Podcasts about Asco

In this JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights episode, Natalie DelRocco summarizes "Prognostic Value of the G2 Expression Signature and MYC Overexpression in Childhood High-Grade Osteosarcoma" by Roelof van Ewijk et al. published on May 29, 2025. TRANSCRIPT Natalie Del Rocco: Hello, and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host, Natalie DelRocco, and today we will be discussing the original report, "Prognostic Value of the G2 Expression Signature and MYC Overexpression in Childhood High-Grade Osteosarcoma." This original report by van Ewijk et al. describes a study of the association between 2 biomarkers and survival outcomes among patients with high-grade osteosarcoma. Osteosarcoma is a disease where not much progress has been made in risk stratification factors that could potentially help patients target lower-risk therapies, less toxic therapies, or therapies that might be more toxic but could help their high-risk osteosarcoma. So, it's important to identify risk factors that can help target therapies. The G1/G2 gene expression signature is a prognostic risk score developed by a French osteosarcoma group in 2022. They showed in a cohort of 79 osteosarcoma patients that risk score was associated with poorer event-free survival and overall survival. This considers expression of 15 individual genes. MYC amplification was shown in 2023 by a North American osteosarcoma group to be associated with poor overall survival in a cohort of 92 osteosarcoma patients, and this group validated that finding in a localized cohort in the same publication.  The goal of this particular original report was to assess the prognostic significance of each of these biomarkers in a population independent to those prior publications and, hence, to serve as an external validation of prior findings and to assess these 2 biomarkers in the same study. The investigators considered MYC amplification, defined as having greater than 7 copies; MYC expression as a continuous rather than the previously categorized variable; and G2 expression defined as a continuous variable; and then G2 expression defined as a dichotomous variable with the cut point at the median, as done in the original paper.  What the investigators found in their primary multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model, which controlled for additional clinical risk factors such as age, tumor site, tumor size, is that G2 expression and MYC expression as continuous variables were associated with increased hazard of EFS and OS event. MYC amplification was not found to be prognostic. This is not surprising. When we have continuous variables, we have greater statistical power, we decrease the likelihood that an identified cut point in a previous study does not generalize well to either our genetic assay or our patient population. So, we don't have to worry about finding the optimal cut point in our particular patient sample. Thank you for listening to our JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to like and subscribe so that you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.orgpodcasts. 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, Michael Hughes summarizes “International Myeloma Society and International Myeloma Working Group Consensus Recommendations on the Definition of High-Risk Multiple Myeloma" by Avet-Loiseau et al. published on June 09, 2025 along with an interview with author Dr Nikhil C. Munshi, MD. TRANSCRIPT Michael Hughes: Welcome to this episode of JCO Article Insights. This is Michael Hughes, JCO's editorial fellow. Today I am interviewing Dr. Nikhil Munshi on the “International Myeloma Society and International Myeloma Working Group Consensus Recommendations on the Definition of High-Risk Multiple Myeloma” by Avet-Loiseau et al. At the time of this recording, our guest has disclosures that will be linked in the transcript. While some patients with multiple myeloma live for decades after treatment, others exhibit refractory or rapidly relapsing disease irrespective of treatment administered. We term this “high-risk myeloma.” Multiple risk stratification systems have been created, starting with the Durie-Salmon system in 1975 and evolving with the advent of novel therapeutics and novel treatment approaches. In 2015, the Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) was introduced, which incorporated novel clinical and cytogenetic markers and remained, until recently, a mainstay of risk stratification in newly diagnosed disease. Myeloma as a field has, just in the past few years, though, undergone explosive changes. In particular, we have seen groundbreaking advances not only in treatments - the introduction of anti-CD38 agents and the advent of cellular and bispecific therapies - but also in diagnostic technology and our understanding of the genetic lesions in myeloma. This has led to the proliferation of numerous trials employing different definitions of high-risk myeloma, a burgeoning problem for patients and providers alike, and has prompted attempts to consolidate definitions and terminology. Regarding cytogenetic lesions, at least, Kaiser et al's federated meta-analysis of 24 therapeutic trials, published here in the JCO in February of 2025 and recently podcasted in an interview with associate editor Dr. Suzanne Lentzsch, posited a new cytogenetic classification system to realize a shared platform upon which we might contextualize those trial results. This article we have here by Dr. Avet-Loiseau, Dr. Munshi, and colleagues, published online in early June of this year and hot off the presses, is the definitive joint statement from the International Myeloma Society (IMS) and the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG). What is high-risk multiple myeloma for the modern era? The IMS and IMWG Genomics Workshop was held in July 2023 and was attended by international myeloma experts, collaborating to reach consensus based on large volumes of data presented and shared. The datasets included cohorts from the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM); the HARMONY project, comprised of multiple European academic trials; the FORTE study, findings from which solidified KRd as a viable induction regimen; the Grupo Español de Mieloma Múltiple (GEM) and the PETHEMA Foundation; the German-Speaking Myeloma Multicenter Group (GMMG); the UK-based Myeloma XI, findings from which confirmed the concept of lenalidomide maintenance; Emory 1000, a large, real-world dataset from Emory University in Atlanta; the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation Clinical Outcomes in Multiple Myeloma to Personal Assessment of Genetic Profile (CoMMpass) dataset; and some newly diagnosed myeloma cohorts from the Mayo Clinic. Data were not pooled for analyses and were assessed individually - that is to say, with clear a priori understanding of whence the data had been gathered and for what original purposes. Consensus on topics was developed based on the preponderance of data across studies and cohorts. In terms of results, substantial revisions were made to the genomic staging of high-risk multiple myeloma, and these can be sorted into three major categories: A) alterations to the tumor suppressor gene TP53; B) translocations involving chromosome 14: t(14;16) (c-MAF overexpression), t(14;20) (MAFB overexpression), and t(4;14) (NSD2 overexpression); and C) chromosome 1 abnormalities: deletions of 1p or additional copies of 1q. In terms of category A, TP53 alterations: Deletion of 17p is present in up to 10% of patients at diagnosis and is enriched in relapsed or refractory disease. This is well-documented as a high-risk feature, but the proportion of the myeloma cells with deletion 17p actually impacts prognosis. GEM and HARMONY data analyses confirmed the use of 20% clonal cell fraction as the optimal threshold value for high-risk disease. That is to say, there must be the deletion of 17p in at least 20% of the myeloma cells on a FISH-analysis of a CD138-enriched bone marrow sample to qualify as high-risk disease. TP53 mutations can also occur. Inactivating mutations appear to have deleterious effects similar to chromosomal losses, and the biallelic loss of TP53, however it occurs, portends particularly poor prognosis. This effect is seen across Myeloma XI, CoMMpass, and IFM cohorts. Biallelic loss is rare, it appears to occur in only about 5% of patients, but next-generation sequencing is nevertheless recommended in all myeloma patients. Category B, chromosome 14 translocations: Translocation t(14;16) occurs in about 2% to 3% of patients with newly diagnosed disease. In the available data, primarily real-world IFM data, t(14;16) almost always occurs with chromosome 1 abnormalities. Translocation t(4;14) occurs in about 10% to 12% of newly diagnosed disease, but only patients with specific NSD2 alterations are, in fact, at risk of worse prognosis, which clinically appears to be about one in every three of those patients. And so together, the CoMMpass and Myeloma XI data suggest that translocation t(4;14) only in combination with deletion 1p or gain or amplification of 1q correlates with worse prognosis. Translocation t(14;20) occurs in only 2% of newly diagnosed disease. Similar to translocation t(4;14), it doesn't appear to have an effect on prognosis, except if the translocation co-occurs with chromosome 1 lesions, in which case patients do fare worse. Overall, these three translocations - t(14;16), t(4;14), and t(14;20) - should be considered high-risk only if chromosome 1 aberrations are also present. In terms of those chromosome 1 aberrations, category C, first deletions of 1p: Occurring in about 13% to 15% of newly diagnosed disease, deletion 1p eliminates critical cell checkpoints and normal apoptotic signaling. In the IFM and CoMMpass dataset analyses, biallelic deletion of 1p and monoallelic deletion of 1p co-occurring with additional copies of 1q denote high-risk. In terms of the other aberration in chromosome 1 possible in myeloma, gain or amplification of 1q: This occurs in up to 35% to 37% of newly diagnosed disease. It upregulates CKS1B, which is a cyclin-dependent kinase, and ANP32E, a histone acetyltransferase inhibitor. GEM and IFM data suggest that gain or amplification of 1q - there was no clear survival detriment to amplification - is best considered as a high-risk feature only in combination with the other risk factors as above. Now, in terms of any other criteria for high-risk disease, there remains one other item, and that has to do with tumor burden. There has been a consensus shift, really, in both the IMS and IMWG to attempt to develop a definition of high-risk disease which is based on biologic features rather than empirically observed and potentially temporally dynamic features, such as lactate dehydrogenase. Beta-2 microglobulin remains an independent high-risk indicator, but care must be taken when measuring it, as renal dysfunction can artificially inflate peripheral titers. The consensus conclusion was that a beta-2 microglobulin of at least 5.5 without renal failure should be considered high-risk but should not preclude detailed genomic profiling. So, in conclusion, the novel 2025 IMS-IMWG risk stratification system for myeloma is binary. It's either high-risk disease or standard-risk disease. It's got four criteria. Number one, deletion 17p and/or a TP53 mutation. Clonal cell fraction cut-off, remember, is 20%. Or number two, an IGH translocation - t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20) - with 1q gain and/or deletion of 1p. Or a monoallelic deletion of 1p with 1q additional copies or a biallelic deletion of 1p. Or a beta-2 microglobulin of at least 5.5 only when the creatinine is normal. This is a field-defining work that draws on analyses from across the world to put forward a dominant definition of high-risk disease and introduces a new era of biologically informed risk assessment in myeloma. Now, how does this change our clinical approach? FISH must be performed on CD138-enriched samples and should be performed for all patients. Next-generation sequencing should also be performed on all patients. Trials will hopefully now begin to include this novel definition of high-risk multiple myeloma. It does remain to be seen how data from novel therapeutic trials, if stratified according to this novel definition, will be interpreted. Will we find that therapies being evaluated at present have differential effects on myelomas with different genetic lesions? Other unanswered questions also exist. How do we go about integrating this into academic and then community clinical practice? How do we devise public health interventions for low-resource settings? To discuss this piece further, we welcome the esteemed Dr. Nikhil Munshi to the podcast. Dr. Munshi is a world-renowned leader in multiple myeloma and the corresponding author on this paper. As Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, Director of the Multiple Myeloma Effector Cell Therapy Unit, and Director of Basic and Correlative Science at the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, he has presided over critical discoveries in the field.  Thank you for joining us, Dr. Munshi. Dr. Nikhil Munshi: Oh, it's my pleasure being here, Michael, to discuss this interesting and important publication. Michael Hughes: I had a few questions for you. So number one, this is a comprehensive, shall we say, monumental and wide-ranging definition for high-risk myeloma. How do you hope this will influence or impact the ways we discuss myeloma with patients in the exam room? And how do we make some of these components recommended, in particular next-generation sequencing, feasible in lower-resource settings? Dr. Nikhil Munshi: So those are two very important questions. Let's start with the first: How do we utilize this in our day-to-day patient care setting? So, as you know well, we have always tried to identify those patients who do not do so well with the current existing treatment. And for the last 30 years, what constitutes a myeloma of higher risk has continued to change with improvement in our treatment. The current definition basically centers around a quarter of the patients whose PFS is less than 2 to 3 years. And those would require some more involved therapeutic management. So that was a starting point of defining patients and the features. As we developed this consensus amongst ourselves - and it's titled as “International Myeloma Society, International Myeloma Working Group Consensus Recommendation” - this IMS-IMWG type of recommendation we have done for many years, improvising in various areas of myeloma care. Now, here, we looked at the data that was existing all across the globe, utilizing newer treatment and trying to identify that with these four-drug regimens, with transplant and some of the immunotherapy, which group of patients do not do as well. And this is where this current algorithm comes up. So before I answer your question straight, “How do we use it?” I might like to just suggest, “What are those features that we have identified?” There are four features which constitute high-risk disease in the newer definition. Those with deletion 17p with 20% clonality and/or TP53 mutation. Number two, patients with one of the translocations - t(4;14), t(14;16), or t(14;20) - co-occurring with 1q amplification or deletion 1p32. And that's a change. Previously, just the translocation was considered high-risk. Now we need a co-occurrence for it to be called high-risk. The third group is patients having biallelic deletion 1p32 or monoallelic deletion 1p32 along with 1q amplification. And finally, patients with high beta-2 microglobulin, more than or equal to 5.5 mg/dL, with normal creatinine less than 1.2 mg/dL. And the question, “How do we use this?” There are multiple areas where we incorporate high-risk features in our treatment algorithm. One of the first areas is where we would consider the induction regimen. If a patient has a high-risk disease, we would definitely consider a four-drug regimen rather than a three-drug regimen, although we are beginning to incorporate four-drug for all groups. That's one important thing. Number two, those are the patients where we do consider consolidation with transplant or maybe in the new world, considering some of the immunotherapeutic consolidation more early or more aggressively. Number three, these are the patients who get a little bit more maintenance therapy. So normally, lenalidomide might end up being our standard maintenance regimen. In patients who have high-risk disease, we incorporate either addition of daratumumab or the anti-CD38 targeting antibody and/or addition of proteasome inhibitor, either bortezomib or carfilzomib. So you would have multi-drug maintenance therapy in these patients. And in high-risk patients, we follow them with maintenance longer periods of time. One very critically important point to keep in mind is that to get the better outcome in high-risk disease, we must try to get them into MRD negativity because there is clear data that patients who do achieve MRD negativity, despite having high-risk disease, have a much superior outcome. They become near to standard-risk disease. And so, in high-risk patients, I would try to do whatever various options I have to try and get them into MRD-negative status. And when these patients relapse, we do not wait for the classic progression criteria to be met before we intervene. We would propose and suggest that we intervene earlier before the disease really blasts off. And so there are a number of areas in our setting where this high-risk definition will help us intervene appropriately and also with appropriate aggressiveness to achieve better outcome, to make this similar to standard-risk disease. Michael Hughes: Thank you, Dr. Munshi. And thoughts on how to really integrate this not only into academic centers but also lower-resource settings? Dr. Nikhil Munshi: So that's a very important question, Michael. And when we were developing this consensus, we were very cognizant of that fact. So wherever available, I think we are recommending that over a period of next 2, 3, 5 years, we should begin to switch over to sequencing-based methods because two components of this definition, one is TP53 mutation, which we cannot do without sequencing, and also reliably detecting deletion 1p requires sequencing-based method. So in the low-resource countries - and there are many in this world, and also even in our own country, patients may not be able to afford it - the older method with FISH or similar such technology, which is more affordable, is also acceptable for current time. They may miss a very small number of patients, maybe 2% to 3%, where these finer changes are not picked up, but a majority of this would be captured by them. So the current practice might still be applicable with some limitation in those patient populations, and that's what we would recommend. What is happening, fortunately, is that actually sequencing-based method is becoming cheaper. And in many centers, it is cheaper to do the sequencing rather than to do the FISH analysis. And so my hope is that even in low-resource centers, sequencing might be more economical in the end. It's, I think, the access to technology, which is a little bit limited currently, but it's hopefully becoming available soon. Michael Hughes: Thank you, Dr. Munshi. And staying for a minute and looking at the multiple myeloma subsets which might be missed by this really still very broad-ranging high-risk definition, at least by prior risk stratification systems, right, there is this group of patients who have standard-risk cytogenetics by R-ISS or R2-ISS, but they have primary refractory disease or they relapse early. We call these, as you are well aware, functionally high-risk disease. What proportion of previously FHR, functionally high-risk, myeloma patients do you expect to be captured by this novel definition? Dr. Nikhil Munshi: So I think the newer definition - and we can look at it both ways, but the newer definition should capture most of the functionally high-risk definition. To put it differently, Michael, there are patients who we know are, as you mentioned, functionally high-risk. Those are the patients who might have plasma cell leukemia, those who might have extramedullary disease, those who might not respond to our four-drug induction. If you don't respond to the four-drug induction, almost by definition, they are high-risk. However, a majority of them have one of the abnormalities that we are describing here. There would be a very small proportion which may not have. And if they do not have, we know one of the important components of this definition here is also that the genome, we know, keeps on evolving. So there may be a very small clone with the high-risk feature which was not obvious in the beginning. Following treatments or following relapse, that clone predominates, and now the patient's disease becomes high-risk.  So the definition would incorporate or would capture these functional high-risk patients, but as you said, in countries where resources are not available, using this functional high-risk would also be helpful and advantageous. Sometimes LDH ends up being a high-risk. In our studies, LDH has not come out to be high-risk anymore because the features we are describing captures most of those patients, but those alternatives, older, can still be considered if other newer techniques are not available. Michael Hughes: Got you. And in terms of these older definitions, yes, that incorporate tumor burden, these empirical observations about how myeloma presents, do you foresee any additional tumor burden indicators being added to future definitions of high-risk disease? Or do you instead see this particular definition as a major waypoint on the journey towards a fully biologically grounded definition of high-risk disease? Dr. Nikhil Munshi: I think your second part is what is going to happen. I think the tumor burden-related definition is being now replaced by the biological or genomic-based definition. And I think at some point, it will be quite fully replaced. One component not here, and it is because one thing, we don't have enough data; number two, we don't know how it will pan out, is also the influence of the microenvironment on the risk definition. For example, the immune system, the immune function, etc. But not enough data exists to suggest how it would change the current definition. So in future, would a definition be totally genomic or it could be more integrative? And my personal guess is that it would be more integrative and that some immune features might come into the picture, especially now that we are using immune-based therapy as a very important component of treatment - CAR T-cells, bispecific, and antibody-based treatments. What role the immune system plays in either supporting tumor or what role suppression of the anti-tumor immunity plays? They all will be important how patient outcomes end up being, and which in turn could translate into how patient's risk stratification might happen. So I think the older tumor burden-related definitions probably will become things of the past. What we have currently proposed and consensus developed is the new path forward, and over time, some microenvironmental influences, if defined and found to be important, may get some more incorporation if it compares favorably with the genomic features. Michael Hughes: Thank you, Dr. Munshi for that enlightening response.  To conclude the podcast, I'd like to look to the future and to the immediate future, what are the next steps for high-risk disease definition between now and discussing an integrated genomic-microenvironment-based definition? Will we see attempts to refine? Will we see a multi-level system, things like this? Dr. Nikhil Munshi: Yeah, so I think the current definition will be here to stay for the next 10 years or so. I think this has been developed using a large amount of data, so we do believe that this will remain fine. It has been validated now within the last six months by a few of the other studies. So there won't be a quick change. But we will try to, all of us will try to innovate. And as you very rightly bring up, the areas of research would include looking at the expression or transcriptomic component. Does that matter? And we do believe a small number of patients will have transcriptomic changes, not looked at the DNA changes, and may play a role. There are newer components, so long non-coding RNA, for example, is going to be an important component to look at, how it impacts the disease outcome, etc. There are also some of the proteomic-related changes which may become important in our studies. And then as we discussed, microenvironment and immunological changes. So these are the future areas of ongoing research where we all should collect data, and then in the next 5 to 10 years, we'll have another group meeting to see has anything changed or any of the features have become more important.  Most of the time, some of the older features are lost because they are not as critically high-risk, and the newer features come in. And so the historical background for just one second, there was a time when chromosome 13 was considered a high-risk disease. We now don't even mention it because it's not high-risk. The newer treatments have improved the outcome. t(4;14) used to be a high-risk disease. Now by itself today, in this definition by itself is not; it needs to be with something else. And so I think this is a great sign of progress. As we improve the treatment and outcomes, some of the features will become less important, new features will come up, and we'll need to keep on evolving with time and with technology and make it better for patients. Michael Hughes: Thank you so much, Dr. Munshi, for your wisdom, for your sagacity, for your historical perspective as well.  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.  

