preservation. And as Dr. Loren said, a change in the guideline is specifically about continuing these discussions post-treatment yearly or when cancer treatments change because that changes their infertility risk or when pregnancy is being considered. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Discussing that risk of infertility at the beginning, before any treatment is initiated, and when treatment changes, is key. So then talking about the options for patients, Dr. Loren, what are the recommended fertility preservation options for males? Dr. Alison Loren: There has been a little bit of an evolution in options for male patients. The standard of care option which is always recommended is cryopreservation of sperm, or otherwise known as sperm banking. And this is something that should be offered ideally prior to initiating cancer directed therapy. The guideline does reflect the fact that we're starting to understand in a little bit more depth the impact of cancer-directed treatments on the health and quantity of sperm. And so trying to understand when, if ever, it's appropriate to collect sperm after initiation of treatment, but before completion of treatment remains an area of active research. But the current understanding of the data and the evidence is that sperm banking should be offered prior to initiating cancer-directed therapy. And all healthcare clinicians should feel empowered to discuss this option with all pubertal and post-pubertal male patients prior to receiving their treatment. We do offer a little bit more information about the ideal circumstances around sperm banking, including a minimum of three ejaculates of sufficient quality, if possible, but that any collections are better than no collections. We also talk about the fact that there is a relatively new procedure known as testicular sperm extraction, which can be offered to pubertal and post-pubertal males who can't produce a semen sample before cancer treatment begins. There remains no evidence for hormonal protection of testicular function - that has been a long-standing statement of fact and that remains the case. And then we also begin to address some of the potential risk of genetic damage in sperm that are collected soon after initiation of cancer-directed therapy. We are starting to understand that there is a degradation in the number and DNA integrity of sperm that can occur even after a single treatment. And so, really highlighting the fact that collecting samples, again, to Dr. Su's point, as early as possible and as many as possible to try to optimize biological parenthood after treatment. Brittany Harvey: Yes. Thank you for reviewing those options and what is both recommended and not recommended in this scenario. So then, following those recommendations, Dr. Su, what are the recommended fertility preservation options for female patients? Dr. Irene Su: There are a number of established and effective methods for fertility preservation for people with ovaries, and this includes freezing embryos, freezing oocytes, freezing ovarian tissue. For some patients, it may be appropriate to do ovarian transposition, which is to surgically move ovaries out of the field of radiation in a conservative gynecologic surgery, for example, preserving ovaries or preserving the uterus in people with gynecologic cancers. We do recommend that the choice between embryo and oocyte cryopreservation should be guided by patient preference and clinical considerations, their individual circumstances, including future flexibility, the success rates of embryo versus egg freezing that we detail more in the guideline, and legal considerations. And what is new in this guideline, as Dr. Loren alluded to earlier, is consideration of post-treatment fertility preservation for oocyte and embryo freezing. And this is going to be because, for some females, there's going to be a shortened but residual window of ovarian function that may not match when they are in their life ready to complete their families. And so for those individuals, there may be an indication to consider post-treatment fertility preservation. We clarify that gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists, GNRH agonists, while they shouldn't be used in the place of established fertility preservation methods, e.g., oocyte and embryo freezing, they can definitely be offered as an adjunct to females with breast cancer. Beyond breast cancer, we don't really understand the benefits and risks of GNRH agonists and feel that clinical trials in this area are highly encouraged. And also, that for patients who have oncologic emergencies that require urgent chemotherapy, these agonists can be offered because they can provide additional benefits like menstrual suppression. What's emerging is in vitro maturation of oocytes. It's feasible in specialized labs. It may take a little bit shorter time to retrieve these oocytes. There are cases of live births following IVM, in vitro maturation, that have been reported. But these processes remain inefficient compared to standard controlled ovarian stimulation. And therefore, it's really being treated as an emerging method. Finally, uterine transposition. It's experimental, but it's a novel technique for us. It's really moving the uterus out of the field of radiation surgically. We recommend that this is done under research protocols. So taken together, there are improvements in fertility preservation technology, and consideration of which of any of these methods really depends on tailoring to what is that patient's risk, what is the time that they have, what is feasible for them, and what is the effectiveness comparatively among these methods for them. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you reviewing those recommendations and considerations of patient preferences, the clarification on GNRH agonists, and then those emerging and experimental methods as well. So then the next category of recommendations, Dr. Loren, what are the recommended fertility preservation options for children? Dr. Alison Loren: Thanks, Brittany. This remains a very challenging area. Certainly for older children and adolescents who have begun to initiate puberty changes, we support proceeding with previously outlined standard methods of either sperm or oocyte collection and cryopreservation. For younger children who are felt to be at substantial risk for harm to fertility, the really only options available to them are gonadal tissue cryopreservation, so ovarian tissue or testicular tissue cryopreservation. As Dr. Su mentioned, the ovarian tissue cryopreservation methods are quite effective and well established. There's less data in children, but we know that in adults and older adolescents that this is an effective method. Testicular cryopreservation remains experimental, and we suggest that if it is performed, that strong consideration should be given to doing this as an investigational research protocol. However, because these are the only options available to children, we understand there may be reasons why there might need to be some flexibility around this in the proper setting of informed consent and ascent when appropriate for children. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And so we've discussed a lot of recommendations on fertility preservation options. So, Dr. Loren, what is recommended regarding the role of clinicians in advising people about these fertility preservation options? Dr. Alison Loren: Yeah, this is a really important question, Brittany, and I think that we really hope to empower the entire oncology clinical team to bring these issues to the forefront for patients. We know from qualitative studies that oncology providers sometimes feel uncomfortable bringing these issues up because they feel inexpert in dealing with them or because it's so overwhelming. Obviously, these are usually younger patients who are not expecting a cancer diagnosis, and there can be quite a lot of distress, understandably, around the diagnosis itself and the treatment plan, and it can be sometimes overwhelming to also bring up fertility as a potential risk of therapy. We are seeing that as patients are becoming more familiar and comfortable kind of speaking up, I think, social media and lots of sort of online communities have raised this issue, that we're seeing that young people with cancer do spontaneously bring this up in their visits, which we really appreciate and encourage. But I think sometimes clinicians feel it's sometimes described as a dual crisis of both the cancer diagnosis and a risk to future fertility and it can be a really challenging conversation to initiate. I feel, and we hope that the guidelines convey, that the whole point is just to bring it up. We do not expect an oncology clinician of any kind, including social workers, nurses, to be able to outline all of the very complex options that are articulated in this guideline. And in fact, the reason that the co-chairs include myself, a hematologist oncologist, and Dr. Su, who's a reproductive specialist, is because we understand that the complex reproductive options for our patients with cancer require expert conversations. So we do not expect the oncology team to go into all the guideline options with their patients. We really just want to empower everyone on the team to bring up the issue so that we can then get them the care that they need from our colleagues in reproductive endocrinology so that they can be fully apprised of all of their options with enough time before initiation of treatment to be able to embark on whichever therapies they feel are most suited to their family planning wishes. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And then jumping off of that, as a reproductive endocrinologist, Dr. Su, what do you think clinicians should know as they implement these updated recommendations? Dr. Irene Su: I wholly echo what Dr. Loren has said about- this is a team effort and it's been really fun to work as a team of various specialties on this guideline, so we hope that the guideline really reflects all of the partnerships that have occurred. I think that what clinicians should know is it may be well worth spending some time in identifying a pathway for our patients. So that starts off with the oncology team. How are we going to screen? How are we going to screen with fidelity? And then from the time of screening, really anybody who has an interest or potentially is unsure about their future fertility needs, who are the reproductive specialists, male and female, that you are in the community with to refer to? What is that referral process going to be like? Is it emails? Is it a phone? Is it a best practice advisory in your electronic health record system? From our standpoint as fertility specialists, we need to spend some time implementing in this system a way to receive these referrals urgently and also be able to support insurance navigation. Because actually, what is really exciting in this field is for the purpose of equitable access, there is increasing insurance coverage, whether it is because employers feel that this is the right thing to do to offer, or 17 states and the District of Columbia also have state mandates requiring fertility preservation coverage by many insurances, as well as, for example, federal employees and active military members. So more than ever, there is a decreased cost barrier for patients and still early days, so navigating health insurance is a little bit challenging. And that is the role, in part, of navigators and fertility clinic teams to help support these patients to do that. Dr. Alison Loren: Forming these relationships and reinforcing them so early and often is really key. Because although these patients come up with some infrequency, when they occur, they're really emergencies and we want to make sure that there's a well-established path for these patients to get from their oncology clinicians to the reproductive specialists. And as Dr. Su said, whatever works best for your system - there's a lot of different ways that people have tackled these challenging referrals - but it is really important to have an expedited path and for the receiving reproductive specialist office to understand that these are urgent patients that need to be expedited and that the oncology clinician's responsibility is to make sure that that's communicated appropriately. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. Thinking in advance about those logistics of referral and navigating health insurance and cost is key to making sure that patients receive the care that they want and that they'd like to discuss with clinicians. So then, Dr. Loren, you touched on this a little bit earlier in talking about the dual crisis, but how does this guideline impact people diagnosed with cancer? Dr. Alison Loren: Well, what we're hoping is that this is sort of a refresher. I think that many or hopefully most or all oncology clinicians are aware that this is a potential concern. And so part of our hope is that, as this guideline rolls out, it'll sort of bring to the top of people's memories and action items that this is an important part of oncology care is the reproductive health care of our patients. And it's a critical component of survivorship care as well. We want to remind people that the field continues to advance and progress. In oncology, we're very aware of oncologic progress, but we may not be so aware of reproductive healthcare progress. And so letting people know, “Hey, there's all these new cool things we can do for people that open up options, even in situations where we might have thought there were no options before.” It's a reminder to refer, because we're not going to be able to keep up with all the advances in the field. But Dr. Su and her colleagues will be able to know what might be an option for patients. I want to highlight that communication piece again because our reproductive colleagues need to know what treatments are going to be given, what the urgency is, what the risks are. And so part of our responsibility as part of the team is to make sure that it's clear to both our patients and our reproductive specialist colleagues what the risks are. And Dr. Su mentioned this earlier, but one really important open question is risk stratification. We know that not all cancer treatments are created equal. There are some treatments, such as high dose alkylating agents, such as cyclophosphamide or busulfan, or high doses of radiation directly to the gonadal tissue, that are extremely high risk for causing permanent gonadal harm very immediately after exposure. And there are other therapies, particularly emerging or novel therapies, that we really just have no idea what the reproductive impact will be. And in particular, as patients are living longer, which is wonderful for our patients, how do we integrate reproductive care and family building into the management of perhaps a younger person who's on some chronic maintenance therapies, some of which we know can harm either the developing fetus or reproductive health, and some of which we really don't know at all. And so there's a very large open question around emerging therapies and how to counsel our patients. And so we hope that this guideline will also raise to the forefront the importance of addressing these questions moving forward and helping our patients to understand that we don't necessarily have all the answers either, which we hope will enrich the discussion and really have it be a good example of shared decision making between the clinical teams and the patient, so that ultimately the patients are able to make decisions that make the most sense for them and reduce the potential for decision regret in the future. Dr. Su, I know you have spent a lot of time thinking about this. Dr. Irene Su: Yeah. I really echo this notion that not all cancer treatments are going to be toxic to future reproductive function. And as clinicians, I and colleagues know that patients want to know as much when there is no effect on their fertility, because that feels reassuring in that that prevents them from having to go through the many hoops that sometimes it can be to undergo fertility preservation, as it is to know high risk, as it is to know we don't know. This is key and central, and we need more data. So, for example, we often chat about, wouldn't it be great if from the time of preclinical drug development all the way to clinical trials, that reproductive health in terms of ovarian function, testicular function, fertility potential, is measured regularly so that we are not having to look back 30, 40, 50 years later to understand what happened. And so this is one of our key research questions that we hope the field takes note of going forward. Dr. Alison Loren: This is an important point. We focus greatly, as we should, on potential harms to fertility, making sure that there's access to all the reproductive options for young people with cancer. But to Dr. Su's point, not all therapies are created equal, and there are some therapies that are somewhat lower risk or even much lower risk, including, I'm a blood cancer specialist and so certainly in the patients that I take care of, the treatments related to AML, ALL, and some lymphomas are actually fairly low risk, which is why the post-treatment fertility preservation options are so important. And particularly for patients who potentially present acutely ill with acute leukemia do not have the time or the ability to engage in fertility preservation because of their medical circumstances, it's important to have that conversation. I want to emphasize to oncology clinicians that even if you know medically that this patient is unable to undergo fertility preservation techniques at the time of diagnosis of their cancer, that it's still appropriate to talk about it and to say, “We're going to keep talking about this, this is something that we're going to raise again once you're through this initial therapy. I'm not forgetting about this. It may not be something we can engage in now, but it's a future conversation that's important in your ongoing care.” And then to think about pursuing options when possible, particularly for patients who may require a bone marrow transplant in their future, either due to higher risk disease at presentation or in the event of a relapse, we know that generally bone marrow transplants, because of the high intensity conditioning that they require for most patients who are young, that permanent gonadal insufficiency will be a fixture. And so there can be a window of time in between initial therapy and transplant where a referral might be appropriate. So my public service announcement is that it's never the wrong time to refer to a reproductive specialist. And sometimes people make assumptions about chemotherapy that, “Oh, they've already been treated, so there's nothing we can do,” and I want to make sure that people know that that's not true and that it's always appropriate to explore options. Dr. Irene Su: I think we talk a lot about how important screening and referral is and I can imagine that it's hard to actually know how to implement that. One of our other research questions to look out for is that we see a lot of tertiary care centers that have put together big teams, big resources, and that's not always feasible to scale out to all kinds of settings. And so what's emerging is: What are the key processes that have to happen and how can we adapt this screening, referral, financial navigation process from larger centers to smaller centers to less resource settings. So I guess my public service announcement is there's research in this area, there's focus in this area, so keep an eye out because there will be hopefully better tools to be able to fit in different types of settings. And more research is actually needed to be able to trial these different screening, referral, navigation processes in lower resource settings as well. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's important to think about the research questions on how to improve both the delivery of fertility preservation options and the discussion of it, and it's important to recognize, as you mentioned, the different fertility risks of different cancer directed treatment options and the importance to have the conversations around this. So then just to expand on this notion a little bit, Dr. Su, we've touched on the research needed here in terms of discussing fertility options with patients and referring and then also in some of the experimental and emerging treatment options. So, what are the other outstanding research questions regarding fertility preservation for people with cancer? Dr. Irene Su: A couple others I'd like to add and then have Dr. Loren chime in in case I missed anything in all of our discussions, there's so many wants. So head to head comparisons of which method is best for which patient and what the long term outcomes are: How many kiddos? Do we complete family building? That is still missing. Being able to invest in novel methods from - there's fertoprotective agents that are being tested, potentially spermatogonial stem cell transplant. These are closer to clinical trials to really early research on ovarian, testicular, uterine biology. This is needed in order to inform downstream interventions. One of the questions that is unanswered is: After treatment starts, when is it safe to retrieve oocytes? And so this is a question because, for example, for our leukemia patients who are in the middle of treatment, when is it safe to retrieve eggs? And we don't know. And then post-treatment, for people who have a reduced window, when do you optimally have the most number of eggs or embryos that you can cryopreserve? That's unknown. But I think the question around once treatment has started, is recent exposure of anti-cancer treatments somehow mutagenic or somehow toxic to the oocytes with regard to long term offspring health? That is unanswered. I'm going to scope out a little bit and maybe policy nerd this a little bit. It's been very exciting to see advocacy, advocacy from our patients, from our clinicians on trying to improve health care policy. Like how can we use mandates to improve this delivery? But we actually don't know because actually the mandates from states that require health insurance coverage for fertility preservation, they vary. And so actually what are the key ingredients and policies that will ultimately get the most patients to the care they need? That is in question and would be really interesting. And so what is a part of this guideline which is not often seen in clinical guidelines, is a call for what we think are best practices for health insurance plans to help patients be able to access. And so this means that we recommend being specific and comprehensive in the coverage of these established fertility preservation services that have been recommended. And this means, for example, an egg freezing covering the whole process from consultation to office visits, to ultrasounds and laboratories, to medicines, to the retrieval, and then to long term storage. Because particularly for the youngest of our patients, these gametes could be frozen for a number of years and may not always be so affordable without health insurance coverage. We think that fertility preservation benefits really should be at parity, that you should not be having more cost sharing on the patient compared to other medical services that are covered. This is an inequity and where possible we should eliminate prior authorization because that timing is so short between diagnosis and needing to start anti-cancer treatment. And so prior authorization having to go through multiple layers of health insurance is really a key barrier because we all know that health insurance literacy is limited for all of us. And so whatever we can do to support our patient for the intent of these benefits would be recommended. Dr. Alison Loren: That was so well said, Dr. Su. I'll take the oncology perspective and say that from our side, really being able to understand the risks of infertility and understanding better measurements of fertility capacity, understanding where our patients are - every patient is different. These conversations are very different for a 37-year-old than they are for a 17-year-old. And so what we haven't really talked about is the fact that certainly at least female patients, as they age, their reproductive potential declines naturally. And so their infertility trajectory may be accelerated, they may have a shorter timeline or have less reserve than younger patients. And so being able to tailor our risk discussions not just based on the specific treatments, but on the reproductive age of the patient sitting in front of us and really being able to tailor those to very personalized risks would be really helpful. Because, as Dr. Su mentioned, and I think, as many people know, undergoing fertility preservation techniques can be really arduous. Even if they're covered and paid for, and all of those logistics are easy, which they seldom are, the physical drain of having to do injections, go for labs, all of the parts of those therapies can be really difficult for patients. And so being able to really understand who needs to have these interventions and who could pass, and understanding what the risks are, as I mentioned earlier, for these novel and emerging therapies would be really helpful. Another really important aspect of future research questions is we would like to encourage all clinicians, both reproductive specialists and oncology clinicians, and also our young people with cancer, to participate in clinical studies pertaining to fertility measurements and preservation. We also exhort our industry colleagues to consider including important reproductive endpoints, including biomarkers of ovarian and testicular reserve, if possible, in clinical trials. It will enhance our ability to provide counseling and support for these therapies in the future to be able to understand what the true impact of infertility, family building and health of offspring to be able to include these data in prospective databases and trials. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And I want to thank you both for raising those really important points. So we'll look forward to this ongoing research and optimizing policies for covering fertility preservation benefits for all patients with cancer. I want to thank you both so much for your work to update this critical guideline and talk about these important needs of people with cancer. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Su and Dr. Loren. Dr. Alison Loren: Thanks so much for having us. Dr. Irene Su: You're welcome. This was really fun. Dr. Alison Loren: It was fun. And I just will add that the team at ASCO is amazing and really made this a pleasure. Dr. Irene Su: I couldn't agree more. And from the point of being a fertility specialist, being invited to be a part of this with ASCO and with all of our colleagues, it's been really amazing. And so thanks for allowing us to contribute. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And a big thanks to the entire panel as well. 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/survivorship-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    

Cuando Jesús nos dice que seamos perfectos nos está invitando a que escuchemos nuestra conciencia y a que demos pasos serios para salir de nuestros pecados e incoherencias.