LCC in Japanese: ASCO 2025 Highlights by IASLC

In this episode, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, FASCO, and Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, discuss the most clinically relevant data in breast cancer presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including: DESTINY-Breast09: phase III trial of trastuzumab deruxtecan with or without pertuzumab vs THP as first-line treatment of HER2-positive advanced/metastatic breast cancerASCENT-04/KEYNOTE-D19: phase III trial of first-line sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab in PD-L1–positive advanced TNBCSERENA-6: phase III trial of ctDNA-guided switch to camizestrant plus CDK4/6i vs continued AI plus CDK4/6i following ESR1 mutation emergence in HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancerINAVO120: OS from phase III study of first-line inavolisib/PBO plus palbociclib plus fulvestrant in PIK3CA-mutated, HR-positive/HER2-negative, endocrine-resistant advanced breast cancerPresenters:Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, FASCO​Professor of Medicine​Louisa and Rand Glenn Family Chair in Breast Cancer Research​Winship Cancer Institute​Emory UniversityAtlanta, Georgia​Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH​Chief, Breast Oncology​Dana-Farber Cancer Institute​Associate Professor of Medicine​Harvard Medical School​Boston, Massachusetts​Content based on an online CME program supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Lilly, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Stemline Therapeutics, Inc.Link to full program: https://bit.ly/4lFS4BC

Featuring perspectives from Prof Laurence Albiges and Dr Tian Zhang, including the following topics: Introduction: Adjuvant Immunotherapy for Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) (0:00) Metastatic Clear Cell RCC — Faculty Presentation (9:22) Metastatic Clear Cell RCC — Survey Questions (20:24) Non-Clear Cell RCC — Faculty Presentation (36:02) Non-Clear Cell RCC — Survey Questions (45:46) ASCO 2025 (50:12) CME information and select publications

On December 5, 2025, we will kick off the IASLC ASCO 2025 North America Conference on Lung Cancer. Guest include Dr. Ramesh Rengan, the Peter Wootton Professor and Chair of Radiation Oncology at the University of Washington and Senior Vice President of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and Dr. Kristen Marrone, Associate Professor of Oncology and Director of the Medical Oncology and Hematology Fellowship Program at Johns Hopkins University.

In this episode, James Davis, PharmD, BCOP and Victoria Nachar, PharmD, BCOP summarize the latest key clinical updates on BTK inhibitors in CLL based on data recently presented at the annual ASCO and EHA meetings, including:The randomized phase III FLAIR trialThe randomized phase III SEQUOIA trialThe randomized phase III BRUIN CLL-321 trial Presenters:James Davis, PharmD, BCOPClinical Pharmacy Specialist, Malignant HematologyMUSC Hollings Cancer CenterAssistant ProfessorMUSC College of PharmacyCharleston, South CarolinaVictoria Nachar, PharmD, BCOPClinical Pharmacist Specialist, HematologyUniversity of Michigan Rogel Cancer CenterAnn Arbor, MichiganLink to full program: https://bit.ly/3H2EcSX

Dr. Pallawi Torka of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center joins to share highlights from ASCO and EHA 2025 on the evolving landscape of B-cell lymphomas, including Hodgkin lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and follicular lymphoma. She offers in-depth insights on the STARGLO study and its recent ODAC review, the POLARGO trial, a rare T-cell leukemia (T-LGL) study, and new data supporting nivolumab-AVD in frontline Hodgkin lymphoma. Additional discussion includes the inMIND trial for follicular lymphoma, the growing role of ctDNA in managing DLBCL, advances in CAR-T cell therapy for CNS lymphoma, and how she is adapting treatment strategies based on favorable vs. unfavorable disease features. Check out Chadi's website for all Healthcare Unfiltered episodes and other content. www.chadinabhan.com/ Watch all Healthcare Unfiltered episodes on YouTube. www.youtube.com/channel/UCjiJPTpIJdIiukcq0UaMFsA

Soy la que mantiene viva esta amistad y así y todo no me responden ECDQEMSD podcast episodio 6092 Mis Amigas son un Asco Conducen: El Pirata y El Sr. Lagartija https://canaltrans.com Noticias del Mundo: La Inteligencia Artificial de Trump - Los peligros tecnológicos - Frenar a Israel en Gaza - Elecciones japonesas - Se comieron la obra de arte otra vez - La banana de Maurizio Cattelan - Mercenarios africanos - Ben Stiller y Adam Sandler Historias Desintegradas: Planificar la reunión - Los tipos de amigas - La de los emojis y la emprendedora - Películas que cambiaron - Taxi Driver - Cine publicidad - El Naufrago y Wilson - Tres joyas - Sur de la CDMX - Prohibido para intelectuales - Frutas de Colombia - Manual para comer chontaduro - No todo se come - Día del Cerebro - Trabajo doméstico y más... En Caso De Que El Mundo Se Desintegre - Podcast no tiene publicidad, sponsors ni organizaciones que aporten para mantenerlo al aire. Solo el sistema cooperativo de los que aportan a través de las suscripciones hacen posible que todo esto siga siendo una realidad. Gracias Dragones Dorados!! NO AI: ECDQEMSD Podcast no utiliza ninguna inteligencia artificial de manera directa para su realización. Diseño, guionado, música, edición y voces son de  nuestra completa intervención humana.

ASCO 2025 updates!We want to hear from you again! Send us an email to RickandDannyShow@gmail.comOr, message us on social media:Facebook: The Rick & Danny ShowInsta: @RickAndDannyShowTwitter: @_CSNF Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When it comes to CGTs, long-term follow-up care is an issue that makes patient access to these novel investigative treatments extremely limited, given the 15 years that patients must still engage with the trial after receiving the medication. In a post-ASCO 2025 conversation, pharmaphorum web editor Nicole Raleigh spoke with Dr Pamela Tenaerts, chief medical officer at Medable, about the company's new digital-first model to handle long-term follow-up care for cell and gene therapy cancer trials. Tenaerts explains how the company's approach prioritises patient comfort, simplifies trial execution, and enhances patient engagement, and is designed specifically for sponsors, CROs, clinical ops leaders, and healthcare providers You can also listen to episode 193a of the pharmaphorum podcast in the player below, download the episode to your computer, or find it - and subscribe to the rest of the series – on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Overcast, Pocket Casts, Podbean, and pretty much wherever else you download your other podcasts from.

Karie Runcie, MD joins us after chairing the ASCO 2025 rapid oral session to discuss the rcc/bladder presentations.

Ms. Kim Woofter and Dr. John Cox discuss the latest updates to the evidence-based standards on oncology medical homes developed by ASCO and COA. These standards serve as the basis for the ASCO Certified program. They share the new and revised standards around topics including the culture of safety and just culture in oncology practice, geriatric assessment and geriatric assessment-guided management, and multidisciplinary team management. They expand on the importance of these standards for clinicians and oncology practices to ensure every patient receives optimal care. Read the complete standards, “Oncology Medical Homes: ASCO-Community Oncology Alliance Standards Update” at www.asco.org/standards. TRANSCRIPT These standards, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/standards. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the JCO Oncology Practice, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/OP-25-00498 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 Ms. Kim Woofter, a registered nurse in practice leadership and administration from AC3 Inc in South Bend, Indiana, and Dr. John Cox, a medical oncologist and adjunct faculty member from UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, co-chairs on "Oncology Medical Homes, American Society of Clinical Oncology – Community Oncology Alliance Standards." Thank you for being here today, Ms. Woofter and Dr. Cox. Dr. John Cox: You bet. Ms. Kim Woofter: Thank you. Brittany Harvey: And then before we discuss these standards, I'd just 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 Dr. Cox and Ms. Woofter, 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 what we're here today to talk about, Dr. Cox, could you start us off by explaining what prompted an update to these ASCO-COA standards and what the scope of this update is? Dr. John Cox: Well, the ASCO-COA standards relative to defining and outlining Oncology Medical Home were initially published four or five years ago. At the time, we planned a regular update of the standards. So, in essence, this is a planned update. The whole program is built on the idea of continuous improvement. So, this update and future updates are prompted and defined by our literature, our science, the science of care delivery, and new developments and insights gained from studies and evaluations of care delivery methods, and informed by the practice. These standards are in place to underpin a program of care delivery by ASCO, the ASCO Certified, and as practices engage in this program, we are learning from them. The whole idea is to enlarge and improve how patients are cared for in practice. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's great to have this iterative process to continue to review the evidence and update these standards that form the basis for ASCO Certified. So then, following that background, Ms. Woofter, I'd like to review the key points of the revised standards for our listeners. First, how do the revised standards address the culture of safety and just culture in oncology practice? Ms. Kim Woofter: I think safety is of utmost importance to all of us. So let me say that first and foremost. And what we know in oncology is our QOPI standards already address safety in the infusion suite process. So, safe delivery of chemotherapy agents and antineoplastics. It also talked about near misses and medication errors - absolutely essential, for sure. But what we need to do is look at a more systemic approach to safety because we know is processes throughout an organization they'll often cause you trouble. To do that, we know you need what we call a just culture, which is a very common term in today's workplace. But what it really means is it's a culture of open reporting of any potential for error, any potential for malfunction, and it can be in any place in the organization. So, what we are doing in our new standard is to say, look at your entire processes throughout the organization, and approach that in an open-minded way so that people don't feel scared to report things, and it's a really positive approach to intervening early and making sure that errors don't occur anywhere in the workplace. Brittany Harvey: Taking that systemic approach to look at overarching processes seems really key to ensuring safety in oncology practices. So then, the next new section, Dr. Cox, what are the new OMH standards surrounding geriatric assessment and geriatric assessment–guided management? Dr. John Cox: This is a challenging update for our standards. As many folks in practice recognize, there is a deep literature on recognizing the geriatric population in oncology. Geriatric - those in my age group over age 60, 65 - make up the majority of cancer patients in this country. And yet, there are many aspects that should be taken into account as you address treatment decisions in this population. ASCO's recognized this. There has been a guideline previously on geriatric assessment. It's been updated, and we really felt it's time that it be incorporated in any iteration of what oncology care delivery means, so, within the oncology medical home standards. In short, what the standard outlines is that practices that are using these standards, that are using this benchmark, should have a geriatric assessment for patients within the practice care and use that information to guide management. Now, the standard allows wide exploration of how practices meet this standard, but it really puts on the table that if an oncology practice in the United States, or anywhere in the world really, is adhering to a good practice, that they're going to include and recognize these assessments in practice. Ms. Kim Woofter: I would like to add that this is a highly discussed and reviewed standard. Many of our community practices were concerned that they would have the time and manpower to perform this assessment. We all know it reduces toxicities if done appropriately at treatment planning, and so the outcomes are better. And we really left it to the practices to define how they're going to implement it, understanding that it will evolve to every single patient, but maybe day one, it was a step approach to be able to implement. So, I was really proud of the team that - the expert panel - that said, okay, let's step into this, but we do think it's essential. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's important to recognize that practices may have limited resources and time, and implementing it in the way that makes sense for them allows this to be a standard that can be used in practice. And it's great to have this geriatric assessment guideline integrated into these standards to improve care delivery. And we can provide a link to that guideline in the show notes of this episode as well (Practical Assessment and Management of Vulnerabilities in Older Patients Receiving Systemic Cancer Therapy: ASCO Guideline Update). So then, following that section of the standards, Ms. Woofter, how do the updated standards now address multidisciplinary team management? Ms. Kim Woofter: Well, we address multidisciplinary team management in a more comprehensive way in the updated standard. We always thought that that was a critical piece when doing treatment planning, and we kind of highlighted it in a bigger way, understanding that not everybody has the same resources available at the time of treatment planning. And again, this was a much-discussed standard, in that that multidisciplinary team approach doesn't necessarily have to be in a tumor board or a prospective analysis of every case. It is actually a conversation between specialists, between the surgeon and pathologist and the medical oncologist. And we are saying, do what works for you, but we know that that team approach, every specialty coming to the table at time of treatment planning, truly provides better outcomes for our patients. And so we kind of reiterated that, understanding that again, it doesn't have to be a formal tumor board, but it has to be a dialogue between specialties. And we highlighted that again in the new standard. Brittany Harvey: Open communication of all team members is really critical to providing optimal care. Dr. Cox, I'd like to ask you, in your view, how will these updated standards impact both clinicians and oncology practices? Dr. John Cox: Well, our whole goal with discussing a comprehensive care model for oncology practice is to have a benchmark, to have an iteration of what good oncology care delivery looks like. So, our hope is that practices, all practices, whether you're participating formally in ASCO Certified, the marquee quality program for ASCO, or if you are simply running a practice or a team within an academic environment or institutional environment, these standards are to apply across the board wherever oncology is practiced - that you can look at these standards as a benchmark and compare what you are doing in your practice and where are the gaps. So ideally, we drive improved care across the board. You know, one thing I've learned over the last couple of years as ASCO Certified is getting spun up and using and implementing these standards, is practices are remarkably innovative. We've learned a lot by seeing how pilot practices have met the standards, and that's gone into informing how we can improve care delivery for all of our practices and, importantly, for the team members who are delivering this care. The fourth rail of burnout and the like is inefficiency that occurs in practice. And when you know you've got a good, spun-up, effective team, less burnout, less stress for practice. I hope clinicians and oncology practices will use this to help drive improvements in their care and gain insight into how they can approach practice problems in a better way. Kim, you've been leading practices. I have to ask you, your thoughts in leaning into this question. Ms. Kim Woofter: I think very well said, I will say that first. And what I love about this is for practice leaders who are new to our ecosystem, if you will, they need a playbook. It's “Where do I begin?” And Dr. Cox said it very well, no one does everything perfectly day one, but it's a step-by-step self-assessment approach to say, “How do I get to this gold standard?” I really love the standards because they are very comprehensive, everything from treatment planning to end of life. So it's the spectrum of the care we deliver in the oncology setting. So as a leader and an administrator, it is the standard I want all of my departments to understand, adhere to, and engage, and be excited about. We now have a baseline approach, and what's even more important, these standards will evolve as our intelligence evolves, as literature evolves. It's a system that will always grow and change, and that's what we love about it. It's not a one-and-done. So, I'm very proud of the fact that it gives them a road map. Brittany Harvey: Yes, these evidence-based standards provide a critical foundation for practices in ASCO Certified, for those team members you mentioned, and for quality improvement beyond just those individuals and practices as well. So then finally, to wrap us up, Ms. Woofter, what do these revised standards mean for patients receiving cancer treatment? Ms. Kim Woofter: Well, I think that's the most exciting part, is we all do this for our patients and the best outcomes for our patients and the best treatment plans for our patients and their families. And these standards, that is their core, their absolute core. So what it's going to do for a patient is they can say, “Am I at a practice that implements ASCO standards?” And if that is a ‘yes', there's a confidence that, “I am in an evidence-based medicine thinking practice, I have a team around me, they will care for me not only at time of treatment planning but at the time of end of life, they will help me be part of that decision-making, and they will give me resources available to me in my community.” So, it is a true comprehensive approach. As a patient, I have that comfort, that it is bigger than just a great doctor. It is a great team. As a patient, that would be very important to me and important to my family. That being said, Kim Woofter would love every practice to be ASCO Certified. Understanding that that isn't feasible day one, just to know that the practice is implementing and engaging the standards is the great place to start. Every patient can't go to an ASCO Certified practice day one, but our dream would be that everyone would adhere to those standards, engage those standards, believe them, educate their staff on what they mean, so that patient outcomes and satisfaction will be optimized for everyone. The other piece to this that we all know is if you give evidence-based medicine, cost-effective, efficient care, it's better for the system as a whole. And I'm not saying that insurance is our driver - certainly patient outcomes are our driver - but the whole ecosystem of oncology benefits when you do the right thing. Dr. John Cox: It's hard to add anything to Kim's good statements, but I just highlight that this whole area began with the patient-centered medical home, and every time we've met, patients and how we deliver care to patients is top of mind. I think that reflects our community. It reflects oncology as a whole. I don't know any oncologist or practice that is focused on anything else as the prime goal. Brittany Harvey: That's what I was just going to say. The ultimate goal here is to provide patient-centered care across where every single patient is receiving treatment and at every stage of that treatment. So, I want to thank you both so much for your work to update these standards, to review the evidence, and discuss with the experts on the panel to come up with the solutions that will help drive quality improvement across care delivery. So, thank you for that, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Cox and Ms. Woofter. And 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. You can also find many of our standards and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available on 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 episode, Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD; Alex F. Herrera, MD; and Kara Kelly, MD, discuss the latest frontline treatment options for advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and approaches to personalizing treatment for the general patient population, older patients, and pediatric patients. This podcast was adapted from a live presentation held in May 2025.The Landscape of Frontline Options in HLSpecial Considerations for Older PatientsSpecial Considerations for Pediatric PatientsFuture Directions in HLPresenters:Jonathan W. Friedberg, MDDirector, Wilmot Cancer InstituteSamuel Durand Professor of Medicine and OncologyUniversity of RochesterRochester, New YorkAlex F. Herrera, MDChief, Division of LymphomaProfessor, Department of Hematology and Hematopoietic Cell TransplantationMedical Director of the City of Hope Clinical Trials OfficeAssociate Medical Director of the Briskin Center for Clinical ResearchCity of Hope Medical CenterDuarte, CaliforniaKara M. Kelly, MDWaldemar J. Kaminski Endowed Chair of PediatricsRoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer CenterDivision Chief and Professor of PediatricsUniversity at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical SciencesBuffalo, New YorkContent based on an online CME program supported by an independent educational grant from Bristol Myers Squibb.Link to CME: Claim Credithttps://bit.ly/3TQ0M45Link to full program: https://bit.ly/4eV8AuW