Dr. Ebony Hoskins and Dr. Andreas Obermair discuss the surgical management of gynecologic cancers, including the role of minimally invasive surgery, approaches in fertility preservation, and the nuances of surgical debulking. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast, I'm Dr. Ebony Hoskins. I'm a gynecologic oncologist at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC, and your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Today we'll be discussing the surgical management of gynecologic cancer, including the role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), approaches in fertility preservation, and the nuances of surgical debulking, timing, and its impact on outcomes. I am delighted to welcome Dr. Andreas Obermair for today's discussion. Dr. Obermair is an internationally renowned gynecologic oncologist, a professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Queensland, and the head of the Queensland Center for Gynecologic Cancer Research. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Obermair, it's great speaking with you today. Dr. Andreas Obermair: Thank you so much for inviting me to this podcast. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: I am very excited.  I looked at your paper and I thought, gosh, is everything surgical? This is everything that I deal with daily in terms of cancer in counseling patients. What prompted this review regarding GYN cancer management? Dr. Andreas Obermair: Yes, our article was published in the ASCO Educational Book; it is volume 44 in 2024. And this article covers some key aspects of targeted precision surgical management principles in endometrial cancer, cervical cancer, and ovarian cancer. While surgery is considered the cornerstone of gynecologic cancer treatment, sometimes research doesn't necessarily reflect that. And so I think ASCO asked us to; so it was not just me, there was a team of colleagues from different parts of the United States and Australia to reflect on surgical aspects of gynecologic cancer care and I feel super passionate about that because I do believe that surgery has a lot to offer. Surgical interventions need to be defined and overall, I see the research that I'm doing as part of my daily job to go towards precision surgery. And I think that is, well, that is something that I'm increasingly passionate for. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Well, I think we should get into it. One thing that comes to mind is the innovation of minimally invasive surgery in endometrial cancer. I always reflect on when I started my fellowship, I guess it's been about 15 years ago, all of our endometrial cancer patients had a midline vertical incision, increased risk of abscess, infections and a long hospital stay. Do you mind commenting on how you see management of endometrial cancer today? Dr. Andreas Obermair: Thank you very much for giving the historical perspective because the generation of gynecologic oncologists today, they may not even know what we dealt with, what problems we had to solve. So like you, when I was a fellow in gynecologic oncology, we did midline or lower crosswise incisions, the length of stay was, five days, seven days, but we had patients in hospital because of complications for 28 days. We took them back to the operating theaters because those are patients with a BMI of 40 plus, 45, 50 and so forth. So we really needed to solve problems. And then I was exposed to a mentor who taught minimal invasive surgery. And in Australia he was one of the first ones who embarked on that. And I can remember, I was mesmerized by this operation, like not only how logical this procedure was, but also we did rounds afterwards. And I saw these women after surgery and I saw them sitting upright, lipstick on, having had a full meal at the end of the day. And I thought, wow, this is the most rewarding experience that I have to round these patients after surgery. And so I was thinking, how could I help to establish this operation as standard? Like a standard that other people would accept this is better. And so I thought we needed to do a trial on this. And then it took a long time. It took a long time to get the support for the [LACE - Laparoscopic Approach to Cancer of the Endometrium] trial. And in this context, I just also wanted to remind us all that there were concerns about minimal invasive surgery in endometrial cancer at the time. So for example, one of the concerns was when I submitted my grant funding applications, people said, “Well, even if we fund you, wouldn't be able to do this trial because there are actually no surgeons who actually do minimally invasive surgery.” And at the time, for example, in Australia, there were maybe five people, a handful of people who were able to do this operation, right? This was about 20 years ago. The other concern people had was they were saying, could minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer, could that cause port side metastasis because there were case reports. So there were a lot of things that we didn't know anyway. We did this trial and I'm super happy we did this trial. We started in 2005, and it took five years to enroll. At the same time, GOG LAP2 was ramping up and the LACE trial and GOG LAP2 then got published and provided the foundations for minimally invasive surgery in endometrial cancer. I'm super happy that we have randomized data about that because now when we go back and now when people have concerns about this, should we do minimally invasive surgery in P53 mutant tumors, I'm saying, well, we actually have data on that. We could go back, we could actually do more research on that if we wanted to, but our treatment recommendations are standing on solid feet. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Well, my patients are thankful. I see patients all the time and they have high risk and morbidly obese, lots of medical issues and actually I send them home most the same day. And I think, you know, I'm very appreciative of that research, because we obviously practice evidence-based and it's certainly a game changer. Let's go along the lines of MIS and cervical cancer. And this is going back to the LACC [Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer] trial.  I remember, again, one of these early adopters of use of robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery for radical hysterectomy and thought it was so cool. You know, we can see all the anatomy well and then have the data to show that we actually had a decreased survival. And I even see that most recent updated data just showing it still continued. Can you talk a little bit about why you think there is a difference? I know there's ongoing trials, but still interested in kind of why do you think there's a survival difference? Dr. Andreas Obermair:  So Ebony, I hope you don't mind me going back a step. So the LACC study was developed from the LACE trial. So we thought we wanted to reproduce the LACE data/LAP2 data. We wanted to reproduce that in cervix cancer. And people were saying, why do you do that? Like, why would that be different in any way? We recognize that minimally invasive radical hysterectomy is not a standard. We're not going to enroll patients in a randomized trial where we open and do a laparotomy on half the patients. So I think the lesson that really needs to be learned here is that any surgical intervention that we do, we should put on good evidence footing because otherwise we're really running the risk of jeopardizing patients' outcomes. So, that was number one and LACC started two years after LACE started. So LACC started in 2007, and I just wanted to acknowledge the LACC principal investigator, Dr. Pedro Ramirez, who at the time worked at MD Anderson. And we incidentally realized that we had a common interest. The findings came totally unexpected and came as an utter shock to both of us. We did not expect this. We expected to see very similar disease-free and overall survival data as we saw in the endometrial cancer cohort. Now LACC was not designed to check why there was a difference in disease-free survival. So this is very important to understand. We did not expect it. Like, so there was no point checking why that is the case. My personal idea, and I think it is fair enough if we share personal ideas, and this is not even a hypothesis I want to say, this is just a personal idea is that in endometrial cancer, we're dealing with a tumor where most of the time the cancer is surrounded by a myometrial shell. And most of the time the cancer would not get into outside contact with the peritoneal cavity. Whereas in cervix cancer, this is very different because in cervix cancer, we need to manipulate the cervix and the tumor is right at the outside there. So I personally don't use a uterine manipulator. I believe in the United States, uterine manipulators are used all the time. My experience is not in this area, so I can't comment on that. But I would think that the manipulation of the cervix and the contact of the cervix to the free peritoneal cavity could be one of the reasons. But again, this is simply a personal opinion. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Well, I appreciate it. Dr. Andreas Obermair: Ebony at the end of the day, right, medicine is empirical science, and empirical science means that we just make observations, we make observations, we measure them, and we pass them on. And we made an observation. And, and while we're saying that, and yes, you're absolutely right, the final [LACC] reports were published in JCO recently. And I'm very grateful to the JCO editorial team that they accepted the paper, and they communicated the results because this is obviously very important. At the same time, I would like to say that there are now three or four RCTs that challenge the LACC data. These RCTs are ongoing, and a lot of people will be looking forward to having these results available. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Very good. In early-stage cervical cancer, the SHAPE trial looked at simple versus radical hysterectomy in low-risk cervical cancer patients. And as well all know, simple hysterectomy was not inferior to radical hysterectomy with respect to the pelvic recurrence rate and any complications related to surgery such as urinary incontinence and retention. My question for you is have you changed your practice in early-stage cervical cancer, say a patient with stage 1B1 adenocarcinoma with a positive margin on conization, would you still offer this patient a radical hysterectomy or would you consider a simple hysterectomy? Dr. Andreas Obermair:  I think this is a very important topic, right? Because I think the challenge of SHAPE is to understand the inclusion criteria. That's the main challenge. And most people simplify it to 2 cm, which is one of the inclusion criteria but there are two others and that includes the depth of invasion. Dr. Marie Plante has been very clear. Marie Plante is the first author of the SHAPE trial that's been published in the New England Journal of Medicine only recently and Marie has been very clear upfront that we need to consider all three inclusion criteria and only then the inclusion criteria of SHAPE apply. So at the end of the day, I think what the SHAPE trial is telling us that small tumors that would strictly fulfill the criteria of a 1B or 1B1 cancer of the cervix can be considered for a standard type 1 or PIVA type 1 or whatever classification we're trying to use will be eligible. And that makes a lot of sense. I personally not only look at the size, I also look at the location of the tumor. I would be very keen that I avoid going through tumor tissue because for example, if you have a tumor that is, you know, located very much in one corner of the cervix and then you do a standard hysterectomy and then you have a positive tumor margin that would be obviously, most people would agree it would be an unwanted outcome. So I'd be very keen checking the location, the size of the tumor, the depths of invasion and maybe then if the tumor for example is on one side of the cervix you can do a standard approach on the contralateral side but maybe do a little bit more of a margin, a parametrial margin on the other side. Or if a tumor is maybe on the posterior cervical lip, then you don't need to worry so much about the anterior cervical margin, maybe take the rectum down and maybe try to get a little bit of a vaginal margin and the margin on the uterus saccals. Just really to make sure that you do have margins because typically if we get it right, survival outcomes of clinical stage 1 early cervix cancer 1B1 1B 2 are actually really good. It is a very important thing that we get the treatment right. In my practice, I use a software to record my treatment outcomes and my margins. And I would encourage all colleagues to be cognizant and to be responsible and accountable to introduce accountable clinical practice, to check on the margins and check on the number on the percentage of patients who require postoperative radiation treatment or chemo radiation. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Very good. I have so many questions for you. I don't know the statistics in Australia, but here, there's increased rising of endometrial cancer and certainly we're seeing it in younger women. And fertility always comes up in terms of kind of what to do. And I look at the guidelines and, see if I can help some of the women if they have early-stage endometrial cancer. Your thoughts on what your practice is on use of someone who may meet criteria, if you will. The criteria I use is grade 1 endometrioid adenocarcinoma. No myometria invasion. I try to get MRI'd and make sure that there's no disease outside the endometrium. And then if they make criteria, I typically would do an IUD. Can you tell me what your practice is and where you've had success? Dr. Andreas Obermair: So, we initiated the feMMe clinical trial that was published in 2021 and it was presented in a Plenary at one of the SGO meetings. I think it was in 2021, and we've shown complete pathological response rates after levonorgestrel intrauterine device treatment. And so in brief, we enrolled patients with endometrial hyperplasia with atypia, but also patients with grade 1 endometrial adenocarcinoma. Patients with endometrial hyperplasia with atypia had, in our series, had an 85 % chance of developing a complete pathological response. And that was defined as the complete absence of any atypia or cancer. So endometrial hyperplasia with atypia responded in about 85%. In endometrial cancer, it was about half, it was about 45, 50%. In my clinical practice, like as you, I see patients, you know, five days a week. So I'm looking after many patients who are now five years down from conservative treatment of endometrial cancer. There are a lot of young women who want to get pregnant, and we had babies, and we celebrate the babies obviously because as gynecologist obstetricians it couldn't get better than that, right, if our cancer patients have babies afterwards. But we're also treating women who are really unfit for surgery and who are frail and where a laparoscopic hysterectomy would be unsafe. So this phase is concluded, and I think that was very successful. At least we're looking to validate our data. So we're having collaborations, we're having collaborations in the United States and outside the United States to validate these data. And the next phase is obviously to identify predictive factors, to identify predictors of response. Because as you can imagine, there is no point treating patients with a levonorgestrel intrauterine joint device where we know in advance that she's not going to respond. So this is a very, very fascinating story and we got our first set of data already, but now we just really need to validate this data. And then once the validation is done, my unit is keen to do a prospective validation trial. And that also needs to involve international collaborators. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Very good. Moving on to ovarian cancer, we see patients with ovarian cancer with, say, at least stage 3C or higher who started neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Now, some of these patients are hearing different things from their medical oncologist versus their gynecologic oncologist regarding the number of cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy after getting diagnosed with ovarian cancer. I know that this can be confusing for our patients coming from a medical oncologist versus a gynecologic oncologist. What do you say to a patient who is asking about the ideal number of chemotherapy cycles prior to surgery? Dr. Andreas Obermair: So this is obviously a very, very important topic to talk about. We won't be able to provide a simple off the shelf answer for that, but I think data are emerging.  The ASCO guidelines should also be worthwhile considering because there are actually new ASCO Guidelines [on neoadjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer] that just came out a few weeks ago and they would suggest that we should be aiming for R0 in surgery. If we can maybe take that as the pivot point and then go back and say, okay, so what do need to do to get the patient to zero?  I'm not an ovarian cancer researcher; I'm obviously a practicing gynecologic oncologist. I think about things a lot and things like that. In my practice, I would want a patient to develop a response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. So, if a patient doesn't have a response after two or three cycles, then I don't see the point for me to offer her an operation. In my circle with the medical oncologists that I work with, I have a very, very good understanding. So, they send the patient to me, I take them to the theater. I take a good chunk of tissue from the peritoneum. We have a histopathologic diagnosis, we have a genomic diagnosis, they go home the same day. So obviously there is no hospital stay involved with that. They can start the chemotherapy after a few days. There is no hold up because the chances of surgical complication in a setting like this is very, very low. So I use laparoscopy to determine whether the patient responds or not. And for many of my patients, it seems to work. It's obviously a bit of an effort and it takes operating time. But I think I'm increasing my chances to make the right decision. So, coming back to your question about whether we should give three or six cycles, I think the current recommendations are three cycles pending the patient's response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy because my aim is to get a patient to R0 or at least minimal residual disease. Surgery is really, in this case, I think surgery is the adjunct to systemic treatment. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Definitely. I think you make a great point, and I think the guideline just came out, like you mentioned, regarding neoadjuvant. And I think the biggest thing that we need to come across is the involvement of a gynecologic oncologist in patients with ovarian cancer. And we know that that survival increases with that involvement. And I think the involvement is the surgery, right? So, maybe we've gotten away from the primary tumor debulking and now using more neoadjuvant, but surgery is still needed. And so, I definitely want to have a take home that GYN oncology is involved in the care of these patients upfront. Dr. Andreas Obermair: I totally support that. This is a very important statement. So when I'm saying surgery is the adjunct to medical treatment, I don't mean that surgery is not important. Surgery is very important. And the timing is important. And that means that the surgeons and the med oncs need to be pulling on the same string. The med oncs just want to get the cytotoxic into the patients, but that's not the point, right? We want to get the cytotoxic into the patients at the right time because if we are working under this precision surgery, precision treatment mantra, it's not only important what we do, but also doing it at the right time. And ideally, I I would like to give surgery after three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, if that makes sense. But sometimes for me as a surgeon, I talk to my med onc colleagues and I say, “Look, she doesn't have a good enough response to her treatment and I want her to receive six cycles and then we re-evaluate or change medical treatment,” because that's an alternative that we can swap out drugs and treat upfront with a different drug and then sometimes they do respond. Dr. Ebony Hoskins:  I have maybe one more topic. In the area I'm in, in the Washington D.C. area, we see lots of endometrial cancer and they're not grade 1, right? They're high-risk endometrial cancer and advanced. So a number of patients with stage 3 disease, some just kind of based off staging and then some who come in with disease based off of the CT scan, sometimes omental caking, ascites. And the real question is we have extrapolated the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to endometrial cancer. It's similar, but not the same. So my question is in an advanced endometrial cancer, do you think there's still a role, when I say advanced, I mean, maybe stage 4, a role for surgery? Dr. Andreas Obermair: Most definitely. But the question is when do you want to give this surgery? Similar to ovarian cancer, in my experience, I want to get to R0. What am I trying to achieve here? So, I reckon we should do a trial on this. And I reckon we have, as you say, the number of patients in this setting is increasing, we could do a trial. I think if we collaborate, we would have enough patients to do a proper trial. Obviously, we would start maybe with a feasibility trial and things like that. But I reckon a trial would be needed in this setting because I find that the incidence that you described, that other people would come across, they're becoming more and more common. I totally agree with you, and we have very little data on that. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Very little and we're doing what we can. Dr. Obermair, thank you for sharing your fantastic insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast and for all the work you do to advance care for patients with gynecologic cancer. Dr. Andreas Obermair: Thank you, Dr. Hoskins, for hosting this and it's been an absolute pleasure speaking with you today. Dr. Ebony Hoskins: Definitely a pleasure and thank you to our listeners for your time today. Again, Dr. Obermair's article is titled, “Controversies in the Surgical Management of Gynecologic Cancer: Balancing the Decision to Operate or Hesitate,” and was published in the 2024 ASCO Educational Book. And you'll find a link to the article 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. Find out more about today's speakers: Dr. Ebony Hoskins @drebonyhoskins Dr. Andreas Obermair @andreasobermair Follow ASCO on social media:       @ASCO on Twitter       ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook       ASCO on LinkedIn       Disclosures:   Dr. Ebony Hoskins: No relationships to disclose. Dr. Andreas Obermair: Leadership: SurgicalPerformance Pty Ltd. Stock and Ownership Interests: SurgicalPerformance Pty Ltd. Honoraria: Baxter Healthcare Consulting or Advisory Role: Stryker/Novadaq Patents, Royalties, and Other Intellectual Property: Shares in SurgicalPerformance Pty Ltd. Travel, Accommodation, Expenses: Stryker    

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology Art of Oncology article, "I Hope So Too” by Dr. Richard Leiter from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. The article is followed by an interview with Leiter and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Leiter shares that even in the most difficult moments, clinicians can find space to hope with patients and their families. TRANSCRIPT  Narrator: I Hope So Too, by Richard E. Leiter, MD, MA  “You're always the negative one,” Carlos' mother said through our hospital's Spanish interpreter. “You want him to die.” Carlos was 21 years old. A few years earlier he had been diagnosed with AML and had undergone an allogeneic bone marrow transplant. He was cured. But now, he lay in our hospital's bone marrow transplant (BMT) unit, his body attacked by the very treatment that had given him a new life. He had disseminated graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in his liver, his lungs, his gut, and, most markedly, his skin. The BMT team had consulted us to help with Carlos' pain. GVHD skin lesions covered his body. They were raw and weeping. Although the consult was ostensibly for pain, the subtext could not have been clearer. Carlos was dying, and the primary team needed help navigating the situation. As his liver and kidney function declined, the need to address goals of care with Carlos' mother felt like it was growing more urgent by the hour. Difficult cases, like a young person dying, transform an inpatient unit. Rather than the usual hum of nurses, patient care associates, pharmacy technicians, and unit managers going about their daily work, the floor becomes enveloped in tension. Daily rhythms jump a half step ahead of the beat; conversations among close colleagues fall out of tune. “Thank goodness you're here,” nurse after nurse told my attending and me, the weight of Carlos' case hanging from their shoulders and tugging at the already puffy skin below their eyes. I was a newly minted palliative care fellow, just over a month into my training. I was developing quickly, but as can happen with too many of us, my confidence sat a few steps beyond my skills. I thought I had a firm grasp of palliative care communication skills and was eager to use them. I asked for feedback from my attendings and genuinely worked to incorporate it into my practice. At the same time, I silently bristled when they took charge of a conversation in a patient's room. Over the ensuing week, my attending and I leaned in. We spent hours at Carlos' bedside. If I squinted, I could have convinced myself that Carlos' pain was better. Every day, however, felt worse. We were not making any progress with Carlos' mother, who mostly sat silently in a corner of his room. Aside from occasionally moaning, Carlos did not speak. We learned little, if anything, about him as a person, what he enjoyed, what he feared. We treated him, and we barely knew him. Each morning, I would dutifully update my attending about the overnight events. “Creatinine is up. Bili is up.” She would shake her head in sadness. “Doesn't she get that he's dying?” one of the nurses asked us. “I feel like I'm torturing him. He's jaundiced and going into renal failure. I'm worried we're going to need to send him to the ICU. But even that won't help him. Doesn't she understand?”  We convened a family meeting. It was a gorgeous August afternoon, but the old BMT unit had no windows. We sat in a cramped, dark gray family meeting room. Huddled beside Carlos' mother was everyone on the care team including the BMT attending, nurse, social worker, chaplain, and Spanish interpreter. We explained that his kidneys and liver were failing and that we worried time was short. Carlos' mother had heard it all before, from his clinicians on rounds every day, from the nursing staff tenderly caring for him at his bedside, and from us. “He's going to get better,” she told us. “I don't understand why this is happening to him. He's going to recover. He was cured of his leukemia. I have hope that his kidneys and liver are going to get better.” “I hope they get better,” I told her. I should have stopped there. Instead, in my eagerness to show my attending, and myself, I could navigate the conversation on my own, I mistakenly kept going. “But none of us think they will.” It was after this comment that she looked me right in the eyes and told me I wanted Carlos to die. I knew, even then, that she was right. In that moment, I did want Carlos to die. I could not sit with all the suffering—his, his mother's, and his care team's. I needed her to adopt our narrative—that we had done all we could to help Carlos live, and now, we would do all we could to help him die comfortably. I needed his mother to tell me she understood, to accept what was going on. I failed to recognize what now seems so clear. Of course, his mother understood what was happening. She saw it. But how could we have asked her to accept what is fundamentally unacceptable? To comprehend the incomprehensible?  At its best, serious illness communication not only empathetically shares news, be it good or bad, but also allows patients and families adequate time to adjust to it. For some, this adjustment happens quickly, and in a single conversation, they can digest difficult news and move to planning the next steps in care for themselves or their loved ones. For most, they need more time to process, and we are able to advance the discussion over the course of multiple visits. My attending led the conversations from then on. She worked with the BMT attending, and they compassionately kept Carlos out of the intensive care unit. He died a few days later, late in the evening. I never saw his mother again. I could not have prevented Carlos' death. None of us could have. None of us could have spared his mother from the grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life. Over those days, though, I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her. I could have protected her from the overcommunication that plagues our inpatient units when patients and families make decisions different from those we would make for ourselves and our loved ones. I could have acted as her guide rather than as her cross-examiner. I could have hoped that Carlos stopped suffering and, genuinely, hoped he got better although I knew it was next to impossible. Because hope is a generous collaborator, it can coexist with rising creatinines, failing livers, and fears about intubation. Even in our most difficult moments as clinicians, we can find space to hope with our patients, if we look for it. Now—years later, when I talk to a terrified, grieving family member, I recall Carlos' mother's eyes piercing mine. When they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I know how to respond. “I hope so too.” And I do. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Hello and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the oncology field. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at University of Miami. Today I am thrilled to be joined by Dr. Ricky Leiter from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. In this episode, we will be discussing his Art of Oncology article, “I Hope So, Too.” Our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Ricky, welcome to our podcast and thank you so much for joining us. Dr. Ricky Leiter: Thanks so much for having me. I'm really excited to be here. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Ricky, I absolutely adored your essay. It really explored, I think, a combination of the vulnerability we have when we're trying to take care of a patient who's dying and the interesting badlands we're placed in when we're also a trainee and aren't quite sure of our own skills and how to approach difficult situations. But before we dive into the meat of this, can you tell us a little bit about yourself? Where are you from and where did you do your training? Dr. Ricky Leiter: Sure, yeah. Thanks so much. So I grew up in Toronto, Canada, and then moved down to the States for college. I was actually a history major, so I never thought I was going to go into medicine. And long story short, here I am. I did a Post-Bac, did a year of research, and ended up at Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine for med school, where I did a joint degree in medical humanities and bioethics. And that really shaped my path towards palliative care because I found this field where I said, “You know, wow, I can use these skills I'm learning in my Master's at the bedside with patients thinking about life and death and serious illness and what does that all mean in the broader context of society.” So, moved from Chicago to New York for residency, where I did residency and chief residency in internal medicine at New York Presbyterian Cornell, and then came up to the Harvard Interprofessional Palliative Care Program, where I did a clinical fellowship, then a research fellowship with Dana-Farber, and have been on faculty here since. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Fantastic. Any thoughts about moving back to Canada? Dr. Ricky Leiter: We talk about it every now and then. I'm really happy here. My family's really happy here. We love life in Boston, so we're certainly here for the time being. Definitely. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: And the weather's so similar. Dr. Ricky Leiter: Yeah, I'm used to the cold. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I apparently did not move to Miami. I'm curious, this may be an unfair question, as you have a really broad background in humanities and ethics. Are there one or two books that you read where you think, “Gee, I'm still applying these principles,” or, “This really still resonates with me in my day to day care of patients who have cancer diagnosis”? Dr. Ricky Leiter: Oh, wow, that is a great question. There are probably too many to list. I think one is When Breath Becomes Air by Paul Kalanithi, which I didn't read in my training, I read afterwards. And I think he's such a beautiful writer. The story is so poignant, and I just think Paul Kalanithi's insights into what it means to be living with a serious illness and then ultimately dying from cancer as a young man, as someone in medicine, has really left an imprint on me. Also, Arthur Kleinman. The Illness Narratives, I think, is such a big one, too. And similarly, Arthur Frank's work. I mean, just thinking about narrative and patient stories and how that impacts our clinical care, and also us as clinicians. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: And I suspect us as writers also. Dr. Ricky Leiter: Absolutely. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: We imprint on the books that were influential to us. Dr. Ricky Leiter: Certainly. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: So how about your story as a writer? How long have you been writing narrative pieces? Is this something you came to later in your career, or did you catch the bug early as an undergrad or even younger? Dr. Ricky Leiter: So I caught it early, and then it went dormant for a little while and came back. As a history major, as someone who is humanities minded, I loved writing my papers in college. Like, I was one of those nerds who got, like, really, really excited about the history term paper I was writing. You know, it was difficult, but I was doing it, particularly at the last minute. But I really loved the writing process. Going through my medical training, I didn't have as much time as I wanted, and so writing was sort of on the back burner. And then actually in my research fellowship, we had a writing seminar, our department, and one of the sessions was on writing Op-eds and perspective pieces. And we had a free write session and I wrote something sort of related to my research at the time I was thinking about, and Joanne Wolfe, who was helping to lead the session, pediatric palliative care physician, she said, “You know, this is really great. Like, where are you going to publish this?” And I said, “Joanne, what do you mean? I just wrote this in this session as an exercise.” She said, “No, you should publish this.” And I did. And then the bug came right back and I thought, “Wow, this is something that I really enjoy and I can actually make a difference with it. You know, getting a message out, allowing people to think a little bit differently or more deeply about clinical cases, both in the lay press and in medical publications.: So I've essentially been doing it since and it's become a larger and larger part of my career. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: That's absolutely wonderful, Ricky. Where is it that you publish then, outside of Art of Oncology? Dr. Ricky Leiter: So I've had a couple of pieces in the New York Times, which was really exciting. Some in STAT News on their opinion section called First Opinion, and had a few pieces in the New England Journal as well, and in the Palliative Care Literature, the Journal of Palliative Medicine. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Outstanding. And about palliative care issues and end of life issues, I assume? Dr. Ricky Leiter: Sort of all of the above. Palliative care, serious illness, being in medical training, I wrote a fair bit about what it was like to be on the front lines of the pandemic. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah, that was a traumatic period of time, I think, for a lot of us. Dr. Ricky Leiter: Absolutely. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I'm curious about your writing process. What triggers a story and how do you face the dreaded blank page? Dr. Ricky Leiter: So it's hard to pin down exactly what triggers a story for me. I think sometimes I'm in a room and for whatever reason, there's a moment in the room and I say, “You know what? There's a story here. There's something about what's going on right now that I want to write.” And oftentimes I don't know what it is until I start writing. Maybe it's a moment or a scene and I start writing like, “What am I trying to say here? What's the message? And sometimes there isn't a deeper message. The story itself is so poignant or beautiful that I want to tell that story. Other times it's using that story. And the way I think about my writing is using small moments to ask bigger questions in medicine. So, like, what does it mean to have a good death? You know, one piece I wrote was I was thinking about that as I struggled to give someone what I hoped would be a good death, that I was thinking more broadly, what does this mean as we're thinking about the concept of a good death? Another piece I wrote was about a patient I cared for doing kidney palliative care. And she was such a character. We adored her so much and she was challenging and she would admit that. This was someone I wanted to write about. And I talked to her about it and she was honored to have her story told. Unfortunately, it came out shortly after her death. But she was such a vibrant personality. I said, “There's something here that I want to write about.” In terms of the blank page, I think it's overcoming that fear of writing and procrastination and all of that. I think I have a specific writing playlist that I put on that helps me, that I've listened to so many times. You know, no words, but I know the music and it really helps me get in the zone. And then I start writing. And I think it's one of those things where sometimes I'm like, “Oh, I really don't like how this is sounding, but I'm going to push through anyways.” as Anne Lamott's blank first draft, just to get something out there and then I can play with it and work with it. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Great. I love the association you have with music and getting those creative juices flowing and picking ‘le mot juste' in getting things down on a page. It's also fascinating how we sometimes forget the true privilege that we have as healthcare providers in the people we meet, the cross section of humanity and the personalities who can trigger these wonderful stories. Dr. Ricky Leiter: Absolutely. Absolutely. It's such a privilege and I think it often will go in unexpected directions and can really impact, for me certainly, my practice of medicine and how I approach the next patients or even patients years down the road. You remember those patients and those stories. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Right. You write with such obvious love and respect for your patients. You also write about that tenuous phase of our careers when we're not yet attendings but have finished residency and have demonstrated a modicum of competence. You know, I used to say that fellowship is really the worst of all worlds, right? As an attending, you have responsibility, but you don't have to do as much of the grunt work. As a resident, you do the grunt work, but you don't really have the responsibility. And in fellowship, you've got it all. You've got to do the grunt work, and you have the responsibility. Can you tie those two concepts together, though? How does our relationship to our patients change over the course of our careers? Dr. Ricky Leiter: Early on, if you think about the imprinting of patients as you go down the road, so many of the patients who have imprinted on me were the ones earlier in my career, before I was more formed as a clinician because of experiences like the one I wrote about in “I Hope so Too,” where the skills are forming, and sometimes where it's smooth sailing, and sometimes we're muddling through. And those cases where we feel like we're muddling through or things don't go as we hope, those are the ones that really leave an impact. And I think it's those little moments that sort of nudge your career and your skill set in different ways. I think the patients now, they still leave a mark on me, but I think it's in different ways. And I think oftentimes it's less about my skills. Although my skills are still very much developing, even, you know, almost a decade out, they impact me differently than they once did. I feel more confident in what I'm doing, and it's more about my relationship to this situation rather than the situation's impact on my skills. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Got it. Got it. It's interesting. I once wrote a piece with Tim Gilligan, who also spent some time at Dana Farber and is a communications expert, about how there's this kind of dualism in how we're trained. We're trained with communications courses and how to talk to patients, and it almost does the opposite. It kind of raises the flag that, “Wait a second, maybe I've been talking to people the wrong way.” And as you get more mature in your career, I almost feel as if you revert back to the way you were before medical school, when you just talked to people like they were people and didn't have a special voice for patients. Dr. Ricky Leiter: Yeah, I think that's right. And I think in palliative care, we spend so much time thinking about the communication. And this was the most challenging piece about fellowship because then- and our fellowship directors told this to us, and now we teach it to our fellows. You know that you come in, the people who choose to go into palliative care, have a love of communication, have some degree of skill coming in, and then what happens is we break those skills down and teach them a new skill set. So it gets clunkier before it gets better. And the time I was writing about in this piece was August of my fellowship year, exactly when that process was happening, where I'm trying to incorporate the new skills, I had my old way of doing things, and it's just not always aligning. And I think you're right that as the skills become embedded, as you go on throughout your career, where it feels much more natural, and then you do really connect with people as people still using the skills and the techniques that we've learned in our communication courses, but they become part of who you are as a clinician. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Nicely put. Your story is particularly poignant because the patient you described was dying from the very treatment that cured his leukemia. It's this, I'm going to use the term badlands again. It's this terrible badlands we sometimes find ourselves where, yes, the treatment has been successful, but at the cost of a human life. Do you think that as healthcare providers, we react differently when a patient is sick, from side effects to our recommendations, as opposed to sick from their disease? Dr. Ricky Leiter: I think we probably do. It's hard because I think every patient in every case pulls at us in different directions. And this case was Carlos, who I called him, it was such a challenging situation for so many reasons. He was young. He really couldn't communicate with us. We were talking to his mom. Like, there were so many layers to this. But I think you're right. that underlying this, there's a sense of “We did everything we could beautifully, to cure him of his disease, and now he's dying of that, and what does that mean for us as clinicians, physicians. That becomes really hard and hard to sit with and hold as we're going back every day. And I say that as the palliative care consultant. So I can only imagine for the oncology team caring for him, who had taken him through this, what that felt like. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, you describe, again, beautifully in the piece, how the nursing staff would approach you and were so relieved that you were there. And it was, you know, you got the sense- I mean, obviously, it's tragic because it's a young person who died, but you almost got the sense there was this guilt among the providers, right? Not only is it a young person dying, but dying from graft versus host disease, not from leukemia. Dr. Ricky Leiter: Absolutely. There was guilt because of what he was dying of, because of how he was dying that he was so uncomfortable and it took us so long to get his pain under control and we really couldn't get him that balance of pain control and alertness that we always strive for was pretty much impossible from the beginning. And so it was layer upon layer of distress and guilt and sadness and grief that we could just feel every day as we stepped onto the floor. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah. I don't know if you've ever read- there's a biography of Henry Kaplan, who was considered the father of radiation therapy, where there was this incredible moment during his career when he presented at the AACR Annual Meeting the first cures for cancers, right? No one believed it. It was amazing, actually curing cancer. And then a couple years later, people started dribbling into his clinic with cancers because of the radiation therapy he gave, and he actually went into a clinical depression as a result of it. So it can affect providers at such a deep level. And I think there's this undiscussed guilt that permeates the staff when that happens. Dr. Ricky Leiter: Absolutely, absolutely. It's right there under the surface. And we rarely give ourselves the space to talk about it, right? To really sit down and say, how are we approaching this situation? How do we feel about it? And to sit with each other and acknowledge that this is horrible. It's a horrible situation. And we feel guilty and we feel sad and we feel grief about this. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It's been just terrific getting to know you and to read your piece, Ricky Leiternd, a we really appreciate your writing. Keep doing what you do. Dr. Ricky Leiter: Oh, thank you so much. It's a privilege to get the piece out there and particularly in JCO and to be here with you. So I really appreciate it. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of ASCO's 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.   Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review.  Guest Bio: Dr. Ricky Leiter is from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

Do you need a recap of the latest urologic oncology research presented at GU ASCO 2025? This episode of BackTable Urology features a multidisciplinary discussion among three leading voices in urology and medical oncology – Drs. Bogdana Schmidt, Shilpa Gupta, and Ben Maughan – covering the most notable results presented at this year's meeting. --- This podcast is supported by: Photocure https://www.photocure.com/ --- SYNPOSIS First, the doctors cover a wide range of topics including PARP inhibitors for prostate cancer, HER2-targeting antibody drug conjugates in bladder cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma, and biomarkers such as KIM-1 in kidney cancer. Highlighting the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration, the experts also critique the COSMIC-313 trial and discuss the nuances of applying new therapeutic combinations in real-world clinical practice. --- TIMESTAMPS 00:00 - Introduction 09:20 - TALAPRO-2 Trial Insights 19:29 - Bladder Cancer: Immuno-Oncology Combinations and HER2 27:42 - NIAGARA and iNDUCT Trials 33:32 - Future Directions in Upper Tract Treatment 37:38 - Biomarkers in Kidney Cancer: KIM-1 46:43 - COSMIC-313: Triplet Therapy in Renal Cell Carcinoma 52:39 - Concluding Thoughts and Future Directions --- RESOURCES Photocure: https://www.photocure.com/

Si hay una ciudad cinematográfica esa es Las Vegas. Lugar artificial, kitsch y decadente ha devenido en un parque temático para despedidas de soltero, convenciones y jubilados con ahorros. Recorremos su historia a través de 8 películas emblemáticas: - Bugsy, EL ORIGEN de la ciudad del pecado. - La cuadrilla del Once, la gran película de sus más famosos habitantes. - Cita en Las Vegas, Elvis y Ann Margrett comparten romance entre casinos - Miedo y asco en Las Vegas, el viaje lisérgico de Hunter S. Thompson - Detrás del candelabro, la decadencia del gran pianista Liberace - Showgirls, cinta maldita o de culto según a quien preguntes - The cooler, un gafe en la reconversión de Las Vegas - Resacón en Las Vegas, una despedida de soltero que sale mal No dejes de contarnos tus películas favoritas sobre Las Vegas o si has visitado tan peculiar ciudad. Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Live this week from the ACCC 51st Annual Meeting and Cancer Center Business Summit (AMCCBS), CANCER BUZZ shares insights from ACCC President Nadine J. Barrett, PhD, MA, MS, and ASCO President Robin Zon, MD, FASCO, FACP, on challenges in cancer care, leadership strategies, AI, and more.    Guest: Nadine J. Barrett, PhD, MA, MS Senior Associate Dean for Community Engagement and Equity in Research Wake Forest University School of Medicine Atrium Health   Robin Zon, MD, FASCO, FACP President, American Society of Clinical Oncology Physician Emeritus, Michiana Hematology Oncology   Resources: Interview with Dr. Barrett Reimagining Community Engagement and Equity in Cancer

Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. James Foran discuss the evolving treatment landscape in acute myeloid leukemia, including new targeted therapies, advances in immunotherapy, and the current role for allogeneic transplantation. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. There has been steady progress in the therapies for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in recent years, largely based on an increasing understanding of the molecular mechanisms which underlie the disease. On today's episode, we'll be discussing the evolving treatment landscape in AML. We'll explore risk group stratification, new targeted therapies, advances in immunotherapy for AML, and also a little about the current role for allogenic transplantation in this disease.  I'm delighted to welcome Dr. James Foran to this discussion. Dr. Foran is a professor of medicine and chair of the Myeloid Malignancies and Blood and Marrow Transplant Disease Group at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center. He's based in Jacksonville, Florida.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  James, it's great to have you join us on the podcast today, and thanks so much for being here. Dr. James Foran: I'm delighted and thank you for the invitation. Thank you very much. Dr. John Sweetenham: Sure, James, let's get right into it. So, our understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying AML has resulted not only in new methods for risk stratification in this disease, which have added refinement to cytogenetics, but also has resulted in the development of many new targeted agents. Understanding that this is a complex area of investigation, and our time is somewhat limited, can you give us a high-level update on the current state of the art in terms of how risk factors are being used for treatment selection now? Dr. James Foran: Absolutely. I think in the past, you know, we had things broken down pretty simply into make a diagnosis based on morphology, do cytogenetics, break patients into the groups of those who were more likely to benefit from therapy – so-called favorable risk – those where the intensive therapies were less likely to work – so-called poor adverse risk, and then this large intermediate group that really had variable outcomes, some better, some worse. And for a long time, the progress was in just identifying new subtle cytogenetic risk groups. And then, late 1990s, we began to understand that FLT3 mutations or NRAS mutations may be more adverse than others that came along. In the first part of this millennium, in the, you know, 2000-2010 range, a lot of work was being done to understand better or worse risk factors with single genes. The ability to do multiplex PCR, and then more recently NGS platforms, have allowed us to really look at many genes and identify many mutations in patients. At the beginning that was used just to sort of refine – who did a little better, who did a little worse with intensive therapy – helped us decide who may benefit more from an allogeneic transplanter for whom that would not be necessary.  But the good news is that really, we're now starting to target those mutations. One of the first molecularly targeted treatments in leukemia was FLT3 mutations, where we knew they were adverse. Then along came targeted treatments. I was involved in some of those early studies looking at sunitinib, sorafenib, more recently midostaurin, now quizartinib, FDA approved, and gilteritinib in the relapse refractory setting.  So we're moving into a state where we're not just refining prognosis, we're identifying targets. You know, it's been slow progress, but definite incremental progress in terms of outcomes by looking for FLT3 mutations, then looking for IDH mutations, and more recently, mutations involving NPM1 or rearrangement of what we used to call the MLL gene, now the lysine methyltransferase 2A or KMT2A rearrangement, where we now have targets. And it's not just for refinement of prognosis, but now we're identifying therapeutic targets for patients and ways to even look for measurable residual disease which is impacting our care. Dr. John Sweetenham: That's great, James. And I'm going to expand on that theme just a little bit and perhaps ask you to elaborate a little bit more on how the introduction of these new therapies have specifically impacted frontline therapy. And a couple of ancillary questions maybe to go along with that: First of all, is ‘7+3' a standard therapy for anybody in 2025? And maybe secondly, you know, could you comment also maybe briefly on older patients with AML and how you think maybe the treatment landscape is changing for them compared with, say, 5 or 10 years ago? Dr. James Foran: I'll start with the therapy and then work my way back. So we've had ‘7+3' cytarabine daunorubicin or cytarabine anthracycline since 1976, and we're still using it as the backbone of our intensive therapy. There is still an important role for it, particularly in younger or fitter patients, and particularly for those with intermediate or favorable risk genetic groups or cytogenetic risk groups just because we achieve high rates of remission. Our 30-day induction mortality rates are lower now than they were 10 and 20 years ago. Our supportive care is better. And we still have a busy inpatient hospital service here at Mayo Florida and my colleagues in Rochester and Arizona as well giving intensive therapy. So that remains the backbone of curative therapy for younger adults. We are trying to be a little more discriminating about who we administer that to. We are trying to add targeted agents. We know from, now, two different randomized trials that the addition of a FLT3 inhibitor, either midostaurin or more recently quizartinib, has a survival advantage in patients with a FLT3 mutation, or for quizartinib, a FLT3/ITD mutation. And so yes, ‘7+3' remains important.  Off protocol for somebody who just comes in with acute leukemia in a 40-year-old or 30-year-old or even early 60s and fit, we would still be considering ‘7+3' therapy and then waiting for an expedited gene mutation panel and an expedited cytogenetics panel to come back to help us discriminate is that a patient for whom we should be giving a FLT3 inhibitor? I think there's a little more nuance about when we do a day 14 bone marrow, do they really matter as much anymore? I still do them. Some of my colleagues find them less important. But we're still giving intensive therapy. We're still giving high-dose ARA-C consolidation for younger patients who achieve complete remission.  In older adults, it's a different story. You know, it was only in the early part of the 2000s – 2004, 2007 range – where we really got buy-in from randomized studies that low-dose therapy was better than no therapy. There was a lot of nihilism before then about therapy for older adults, especially over age 75. We know that low-dose ARA-C is better than nothing. It looked like azacitidine was better than ARA-C or at least equivalent or slightly better. But with the advent of venetoclax it was a game changer. I ran a national randomized study of intensive therapy in AML. It was the last national randomized study of intensive therapy in older patients right before venetoclax got approved. And we were very excited about our results, and we thought we had some really interesting clinical results. And suddenly that's a little bit obsolete in patients over 70 and particularly over age 75 because of the high remission rates with azacytidine venetoclax or hypomethylating agents, so-called HMAs and venetoclax and the survival advantage. Now, it's not a home run for everybody. We quote 60% to 70% remission rates, but it's a little different based on your cytogenetics and your mutation profile. You have to continue on therapy so it's continuous treatment. It's not with curative intent, although there are some people with long-term remission in it. And the median survival went from 10 months to 15 months. So home run? No, but definitely improved remissions, meaningful for patients off transfusions and better survival. So right now it's hard to find an older adult who you wouldn't give azacitidine and venetoclax or something similar, decitabine, for instance, and venetoclax, unless somebody really was moribund or had very poor performance status or some reason not to. And so ‘7+3' is still relevant in younger adults. We're trying to get better results with ‘7+3' by adding targeted agents and azacitine and venetoclax in older adults.  I think the area of controversy, I guess there are two of them, is what to do in that overlap age between 60 and 75. Should people in that age still get intensive therapy, which we've used for years – the VIALE-A trial of aza-venetoclax was age 75 plus – or with cardiac comorbidities? And I think if you're 68 or 72, many of us are starting to bias towards aza-venetoclax as generally being better tolerated, generally being more outpatient, generally being slow and steady way to get a remission. And it doesn't stop you from going to transplant for somebody who might still be a candidate.  