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova is back on the podcast to discuss the latest update of the living guideline on therapy for stage IV NSCLC without driver alterations. She shares the studies the Expert Panel reviewed in the first- and second-line settings, including NIPPON, HARMONi-2, and DUBLIN-3. Although these studies do not impact the existing guideline recommendations, Dr. Bazhenova provides context and comments on ongoing trials that will influence the next iteration of the living guideline. Read the full living guideline update “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2025.1” at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-25-01062 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 2025.1." It's great to have you back on the show today, Dr Bazhenova. Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: It's my pleasure to be here. Brittany Harvey: And then before we discuss this guideline update, 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. Bazhenova, 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 dive into the content here, Dr. Bazhenova, this living clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer without driver alterations is updated on an ongoing continuous basis. So what prompted this latest update to the recommendations? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: Living ASCO guidelines are designed to keep pace with rapidly evolving evidence that impacts treatment of our patients with lung cancer. As a committee, we are tasked with regular review of the published literature and determine if the new data warrants changes to existing recommendations. So in this recently published update, we evaluated new trials related to treatment of patients with metastatic lung cancer without driver alterations. Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Thank you for that explanation of the process. So, you just mentioned that the panel reviewed new trials for this update. So, which particular updated evidence did the panel review on first-line treatment options for patients with good performance status across histology and PD-L1 expression status, and how did this impact the recommendations? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: For the first-line treatment option for patients without driver alterations, two studies met our criteria for review. One was the NIPPON trial from Japan, the second was the HARMONi trial. None of those two trials resulted in change in our guidelines, but I think they are giving us some additional information that would be useful for the way we treat patients with non–small cell lung cancer without driver alterations. For example, if we take those patients, we currently have several treatment options as a first line. One is monotherapy immunotherapy. You can give pembrolizumab as an example, and that was based on the KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-042 trials. Then we have a platinum doublet plus immunotherapy, and there are several trials that did that pathway. And then we have also an option of giving our patients dual IO immunotherapy combination, such as CheckMate 9LA and POSEIDON. At this point, we do not have any randomized trials comparing those three treatment modalities head-to-head. And the NIPPON trial was interesting to us because it was the first trial to compare CheckMate 9LA regimen, which is again, dual immunotherapy plus chemo, versus KEYNOTE-189 or KEYNOTE-407, which is a chemotherapy plus immunotherapy. And as a result of the study, while chemotherapy plus ipilimumab-nivolumab led to numerically higher overall survival, the difference was not statistically significant. And what is concerning in that trial is that we saw a higher number of treatment-related death occurring in nivolumab and ipilimumab arm compared to the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy arm. As a matter of fact, the trial was terminated early because of the increased risk of death. If you look at the treatment-related death in CheckMate 9LA, the 9LA study reported the treatment-related death to be 2%, and then in the NIPPON trial, the treatment-related death was 7%. Why is that happening? It's really difficult to say. The study was done in Japan. Maybe there is some pharmacogenomic differences between global population and Japan population. But certainly the higher rate of adverse events needs to be taken into account. Another interesting thing about this trial is that it did not show any differences in a subset analysis for patients with squamous histology as well as PD-L1 negative tumor. So while this does not change our current guidelines and CheckMate 9LA treatment still remains an appropriate treatment option, it kind of raises the possibility that this combination could be associated with a higher toxicity. And we do have a randomized US-based trial that is ongoing, and we are hoping that eventually we will be able to answer that question after the trial will be completed. The second trial we reviewed is HARMONi-2. So HARMONi-2 was a randomized, double-blind study which is conducted primarily in China, looking at bispecific PD-L1 and VEGF antibody called ivonescimab. And that took patients who were PD-L1 positive, as defined as more than 1% expression, and patients were randomized to pembrolizumab versus bispecific ivonescimab. And the study was positive. It showed improvement in median progression-free survival of 11 months versus almost 6 months in bispecific versus pembrolizumab. There were, however, higher grade 3 events in the ivonescimab arm. At this point, we are not changing our recommendations because this trial was done in an ex-US population, and we are awaiting a similar trial ongoing in the United States before we change recommendations and decide if ivonescimab needs to be included in our guidelines. Brittany Harvey: This context is very helpful when clinicians think through the data behind these options. And it's important that the panel reviews this evidence, even if it doesn't prompt a change to the recommendations. And we'll await results of those trials that you mentioned to further inform this guideline. So then beyond those studies for first line, what updated evidence did the panel review for second-line and subsequent treatment options for patients with good performance status, and how did this impact the recommendations? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: So for second line, only one trial met the criteria, and that was DUBLIN-3. DUBLIN-3 is a phase 3 single-blind randomized trial comparing docetaxel versus docetaxel plus plinabulin. And the study enrolled patients with second or third line. They have to have had platinum-based chemotherapy and progressed. Plinabulin is an interesting compound. It's a small molecule tubulin binder that prevents polymerization of tubulin and appears to impact dendritic cell maturation and T-cell activation. This study enrolled 559 patients, randomly assigned them to two groups. And one important information about this study is that was a study that was envisioned before immunotherapy became a standard mainstream treatment for first-line therapy. And only 20% of patients had prior PD-1 exposure. So therefore, the results of that study need to be taken into context of this population no longer existing in the United States because we use PD-L1 inhibitors in the first line. And we saw that interesting in the plinabulin arm had lower rates of neutropenia but higher rates of serious adverse events. And at this point, we are not changing our guidelines for mainly two reasons. Number one, low number of patients that received prior treatment with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors, as well as a modest overall survival benefit of this trial. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you describing that study as well and why that evidence didn't prompt a change to those particular recommendations. So then, what should clinicians know as they implement this living guideline, and how does this new evidence impact clinicians and patients? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: At this point, none of the studies that we reviewed resulted in a change in guidelines. We are still waiting for more global results from some of the studies that I highlighted. It shows that there's still a lot of questions we need to be answering in those patients. And I'm hoping that with future clinical trials, we will be able to definitively maybe recommend one treatment over another. But at this point, all the treatments that I mentioned before remain appropriate for patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer without driver alterations. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And then you just mentioned that there's still a lot of outstanding questions in this field. You've mentioned a couple different studies where we're awaiting evidence. Beyond those that you already mentioned, what is the panel examining for future updates to this living guideline? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: Right now, our next task is to come up with a full guidelines update. ASCO have certain rules for the guidelines committee members. And so we are gearing for a full guideline update, which hopefully will be ready by the end of 2025. Brittany Harvey: Excellent. We'll look forward to that full update of the living guideline, and we'll still await results of these ongoing trials to further inform this living guideline. So I want to thank you so much for your work to rapidly and continuously update this living guideline, and thank you for the time today, Dr. Bazhenova. Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: My pleasure. Brittany Harvey: And finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you've 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. Joshua Reuss joints that podcast to discuss the latest changes to the living guideline on stage IV NSCLC with driver alterations. He discusses the new evidence for NSCLC with EGFR mutations and NRG1 fusions and how this impacts the latest recommendations from the panel. He shares ongoing research that the panel will review in the future for further updates to this living guideline, and puts the updated recommendations into context for clinicians treating patients with stage IV NSCLC. Read the full living guideline update “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2025.1” at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-25-01061 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. Joshua Reuss from Georgetown University, co-chair on "Therapy for Stage IV Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2025.1." It's great to have you here today, Dr. Reuss. Dr. Joshua Reuss: Thank you. 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. Reuss, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So to dive into what we're here today to talk about, Dr. Reuss, this living clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer with driver alterations is updated on an ongoing basis. So what prompted this latest update to the recommendations? Dr. Joshua Reuss: Yes, thank you. It's very important that we have living guidelines that are continuously updated. We obviously don't live in a static environment where things are non-changing, and we really need to apply the most up-to-date and current evidence to treat our patients with the most effective strategies, the most groundbreaking strategies. And so to have guidelines that can be disseminated, particularly these ASCO guidelines, to treating providers is incredibly important. So, with any of these updates, we review ongoing studies, published work, for the quality of evidence to see if it's something that warrants making adjustments to our guidelines or at least incorporating the information so that providers can review it and incorporate this into their own personal decision-making. So in this particular update, we reviewed evidence particularly pertaining to EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer and non–small cell lung cancer harboring an NRG1 fusion. Brittany Harvey: Yes, certainly there's a lot of new evidence in the advanced non–small cell lung cancer field, and so we appreciate the panel's continuous review of this evidence. So then you just mentioned two separate areas where the panel reviewed new evidence. So starting with that first one, what updated evidence did the panel review on first-line treatment options for patients with EGFR alterations, and how did this impact the recommendations? Dr. Joshua Reuss: Yes, so advanced EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer, at least with classical activating alterations - that is our exon 19 deletions and our exon 21 L858R mutations - is something that's really evolved rapidly in the last few years. You know, for many years, we basically, for the frontline treatment setting, were saying, "Okay, we have a targeted therapy, osimertinib. We're going to give that, and we're going to see what effect we can get out of that," with, you know, a median time of duration of treatment response averaging around 18 months, knowing that there are some that that's a lot longer and some that are a lot shorter. But recently, we've seen a lot of data emerging on combination strategies. The guideline has already been updated to incorporate two of these combinations: osimertinib with chemotherapy based off of the FLAURA2 trial, and then the combination of amivantamab with lazertinib based off of the MARIPOSA trial. And that was data on progression-free survival that was published and led to those particular recommendations. Now, more recently, we've seen data come out in smaller, randomized studies for other combinations. And more recently, we reviewed the RAMOSE study. So this was a phase II, open-label, randomized trial for patients with tyrosine kinase inhibitor–naive and really, treatment-naive advanced EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer harboring one of these two classical EGFR alterations, randomized to either osimertinib alone or osimertinib with the combination of ramucirumab, which is an anti-VEGF agent. There's been a lot of data, preclinical and clinical, for the role of VEGF blockade, particularly in EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer, so exploring the combination of this for synergy in the frontline setting really made a lot of sense. So again, this was a phase II trial that randomized patients prospectively to one of these two regimens. The population here is really what we typically see with EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer, predominantly a younger population - median age on this study was 65 - predominantly female - 71% female - and predominantly nonsmokers. Now, what this study showed was that at a median follow-up of 16.6 months, the progression-free survival favored the combination arm with a median progression-free survival of 24.8 months with the combination of osimertinib plus ramucirumab versus 15.6 months for osimertinib alone, for a hazard ratio of benefit of 0.55. The landmark one- and two-year endpoints for progression-free survival also favored the combination arm, and response rates were relatively comparable between groups, with overall adverse events being more frequent in the combination group, specifically high blood pressure, proteinuria, and epistaxis, which are our common adverse events related to VEGF-blocking agents. So, it's good to see data in this space. Now, of note, though, this was a phase II study, so not a phase III level of evidence. In addition, when looking at the population, this was a randomized, multicenter study, but it was a US-only population. There was also some imbalance in the number of visits between arms, so the combination arm was seen more frequently than the arm that got osimertinib alone. Now, the imaging assessments were no different, but obviously this could lead to potential confounding, at least in timing of awareness of potential side effects and and things being brought to the attention of investigators. So very promising data here, but because, you know, of this being a phase II study, this actually led to no changes in the guideline at this time. Brittany Harvey: Understood. Yes, as you mentioned prior, it's important to understand the full body of evidence and to review the trials even when it doesn't impact the recommendations. Dr. Joshua Reuss: And I will say that, you know, there is an ongoing phase III study looking at a very similar combination. It's the phase III ECOG-ACRIN trial of the combination of osimertinib plus bevacizumab versus osimertinib alone in this specific population. So, you know, I think we will see phase III–level data for a combination of VEGF with osimertinib, but again, promising phase II data that did not lead to a change in the recommendation at this time. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. We'll look forward to that ongoing trial to learn more about combination in this patient population. So then moving to that second patient population that you mentioned earlier where the panel reviewed evidence, what is the updated evidence and recommendation for patients with NRG1 fusions? Dr. Joshua Reuss: Yeah, so this was an exciting update that we made more recently with this unique iteration of the living guidelines. So, NRG1 fusions, this is perhaps a newer kid on the block in terms of driver alterations that has been known to be identified in non–small cell lung cancer among other solid tumors. It is very rare, occurring in less than 1% of solid tumors, but something that we know is a unique oncogenic pathway that can lead to oncogenesis and cancer development, including in non–small cell lung cancer. So up until now, unfortunately, there have not been targeted therapies that target this unique alteration. It's somewhat different than other driver alterations where there's a top-level signaling change in a protein. This is more of a ligand alteration that then alters, that then enables activation of more classical pathways, but again, through upregulation of a unique ligand. So a slightly different pathway but something that we know should be able to be targeted to promote patient survival for those with NRG1 fusions. So the therapy here is a therapy called zenocutuzumab. It's an IgG1 bispecific antibody against HER2 and HER3. So it prevents the downstream dimerization and signaling that occurs as a result of this NRG1 fusion and upregulation of the NRG1 signal. This was, as you can imagine with a rare alteration, a large phase II registrational study that examined this in advanced solid tumors containing the NRG1 fusion. This is the NRG1 registrational trial. And this study enrolled patients with advanced solid tumors who had progressed on prior therapy. Patients were treated with zenocutuzumab 750 milligrams IV every two weeks. Among 158 response-evaluable solid tumor patients, the response rate was 30%, median duration of response of 11.1 months, and a median progression-free survival of 6.8 months. Now, in those with non–small cell lung cancer, that made up 93 response-evaluable patients, very similar outcomes there: a response rate of 29%, median duration of response of 12.7 months, and a median progression-free survival of 6.8 months. This therapy did appear to be well tolerated. The most common higher-grade emergent side effects - grade 3 or higher - were anemia occurring in 5% and elevated liver numbers occurring in 3%. So this is a subsequent-line study, so this led to the updated recommendation that clinicians may offer zenocutuzumab in the subsequent-line setting for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer who harbor NRG1 fusions. So I think this does speak toward the incredible importance of next-generation sequencing and molecular testing for patients, particularly to include testing that looks at the RNA. These large fusions can sometimes be very challenging to detect on DNA sequencing platforms alone, so it's important to, if you have a high level of suspicion for an alteration like this, perhaps some of the mucinous adenocarcinomas where it's been challenging to find a driver alteration, and it's someone who is a never-smoker, really would want to include molecular testing that assesses the RNA level and not just the DNA. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's important to have all the biomarkers available so that clinicians are able to use that to inform their decision-making. So then, given these changes in the guideline, what should clinicians know as they implement this latest living guideline update? And how do these changes impact patients? Dr. Joshua Reuss: Yeah, I think talking in reverse order of what we just discussed here, there is a new guideline update for NRG1 fusions. So I think making sure that that's being evaluated, that clinicians are testing for that and really looking for that result that should be incorporated in in most next-generation large sequencing assays to get that result, but it's very important that that is not overlooked now that we do have a therapy that's available in the subsequent-line setting, though it is important to note that patients with NRG1 fusions, at least the limited data that there is suggests that the efficacy to standard chemoimmunotherapy regimens is overall poor. So physicians unfortunately might be facing this question for second-line therapy in patients with NRG1 fusions sooner rather than later. For the former, for EGFR-altered non–small cell lung cancer and how do we incorporate VEGF-containing regimens into these patients? Our guideline top-level update did not change based off of review of this new study, but it's important for clinicians to know what other combinations may exist. You know, there are phase III studies looking at this combination in the frontline setting. And of course, there is data on other bispecific molecules that incorporate VEGF in the subsequent-line setting, particularly a combination that includes the VEGF/PD-1 bispecific antibody ivonescimab that's being studied in the HARMONi-A trial for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer, for which we hope to get some more definitive data in the coming months. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And then you've just mentioned a few ongoing trials where we're looking for evidence to inform future updates. But thinking beyond that, into the future, what is the panel examining for future updates to this living guideline? Dr. Joshua Reuss: It's a very exciting time to be in the world of treating advanced non–small cell lung cancer, particularly patients with driver alterations, because there is so much evolving data that's changing our practice in real time, again highlighting the importance of these living guideline updates. I'd say there's many things that we're excited to see. You know, a lot of the combination regimens in EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer for which there are approvals and current recommendations in our guideline, particularly osimertinib plus chemotherapy and amivantamab plus lazertinib - those are the two approved combination strategies in the front line - we are now seeing the emergence of overall survival data for those combinations. So obviously that is something that's going to be very important for the committee to review and incorporate into guideline updates. There are several new therapies coming down the road for other driver populations. We recently saw an approval for taletrectinib for ROS1 fusion–positive non–small cell lung cancer, so it's going to be important that the committee reviews the data and the publications regarding that therapy. And then there are other novel therapies that we're looking to see updated data on. There are multiple antibody-drug conjugates, which take the potent power of a chemotherapy molecule and attempt to make that targeted with an antibody targeting to a unique feature on the cancer cell. And there are several antibody-drug conjugates that are in development at various levels of promise in this space, particularly in EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer, and I anticipate seeing some emerging data for that coming up in the near future as well. So really, lots to be excited in the space and lots for our committee to review to give guidance on so that these patients can really receive the top-level care wherever they are being treated in the country and throughout the world. Brittany Harvey: Yes, we'll await this new data to continue to provide optimal options for patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer with driver alterations. So, Dr. Reuss, I want to thank you so much for your work to rapidly and continuously update and review the evidence for this guideline and thank you for your time today. Dr. Joshua Reuss: Thank you so much. Brittany Harvey: And finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available on 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.

Prof Marina Garassino, Dr John Heymach, Prof Solange Peters and moderator Dr Jacob Sands present key data from the ASCO 2025 Annual Meeting on the management of metastatic NSCLC without targetable mutations, as well as emerging evidence on the role of antibody-drug conjugates for patients with select actionable genomic alterations. CME information and select publications here.