The other area of controversy is somebody under 60 who has adverse cytogenetics where we don't do very well with ‘7+3,' we still give it and we might do just as well with decitabine venetoclax. A lot of us feel that there's equipoise in the 60 to 75 group where we really can ask a question of a randomized study. Retrospective studies might suggest that intensive therapy is a little better, but there are now a couple of randomized studies happening saying, “Can we replace ‘7+3' in that intermediate age with aza-venetoclax?” And for younger adults similarly, we're looking to see how we apply that technology. Those are the areas where we're really trying to investigate what's optimal for patients and that's going to require randomized trials. Dr. John Sweetenham: Oh, that's great, thank you. And I'll just extend that question a little bit more, particularly with respect to the new targeted therapies. How much are they impacting the treatment of these patients in the relapse and refractory setting now? Dr. James Foran: Oh, they're definitely impacting it. When I trained and probably when you trained, AML was still a medical emergency. But that was the thing that you admitted to the hospital immediately, you started therapy immediately. The rule was always that's the one thing that brings the fellow and the consultant in at night to see that new patient on a Friday or Saturday. Now, we'll still admit a patient for monitoring, but we try not to start therapy for the first three or five or seven days if they're stable, until we get those genetics and those genomics back, because it helps us discriminate what therapy to pursue. And certainly, with FLT3 mutations, especially FLT3/ITD mutations, we're adding FLT3 inhibitors and we're seeing a survival advantage. Now, on the surface, that survival advantage is in the range of 7% or 10%. But if you then pursue an allogeneic transplant in first remission, you're taking disease where we used to see 30%, 40% long-term survival, maybe less, and you're pushing that to 60%, 70% in some studies. And so we're now taking a disease that– I don't want to get off topic and talk about Ph+ ALL. But that's a disease where we're actually a little excited. We have a target now, and it used to be something really adverse and now we can do a lot for it and a lot about it.  The other mutations, it's a little more subtle. Now, who knew until 2010 that a mutation in a sugar metabolism gene, in isocitrate dehydrogenase, or IDH was going to be so important, or even that it existed. We know that IDH1 and IDH2 mutations are still a minority of AML, certainly less than 10% to 15%, maybe overall. But we're able to target those with specific IDH1 and IDH2 inhibitors. We get single-agent responses. There are now two approved IDH1 inhibitors on the market. We don't yet have the randomized data that adding those to intensive therapy is better, but we're getting a very strong hint that it might be better in older adults who have an IDH mutation, maybe adding those is helpful and maybe adding those to low-intensity therapy is helpful. Those studies are ongoing, and we're also trying with low-intensity treatments to add these agents and get higher remission rates, deeper remissions, longer remissions. I think a lot of work has to be done to delineate the safety of that and the long-term efficacy. But we're getting hints it's better, so I think it is impacting.  The other area it's impacting is when you pick up adverse mutations and those have crept into our classification systems like an ASXL1 mutation or RUNX1 mutation for instance, or some of the secondary AML mutations like BCOR and others, where that's helping us discriminate intermediate-risk patients who we think aren't going to do as well and really helping us select a group who's more likely to get benefit from allogeneic transplant or for whom at least our cure rates without allo transplant are low. And so I think it's impacting a lot. Dr. John Sweetenham: Great. And I'm going to pick up now, if I may, on a couple of things that you've just mentioned and continue the theme of the relapsed and refractory setting. We've started to see some reports which have looked at the role of immune strategies for patients with AML, in particular CAR T or NK cells. Can you comment a little on this and let us know whether you think either these two strategies or other immune strategies are likely to have a significant role in AML in the future? Dr. James Foran: They are, but I think we're still a step behind finding the right target or the right way to do it. If you think of allogeneic transplantation as the definitive immune therapy, and we know for adverse AML we can improve survival rates and cure rates with an allotransplant, then we know inherently that immune therapy matters. And so how do we do what they've done in large cell lymphoma or in CD19 targeting for B cell malignancies? How do we bring that to acute myeloid leukemia? There have been a number of efforts. There have been at least 50 trials looking at different targets. CD33, CD123, CD7, others, CLL-1. So, there have been a number of different trials looking at how to bind a CAR T or a CAR T construct that can be active. And we have hints of efficacy. There was kind of a provocative paper in the New England Journal of Medicine a year ago in April of last year from a Chinese group that looked at a CD7-based CAR T and it was 10 patients, but they used CD7 positive acute leukemia, AML or ALL and had a CD7-targeted CAR T and they actually incorporated that with a haploidentical transplant and they had really high remission rates. People tolerated it quite well. It was provocative. It hasn't yet been reproduced on a larger scale, but the strong hints that the strategy is going to work.  Now, CD33 is a little tricky to have a CAR T when CD33 is expressed on normal hematopoietic cells. CD123 likewise. That's been something where there's, I think, still promise, but we've struggled to find the trials that make that work. Right now, there's a lot of interest in leveraging NK cells and looking, for a couple of reasons, but NK cells are attractive and NK cell markers might be attractive targets. NK cells might have similar degrees of immune efficacy. It's speculative, but they are likely to have less cytokine release syndrome and less neurotoxicity than you see with CAR T. And so it's kind of attractive to leverage that. We have had some ongoing trials looking at it with bispecifics and there certainly are trials looking at it with CAR NK-based strategies. One of the antigens that people looked at is the NK group 2D. NK group 2D or NKG2D is overexpressed in AML and its ligands overexpressed. And so that's a particular potential target. So, John, it's happening and we're looking for the hints of efficacy that could then drive a pivotal trial to get something approved.  One of the other areas is not restricting yourself just to a single antigen. For instance, there is a compound that's looking at a multi-tumor-associated antigen-specific T-cell therapy, looking at multiple antigens in AML that could be overexpressed. And there were some hints of activity and efficacy and actually a new trial looking at a so-called multi-tumor associated antigen-specific T cell therapy. So without getting into specific conflicts of interest or trials, I do think that's an exciting area and an evolving area, but still an investigational area. I'll stop there and say that we're excited about it. A lot of work's going there, but I'm not quite sure which direction the field's going to pivot to there. I think that's going to take us some time to sort out. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. But as you say, exciting area and I guess continue to watch this space for now.  So you've mentioned allogeneic stem cell transplants two or three times during this discussion. Recognizing that we don't have an imatinib for AML, which has kind of pushed transplant a long way further back in the treatment algorithm, can you comment a little on, you know, whether you think the role of stem cell transplantation is changing in AML or whether it remains pretty much as it was maybe 10 years ago? Dr. James Foran: By the way, I love that you use imatinib as an introduction because that was 6 TKIs ago, and it tells you the evolution in CML and you know, now we're looking at myristoyl pocket as a target, and so on. That's a great way to sort of show you the evolution of the field.  Allogeneic transplant, it remains a core treatment for AML, and I think we're getting much smarter and much better about learning how to use it. And I'm just going to introduce the topic of measurable residual disease to tell you about that. So I am a little bit of a believer. Part of my job is I support our allogeneic transplant program, although my focus is acute myeloid leukemia, and I've trained in transplant and done it for years and did a transplant fellowship and all that. I'm much more interested in finding people who don't need a transplant than people who do. So I'm sort of looking for where can we move away from it. But it still has a core role. I'll sidestep and tell you there was an MDS trial that looked at intermediate or high-risk MDS and the role of allogeneic transplant that shows that you about double your survival. It was a BMT CTN trial published several years ago that showed you about double your three-year survival if you can find a donor within three months and get to a transplant within six months. And so it just tells you the value of allotransplant and myeloid malignancy in general. In AML we continue to use it for adverse risk disease – TP53 is its own category, I can talk about that separately – but adverse risk AML otherwise, or for patients who don't achieve a really good remission. And I still teach our fellows that an allotransplant decreases your risk of relapse by about 50%. That's still true, but you have to have a group of patients who are at high enough risk of relapse to merit the non-relapse mortality and the chronic graft versus host disease that comes with it. Now, our outcomes with transplant are better because we're better at preventing graft versus host disease with the newer strategies such as post-transplant cyclophosphamide. There are now new FDA-approved drugs for acute and chronic graft versus host disease, ruxolitinib, belumosudil, axatilimab now. So we have better ways of treating it, but we still want to be discriminating about who should get it.  And it's not just a single-minded one-size-fits-all. We learned from the MORPHO study that was published in the JCO last year that if you have FLIT3-positive AML, FLIT3/IDT-positive AML, where we would have said from retrospective studies that your post-transplant survival is 60% give or take, as opposed to 15% or 20% without it, that we can discriminate who should or shouldn't get a transplant. Now that trial was a little bit nuanced because it did not meet its primary endpoint, but it had an embedded randomization based upon MRD status and they used a very sensitive test of measurable residual disease. They used a commercial assay by Invivoscribe that could look at the presence of a FLT3/ITD in the level of 10 to the minus 5th or 10 to the minus 6th. And if you were MRD-negative and you went through a transplant, you didn't seem to get an advantage versus not. That was of maintenance with gilteritinib, I'll just sort of put that on there. But it's telling us more about who should get a transplant and who shouldn't and who should get maintenance after transplant and who shouldn't.  A really compelling study a year ago from I don't know what to call the British group now, we used to call them the MRC and then the NCRI. I'm not quite sure what to call their studies at the moment. But Dr. Jad Othman did a retrospective study a year ago that looked at patients who had NPM1 mutation, the most common mutation AML, and looked to see if you were MRD positive or MRD negative, what the impact of a transplant was. And if you're MRD negative there was not an advantage of a transplant, whereas if you're MRD positive there was. And when they stratified that by having a FLT3 mutation that cracked. If you had a FLT3 mutation at diagnosis but your NPM1 was negative in remission, it was hard to show an advantage of a transplant. So I think we're getting much more discriminating about who should or should not get a transplant by MRD testing for NPM1 and that includes the patients who have a concomitant FLT3 mutation. And we're really trying to learn more and more. Do we really need to be doing transplants in those who are MRD-negative? If you have adverse risk genetics and you're MRD-negative, I'll really need good data to tell me not to do a transplant, but I suspect bit by bit, we'll get that data. And we're looking to see if that's really the case there, too. So measurable residual disease testing is helping us discriminate, but there is still a core role of allogeneic transplant. And to reassure you, compared to, I think your allotransplant days were some time ago if I'm right. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yes. Dr. James Foran: Yeah. Well, compared to when you were doing transplants, they're better now and better for patients now. And we get people through graft versus host disease better, and we prevent it better. Dr. John Sweetenham: That's a great answer, James. Thanks for that. It really does help to put it in context, and I think it also leads us on very nicely into what's going to be my final question for you today and perhaps the trickiest, in a way. I think that everything you've told us today really emphasizes the fact that the complexity of AML treatment has increased, primarily because of an improved understanding of the molecular landscape of the disease. And it's a complicated area now. So do you have any thoughts on what type of clinical environment patients with AML should be evaluated and treated in in 2025? Dr. James Foran: Yeah, I want to give you a kind of a cautious answer to that because, you know, I'm a leukemia doctor. I work at a leukemia center and it's what we focus on. And we really pride ourselves on our outcomes and our diagnostics and our clinical trials and so on. I am very aware that the very best oncologists in America work in private practice and work in community practice or in networks, not necessarily at an academic site. And I also know they have a much harder job than I have. They have to know lung cancer, which is molecularly as complicated now as leukemia, and they have to know about breast cancer and things that I don't even know how to spell anymore. So it's not a question of competence or knowledge. It's a question of infrastructure. I'll also put a little caveat saying that I have been taught by Rich Stone at Dana-Farber, where I did a fellowship a long time ago, and believe Rich is right, that I see different patients than the community oncologists see with AML, they're seeing different people. But with that caveat, I think the first thing is you really want to make sure you've got access to excellence, specialized hematopathology, that you can get expedited cytogenetics and NGS testing results back. There was a new drug, approved just a few months ago, actually, for relapsed AML with a KMT2A rearrangement, revumenib. We didn't talk about the menin inhibitors. I'll mention them in just a second. That's a huge area of expansion and growth for us. But they're not found on NGS platforms. And normal cytogenetics might miss a KMT2A-rearrangement. And we're actually going back to FISH panels, believe it or not, on AML, to try to identify who has a KMT2A-rearrangement. And so you really want to make sure you can access the diagnostic platforms for that.  I think the National Referral Labs do an excellent job. Not always a really fast job, but an excellent job. At my institution, I get NGS results back within three days or four days. We just have an expedited platform. Not everybody has that. So that's the key, is you have to be able to make the diagnosis, trust the pathologist, get expedited results. And then it's the question of trying to access the targeted medications because a lot of them are not carried in hospital on formulary or take time to go through an insurance approval process. So that's its own little headache, getting venetoclax, getting gilteritinib, getting an IDH1 inhibitor in first line, if that's what you're going for. And so I think that requires some infrastructure. We have case managers and nurses who really expedite that and help us with it, but that's a lot of work. The other piece of the puzzle is that we're still with AML in the first month and maybe even the second month. We make everybody worse before we make them better. And you have to have really good blood bank support. I can give an outpatient platelet transfusion or red cell transfusion seven days a week. We're just built for that. That's harder to do if you're in a community hospital and you have to be collaborating with a local blood bank. And that's not always dead easy for somebody in practice. So with those caveats, I do find that my colleagues in community practice do a really good job making the diagnosis, starting people on therapy, asking for help. I think the real thing is to be able to have a regional leukemia center that you can collaborate with, connect with, text, call to make sure that you're finding the right patients who need the next level of diagnostics, clinical trial, transplant consults, to really get the best results.  There was some data at ASH a couple of years ago that looked at – the American Society of Hematology and ASCOs had similar reports – that looked at how do we do in academic centers versus community practice for keeping people on therapy. And on average, people were more likely to get six cycles of therapy instead of three cycles of therapy with azacitidine venetoclax at an academic center. Now, maybe it's different patients and maybe they had different cytogenetics and so on, but I think you have to be patient, I think you have to collaborate. But you can treat those patients in the community as long as you've got the infrastructure in place. And we've learned with virtual medicine, with Zoom and other platforms that we can deliver virtual care more effectively with the pandemic and beyond. So I think we're trying to offer virtual consults or virtual support for patients so they can stay in their home, stay in their community, stay with their oncologists, but still get access to excellent diagnostics and supportive care and transplant consults, and so on. I hope that's a reasonable answer to that question. It's a bit of a nuanced answer, which is, I think there's an important role of a leukemia center, and I think there's a really fundamental role of keeping somebody in the community they live in, and how we collaborate is the key to that. And we've spent a lot of time and effort working with the oncologists in our community to try to accomplish that.  John, I want to say two other things. I didn't mention in the molecular platforms that NPM1 mutations, we can now target those on clinical trials with menin inhibitors. We know that NPM1 signals through the Hoxa9/Meis1 pathway. We know that similar pathways are important in KMT2A rearrangements. We know that there are some other rare leukemias like those with NUP98 rearrangement. We can target those with menin inhibitors. The first menin inhibitor, revuminib, was approved by the FDA for KMT2A. We have others going to the FDA later this year for NPM1. There are now pivotal trials and advanced expanded phase 1/2 studies that are showing 30% response rates. And we're looking to see can we add those into the first-line therapy. So, we're finding more targets.  I'll say one last thing about molecular medicine. I know I'm a little off topic here, but I always told patients that getting AML was kind of like being struck by lightning. It's not something you did. Now, obviously, there are risk factors for AML, smoking or obesity or certain farm environments, or radioactive exposures and so on. But bit by bit, we're starting to learn about who's predisposed to AML genetically. We've identified really just in the last five or eight years that DDX41 mutations can be germline half the time. And you always think germline mutations are going to cause AML in a younger patient, but the median age is 60 to 70 just like other AMLs. They actually might do pretty well once they get AML. We've reported that in several papers. And so we're trying to understand who that has a RUNX1 mutation needs germline testing, who with a DDX41 needs germline testing. And we're trying to actually come up with a cleaner pathway for germline testing in patients to really understand predisposition, to help with donor selection, to help with family counseling. So I think those are other areas where a leukemia center can contribute for somebody in who's community practice to understand genomic or genetic complexity in these patients. And we're starting to develop the databases that support that. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, great. Thanks, James. I loved your answer about the clinical environment too. And I know from a patient-centric perspective that I know that patients would certainly appreciate the fact that we're in a situation now where the folks taking care of them will make every effort to keep them close to home if they possibly can.  I want to thank you, James, for an incredible review of a very complex subject and I think you did a great job. I think we all will have learned a lot. And thanks again for being willing to share your insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. James Foran: John, it's my pleasure. And as you know, I'll do anything for a latte, so no problem at all. Dr. John Sweetenham: Okay. I owe you one, so thank you for that.  And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You'll find links to the studies we've discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And 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. Find out more about today's speakers:  Dr. John Sweetenham  Dr. James Foran Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Bluesky ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn  Disclosures:    Dr. John Sweetenham:    No relationships to disclose Dr. James Foran: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Consulting or Advisory Role: Peerview, CTI BioPharma Corp, Remix Therapeutics, Cardinal Health, Medscape, Syndax, Autolus Therapeutics Research Funding (Inst.): Chordia Therapeutics, Abbvie, Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Kura Oncology, Sellas Life Sciences, Novartis, Roivant, Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas Pharma, SERVIER Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Peerview

Dr. Mellar Davis discusses the joint guideline from MASCC, ASCO, AAHPM, HPNA, and NICSO on opioid conversion in adults with cancer. He reviews the limited evidence, and the formal consensus process used to develop the guideline. He shares the key recommendations on pre-conversion assessment, how opioid conversion should be conducted, including opioid conversion ratios, and post-conversion assessment. We touch on gaps and questions in the field and the impact of these new recommendations.  Read the full guideline, “Opioid Conversion in Adults with Cancer: MASCC-ASCO-AAHPM-HPNA-NICSO Guideline” at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline in the Supportive Care in Cancer, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00520-025-09286-z   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. Mellar Davis from Geisinger Medical Center, lead author on “Opioid Conversion in Adults with Cancer: Multinational Association of Supportive Care and Cancer, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association, Network Italiano Cure di Supporto and Oncologia Guideline.” Thank you for being here today, Dr. Davis. Dr. Mellar Davis: Thank you. I'm glad to be here. Brittany Harvey 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 guideline panel, including Dr. Davis, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline, which is linked in our show notes. So then, to dive into the content here, Dr. Davis, can you provide an overview of both the scope and purpose of this guideline on opioid conversion in people with cancer? Dr. Mellar Davis: This is an important topic in management of cancer pain and this topic came up as a result of a survey that MASCC had done, which involved 370 physicians in 53 countries. They were queried about how they change or convert one opioid to another, which is a common practice, and we found that there was quite a divergence in opioid conversion ratios. To step back a little bit, about two thirds of patients with advanced cancer have moderate to severe pain and most of the time they're managed by opioids. But about 20% or 40% require a switch either because they have an adverse reaction to it or they don't respond to it, or the combination of both. Rarely, it may be that they need a route change, perhaps because they have nausea or vomiting. So, the opioid conversion works basically because of the complexity of the new opioid receptor which has at least four exons to it as a result of that non-cross tolerance between opioids. As a result of the survey, we convened a group of specialists, 14 international specialists, to look to see if we could develop an international guideline. And we did a systematic review which involved viewing 21,000 abstracts and we came up with 140 randomized trials and 68 non-randomized trials. And after reviewing the data, we found that the data was really not strong enough to provide a guideline. As a result, ASCO, MASCC, the AAHPM, the HPNA and the Italian Group formed a supportive network that allowed us then to do a Delphi guideline based upon ASCO modified criteria for doing Delphi guidelines. And so we then involved 27 additional international experts informing the guideline to it. And this guideline is then the result of the Delphi process. It consists basically of a pre-conversion ratio recommendations, conversion ratios, which is actually a major contribution of this guideline, and then what to do after converting someone to another opioid. Our target audience was not only oncologists, but also we wanted to target nurses, pharmacists, hospitalists, primary care physicians, patients and caregivers. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate that background information, particularly on the evidence that is underpinning this and the lack of quality of evidence there, which really transformed this into a formal consensus guideline. We're glad to have all of these organizations coming together to collaborate on this guideline. So then next I'd like to review the key recommendations. So starting with, what is recommended for pre-conversion assessment? Dr. Mellar Davis: In regards to pre-conversion, physicians and clinicians need to be aware of pain phenotypes. That is, there are pains that are more opioid refractory than others, such as neuropathic pain, hence, they may be more resistant to the opioid that you're converting to. One needs to be aware of the fact that patients may not be compliant, they're either afraid of opioids not taking what was prescribed, so it's important to query patients about whether they are taking their opioid as prescribed. Occasionally, there are patients who will divert their medication for various reasons. Pain may be poorly controlled also because of dosing strategies that are poorly conceived, in other words, giving only ‘as needed' opioids for continuous cancer pain. And there are rare circumstances where an opioid actually induces pain and simply reducing the opioid actually may improve the pain. The other issue may be cancer progression. So that poorly controlled pain or rapidly increasing pain may actually be a result of progressive cancer and changing treatment obviously will be important. And you need to assess the pain severity, the quality of the pain, the radiating localizing effects, which does require not only a physical exam but also radiographic examinations. But the other thing that's very important in opioid conversions are pain scales with function. A significant number of patients don't quite understand a numerical scale which we commonly use: 0 to 10, with 10 being severe pain and 0 being no pain. They may in fact focus more on function rather than on pain severity or pain interference with daily activities or roles. Sometimes patients will say, “Oh, my pain is manageable,” or “It's tolerable,” rather than using a numerical scale. Choices of opioids may be based on cost, drug-drug interactions, organ function, personal history or substance use disorder so that one will want to choose an opioid that's safe when converting from one to another. And obviously social support and having caregivers present and understanding the strategy in managing pain will be important. Brittany Harvey: Thank you, Dr. Davis, for reviewing those pre-conversion assessment considerations and particularly the challenges around some of those. So, following this pre-conversion assessment, what are the recommendations on how opioid conversion should be conducted? Dr. Mellar Davis: Opioid conversions are basically the safe dose. People have used the term ‘equianalgesia', but the panel and the consensus group felt that that would be inappropriate. So a conversion ratio is the dose at which the majority of patients will not experience withdrawal or adverse effect. It would be the safe dose. Thereafter, the dose will need to be adjusted. So, in converting, that's only the first step in managing pain, the doses need to be adjusted to the individual thereafter. There are a significant number of conversions that are done indirectly, that is that there has not been a study that has looked at a direct conversion from one opioid to another in which one needs to convert through another opioid. We call that a ‘morphine equivalent daily dose'. So, most of the time a third opioid is used in the conversion. It allows you then to convert when there hasn't been a direct study that has looked at conversion between those two opioids, but it is less accurate and so one has to be a little bit more careful when using morphine daily equivalents. We found, and I think this is the major advantage to the guideline, is that commonly used opioids - oxycodone, morphine, hydromorphone - we did establish conversion ratios to which we found in the MASCC guideline they were widely divergent and hope that actually, internationally, they will be adopted. We also found some conversion ratios for second-line opioids. However, we felt also that an opioid like methadone, which has a unique pharmacology, should be left to experts and that experts should know at least several ways of converting from morphine usually to methadone. There is what appears to be a dose-related increased potency of methadone relative to morphine, which makes it more difficult, particularly at higher doses, to have an accurate conversion ratio. Most patients will have transient flares of pain. We came up with two suggestions. One is using a 10 or 15% of the around-the-clock dose for the breakthrough dose, but we also realized that there was a poor correlation between the around-the-clock dose and the dose used for transient flares of pain. And so the breakthrough dose really needs to be adjusted to the individual responses. There was also a mention of buprenorphine. One of the unique things about buprenorphine is that if you go from high doses of a drug like morphine to buprenorphine in a stop-start dosing strategy, you can precipitate withdrawal. And so one has to be careful and have some experience in using buprenorphine, which can be an effective analgesic. Brittany Harvey: Yes, I think that the conversion ratios that you mentioned that are in Table 3 in the full guideline are a really useful tool for clinicians in practice. And I appreciate the time that the panel and the additional consensus panel went through to develop these. I think it's also really key what you mentioned about these not being equianalgesic doses and the difficulties in some of these conversions and when people need to really look to specialists in the field. So then, following opioid conversion, what assessments are recommended post-conversion? Dr. Mellar Davis: Post-conversion, probably the cardinal recommendation is close observation for response and for toxicity. And I think that probably summarizes the important parts of post-conversion follow up. So assessment should be done 24-48 hours after conversion and patients followed closely. Assessment scales should include patient personalized goals. Now, it used to be in the past that we had this hard stop about a response being below 4 on a 0 to 10 scale, but each patient has their own personal goals. So they gauge the pain severity and their function based upon response. So a patient may function very well at “a severity of 5” and feel that that is their personal goal. So I think the other thing is to make sure that your assessment is just not rote, but it's based upon what patients really want to achieve with the opioid conversion. The average number of doses per day should be assessed in the around-the-clock dose so those should be followed closely. Adverse effects can occur and sometimes can be subtle. In other words, a mild withdrawal may produce fatigue, irritability, insomnia and depression. And clinicians may not pick up on the fact that they may be actually a bit under what patients have or they're experiencing withdrawal syndrome. It's important to look for other symptoms which may be subtle but indicating, for instance, neurotoxicity from an opioid. For instance, visual hallucinations may not be volunteered by patients. They may transiently see things but either don't associate with the opioid or are afraid to mention them. So I think it's important to directly query them, for instance, about visual hallucinations or about nightmares at night. Nausea can occur. It may be temporary, mild, and doesn't necessarily mean that one needs to stop the second opioid. It may actually resolve in several days and can be treated symptomatically. Pruritus can occur and can be significant. So close observation for the purposes of close adjustments are also necessary. As we mentioned, you want to start them on an around-the-clock of breakthrough dose, but then assess to see what their response is and if it's suboptimal then you'll need to adjust the doses based both upon the around-the-clock and the breakthrough dose or the dose that's used for breakthrough pain. Also looking at how patients are functioning, because remember that patients frequently look at pain in terms of function or interference with their roles during the day. So, if patients are able to do more things, that may, in fact, be the goal. Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing all of these recommendations across pre-conversion assessment, how opioid conversion should be conducted, including conversion ratios, and what assessments are recommended after opioid conversion. I think it's really important to be watching for these adverse events and assessing for response and keeping in mind patient goals. So, along those lines, how will these guideline recommendations impact both clinicians and people with cancer? And what are the outstanding questions we're thinking about regarding opioid conversion? Dr. Mellar Davis: I think it's important to have a basic knowledge of opioid pharmacology. There's, for instance, drugs that are safer in liver disease, such as morphine, hydromorphone, which are glucuronidated. And there are opioids that are safer in renal failure, such as methadone and buprenorphine, which aren't dependent upon renal clearance. I think knowing drug-drug interactions are important to know. And sometimes, for instance, there may be multiple prescribers for a patient. The family physician's prescribing a certain medication and the oncologist is another, so being aware of what patients are on, and particularly over-the-counter medications which may influence opioid pharmacokinetics. So complementary medications, for instance, being aware of cannabis, if patients are using cannabis or other things, I think, are important in this. There are large gaps and questions and that's the last part of the guideline that we approach or that we mentioned that I think are important to know. And one is there may be ethnic differences in population in regards to clearance or cytochrome frequencies within communities or countries, which may actually alter the conversion ratios. This has not been explored to a great extent. There's opioid stigmata. So we are in the middle of an opioid crisis and so people have a great fear of addiction and they may not take an opioid for that reason, or they may have a relative who's been addicted or had a poor experience. And this may be particularly true for methadone and buprenorphine, which are excellent analgesics and are increasingly being used but may in fact have the stigmata. There are health inequalities that occur related to minority groups that may in fact not get the full benefit of opioid conversions due to access to opioids or to medical care. Age, for instance, will cause perhaps differences in responses to opioids and may in fact affect conversion ratios. And this may be particularly true for methadone, which we have not really explored to a great extent. And finally, the disease itself may influence the clearance or absorption of an opioid. So for a sick patient, the opioid conversion ratio may be distinctly different than in a healthy individual. This is particularly seen with transdermal fentanyl, which is less well absorbed in a cachectic patient, but once given IV or intravenously has a much longer half life due to alterations in the cytochrome that clears it. And so conversion ratios have frequently been reported in relatively healthy individuals with good organ function and not that frequently in older patient populations. So just remember that the conversion ratios may be different in those particular populations. Brittany Harvey: Yes. So I think a lot of these are very important things to consider and that managing cancer pain is key to quality of life for a lot of patients and it's important to consider these patient factors while offering opioid conversion. I want to thank you so much for your work to review the existing literature here, develop these consensus-based recommendations and thank you for your time today, Dr. Davis. Dr. Mellar Davis: Thank you. 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/supportive-care-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Welcome to another episode of the Oncology Brothers podcast! In this episode, Drs. Rahul and Rohit Gosain are joined by Dr. Toni Choueiri, a leading GU medical oncologist from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Together, they dive into the highlights from the GU ASCO 2025 conference, covering key studies and updates in the world of genitourinary oncology. Episode Highlights: •⁠  ⁠TALAPRO-2: An in-depth discussion on the role of PARP inhibitors in prostate cancer, focusing on the study's design, findings, and the importance of germline and NGS testing. •⁠  ⁠NIAGARA Update: Insights into the new standard of care for resectable muscle-invasive bladder cancer and the promising results from the perioperative approach with Durvalumab. •⁠  ⁠CheckMate-9ER Update: A look at the combination of Cabozantinib and Nivolumab in first-line metastatic RCC, including the latest findings and implications for treatment beyond the first line. •⁠  TiNivo2: Exploring the role of Tivozanib in the treatment landscape of RCC and potential sequencing strategies. Join us for this informative discussion that aims to keep community oncologists up to date with the latest advancements in cancer care. If you find this episode helpful, please share it with your colleagues and leave us a review! YouTube: https://youtu.be/OzeHhyAdF9Q 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 subscribe for more insights and updates from the Oncology Brothers!