Dr. Ben Derman of the University of Chicago Medicine joins the show to unpack major updates in multiple myeloma presented at ASCO and EHA 2025. He discusses the growing role of quadruple therapy across all patient populations and its implications for the future of autologous stem cell transplant, including insights from the MIDAS trial on MRD-guided transplant decisions. Additional highlights include MRD-negativity as a potential off-ramp for maintenance therapy, evolving data from frontline triplet vs. quadruplet studies, real-world referral trends, CARTITUDE-4 subgroup outcomes, and the expanding utility of bispecifics and trispecific antibodies, particularly for extramedullary disease. Check out Chadi's website for all Healthcare Unfiltered episodes and other content. www.chadinabhan.com/ Watch all Healthcare Unfiltered episodes on YouTube. www.youtube.com/channel/UCjiJPTpIJdIiukcq0UaMFsA

Drs. Hope Rugo, Sheri Brenner, and Mikolaj Slawkowski-Rode discuss the struggle that health care professionals experience when terminally ill patients are suffering and approaches to help clinicians understand and respond to suffering in a more patient-centered and therapeutic way. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a monthly podcast series from ASCO that features engaging conversations between editors and authors of the ASCO Educational Book.  I'm your host, Dr. Hope Rugo. I'm director of the Women's Cancers Program and division chief of breast medical oncology at the City of Hope Cancer Center, and I'm also the editor-in-chief of the Educational Book. On today's episode, we'll be exploring the complexities of grief and oncology and the struggle we experience as healthcare professionals when terminally ill patients are suffering. Our guests will discuss approaches to help clinicians understand and respond to suffering in a more patient-centered and therapeutic way, as outlined in their recently published article titled, “Oncology and Suffering: Strategies on Coping With Grief for Healthcare Professionals.” I'm delighted today to welcome Dr. Keri Brenner, a clinical associate professor of medicine, palliative care attending, and psychiatrist at Stanford University, and Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode, a senior research fellow in philosophy in the Humanities Research Institute at the University of Buckingham, where he also serves as director of graduate research in p hilosophy. He is also a research fellow in philosophy at Blackfriars Hall at the University of Oxford and associate professor at the University of Warsaw.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Brenner and Dr. Sławkowski-Rode, thanks for being on the podcast today. Dr. Keri Brenner: Great to be here, Dr. Rugo. Thank you so much for that kind introduction. Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: Thank you very much, Dr. Rugo. It's a pleasure and an honor. Dr. Hope Rugo: So I'm going to start with some questions for both of you. I'll start with Dr. Brenner. You've spoken and written about the concept of suffering when there is no cure. For oncologists, what does it mean to attune to suffering, not just disease? And how might this impact the way they show up in difficult conversations with patients? Dr. Keri Brenner: Suffering is something that's so omnipresent in the work of clinical oncology, and I like to begin by just thinking about what is suffering, because it's a word that we use so commonly, and yet, it's important to know what we're talking about. I think about the definition of Eric Cassell, who was a beloved mentor of mine for decades, and he defined suffering as the state of severe distress that's associated with events that threaten the intactness of a person. And my colleague here at Stanford, Tyler Tate, has been working on a definition of suffering that encompasses the experience of a gap between how things are versus how things ought to be. Both of these definitions really touch upon suffering in a person-centered way that's relational about one's identity, meaning, autonomy, and connectedness with others. So these definitions alone remind us that suffering calls for a person-centered response, not the patient as a pathology, but the panoramic view of who the patient is as a person and their lived reality of illness. And in this light, the therapeutic alliance becomes one of our most active ingredients in care. The therapeutic alliance is that collaborative, trusting bond as persons that we have between clinician and patient, and it's actually one of the most powerful predictors of meaningful outcomes in our care, especially in oncologic care.  You know, I'll never forget my first day of internship at Massachusetts General Hospital. A faculty lecturer shared this really sage insight with us that left this indelible mark. She shared, “As physicians and healers, your very self is the primary instrument of healing. Our being is the median of the medicine.” So, our very selves as embodied, relationally grounded people, that's the median of the medicine and the first most enduring medicine that we offer. That has really borne fruit in the evidence that we see around the therapeutic alliance. And we see this in oncologic care, that in advanced cancer, a strong alliance with one's oncologist truly improves a patient's quality of life, treatment adherence, emotional well-being, and even surpasses structured interventions like psychotherapeutic interventions. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's just incredibly helpful information and actually terminology as well, and I think the concept of suffering differs so much. Suffering comes in many shapes and forms, and I think you really have highlighted that. But many oncologists struggle with knowing what to do when patients are suffering but can't be fixed, and I think a lot of times that has to do with oncologists when patients have pain or shortness of breath or issues like that. There are obviously many ways people suffer. But I think what's really challenging is how clinicians understand suffering and what the best approaches to respond to suffering are in the best patient-centered and therapeutic way. Dr. Keri Brenner: I get that question a lot from my trainees in palliative care, not knowing what to do. And my first response is, this is about how to be, not about knowing what to do, but how to be. In our medical training, we're trained often how to think and treat, but rarely how to be, how to accompany others. And I often have this image that I tell my trainees of, instead of this hierarchical approach of a fix-it mentality of all we're going to do, when it comes to elements of unavoidable loss, mortality, unavoidable sufferings, I imagine something more like accompaniment, a patient walking through some dark caverns, and I am accompanying them, trying to walk beside them, shining a light as a guide throughout that darkness. So it's a spirit of being and walking with. And it's so tempting in medicine to either avoid the suffering altogether or potentially overidentify with it, where the suffering just becomes so all-consuming like it's our own. And we're taught to instead strike a balance of authentic accompaniment through it. I often teach this key concept in my palli-psych work with my team about formulation. Formulation is a working hypothesis. It's taking a step back and asking, “Why? Why is this patient behaving in this manner? What might the patient's core inner struggle be?” Because asking that “why” and understanding the nuanced dimensions of a patient's core inner struggle will really help guide our therapeutic interactions and guide the way that we accompany them and where we choose to shine that light as we're walking with them. And oftentimes people think, “Well Keri, that sounds so sappy or oversentimental,” and it's not. You know, I'm just thinking about a case that I had a couple months ago, and it was a 28-year-old man with gastric cancer, metastatic disease, and that 28-year-old man, he was actually a college Division I athlete, and his dad was an acclaimed Division I coach. And our typical open-ended palliative care questions, that approach, infuriated them. They needed to know that I was showing up confident, competent, and that I was ready, on my A-game, with a real plan for them to follow through. And so my formulation about them was they needed somebody to show up with that confidence and competence, like the Division I athletes that they were, to really meet them and accompany them where they were on how they were going to walk through that experience of illness. Dr. Hope Rugo: These kinds of insights are so helpful to think about how we manage something that we face every day in oncology care. And I think that there are many ways to manage this.  Maybe I'll ask Dr. Sławkowski-Rode one question just that I think sequences nicely with what you're talking about.  A lot of our patients are trying to think about sort of the bigger picture and how that might help clinicians understand and support patients. So, the whole concept of spirituality, you know, how can we really use that as oncology clinicians to better understand and support patients with advanced illness, and how can that help patients themselves? And we'll talk about that in two different ways, but we'll just start with this broader question. Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: I think spirituality, and here, I usually refer to spirituality in terms of religious belief. Most people in the world are religious believers, and it is very intuitive and natural that religious beliefs would be a resource that people who help patients with a terminal diagnosis and healthcare professionals who work with those patients appeal to when they try to help them deal with the trauma and the stress of these situations.  Now, I think that the interesting thing there is that very often the benefit of appealing to a religious belief is misunderstood in terms of what it delivers. And there are many, many studies on how religious belief can be used to support therapy and to support patients in getting through the experience of suffering and defeating cancer or facing a terminal diagnosis. There's a wealth of literature on this. But most of the literature focuses on this idea that by appealing to religious belief, we help patients and healthcare practitioners who are working with them get over the fact and that there's a terminal diagnosis determining the course of someone's life and get on with our lives and engaging with whatever other pursuits we might have, with our job if we're healthcare practitioners, and with the other things that we might be passionate about in our lives. And the idea here is that this is what religion allows us to do because we sort of defer the need to worry about what's going to happen to us until the afterlife or some perspective beyond the horizon of our life here.  However, my view is – I have worked beyond philosophy also with theologians from many traditions, and my view here is that religion is something that does allow us to get on with our life but not because we're able to move on or move past the concerns that are being threatened by illness or death, but by forming stronger bonds with these things that we value in our life in a way and to have a sense of hope that these will be things that we will be able to keep an attachment to despite the threat to our life. So, in a sense, I think very many approaches in the field have the benefit of religion upside down, as it were, when it comes to helping patients and healthcare professionals who are engaged with their illness and treating it. Dr. Hope Rugo: You know, it's really interesting the points that you make, and I think really important, but, you know, sometimes the oncologists are really struggling with their own emotional reactions, how they are reacting to patients, and dealing with sort of taking on the burden, which, Dr. Brenner, you were mentioning earlier. How can oncologists be aware of their own emotional reactions? You know, they're struggling with this patient who they're very attached to who's dying or whatever the situation is, but you want to avoid burnout as an oncologist but also understand the patient's inner world and support them. Dr. Keri Brenner: I believe that these affective, emotional states, they're contagious. As we accompany patients through these tragic losses, it's very normal and expected that we ourselves will experience that full range of the human experience as we accompany the patients. And so the more that we can recognize that this is a normative dimension of our work, to have a nonjudgmental stance about the whole panoramic set of emotions that we'll experience as we accompany patients with curiosity and openness about that, the more sustainable the work will become. And I often think about the concept of countertransference given to us by Sigmund Freud over 100 years ago. Countertransference is the clinician's response to the patient, the thoughts, feelings, associations that come up within us, shaped by our own history, our own life events, those unconscious processes that come to the foreground as we are accompanying patients with illness. And that is a natural part of the human experience. Historically, countertransference was viewed as something negative, and now it's actually seen as a key that can unlock and enlighten the formulation about what might be going on within the patient themselves even. You know, I was with a patient a couple weeks ago, and I found myself feeling pretty helpless and hopeless in the encounter as I was trying to care for them. And I recognized that countertransference within myself that I was feeling demoralized. It was a prompt for me to take a step back, get on the balcony, and be curious about that because I normally don't feel helpless and hopeless caring for my patients. Well, ultimately, I discovered through processing it with my interdisciplinary team that the patient likely had demoralization as a clinical syndrome, and so it's natural many of us were feeling helpless and hopeless also accompanying them with their care. And it allowed us to have a greater interdisciplinary approach and a more therapeutic response and deeper empathy for the patient's plight. And we can really be curious about our countertransferences. You know, a few months ago, I was feeling bored and distracted in a family meeting, which is quite atypical for me when I'm sharing serious illness news. And it was actually a key that allowed me to recognize that the patient was trying to distract all of us talking about inconsequential facts and details rather than the gravitas of her illness.  Being curious about these affective states really allows us to have greater sustainability within our own practice because it normalizes that human spectrum of emotions and also allows us to reduce unconscious bias and have greater inclusivity with our practice because what Freud also said is that what we can't recognize and say within our own selves, if we don't have that self-reflective capacity, it will come out in what we do. So really recognizing and having the self-awareness and naming some of these emotions with trusted colleagues or even within our own selves allows us to ensure that it doesn't come out in aberrant behaviors like avoiding the patient, staving off that patient till the end of the day, or overtreating, offering more chemotherapy or not having the goals of care, doing everything possible when we know that that might result in medically ineffective care. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, I love the comments that you made, sort of weaving in Freud, but also, I think the importance of talking to colleagues and to sharing some of these issues because I do think that oncologists suffer from the fact that no one else in your life wants to hear about dying people. They don't really want to hear about the tragic cases either. So, I think that using your community, your oncology community and greater community within medicine, is an important part of being able to sort of process. Dr. Keri Brenner: Yes, and Dr. Rugo, this came up in our ASCO [Education] Session. I'd love to double click into some of those ways that we can do this that aren't too time consuming in our everyday practice. You know, within palliative care, we have interdisciplinary rounds where we process complex cases. Some of us do case supervision with a trusted mentor or colleague where we bring complex cases to them. My team and I offer process rounds virtually where we go through countertransference, formulation, and therapeutic responses on some tough cases.  You know, on a personal note, just last week when I left a family meeting feeling really depleted and stuck, I called one of my trusted colleagues and just for 3 minutes constructively, sort of cathartically vented what was coming up within me after that family meeting, which allowed me to have more of an enlightened stance on what to do next and how to be therapeutically helpful for the case. One of my colleagues calls this "friend-tors." They coined the phrase, and they actually wrote a paper about it. Who within your peer group of trusted colleagues can you utilize and phone in real time or have process opportunities with to get a pulse check on where what's coming up within us as we're doing this work? Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, and it's an interesting question about how one does that and, you know, maintaining that as you move institutions or change places or become more senior, it's really important.  One of the, I think, the challenges sometimes is that we come from different places from our patients, and that can be an issue, I think when our patients are very religious and the provider is not, or the reverse, patients who don't have religious beliefs and you're trying to sort of focus on the spirituality, but it doesn't really ring true. So, Dr. Sławkowski-Rode, what resources can patients and practitioners draw on when they're facing death and loss in the absence of, or just different religious beliefs that don't fit into the standard model? Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: You're absolutely right that this can be an extremely problematic situation to be in when there is that disconnect of religious belief or more generally spiritual engagement with the situation that we're in. But I just wanted to tie into what Dr. Brenner was saying just before. I couldn't agree more, and I think that a lot of healthcare practitioners, oncologists in particular who I've had the pleasure to talk to at ASCO and at other events as well, are very often quite skeptical about emotional engagement in their profession. They feel as though this is something to be managed, as it were, and something that gets in the way. And they can often be very critical of methods that help them understand the emotions and extend them towards patients because they feel that this will be an obstacle to doing their job and potentially an obstacle also to helping patients to their full ability if they focus on their own emotions or the burden that emotionally, spiritually, and in other ways the illness is for the patient. They feel that they should be focusing on the cancer rather than on the patient's emotions. And I think that a useful comparison, although, you know, perhaps slightly drastic, is that of combat experience of soldiers. They also need to be up and running and can't be too emotionally invested in the situation that they're in. But there's a crucial difference, which is that soldiers are usually engaged in very short bursts of activity with the time to go back and rethink, and they often have a lot of support for this in between. Whereas doctors are in a profession where their exposure to the emotions of patients and their own emotions, the emotions of families of patients is constant. And I think that there's a great danger in thinking that this is something to be avoided and something to compartmentalize in order to avoid burnout. I think, in a way, burnout is more sure to happen if your emotions and your attachment to your patients goes ignored for too long. So that's just following up on Keri's absolutely excellent points. As far as the disconnect is concerned, that's, in fact, an area in which I'm particularly interested in. That's where my research comes in. I'm interested in the kinds of connections that we have with other people, especially in terms of maintaining bonds when there is no spiritual belief, no spiritual backdrop to support this connection. In most religious traditions, we have the framework of the religious belief that tells us that the person who we've lost or the values that have become undermined in our life are something that hasn't been destroyed permanently but something that we can still believe we have a deep connection to despite its absence from our life. And how do you rebuild that sense of the existence of the things that you have perceivably lost without the appeal to some sort of transcendent realm which is defined by a given religion? And that is a hard question. That's a question, I think, that can be answered partly by psychology but also partly by philosophy in terms of looking at who we are as human beings and our nature as people who are essentially, or as entities that are essentially connected to one another. That connection, I believe, is more direct than the mediation of religion might at first suggest. I think that we essentially share the world not only physically, it's not just the case that we're all here, but more importantly, the world that we live in is not just the physical world but the world of meanings and values that helps us orient ourselves in society and amongst one another as friends and foes. And it is that shared sense of the world that we can appeal to when we're thinking about retaining the value or retaining the connection with the people who we have lost or the people who are helping through, go through an experience of facing death. And just to finish, there's a very interesting question, I think, something that we possibly don't have time to explore, about the degree of connection that we have with other people. So, what I've just been saying is something that rings more true or is more intuitive when we think about the connections that we have to our closest ones. We share a similar outlook onto the world, and our preferences and our moods and our emotions and our values are shaped by life with the other person. And so, appealing to these values can give us a sense of a continued presence. But what in those relationships where the connection isn't that close? For example, given the topic of this podcast, the connection that a patient has with their doctor and vice versa. In what sense can we talk about a shared world of experience? Well, I think, obviously, we should admit degrees to the kind of relationship that can sustain our connection with another person. But at the same time, I don't think there's a clear cutoff point. And I think part of emotional engagement in medical practice is finding yourself somewhere on that spectrum rather than thinking you're completely off of it. That's what I would say. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's very helpful and I think a very helpful way of thinking about how to manage this challenging situation for all of us.  One of the things that really, I think, is a big question for all of us throughout our careers, is when to address the dying process and how to do that. Dr. Brenner, you know, I still struggle with this – what to do when patients refuse to discuss end-of-life but they're very close to end of life? They don't want to talk about it. It's very stressful for all of us, even where you're going to be, how you're going to manage this. They're just absolutely opposed to that discussion. How should we approach those kinds of discussions? How do we manage that? How do you address the code discussion, which is so important? You know, these patients are not able to stay at home at end-of-life in general, so you really do need to have a code discussion before you're admitting them. It actually ends up being kind of a challenge and a mess all around. You know, I would love your advice about how to manage those situations. Dr. Keri Brenner: I think that's one of the most piercing and relevant inquiries we have within our clinical work and challenges. I often think of denial not as an all-or-nothing concept but rather as parts of self. There's a part of everyone's being where the unconscious believes it's immortal and will live on forever, and yet we all know intellectually that we all have mortality and finitude and transience, and that time will end. We often think of this work as more iterative and gradual and exposure based. There's potency to words. Saying, “You are dying within days,” is a lot higher potency of a phrase to share than, “This is serious illness. This illness is incurable. Time might be shorter than we hoped.” And so the earlier and more upstream we begin to have these conversations, even in small, subtle ways, it starts to begin to expose the patient to the concept so they can go from the head to the heart, not only knowing their prognosis intellectually but also affectively, to integrate it into who they are as a person because all patients are trying to live well while also we're gradually exposing them to this awareness of mortality within their own lived experience of illness. And that, ideally, happens gradually over time. Now, there are moments where the medical frame is very limited, and we might have short days, and we have to uptitrate those words and really accompany them more radically through those high-affective moments. And that's when we have to take a lot of more nuanced approaches, but I would say the more earlier and upstream the better. And then the second piece to that question as well is coping with our own mortality. The more we can be comfortable with our own transience and finitude and limitations, the more we will be able to accompany others through that. And even within my own life, I've had to integrate losses in a way where before I go in to talk to one of my own palliative care patients, one mantra I often say to myself is, “I'm just a few steps behind you. I don't know if it's going to be 30 days or 30 years, but I'm just a few steps behind you on this finite, transient road of life that is the human experience.” And that creates a stance of accompaniment that patients really can experience as they're traversing these tragedies. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's great. And I think those are really important points and actually some pearls, which I think we can take into the clinic. I think being really concrete when really the expected life expectancy is a few days to a couple of weeks can be very, very helpful. And making sure the patients hear you, but also continuing to let them know that, as oncologists, we're here for them. We're not abandoning them. I think that's a big worry for many, certainly of my patients, is that somehow when they would go to hospice or be a ‘no code', that we're not going to support them anymore or treat them anymore. That is a really important process of that as well. And of course, engaging the team makes a big difference because the whole oncology team can help to manage situations that are particularly challenging like that. And just as we close, I wanted to ask one last question of you, Dr. Brenner, that suffering, grief, and burnout, you've really made the point that these are not problems to fix but dimensions that we want to attend to and acknowledge as part of our lives, the dying process is part of all of our lives. It's just dealing with this in the unexpected and the, I think, unpredictability of life, you know, that people take on a lot of guilt and all sorts of things about, all sorts of emotions. And the question is now, people have listened to this podcast, what can they take back to their oncology teams to build a culture that supports clinicians and their team at large to engage with these realities in a meaningful and sustainable way? I really feel like if we could build the whole team approach where we're supporting each other and supporting the patients together, that that will help this process immeasurably. Dr. Keri Brenner: Yes, and I'm thinking about Dr. Sławkowski-Rode's observation about the combat analogy, and it made me recognize this distinction between suppression and repression. Repression is this unconscious process, and this is what we're taught to do in medical training all the time, to just involuntarily shove that tragedy under the rug, just forget about it and see the next patient and move on. And we know that if we keep unconsciously shoving things under the rug, that it will lead to burnout and lack of sustainability for our clinical teams. Suppression is a more conscious process. That deliberate effort to say, “This was a tragedy that I bore witness to. I know I need to put that in a box on the shelf for now because I have 10 other patients I have to see.” And yet, do I work in a culture where I can take that off the shelf during particular moments and process it with my interdisciplinary team, phone a friend, talk to a trusted colleague, have some trusted case supervision around it, or process rounds around it, talk to my social worker? And I think the more that we model this type of self-reflective capacity as attendings, folks who have been in the field for decades, the more we create that ethos and culture that is sustainable because clinician self-reflection is never a weakness, rather it's a silent strength. Clinician self-reflection is this portal for wisdom, connectedness, sustainability, and ultimately transformative growth within ourselves. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's such a great point, and I think this whole discussion has been so helpful for me and I hope for our audience that we really can take these points and bring them to our practice. I think, “Wow, this is such a great conversation. I'd like to have the team as a whole listen to this as ways to sort of strategize talking about the process, our patients, and being supportive as a team, understanding how we manage spirituality when it connects and when it doesn't.” All of these points, they're bringing in how we process these issues and the whole idea of suppressing versus sort of deciding that it never happened at all is, I think, very important because that's just a tool for managing our daily lives, our busy clinics, and everything we manage. Dr. Keri Brenner: And Dr. Rugo, it's reminding me at Stanford, you know, we have this weekly practice that's just a ritual where every Friday morning for 30 minutes, our social worker leads a process rounds with us as a team, where we talk about how the work that we're doing clinically is affecting us in our lives in ways that have joy and greater meaning and connectedness and other ways that might be depleting. And that kind of authentic vulnerability with one another allows us to show up more authentically for our patients. So those rituals, that small 30 minutes once a week, goes a long way. And it reminds me that sometimes slowing things down with those rituals can really get us to more meaningful, transformative places ultimately. Dr. Hope Rugo: It's a great idea, and I think, you know, making time for that in everybody's busy days where they just don't have any time anymore is important. And you don't have to do it weekly, you could even do something monthly. I think there's a lot of options, and that's a great suggestion. I want to thank you both for taking your time out for this enriching and incredibly helpful conversation. Our listeners will find a link to the Ed Book article we discussed today, which is excellent, in the transcript of this episode. I want to thank you again, Dr. Brenner and Dr. Sławkowski-Rode, for your time and for your excellent thoughts and advice and direction. Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: Thank you very much, Dr. Rugo. Dr. Keri Brenner: Thank you. Dr. Hope Rugo: And thanks to our listeners for joining us today. Please join us again next month on By the Book for more insightful views on topics you'll be hearing at the education sessions from ASCO meetings and our deep dives on new approaches that are shaping modern oncology. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:      Dr. Hope Rugo @hope.rugo Dr. Keri Brenner @keri_brenner Dr. Mikolaj Slawkowski-Rode @MikolajRode Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)      ASCO on Bluesky     ASCO on Facebook      ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:     Dr. Hope Rugo: Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx Dr. Keri Brenner: No relationships to disclose Dr. Mikolaj Slawkowski-Rode: No relationships to disclose    