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal and Dr. Peter Hoskin discuss key abstracts in GU cancers from the 2025 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, including novel therapies in prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer and the impact of combination therapies on patient outcomes. TRANSCSRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program and professor of medicine at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, and editor-in-chief of ASCO Daily News. Today, we'll be discussing practice-informing abstracts and other key advances in GU oncology featured at the 2025 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Peter Hoskin, the chair of this year's ASCO GU Symposium. Dr. Hoskin is a professor in clinical oncology in the University of Manchester and honorary consultant in clinical oncology at the Christie Hospital, Manchester, and University College Hospital London, in the United Kingdom. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Peter, thank you for joining us today. Dr. Peter Hoskin: Thank you so much, Neeraj. I am very pleased to be here. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: The GU meeting highlighted remarkable advancements across the spectrum of GU malignancies. What stood out to you as the most exciting developments at the ASCO GU Symposium?  Dr. Peter Hoskin: The theme of this year's meeting was "Driving Innovation, Improving Patient Care," and this reflected ASCO GU's incredible milestone in GU cancer research over the years. We were thrilled to welcome almost 6,000 attendees on this occasion from over 70 countries, and most of them were attending in person and not online, although this was a hybrid meeting. Furthermore, we had more than 1,000 abstract submissions. You can imagine then that it fostered fantastic networking opportunities and facilitated valuable knowledge and idea exchanges among experts, trainees, and mentees. So, to start I'd like to come back to you for a second because the first day started with a focus on prostate cancer and some of the key clinical trials. And congratulations to you, Neeraj, on sharing the data from the TALAPRO-2 trial, which we were eagerly awaiting. I'd love to get your thoughts on the data that you presented. Could you tell us more about that trial, Abstract LBA18?  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, Peter, I agree with you. It was such an exciting conference overall and thank you for your leadership of this conference. So, let's talk about the TALAPRO-2 trial. First of all, I would like to remind our audience that the combination of talazoparib plus enzalutamide was approved by the U.S. FDA in June 2023 in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer harboring HRR gene alterations, after this combination improved the primary endpoint of radiographic progression-free survival compared to enzalutamide alone in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-cohort phase 3 TALAPRO-2 trial. In the abstract I presented at ASCO GU 2025, we reported the final overall survival data, which was a key alpha-protected secondary endpoint in cohort 1, which enrolled an all-comer population of patients with mCRPC. So, at a median follow-up of around 53 months, in the intention-to-treat population, the combination of talazoparib plus enzalutamide significantly reduced the risk of death by 20% compared to enzalutamide alone, with a median OS of 45.8 months in the experimental arm versus 37 months in the control arm, which was an active control arm of enzalutamide. This improvement was consistent in patients with HRR alterations with a hazard ratio of 0.54 and in those with non-deficient or unknown HRR status, with a hazard ratio of 0.87. In a post hoc analysis, the hazard ratio for OS was 0.78 favoring the combination in those patients who did not have any HRR gene alteration in their tumors by both tissue and ctDNA testing. Consistent with the primary analysis, the updated rPFS data also favored the experimental arm with a median rPFS of 33.1 compared to 19.5 months in the control arm, and a hazard ratio of 0.667. No new safety signals were identified with extended follow-up. Thus, TALAPRO-2 is the first PARP inhibitor plus ARPI study to show a statistically significant and a clinically meaningful improvement in OS compared to standard-of-care enzalutamide as first-line treatment in patients with mCRPC unselected for HRR gene alterations. Dr. Peter Hoskin: Thank you, Neeraj. That's a great summary of the data presented and very important data indeed. There was another abstract also featured in the same session, Abstract 20, titled “Which patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer benefit more from androgen receptor pathway inhibitors? STOPCAP meta-analyses of individual participant data.” Neeraj, could you tell us more about this abstract? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Absolutely, I would be delighted to. So, in this meta-analysis, Dr. David Fischer and colleagues pooled individual participant data from different randomized phase 3 trials in the mHSPC setting to assess the potential ARPI effect modifiers and determine who benefits more from an ARPI plus ADT doublet. The primary outcome was OS for main effects and PFS for subgroup analyses. Prostate cancer specific survival was a sensitivity outcome. The investigators pooled data from 11 ARPI trials and more than 11,000 patients. Overall, there was a clear benefit of adding an ARPI on both OS and PFS, with hazard ratios of 0.66 and 0.51, respectively, representing a 13% and 21% absolute improvement at 5 years, respectively, with no clear difference by the class of agent. When stratifying the patients by age group, the effects of adding an ARPI on OS and PFS were slightly smaller in patients older than 75, than in those younger than 65, or aged between 65 and 75 years. Notably, in the trials assessing the use of abiraterone, we saw very little OS effects in the group of patients older than 75, however there was some benefit maintained in prostate-cancer specific survival, suggesting that other causes of death may be having an impact. The effects of the other ARPIs, or ‘lutamides' as I would call them, were similar across all three age subgroups on both OS and PFS. Therefore, the majority of patients with mHSPC benefit from the addition of ARPIs, and the benefits/risks of abiraterone and other ‘amides' must be considered in older patients.  Dr. Peter Hoskin: Thanks, Neeraj. Another great summary relevant to our day-to-day practice. Of course, there's ongoing collection of individual patient data from other key trials, which will allow robust comparison of ARPI doublet with triplet therapy (including docetaxel), guiding more personalized treatment.   Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I agree with you, Peter, we need more data to help guide personalized treatment for patients with mHSPC and potentially guide de-escalation versus escalation strategies. Now, moving on to a different setting in prostate cancer, would you like to mention Abstract 17 titled, “Overall survival and quality of life with Lu-PSMA-617 plus enzalutamide versus enzalutamide alone in poor-risk, metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer in ENZA-p (ANZUP 1901),” presented by Dr. Louise Emmett? Dr. Peter Hoskin: Of course I will. So, ENZA-p was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial conducted in Australia. It randomized 163 patients into adaptive doses (2 or 4 cycles) of Lu-PSMA-617 plus enzalutamide versus enzalutamide alone as first-line treatment in PSMA-PET-CT-positive, poor-risk, mCRPC. The interim analysis of ENZA-p with median follow-up 20 months showed improved PSA-progression-free survival with the addition of Lu-PSMA-617 to enzalutamide. Here, the investigators reported the secondary outcomes, overall survival, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). After a median follow up of 34 months, overall survival was longer in the combination arm compared to the enzalutamide arm, with a median OS of 34 months compared to 26 months; with an HR of 0.55. Moreover, the combination improved both deterioration-free survival and health-related quality of life indicators for pain, fatigue, physical function, and overall health and quality of life compared to the control arm. Consistent with the primary analysis, the rPFS also favored the experimental arm with a median rPFS of 17 months compared to 14 months with a HR of 0.61. So, the addition of LuPSMA improved overall survival, and HRQOL in patients with high-risk mCRPC. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Peter. Great summary, and promising results with Lu-177 and ARPI combination in first line treatment for mCRPC among patients who had two or more high risk features associated with early enzalutamide failure. Before we move on to bladder cancer, would you like to tell us about Abstract 15 titled, “World-wide oligometastatic prostate cancer (omPC) meta-analysis leveraging individual patient data (IPD) from randomized trials (WOLVERINE): An analysis from the X-MET collaboration,” presented by Dr. Chad Tang?  Dr. Peter Hoskin: Sure. So, with metastatic-directed therapy (MDT), we have a number of phase 2 studies making up the database, and the X-MET collaboration aimed to consolidate all randomized data on oligometastatic solid tumors. This abstract presented pooled individual patient data from all the published trials involving patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer who received MDT alongside standard of care (SOC) against SOC alone. The analysis included data from five trials, encompassing 472 patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer, and followed for a median of 41 months. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either MDT plus SOC or SOC alone. The addition of MDT significantly improved PFS. The median PFS was 32 months with MDT compared to 14.9 months with SOC alone, with an HR of 0.45. Subgroup analyses further confirmed the consistent benefits of MDT across different patient groups. Regardless of factors like castration status, receipt of prior primary treatment, stage, or number of metastases, MDT consistently improved PFS. In patients with mHSPC, MDT significantly delayed the time to castration resistance by nine months, extending it to a median of 72 months compared to 63 months in the SOC group with an HR of 0.58. In terms of OS, the addition of MDT improved the 48-month survival rate by 12%, with OS rates of 87% in the MDT+SOC group compared to 75% in the SOC alone group. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Peter. These data demonstrate that adding MDT to systemic therapy significantly improves PFS, rPFS, and castration resistance-free survival, reinforcing its potential role in the treatment of oligometastatic prostate cancer. So, let's switch gears to bladder cancer and start with Abstract 658 reporting the OS analysis of the CheckMate-274 trial. Would you like to tell us about this abstract?  Dr. Peter Hoskin: Yes, sure, Neeraj. This was presented by Dr. Matt Milowsky, and it was additional efficacy outcomes, including overall survival, from the CheckMate-274 trial which evaluated adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive bladder cancer after radical surgery. The phase 3 trial previously demonstrated a significant improvement in disease-free survival with nivolumab. With a median follow-up of 36.1 months, disease-free survival was longer with nivolumab compared to placebo across all patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer, reducing the risk of disease recurrence or death by 37%. Among patients who had received prior neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, nivolumab reduced this risk by 42%, whilst in those who had not received chemotherapy, the risk was reduced by 31%. Overall survival also favored nivolumab over placebo, reducing the risk of death by 30% in all patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer and by 52% in those with tumors expressing PD-L1 at 1% or higher. Among patients who had received prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy, nivolumab reduced the risk of death by 26%, whilst in those who had not received chemotherapy, the risk was reduced by 33%. Alongside this, the safety profile remained consistent with previous findings. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Peter, for such a nice overview of this abstract. These results reinforce adjuvant nivolumab as a standard of care for high-risk muscle-invasive bladder cancer, offering the potential for a curative outcome for our patients. Dr. Peter Hoskin: I agree with you Neeraj. Perhaps you would like to mention Abstract 659 titled, “Additional efficacy and safety outcomes and an exploratory analysis of the impact of pathological complete response (pCR) on long-term outcomes from NIAGARA.” Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Of course. Dr. Galsky presented additional outcomes from the phase 3 NIAGARA study, which evaluated perioperative durvalumab combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The study previously demonstrated a significant improvement in event-free survival and overall survival with durvalumab compared to chemotherapy alone, with a manageable safety profile and no negative impact on the ability to undergo radical cystectomy. Among the 1,063 randomized patients, those who received durvalumab had a 33% reduction in the risk of developing distant metastases or death and a 31% reduction in the risk of dying from bladder cancer compared to those who received chemotherapy alone. More patients who received durvalumab achieved a pathological complete response at the time of surgery with 37% compared to 28% in the chemotherapy-alone group. Patients who achieved a pathological complete response had better event-free survival and overall survival compared to those who did not. In both groups, durvalumab provided additional survival benefits, reducing the risk of disease progression or death by 42% and the risk of death by 28% in patients with a pathological complete response, while in those patients without a pathological complete response, the risk of disease progression or death was reduced by 23% and the risk of death by 16% when durvalumab was added to the chemotherapy. Immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 21% of patients in the durvalumab group compared to 3% in the chemotherapy-alone group, with grade 3 or higher events occurring in 3% compared to 0.2%. The most common immune-related adverse events included hypothyroidism in 10% of patients treated with durvalumab compared to 1% in the chemotherapy-alone group, and hyperthyroidism in 3% versus 0.8%. At the time of the data cutoff, these adverse events had resolved in 41% of affected patients in the durvalumab group and 44% in the chemotherapy-alone group. Dr. Peter Hoskin: Thank you, Neeraj, for the great summary. These findings further support the role of perioperative durvalumab as a potential standard of care for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I concur with your thoughts, Peter. Before wrapping up the bladder cancer section, would you like to mention Abstract 664 reporting updated results from the EV-302 trial, which evaluated enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab compared to chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma? Dr. Peter Hoskin: Yes, of course. Dr. Tom Powles presented updated findings from the EV-302 study, and in this abstract presented 12 months of additional follow-up for EV-302 (>2 y of median follow-up) and an exploratory analysis of patients with confirmed complete response (cCR). The study had a median follow-up of 29.1 months and previously demonstrated significant improvements in progression-free survival and overall survival with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab. This is now the standard of care in global treatment guidelines. Among the 886 randomized patients, enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 52% and the risk of death by 49% compared to chemotherapy. The survival benefit was consistent regardless of cisplatin eligibility or the presence of liver metastases. The confirmed objective response rate was higher with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab at 67.5% compared to 44.2% with chemotherapy. The median duration of response was 23.3 months with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab compared to 7.0 months with chemotherapy. A complete response was achieved in 30.4% of patients in the enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab group compared to 14.5% in the chemotherapy group, with the median duration of complete response not yet reached in the enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab group compared to 15.2 months in the chemotherapy group. Severe treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57.3% of patients treated with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab compared to 69.5% in the chemotherapy group, while in patients who achieved a complete response, severe adverse events occurred in 61.7% of those treated with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab compared to 71.9% with chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths were reported in 1.1% of patients treated with enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab compared to 0.9% with chemotherapy, with no treatment-related deaths occurring in those who achieved a complete response. These findings clearly confirm the durable efficacy of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab, reinforcing its role as the standard of care for the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, and no new safety concerns have been identified. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you for this great summary. Moving on to kidney cancer, let's talk about Abstract 439 titled, “Nivolumab plus cabozantinib (N+C) vs sunitinib (S) for previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): Final follow-up results from the CheckMate-9ER trial.” Dr. Peter Hoskin: Sure. Dr. Motzer presented the final results from the phase 3 CheckMate-9ER trial, which compared the combination of cabozantinib and nivolumab against sunitinib in previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. The data after more than five years follow-up show that the combination therapy provided sustained superior efficacy compared to sunitinib. In terms of overall survival, we see an 11-month improvement in median OS, 46.5 months for the cabo-nivo versus 35.5 months for sunitinib and a 42% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death, with median progression-free survival nearly doubling – that's 16.4 months in the combination group and 8.3 months with sunitinib. Importantly, the safety profile was consistent with the known safety profiles of the individual medicines, with no new safety concerns identified. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Great summary, Peter. These data further support the efficacy of cabo-nivo combination therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma, which is showing a 11-month difference in overall survival. Dr. Peter Hoskin: Neeraj, before wrapping up this podcast, would you like to tell us about Abstract 618? This is titled “Prospective COTRIMS (Cologne trial of retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in metastatic seminoma) trial: Final results.” Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure, Peter. I would be delighted to. Dr Heidenrich from the University of Cologne in Germany presented the COTRIMS data evaluating retroperitoneal LN dissection in patients with clinical stage 2A/B seminomas. Seminomas are classified as 2A or B when the disease spreads to the retroperitoneal lymph nodes of up to 2 cm (CS IIA) or of more than 2 cm to up to 5 cm (CS 2B) in maximum diameter, respectively. They account for 10-15% of seminomas and they are usually treated with radiation and chemotherapy. However, radiation and chemo can be associated with long-term toxicities such as cardiovascular toxicities, diabetes, solid cancers, leukemia, particularly for younger patients. From this standpoint, Dr Heidenrich and colleagues evaluated unilateral, modified template, nerve-sparing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection as a less toxic alternative compared to chemo and radiation. They included 34 patients with negative AFP, beta-HCG, and clinical stage 2A/B seminomas. At a median follow-up of 43.2 months, the trial demonstrated great outcomes: a 99.3% treatment-free survival rate and 100% overall survival, with only four relapses. Antegrade ejaculation was preserved in 88% of patients, and severe complications such as grade 3 and 4 were observed in 12% of patients. Pathological analysis revealed metastatic seminoma in 85% of cases, with miR371 being true positive in 23 out of 24 cases and true negative in 100% of cases. It appears to be a valid biomarker for predicting the presence of lymph node metastases. These findings highlight retroperitoneal lymph node dissection is feasible; it has low morbidity, and excellent oncologic outcomes, avoiding overtreatment in 80% of patients and sparing unnecessary chemotherapy or radiotherapy in 10-15% of cases. Dr. Peter Hoskin: Great summary and important data on retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in metastatic seminoma. These findings will help shape clinical practice. Any final remarks before we conclude today's podcast? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Before wrapping up this podcast, I would like to say that we have reviewed several abstracts addressing prostate, bladder, kidney cancers, and seminoma, which are impacting our medical practices now and in the near future. Peter, thank you for sharing your insights with us today. These updates are undoubtedly exciting for the entire GU oncology community, and we greatly appreciate your valuable contribution to the discussion and your leadership of the conference. Many thanks. Dr. Peter Hoskin: Thank you, Neeraj. Thank you for the opportunity to share this information more widely. I'm aware that whilst we have nearly 6,000 delegates, there are many other tens of thousands of colleagues around the world who need to have access to this information. And it was a great privilege to chair this ASCO GU25. So, thank you once again, Neeraj, for this opportunity to share more of this information that we discussed over those few days. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Peter. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today on 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.  Find out more about today's speakers:   Dr. Neeraj Agarwal    @neerajaiims    Dr. Peter Hoskin Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on Twitter      ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook      ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures: Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, and Gilead Sciences Research Funding (Institution): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Crispr Therapeutics, Arvinas Dr. Peter Hoskin: Research Funding (Institution): Varian Medical Systems, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Roche, Pfizer, Elekta, Bristol Myers  