Drs. Socinski and Sabari discuss a couple of abstracts from ASCO 2025 about emerging therapeutics in small cell lung cancer.

In this episode, Jonathan Sackier welcomes Claudio Cerchione, haematologist and researcher at the Hematology Unit, Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) IRCCS, Meldola, Italy. From his early interest in plasma cell disorders, Cerchione shares key insights into the evolution of multiple myeloma (MM) research, the rising role of minimal residual disease (MRD), and promising developments in monoclonal antibodies and CAR-T therapy. He also reflects on standout moments from recent European Hematology Association (EHA) Congress and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, and shares his hopes for the future of haematology.   Timestamps: 2:14: Memorable career experiences for Claudio   4:20 Biggest breakthrough in MM  5:10 Interest in plasma cell disorders  6:30 A surprising fact about multiple myeloma  7:40 Claudio's top choice for a dinner party guest  10:30 The importance of MRD in haematology  13:00 Monoclonal antibodies and CAR-T therapies  19:00 Current challenges  22:22 Claudio's key EHA and ASCO takeaways  28:30 Claudio's three magic wishes  

Mark A. Socinski, MD and Joshua Sabari, MD review new data from ASCO 2025 that have a substantial impact on how oncologists treat patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

Dr. Paul Hanona and Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla discuss how to safely and smartly integrate AI into the clinical workflow and tap its potential to improve patient-centered care, drug development, and access to clinical trials. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Paul Hanona: Hello, I'm Dr. Paul Hanona, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I am a medical oncologist as well as a content creator @DoctorDiscover, and I'm delighted to be joined today by Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, the chief of hematology and oncology at St. Luke's University Health Network. Dr. Bonilla is also the co-founder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, an AI-driven platform that matches patients with clinical trials and novel therapies. Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla will share his unique perspective on the potential of artificial intelligence to advance precision oncology, especially through clinical trials and research, and other key advancements in AI that are transforming the oncology field. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of the episode. Dr. Bonilla, it's great to be speaking with you today. Thanks for being here. Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Oh, thank you so much, Dr. Hanona. Paul, it's always great to have a conversation. Looking forward to a great one today. Dr. Paul Hanona: Absolutely. Let's just jump right into it. Let's talk about the way that we see AI being embedded in our clinical workflow as oncologists. What are some practical ways to use AI? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: To me, responsible AI integration in oncology is one of those that's focused on one principle to me, which is clinical purpose is first, instead of the algorithm or whatever technology we're going to be using. If we look at the best models in the world, they're really irrelevant unless we really solve a real day-to-day challenge, either when we're talking to patients in the clinic or in the infusion chair or making decision support. Currently, what I'm doing the most is focusing on solutions that are saving us time to be more productive and spend more time with our patients. So, for example, we're using ambient AI for appropriate documentation in real time with our patients. We're leveraging certain tools to assess for potential admission or readmission of patients who have certain conditions as well. And it's all about combining the listening of physicians like ourselves who are end users, those who create those algorithms, data scientists, and patient advocates, and even regulators, before they even write any single line of code. I felt that on my own, you know, entrepreneurial aspects, but I think it's an ethos that we should all follow. And I think that AI shouldn't be just bolted on later. We always have to look at workflows and try to look, for example, at clinical trial matching, which is something I'm very passionate about. We need to make sure that first, it's easier to access for patients, that oncologists like myself can go into the interface and be able to pull the data in real time when you really need it, and you don't get all this fatigue alerts. To me, that's the responsible way of doing so. Those are like the opportunities, right? So, the challenge is how we can make this happen in a meaningful way – we're just not reacting to like a black box suggestion or something that we have no idea why it came up to be. So, in terms of success – and I can tell you probably two stories of things that we know we're seeing successful – we all work closely with radiation oncologists, right? So, there are now these tools, for example, of automated contouring in radiation oncology, and some of these solutions were brought up in different meetings, including the last ASCO meeting. But overall, we know that transformer-based segmentation tools; transformer is just the specific architecture of the machine learning algorithm that has been able to dramatically reduce the time for colleagues to spend allotting targets for radiation oncology. So, comparing the target versus the normal tissue, which sometimes it takes many hours, now we can optimize things over 60%, sometimes even in minutes. So, this is not just responsible, but it's also an efficiency win, it's a precision win, and we're using it to adapt even mid-course in response to tumor shrinkage. Another success that I think is relevant is, for example, on the clinical trial matching side. We've been working on that and, you know, I don't want to preach to the choir here, but having the ability for us to structure data in real time using these tools, being able to extract information on biomarkers, and then show that multi-agentic AI is superior to what we call zero-shot or just throwing it into ChatGPT or any other algorithm, but using the same tools but just fine-tuned to the point that we can be very efficient and actually reliable to the level of almost like a research coordinator, is not just theory. Now, it can change lives because we can get patients enrolled in clinical trials and be activated in different places wherever the patient may be. I know it's like a long answer on that, but, you know, as we talk about responsible AI, that's important. And in terms of what keeps me up at night on this: data drift and biases, right? So, imaging protocols, all these things change, the lab switch between different vendors, or a patient has issues with new emerging data points. And health systems serve vastly different populations. So, if our models are trained in one context and deployed in another, then the output can be really inaccurate. So, the idea is to become a collaborative approach where we can use federated learning and patient-centricity so we can be much more efficient in developing those models that account for all the populations, and any retraining that is used based on data can be diverse enough that it represents all of us and we can be treated in a very good, appropriate way. So, if a clinician doesn't understand why a recommendation is made, as you probably know, you probably don't trust it, and we shouldn't expect them to. So, I think this is the next wave of the future. We need to make sure that we account for all those things. Dr. Paul Hanona: Absolutely. And even the part about the clinical trials, I want to dive a little bit more into in a few questions. I just kind of wanted to make a quick comment. Like you said, some of the prevalent things that I see are the ambient scribes. It seems like that's really taken off in the last year, and it seems like it's improving at a pretty dramatic speed as well. I wonder how quickly that'll get adopted by the majority of physicians or practitioners in general throughout the country. And you also mentioned things with AI tools regarding helping regulators move things quicker, even the radiation oncologist, helping them in their workflow with contouring and what else they might have to do. And again, the clinical trials thing will be quite interesting to get into. The first question I had subsequent to that is just more so when you have large datasets. And this pertains to two things: the paper that you published recently regarding different ways to use AI in the space of oncology referred to drug development, the way that we look at how we design drugs, specifically anticancer drugs, is pretty cumbersome. The steps that you have to take to design something, to make sure that one chemical will fit into the right chemical or the structure of the molecule, that takes a lot of time to tinker with. What are your thoughts on AI tools to help accelerate drug development? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Yes, that's the Holy Grail and something that I feel we should dedicate as much time and effort as possible because it relies on multimodality. It cannot be solved by just looking at patient histories. It cannot be solved by just looking at the tissue alone. It's combining all these different datasets and being able to understand the microenvironment, the patient condition and prior treatments, and how dynamic changes that we do through interventions and also exposome – the things that happen outside of the patient's own control – can be leveraged to determine like what's the best next step in terms of drugs. So, the ones that we heard the news the most is, for example, the Nobel Prize-winning [for Chemistry awarded to Demis Hassabis and John Jumper for] AlphaFold, an AI system that predicts protein structures right? So, we solved this very interesting concept of protein folding where, in the past, it would take the history of the known universe, basically – what's called the Levinthal's paradox – to be able to just predict on amino acid structure alone or the sequence alone, the way that three-dimensionally the proteins will fold. So, with that problem being solved and the Nobel Prize being won, the next step is, “Okay, now we know how this protein is there and just by sequence, how can we really understand any new drug that can be used as a candidate and leverage all the data that has been done for many years of testing against a specific protein or a specific gene or knockouts and what not?” So, this is the future of oncology and where we're probably seeing a lot of investments on that. The key challenge here is mostly working on the side of not just looking at pathology, but leveraging this digital pathology with whole slide imaging and identifying the microenvironment of that specific tissue. There's a number of efforts currently being done. One isn't just H&E, like hematoxylin and eosin, slides alone, but with whole imaging, now we can use expression profiles, spatial transcriptomics, and gene whole exome sequencing in the same space and use this transformer technology in a multimodality approach that we know already the slide or the pathology, but can we use that to understand, like, if I knock out this gene, how is the microenvironment going to change to see if an immunotherapy may work better, right? If we can make a microenvironment more reactive towards a cytotoxic T cell profile, for example. So, that is the way where we're really seeing the field moving forward, using multimodality for drug discovery. So, the FDA now seems to be very eager to support those initiatives, so that's of course welcome. And now the key thing is the investment to do this in a meaningful way so we can see those candidates that we're seeing from different companies now being leveraged for rare disease, for things that are going to be almost impossible to collect enough data, and make it efficient by using these algorithms that sometimes, just with multiple masking – basically, what they do is they mask all the features and force the algorithm to find solutions based on the specific inputs or prompts we're doing. So, I'm very excited about that, and I think we're going to be seeing that in the future. Dr. Paul Hanona: So, essentially, in a nutshell, we're saying we have the cancer, which is maybe a dandelion in a field of grass, and we want to see the grass that's surrounding the dandelion, which is the pathology slides. The problem is, to the human eye, it's almost impossible to look at every single piece of grass that's surrounding the dandelion. And so, with tools like AI, we can greatly accelerate our study of the microenvironment or the grass that's surrounding the dandelion and better tailor therapy, come up with therapy. Otherwise, like you said, to truly generate a drug, this would take years and years. We just don't have the throughput to get to answers like that unless we have something like AI to help us. Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Correct. Dr. Paul Hanona: And then, clinical trials. Now, this is an interesting conversation because if you ever look up our national guidelines as oncologists, there's always a mention of, if treatment fails, consider clinical trials. Or in the really aggressive cancers, sometimes you might just start out with clinical trials. You don't even give the standard first-line therapy because of how ineffective it is. There are a few issues with clinical trials that people might not be aware of, but the fact that the majority of patients who should be on clinical trials are never given the chance to be on clinical trials, whether that's because of proximity, right, they might live somewhere that's far from the institution, or for whatever reason, they don't qualify for the clinical trial, they don't meet the strict inclusion criteria.  But a reason you mentioned early on is that it's simply impossible for someone to be aware of every single clinical trial that's out there. And then even if you are aware of those clinical trials, to actually find the sites and put in the time could take hours. And so, how is AI going to revolutionize that? Because in my mind, it's not that we're inventing a new tool. Clinical trials have always been available. We just can't access them. So, if we have a tool that helps with access, wouldn't that be huge? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Correct. And that has been one of my passions. And for those who know me and follow me and we've spoke about it in different settings, that's something that I think we can solve. This other paradox, which is the clinical trial enrollment paradox, right? We have tens of thousands of clinical trials available with millions of patients eager to learn about trials, but we don't enroll enough and many trials close to accrual because of lack of enrollment. It is completely paradoxical and it's because of that misalignment because patients don't know where to go for trials and sites don't know what patients they can help because they haven't reached their doors yet. So, the solution has to be patient-centric, right? We have to put the patient at the center of the equation. And that was precisely what we had been discussing during the ASCO meeting. There was an ASCO Education Session where we talked about digital prescreening hubs, where we, in a patient-centric manner, the same way we look for Uber, Instacart, any solution that you may think of that you want something that can be leveraged in real time, we can use these real-world data streams from the patient directly, from hospitals, from pathology labs, from genomics companies, to continuously screen patients who can match to the inclusion/exclusion criteria of unique trials. So, when the patient walks into the clinic, the system already knows if there's a trial and alerts the site proactively. The patient can actually also do decentralization. So, there's a number of decentralized clinical trial solutions that are using what I call the “click and mortar” approach, which is basically the patient is checking digitally and then goes to the site to activate. We can also have the click and mortar in the bidirectional way where the patient is engaged in person and then you give the solution like the ones that are being offered on things that we're doing at Massive Bio and beyond, which is having the patient to access all that information and then they make decisions and enroll when the time is right.  As I mentioned earlier, there is this concept drift where clinical trials open and close, the patient line of therapy changes, new approvals come in and out, and sites may not be available at a given time but may be later. So, having that real-time alerts using tools that are able already to extract data from summarization that we already have in different settings and doing this natural language ingestion, we can not only solve this issue with manual chart review, which is extremely cumbersome and takes forever and takes to a lot of one-time assessments with very high screen failures, to a real-time dynamic approach where the patient, as they get closer to that eligibility criteria, they get engaged. And those tools can be built to activate trials, audit trials, and make them better and accessible to patients. And something that we know is, for example, 91%-plus of Americans live close to either a pharmacy or an imaging center. So, imagine that we can potentially activate certain of those trials in those locations. So, there's a number of pharmacies, special pharmacies, Walgreens, and sometimes CVS trying to do some of those efforts. So, I think the sky's the limit in terms of us working together. And we've been talking with corporate groups, they're all interested in those efforts as well, to getting patients digitally enabled and then activate the same way we activate the NCTN network of the corporate groups, that are almost just-in-time. You can activate a trial the patient is eligible for and we get all these breakthroughs from the NIH and NCI, just activate it in my site within a week or so, as long as we have the understanding of the protocol. So, using clinical trial matching in a digitally enabled way and then activate in that same fashion, but not only for NCTN studies, but all the studies that we have available will be the key of the future through those prescreening hubs. So, I think now we're at this very important time where collaboration is the important part and having this silo-breaking approach with interoperability where we can leverage data from any data source and from any electronic medical records and whatnot is going to be essential for us to move forward because now we have the tools to do so with our phones, with our interests, and with the multiple clinical trials that are coming into the pipelines. Dr. Paul Hanona: I just want to point out that the way you described the process involves several variables that practitioners often don't think about. We don't realize the 15 steps that are happening in the background. But just as a clarifier, how much time is it taking now to get one patient enrolled on a clinical trial? Is it on the order of maybe 5 to 10 hours for one patient by the time the manual chart review happens, by the time the matching happens, the calls go out, the sign-up, all this? And how much time do you think a tool that could match those trials quicker and get you enrolled quicker could save? Would it be maybe an hour instead of 15 hours? What's your thought process on that? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Yeah, exactly. So one is the matching, the other one is the enrollment, which, as you mentioned, is very important. So, it can take, from, as you said, probably between 4 days to sometimes 30 days. Sometimes that's how long it takes for all the things to be parsed out in terms of logistics and things that could be done now agentically. So, we can use agents to solve those different steps that may take multiple individuals. We can just do it as a supply chain approach where all those different steps can be done by a single agent in a simultaneous fashion and then we can get things much faster. With an AI-based solution using these frontier models and multi-agentic AI – and we presented some of this data in ASCO as well – you can do 5,000 patients in an hour, right? So, just enrolling is going to be between an hour and maximum enrollment, it could be 7 days for those 5,000 patients if it was done at scale in a multi-level approach where we have all the trials available. Dr. Paul Hanona: No, definitely a very exciting aspect of our future as oncologists. It's one thing to have really neat, novel mechanisms of treatment, but what good is it if we can't actually get it to people who need it? I'm very much looking for the future of that.  One of the last questions I want to ask you is another prevalent way that people use AI is just simply looking up questions, right? So, traditionally, the workflow for oncologists is maybe going on national guidelines and looking up the stage of the cancer and seeing what treatments are available and then referencing the papers and looking at who was included, who wasn't included, the side effects to be aware of, and sort of coming up with a decision as to how to treat a cancer patient. But now, just in the last few years, we've had several tools become available that make getting questions easier, make getting answers easier, whether that's something like OpenAI's tools or Perplexity or Doximity or OpenEvidence or even ASCO has a Guidelines Assistant as well that is drawing from their own guidelines as to how to treat different cancers. Do you see these replacing traditional sources? Do you see them saving us a lot more time so that we can be more productive in clinic? What do you think is the role that they're going to play with patient care? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Such a relevant question, particularly at this time, because these AI-enabled query tools, they're coming left and right and becoming increasingly common in our daily workflows and things that we're doing. So, traditionally, when we go and we look for national guidelines, we try to understand the context ourselves and then we make treatment decisions accordingly. But that is a lot of a process that now AI is helping us to solve. So, at face value, it seems like an efficiency win, but in many cases, I personally evaluate platforms as the chief of hem/onc at St. Luke's and also having led the digital engagement things through Massive Bio and trying to put things together, I can tell you this: not all tools are created equal. In cancer care, each data point can mean the difference between cure and progression, so we cannot really take a lot of shortcuts in this case or have unverified output. So, the tools are helpful, but it has to be grounded in truth, in trusted data sources, and they need to be continuously updated with, like, ASCO and NCCN and others. So, the reason why the ASCO Guidelines Assistant, for instance, works is because it builds on all these recommendations, is assessed by end users like ourselves. So, that kind of verification is critical, right? We're entering a phase where even the source material may be AI-generated. So, the role of human expert validation is really actually more important, not less important. You know, generalist LLMs, even when fine-tuned, they may not be enough. You can pull a few API calls from PubMed, etc., but what we need now is specialized, context-aware, agentic tools that can interpret multimodal and real-time clinical inputs. So, something that we are continuing to check on and very relevant to have entities and bodies like ASCO looking into this so they can help us to be really efficient and really help our patients. Dr. Paul Hanona: Dr. Bonilla, what do you want to leave the listener with in terms of the future direction of AI, things that we should be cautious about, and things that we should be optimistic about? Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Looking 5 years ahead, I think there's enormous promise. As you know, I'm an AI enthusiast, but always, there's a few priorities that I think – 3 of them, I think – we need to tackle head-on. First is algorithmic equity. So, most AI tools today are trained on data from academic medical centers but not necessarily from community practices or underrepresented populations, particularly when you're looking at radiology, pathology, and what not. So, those blind spots, they need to be filled, and we can eliminate a lot of disparities in cancer care. So, those frameworks to incentivize while keeping the data sharing using federated models and things that we can optimize is key. The second one is the governance on the lifecycle. So, you know, AI is not really static. So, unlike a drug that is approved and it just, you know, works always, AI changes. So, we need to make sure that we have tools that are able to retrain and recall when things degrade or models drift. So, we need to use up-to-date AI for clinical practice, so we are going to be in constant revalidation and make it really easy to do. And lastly, the human-AI interface. You know, clinicians don't need more noise or we don't need more black boxes. We need decision support that is clear, that we can interpret, and that is actionable. “Why are you using this? Why did we choose this drug? Why this dose? Why now?” So, all these things are going to help us and that allows us to trace evidence with a single click. So, I always call it back to the Moravec's paradox where we say, you know, evolution gave us so much energy to discern in the sensory-neural and dexterity. That's what we're going to be taking care of patients. We can use AI to really be a force to help us to be better clinicians and not to really replace us. So, if we get this right and we decide for transparency with trust, inclusion, etc., it will never replace any of our work, which is so important, as much as we want, we can actually take care of patients and be personalized, timely, and equitable. So, all those things are what get me excited every single day about these conversations on AI. Dr. Paul Hanona: All great thoughts, Dr. Bonilla. I'm very excited to see how this field evolves. I'm excited to see how oncologists really come to this field. I think with technology, there's always a bit of a lag in adopting it, but I think if we jump on board and grow with it, we can do amazing things for the field of oncology in general. Thank you for the advancements that you've made in your own career in the field of AI and oncology and just ultimately with the hopeful outcomes of improving patient care, especially cancer patients. Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla: Thank you so much, Dr. Hanona. Dr. Paul Hanona: Thanks to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. More on today's speakers:    Dr. Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla @DrBonillaOnc Dr. Paul Hanona @DoctorDiscover on YouTube Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on Twitter      ASCO on Facebook      ASCO on LinkedIn    ASCO on BlueSky Disclosures: Paul Hanona: No relationships to disclose. Dr. Arturo-Loaiza-Bonilla: Leadership: Massive Bio Stock & Other Ownership Interests: Massive Bio Consulting or Advisory Role: Massive Bio, Bayer, PSI, BrightInsight, CardinalHealth, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Medscape Speakers' Bureau: Guardant Health, Ipsen, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Natera

Two Onc Docs, hosted by Samantha A. Armstrong, MD, and Karine Tawagi, MD, is a podcast dedicated to providing current and future oncologists and hematologists with the knowledge they need to ace their boards and deliver quality patient care. Dr Armstrong is a hematologist/oncologist and assistant professor of clinical medicine at Indiana University Health in Indianapolis. Dr Tawagi is a hematologist/oncologist and assistant professor of clinical medicine at the University of Illinois in Chicago. In this episode, OncLive On Air® partnered with Two Onc Docs to bring a discussion of key data from the phase 3 MATTERHORN trial (NCT04592913), which were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. MATTERHORN was a randomized, double-blind, multinational study evaluating the addition of durvalumab (Imfinzi) to FLOT (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) in patients with previously untreated, resectable gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. In the MATTERHORN trial, 948 patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either durvalumab or placebo in combination with perioperative FLOT, followed by 10 cycles of durvalumab or placebo as adjuvant therapy. The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS); secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and pathological complete response (pCR). The trial met its primary end point. Durvalumab plus FLOT (n = 474) significantly improved EFS vs placebo plus FLOT (n = 474; HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.86; P < .001), representing a 29% reduction in risk of progression, recurrence, or death. The interim OS analysis showed a nonsignificant trend favoring durvalumab (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.97; P = .025). The pCR rate was 19% (95% CI, 15.75%-23.04%) with durvalumab vs 7.2% (95% CI, 5.02%-9.88%) with placebo. Toxicity profiles were comparable between the 2 groups, though immune-related adverse effects were more frequent with durvalumab. Importantly, the addition of durvalumab did not delay surgery or initiation of adjuvant therapy. Although the MATTERHORN regimen is not yet FDA approved or included in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, this trial demonstrates a promising EFS benefit and potential practice-changing implications, pending mature OS data and further molecular subgroup analyses, according to Armstrong and Tawagi.