Dr. Jyoti Patel is back on the podcast to discuss the updates to the living guideline on therapy for stage IV NSCLC with driver alterations. She shares updated recommendations in the first- and second-line settings for patients with stage IV NSCLC and classical EGFR mutations, and the impact of these updates for clinicians and patients. We also look to the future to discuss ongoing developments in the field. Read the full living guideline update “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2024.3” at www.asco.org/living-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/living-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-24-02785     Brittany Harvey: 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. Jyoti Patel from Northwestern University, co-chair on “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2024.3.” It's great to have you back on the show today, Dr. Patel. Dr. Jyoti Patel: Thanks so much. Happy to be here. Brittany Harvey: And 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 guideline panel, including Dr. Patel, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline and in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then, to dive into the content of this update, Dr. Patel, this clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non small cell lung cancer with driver alterations is living, meaning that it's continuously reviewed and updated. So what data prompted this latest change to the recommendations? Dr. Jyoti Patel: Thanks so much. So it's really been an exciting time in the treatment of EGFR lung cancer, particularly this past year has required us to rethink approaches to front- and second-line therapy. In this particular update, we examined what patients in the front-line setting may be offered by their clinicians. And so we're talking about the population of classical EGFR mutations, so exon 19 and exon 21 L858R substitution. And so certainly for this population, osimertinib has a high level of evidence and should be offered to all patients at the time of diagnosis when they present with advanced disease. Our last update included a recommendation that patients could also get platinum doublet chemotherapy with osimertinib or osimertinib alone. This current recommendation also introduces another alternative therapy and that's the combination of amivantamab plus lazertinib. And so now, clinicians are faced with three really good options for their patients with EGFR exon19 deletion or L858R. Brittany Harvey: It's great to hear that there's this advance in the space, particularly for patients with these classical EGFR mutations that you mentioned. So what should clinicians know as they implement these new first-line recommendations? Dr. Jyoti Patel:  I think it's become more complex than ever. Certainly, we know again that patients should get osimertinib in the frontline setting. But we've been kind of stuck at progression-free survival that's between a year and a half and two years. And so we've really been looking at opportunities to intensify therapy. So one could certainly be with chemotherapy or switching over to amivantamab, the bispecific antibody that targets EGFR and MET plus lazertinib, an oral TKI that's very similar in structure to osimertinib. And when you're talking to a patient, it's really a conversation about balancing efficacy with toxicity. Unfortunately, as we know, there aren't that many free lunches. And so if we think about what a patient is hoping for in their therapy and how we can further personalize treatment options, really is important to look at some of the analyses for this study. So in the study of amivantamab plus lazertinib, we know that there were increased toxicities with a combination of both therapies. In fact, up to 75% of patients had over grade 3 toxicities, versus about 43% of patients with osimertinib monotherapy. And we know if we look back at FLAURA2, almost two thirds of patients with osimertinib and chemotherapy had grade 3 toxicities, compared to 27% of patients with osimertinib alone. So we certainly see an increase in toxicities. Then we have to ask ourselves, are those paper toxicities or ones that really impact patients? And we know that amivantamab, for example, causes significant cutaneous toxicities. With both of these therapies, whether it's chemotherapy or adding amivantamab, there's the burden of infusional visits and increased time in the doctor's office. Certainly with chemotherapy, there can be an increased incidence of myelosuppression. And so when we're thinking about advising our patients, certainly we need to talk about the toxicities. But one thing that we've been able to do is to look at the patients that were included in this trial. And what we really find is that in higher risk cohorts, particularly those that we know historically have done less well with standard osimertinib, so patients, for example, with CNS metastasis, for those patients with co-mutations, it may be that that additive benefit is significant. And so one example I think would be from the MARIPOSA study, again, the study of amivantamab and lazertinib versus chemotherapy. What we can say is that patients who had co-mutations, so patients with EGFR mutations as well as TP53, lazertinib and amivantamab led to a hazard ratio of 0.65 compared to osimertinib alone. So that was 18.2 months versus 12.9 months. And so this may be really important to patients. And we also see conversely that patients with wild type TP53, so those patients who didn't have the mutation, probably had equivalent survival regardless of therapy. So certainly, we need to prospectively study some of these high-risk cohorts. We've only seen progression-free survival in these studies. And so at this juncture, we can advise our patients about toxicity, the improvements in certain categories of progression-free survival, but we really still don't know how this pans out in overall survival. In many of these studies, all patients do not necessarily cross over to the study arm and so they may have lost the benefit of subsequent therapy. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's very important to talk about that balance of benefits and risks and particularly those toxicities that you discussed. So I appreciate reviewing that recommendation and the considerations for clinicians for first-line therapy. This update also included a second-line treatment update. What is that update for patients with EGFR alterations? Dr. Jyoti Patel: So this is where it gets super tricky because we have a frontline option with amivantamab and now we've had an update in the second line option. So what we said is that for patients who have progressed on an EGFR TKI, and in the United States, certainly that's predominantly osimertinib, or those in other parts of the world that may have gotten an earlier generation TKI, but do not have evidence of T790M or other targetable mutations, we can offer patients chemotherapy with or without amivantamab. And so certainly we have seen that this again leads to improved survival. There have also been a number of studies looking at incorporation of PD-L1 and anti-VEGF therapies. And what we can say, I think pretty clearly is that multiple phase 3 trials have really shown no benefit of the addition of PD-1 to platinum chemotherapy. But there are some emerging bispecific antibodies that may target PD-1 as well as VEGF, or combinations of antibodies that target both of those pathways that may improve outcome. At this juncture, I think we feel that the evidence surrounding chemotherapy plus amivantamab is strongest, but there is certainly work in this space that will be of interest. Now, what happens if your patient received amivantamab and lazertinib in the frontline setting and then has progression? And so we're trying to understand resistance mechanisms and opportunities for treatment. What the panel decided to recommend, based on the available evidence, was that certainly those patients should get platinum-based chemotherapy, but there may also be a role for antivascular endothelial growth factor targeting therapy such as bevacizumab in patients in whom it would be safe. Brittany Harvey: Great. I appreciate you detailing those recommendations when it gets complicated in the second-line setting. So what should clinicians know as they implement these second-line recommendations too? Dr. Jyoti Patel: So certainly the frontline setting matters significantly. So if a patient gets osimertinib in the frontline setting, we generally suggest that patients undergo repeat testing to see if they have another targetable mutation. If they don't, then I think preferred therapy would be chemotherapy with or without amivantamab. And amivantamab leads to a significant improvement in progression-free survival and response rate at the cost of increased risk of toxicity. For patients who get FLAURA2 in the frontline setting, chemotherapy plus osimertinib, it's a little bit of an unclear space. Those patients most likely would get docetaxel with or without ramucirumab. But there are other agents that we hope to have available to our patients in the near future. For patients who receive amivantamab and osimertinib, we recommend that those patients get chemotherapy probably with anti-VEGF as demonstrated by multiple trials that have shown the improved progression-free survival with introduction of an anti-VEGF agent. And we've seen evidence of amivantamab in the third line setting, so it is likely that this question about sequencing really takes center stage in our next set of trials. When you're talking to a patient, I think again, it's absolutely important to discuss: What are their goals? How symptomatic or how fast is their progression? Are there ways in which patients may benefit from spot treatment oligoprogression such as radiation? When is the right time for introduction of amivantamab and when do we think patients need chemotherapy? Is it up front or predominantly in the second-line setting? Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And then you've just touched on the goals of treatment for individual patients. So in your view, what does this update mean for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer and an EGFR alteration? Dr. Jyoti Patel: For patients, this is a time in which shared decision making really needs to take center stage. So our best patients are those patients that are best informed not only about their disease but also have a good understanding about what is important to them and their families in terms of care. And so bringing that shared understanding to the table again helps us think about this particular cancer as more of a journey rather than just a one off treatment. Therapy will hopefully be prolonged, and so it's absolutely important that we address toxicities, make therapies more tolerable, again, with the shared goal of living long and living well. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Those are key points to making sure that patients are living both longer and have a good quality of life during that time as well. So then, before you mentioned the possibility of future sequencing trials and other ongoing developments. What additional studies or future directions is the panel examining for future updates to this living guideline? Dr. Jyoti Patel: So certainly we're thinking about trials that look at, for example, cfDNA clearance. So are there patients that do well and can we detect that early on without having to intensify therapy on day 1 so it may be that we add chemotherapy a little bit later. I think really exciting are some of the new bispecific. The HARMONi-A trial was a trial in China of a novel bispecific, ivonescimab. And this drug targets both PD-1 and VEGF and it was combined with chemotherapy. And this trial found almost a doubling of progression-free survival with this drug in combination chemotherapy in an EGFR patient population. That study is being planned and being run in the United States to see if we have similar outcomes with a more diverse population. So certainly that's exciting. There are a number of antibody drug conjugates that are being studied in the post-chemotherapy setting as well. And I think we'll likely soon see a better understanding of what co-mutations and burden of disease really mean when we're thinking about assigning treatment. So which patients, again, need intensification of therapy and which patients may do really well on just an oral agent that they're taking at home with more tolerable toxicity than dual treatment. Brittany Harvey: Yes, we'll look forward to continued developments in these fields and seeing some of those studies come to fruition. So with that, I want to thank you for your work to rapidly and continuously update this guideline, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Patel. Dr. Jyoti Patel: Thanks so much, Brittany. It's really an exciting time for lung cancer and we hope that these updates really help physicians decide the best treatments for their patients. Again, it's a rapidly evolving landscape which is fantastic, but it does become more cumbersome to stay ahead of the literature. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And so we appreciate your time and the panel's time spent reviewing this literature and providing this much needed information to clinicians everywhere. So finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/living-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in the  Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova joins us again to share the newest changes to the living guideline on therapy for stage IV NSCLC without driver alterations. She discusses new evidence reviewed by the panel and changes to second-line recommendations for patients with good performance status and HER2 overexpression, and what these updates mean in practice. We discuss ongoing evidence generation as we await further updates to these living guidelines. Read the full living guideline update “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2024.3” at www.asco.org/living-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/living-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-24-02786     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. Lyudmila Bazhenova from University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center, co-chair on “Therapy for Stage IV Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2024.3.” It's great to have you back on the show today, Dr. Bazhenova. Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: It's my pleasure to be here as always. 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 panel, including Dr. Bazhenova, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guide in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then to dive into the content here, first, this living clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer without driver alterations has frequent updates to the recommendations. What prompted this latest update? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: Living ASCO guidelines are created to keep up with rapidly changing evidence which affect treatment of our patients with lung cancer. As a committee, we review published literature on a specific topic at the regular intervals and determine if it alters any recommendations. This time, upon our literature review, we felt that there are new data that requires an update in the guidelines and therefore the guidelines were updated. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for that updated information. So then it looks like the panel updated recommendations for second line and subsequent treatment options for patients with good performance status and HER2 overexpression. What is that updated recommendation from the panel? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: Yes, this is correct. We now added an extra recommendation for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer who have overexpression of the protein called HER2. HER2 overexpression with 2+/3+ level via immunohistochemistry is seen in approximately 8% to 20% of patients with lung cancer. And the data behind our recommendation comes from the DESTINY-Lung01 trial where patients with HER2 overexpression were treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan. And we saw that if patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer had a HER2 IHC score of 3+, overall response rate was seen at 53% and median duration of response was 6.9 months and, therefore, that in our opinion qualified for updated recommendation. We are still waiting for additional results that will be released later on another clinical trial where we see preliminary data presented at the World Conference of Lung Cancer in 2024. They looked at 36 patients also with HER2 overexpression and saw the overall response rate of almost 45%. It is important to highlight in this smaller study that a majority of the patients in the study were actually having EGFR mutation and the response rate in those patients who had an EGFR mutation was higher than the response rate in patients without EGFR mutations who just had a HER2 overexpression. So for now this is updated in the guidelines, but we will wait for additional data or formal publication of a World Lung Conference presentation and see if those recommendations need to be changed. Brittany Harvey: Understood, and I appreciate you providing the context of some of those ongoing developments as well. So then what should clinicians know as they implement this updated recommendation? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: Number one, we should all start from remembering to test for HER2 via immunohistochemistry. There is a slight difference in what considers HER2 positive in lung versus breast. In lung, we use what's called the gastric scoring and the difference is the circumferential versus non circumferential staining of the membrane. And number two, immunohistochemistry is not always included in next generation sequencing panels. So when you order your next generation sequencing, I think it's important to know if your company that you're using is testing for HER2 via immunohistochemistry. And if it's not, make sure that you find a company that does or work with your local pathology department to make sure that this testing is offered. It is also important to know the difference between HER2 overexpression and HER2 exon 20 insertion mutation even though the treatment for those two abnormalities is the same, which is trastuzumab deruxtecan. But the benefit that you can cite your patients and the rigor of the literature supporting the usage of trastuzumab deruxtecan in mutation versus overexpression is different. Brittany Harvey: Yes. And as you mentioned, it's essential that, in the first place, patients are actually receiving the testing so that we know if they're eligible for these treatment options. So what additionally does this change mean for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer and HER2 overexpression? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: So for patients, it adds another treatment modality which is now FDA approved. So if there are patients listening to me, make sure that your physician has tested your tumor for HER2 overexpression. So I think proactive asking of your physician would be very appropriate in this situation. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And then earlier you mentioned an ongoing trial that the panel was looking to for the future. But what other additional trials did the panel review during this guideline update and what is the panel examining for future updates to this living guideline? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: So at this point we reviewed three additional studies. The results of those studies did not make it into a change in guidelines. So we reviewed the HARMONi-2 trial.  HARMONi-2 trial so far does not have an official publication and, as per our strategy on how we come up with ASCO guidelines, we need to wait for an official publication. So this is one thing we're going to be expecting in the future. Once this is published, we will review it and decide if we need to make an additional change in recommendations. For those of you who are not aware, HARMONi-2 trial used bispecific monoclonal antibody against VEGF and PD-1 and was a phase III randomized trial comparing their investigational product which is called ivonescimab over pembrolizumab for patients with PD-L1 more than 50. And again, we are waiting for the final publication to make our recommendation. The second trial we reviewed was a LUNAR trial and the LUNAR trial looked at addition of tumor treating fields to chemotherapy or immunotherapy in patients whose cancer progressed with platinum doublet. The key point about this study is that immunotherapy was not required to be administered in a first line setting which is a current standard of care in the United States. And even though the study met their primary endpoint of overall survival, there were more benefits in patients who were immunotherapy naive in the second line. And we felt that given the potential lifestyle implication of wearing a device for 18 hours per day, and the lack of evidence in immunotherapy-pretreated population, and the absence of data in the first-line setting where we currently using immunotherapy in the United States, we felt that there is insufficient data to definitely recommend addition of tumor treating fields to systemic chemotherapy for most patients. And we are waiting for additional trials that are ongoing in this setting to formalize or change our recommendations. And we also reviewed- the final study that we reviewed was TROPION-Lung01. TROPION-Lung01 study was a phase III study in post platinum doublet setting which compared efficacy of Dato-DXd and docetaxel and trials showed improvement in progression free survival but not in overall survival. And progression free survival benefit was more pronounced in non-squamous carcinoma histology subgroup and we felt that the results do appear promising, but the strength of evidence which was based on unplanned subgroup analysis was not sufficient enough to make a change in treatment recommendation at this time. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate your transparency on why some of that data did not prompt a change to recommendations at this time. And additionally, we'll look forward to those future published results and potential incorporation of new data into future versions of this living guideline. So, I want to thank you so much for your work to rapidly and continuously update this guideline and for your time today, Dr. Bazhenova. Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: It is my pleasure. Thank you so much. 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/living-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in the  Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Desde hace unos cuantos años no visitamos la página ASCO DE VIDA y honestamente la estupidez humana da para que incluso este experimento de internet que tanta alegría nos trajo aún tenga algo que decirnos. En fin un poco de rosa con los que son capaces de reirse de sus miserias nunca viene mal. PUEDES PEDIR QUE TE REGALEN O REGALAR HASTA UN AÑO DE SUSCRIPCIÓN AL PATREON A ESA PERSONA QUE TE AMA Y TIENE TARJETA , O QUE AMAS Y NO LA TIENE ⬇️🎁⬇️🎁⬇️🎁⬇️🎁⬇️🎁⬇️🎁⬇️🎁⬇️🎁 https://www.patreon.com/profesorbriceno/gift ⬆️🎁⬆️🎁⬆️🎁⬆️🎁⬆️🎁⬆️🎁⬆️🎁⬆️🎁 🔹 EPISODIO COMPLETO Y PARTICIPACION EN VIVO EN 💻https://www.patreon.com/profesorbriceno 🔸 Las Grabaciones pueden verse en vivo en TWITCH 🖥️https://www.twitch.tv/profesorbriceno SUSCRÍBETE AL PODCAST POR AUDIO EN CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA ⬇️  AQUÍ LAS ENCUENTRAS TODAS: ➡️➡️➡️ https://pod.link/676871115 los más populares 🎧 SPOTIFY ⬇️   https://open.spotify.com/show/3rFE3ZP8OXMLUEN448Ne5i?si=1cec891caf6c4e03 🎧 APPLE PODCASTS ⬇️   https://podcasts.apple.com/es/podcast/que-se-vayan-todos/id676871115 🎧 GOOGLE PODCASTS ⬇️   https://www.ivoox.com/en/podcast-que-se-vayan-todos_sq_f11549_1.html 🎧 FEED PARA CUALQUIER APP DE PODCASTS ⬇️   https://www.ivoox.com/en/podcast-que-se-vayan-todos_sq_f11549_1.html Si te gustó, activa la campanita 🔔 🎭  FECHAS DE PRESENTACIONES ⬇ ️ http://www.profesorbriceno.com/tour Redes sociales: ✏️Web https://www.profesorbriceno.com ✏️Instagram https://www.instagram.com/profesorbriceno/ ✏️Twitter https://www.twitter.com/profesorbriceno ✏️Facebook https://www.facebook.com/profesorbricenoOficial/ SOLO PARA SUSCRIPTORES, CONTENIDO HUMORÍSTICO NO APTO PARA ESPÍRITUS SENSIBLES #qsvt #profesorbriceño #profesorbriceño #ascodevida