This week's episode will be focusing on one of the GI plenary session abstracts presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting 2025,  the MATTERHORN trial: phase 3 durvalumab + FLOT which is 5FU leucovorin, oxaliplatin and docetaxel in resectable gastric or GE junction CA. 

In our final ASCO 2025 episode, Michael is joined by Prof Jeanne Tie, colorecal cancer lead at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre to discuss some of the many highlights in colorectal and anal cancer. Starting with the practice changing BREAKWATER study, combining chemotherapy with encorafenib and cetuximab, they also discuss the plenary study ATOMIC III, the CHALLENGE study examining structured exercise programs for patients with resected cancer, as well as the emerging role of ctDNA in colon and anal SCC. Studies discussed in this episodeBREAKWATERCHALLENGEATOMIC IIIINTERAACT 2DYNAMIC IIIFor more episodes, resources and blog posts, visit www.inquisitiveonc.comPlease find us on Twitter @InquisitiveOnc!If you want us to look at a specific trial or subject, email us at inquisitiveonc@gmail.comArt courtesy of Taryn SilverMusic courtesy of AlisiaBeats: https://pixabay.com/users/alisiabeats-39461785/Disclaimer: This podcast is for educational purposes only. If you are unwell, seek medical advice.Oncology for the Inquisitive Mind is recorded with the support of education grants from our foundation partners Pfizer, Gilead Pharmaceuticals and Merck Pharmaceuticals. Our partners have access to the episode at the same time you do and have no editorial control over the content. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A beachside interview with Michael Hofman to hear all the PSMA theranostic highlights at ASCO this year! Yes we left our suburban studio in Melbourne and wandered down to St Kilda beach to track down Michael for a beer and a chat. Even in mid-Winter we enjoyed sitting out in a beachside shack at the Beachcomber Cafe and Beach Bar. Michael shot some great interviews in Chicago with top clinicians in Nuclear Medicine including Bastiaan Privé, Louise Emmet, Jeremie Calais, Urologist Alberto Briganti, and Medical Oncologist Rana McKay. Great multidisciplinary perspectives on the Bullseye trial, Violet, Enza-P plus much more.  Including a chat about the great promise of CAIX in renal cancer. With your usual hosts, Renu Eapen and Declan MurphyEnjoy the beachside chat even more on our YouTube channel GU Cast Conference Highlights are supported by our Gold Partners, Bayer China. Links:Beachside Bar, St Kilda 

Welcome to another episode of the Oncology Brothers podcast! In this episode, Drs. Rahul and Rohit Gosain, both practicing community oncologists, are joined by Dr. Tian Zhang from UT Southwestern to discuss key highlights from the ASCO 2025 annual meeting, focusing on genitourinary (GU) malignancies. Episode Highlights: • KEYNOTE-564: discussed 5 years OS data, reinforcing the role of adjuvant pembrolizumab in renal cell carcinoma • AMPLITUDE: combination of PARP inhibitor niraparib with abiraterone improved progression-free survival in patients with homologous recombination repair mutations in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer • ARANOTE: positive quality of life impact when using darolutamide in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, which is also FDA approved now • NIAGARA: the prognostic value of ctDNA in muscle-invasive bladder cancer, emphasizing its implications for treatment strategies YouTube: https://youtu.be/Rt8HQpdyVY0 Follow us on social media: •⁠  ⁠X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers •⁠  ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers •⁠  Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ Join us as we break down these important studies and their potential to change clinical practice in oncology. Don't forget to check out our other episodes for more insights into cancer care!

Dr Harold Burstein, Dr Javier Cortés, Prof Rebecca A Dent, Dr Kevin Kalinsky, Dr Joyce O'Shaughnessy and moderator Dr Hope S Rugo present data informing treatment decision-making for patients with metastatic breast cancer at the 2025 ASCO annual meeting. CME information and select publications here.

In this episode, Michael goes it alone, welcoming an old friend of the show, Dr Belinda Yeo, to discuss highlights in early breast cancer from ASCO 2025. The pair discuss an exciting new medication to assist with vasomotor symptoms from endocrine therapy, the ongoing follow up from the pivotal SOFT/TEXT study, an escalation strategy for abemaciclib and a de-escalation strategy for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in HER2 positive breast cancer.Studies discussed in this episodeOASISSOFT/TEXT, 15 year updateTRADENeoCARHPFor more episodes, resources and blog posts, visit www.inquisitiveonc.comPlease find us on Twitter @InquisitiveOnc!If you want us to look at a specific trial or subject, email us at inquisitiveonc@gmail.comArt courtesy of Taryn SilverMusic courtesy of AlisiaBeats: https://pixabay.com/users/alisiabeats-39461785/Disclaimer: This podcast is for educational purposes only. If you are unwell, seek medical advice.Oncology for the Inquisitive Mind is recorded with the support of education grants from our foundation partners Pfizer, Gilead Pharmaceuticals and Merck Pharmaceuticals. Our partners have access to the episode at the same time you do and have no editorial control over the content. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Drs. Yuan and Callahan discuss data presented at ASCO 2025 about DESTINY-Breast06, SHR-A1811, and TQB2101, along with real-world data on rechallenging patients with T-DXd post grade 1 ILD.

NISSAN為提升車主夏季駕乘感受，限時推出X-TRAIL、KICKS及SENTRA「涼夏特仕版」限量各200台，雙前座升級通風座椅，提供涼爽舒適的駕駛體驗。 本月入主NISSAN任一車款再贈Dyson時尚吹風機組，及零利率方案，讓消費者輕鬆入主、無壓升級NISSAN車款。 https://sofm.pse.is/7tzj88 -- 住近美術館，把握最後機會 《惟美術》3房熱銷倒數 輕奢品味，全新完工，即刻入住 近鄰輕軌C22站，設籍明星學區 預約來電 07-553-3838 https://sofm.pse.is/7tkfp2 －－－－以上訊息由 SoundOn 動態廣告贊助商提供－－－－ 飛碟聯播網《飛碟早餐 唐湘龍時間》2025.07.01 週二醫療保健單元 專訪：藥理學教授｜潘懷宗 主題：新藥公布！小細胞肺癌死亡風險降低40% 2025年6月2日，在美國芝加哥市舉行的美國臨床腫瘤學會(ASCO)的年會上，安進(Amgen)藥廠公布其開發中的新藥(Imdelltra)，相較於化療藥物，可將小細胞肺癌病患的死亡風險降低40%。這些病患均是在接受初輪化療後病情惡化者，其研究成果也已經刊登於《新英格蘭醫學期刊》上。 台灣方面，腺癌佔比最高，尤其在女性高達88%，男性也有58%。鱗狀細胞癌占比約20-30%，但隨近年來，吸菸率下降，此類型已呈下降趨勢。大細胞癌雖不常見，但仍占5~10%之間。小細胞肺癌在台灣僅約估6~10%，遠低於非小細胞肺癌，但仍為重要分類，不容輕忽。 #潘懷宗 #小細胞肺癌 #新藥 #imdelltra #肺癌 ▶ 《飛碟早餐》FB粉絲團 https://www.facebook.com/ufobreakfast/ ▶ 飛碟聯播網FB粉絲團 https://www.facebook.com/ufonetwork921/ ▶ 網路線上收聽 http://www.uforadio.com.tw ▶ 飛碟APP，讓你收聽零距離 IOS：https://reurl.cc/3jYQMV Android：https://reurl.cc/5GpNbR ▶ 飛碟Podcast SoundOn : https://bit.ly/30Ia8Ti Apple Podcasts : https://apple.co/3jFpP6x Spotify : https://spoti.fi/2CPzneD KKBOX：https://reurl.cc/MZR0K4 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

Send us a textIn case you missed it, the most important cancer rehab research since the PAL trial debuted at ASCO 2025.Today on the podcast, I'm joined by Scott Capozza, PT, who recently attended and presented at ASCO 2025. Scott breaks down what ASCO is, how it compares to APTA CSM, and why oncology rehab professionals need to be paying attention.We dive into some of the key themes from this year's conference, including the game-changing findings from the CHALLENGE trial and the growing emphasis on structured exercise as a critical part of cancer care. But more importantly, we talk about how OncoPTs are perfectly positioned to take this research and turn it into action.It's not just about being at the table. It's about putting research into practice, starting now—because our patients can't wait.Listen now!Follow TheOncoPT on Instagram.Follow TheOncoPT on LinkedIn.

Buscamos historias veraniegas bonitas para reconciliarnos con la estación... y son todas horribles.

Buscamos historias veraniegas bonitas para reconciliarnos con la estación... y son todas horribles.

Drs Joyce F Liu, David M O'Malley, Ritu Salani, Alessandro D Santin and moderator Dr Shannon N Westin present data informing treatment decision-making for patients with advanced ovarian and endometrial cancers at the 2025 ASCO annual meeting. CME information and select publications here.

Drs. Callahan and Yuan discuss data presented at ASCO 2025 on DESTINY-Breast09, PATINA, and MINI Trial, the utility of PFS-2 as an endpoint, and sequencing of treatments after first-line therapy.

Summer Colling and Emma Wille speak with oncology experts Nkiru Ibeanu, Neha Anand, Anna Simmons and David Dahan about the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conference. Deeper coverage is available through Datamonitor Healthcare

In this Editor's Special of The HemOnc Pulse, Blood Cancers Today Managing Editor, Nichole Tucker speaks with Amir Fathi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, about key updates in AML from ASCO 2025. The discussion centers on a phase 2 study of an all-oral regimen—decitabine and cedazuridine plus venetoclax—for patients with newly diagnosed AML who are unfit for intensive induction. Dr. Fathi discusses the potential for these more convenient therapies to shift treatment into the outpatient setting while maintaining effectiveness. He also shares insights on promising triplet regimens incorporating targeted therapies and highlights the need for new strategies for patients with resistant disease subtypes, such as TP53-mutated or venetoclax-refractory AML. Looking ahead, Dr. Fathi previews anticipated data from menin inhibitor trials and the phase 3 Quantum Wild study. This episode is a must-listen for clinicians and researchers interested in the future of AML care.

Kimmie Ng, MD, MPH, a JAMA associate editor and associate chief of the Division of Gastrointestinal Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, shares highlights from the American Society of Clinical Oncology's annual meeting, including new research on diet, exercise, and cancer survival and the best time of day for treatment. Related Content: Lifestyle and Cancer Survival, the Best Time of Day for Treatment, and More—Highlights From ASCO

Dr. Diwakar Davar and Dr. Jason Luke discuss novel agents in melanoma and other promising new data in the field of immunotherapy that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Diwakar Davar: Hello. My name is Diwakar Davar, and I am welcoming you to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm an associate professor of medicine and the clinical director of the Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. Today, I'm joined by my colleague and good friend, Dr. Jason Luke. Dr. Luke is a professor of medicine. He is also the associate director of clinical research and the director of the Phase 1 IDDC Program at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. He and I are going to be discussing some key advancements in melanoma and skin cancers that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Jason, it is great to have you back on the podcast. Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks again so much for the opportunity, and I'm really looking forward to it. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Perfect. So we will go ahead and start talking a little bit about a couple of key abstracts in both the drug development immunotherapy space and the melanoma space. The first couple of abstracts, the first two, will cover melanoma. So, the first is LBA9500, which was essentially the primary results of RELATIVITY-098. RELATIVITY-098 was a phase 3 trial that compared nivolumab plus relatlimab in a fixed-dose combination against nivolumab alone for the adjuvant treatment of resected high-risk disease. Jason, do you want to maybe give us a brief context of what this is? Dr. Jason Luke: Yeah, it's great, thanks. So as almost all listeners, of course, will be aware, the use of anti–PD-1 immunotherapies really revolutionized melanoma oncology over the last 10 to 15 years. And it has become a standard of care in the adjuvant setting as well. But to review, in patients with stage III melanoma, treatment can be targeted towards BRAF with BRAF and MEK combination therapy, where that's relevant, or anti–PD-1 with nivolumab or pembrolizumab are a standard of care. And more recently, we've had the development of neoadjuvant approaches for palpable stage III disease. And in that space, if patients present, based on two different studies, either pembrolizumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab can be given prior to surgery for somewhere in the 6- to 9-week range. And so all of these therapies have improved time-to-event endpoints, such as relapse-free or event-free survival. It's worth noting, however, that despite those advances, we've had a couple different trials now that have actually failed in this adjuvant setting, most high profile being the CheckMate-915 study, which looked at nivolumab plus ipilimumab and unfortunately was a negative study. So, with RELATIVITY-047, which was the trial of nivolumab plus relatlimab that showed an improvement in progression-free survival for metastatic disease, there's a lot of interest, and we've been awaiting these data for a long time for RELATIVITY-098, which, of course, is this adjuvant trial of LAG-3 blockade with relatlimab plus nivolumab. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Great. So with that, let's briefly discuss the trial design and the results. So this was a randomized, phase 3, blinded study, so double-blinded, so neither the investigators knew what the patients were getting, nor did the patients know what they were getting. The treatment investigational arm was nivolumab plus relatlimab in the fixed-dose combination. So that's the nivolumab standard fixed dose with relatlimab that was FDA approved in RELATIVITY-047. And the control arm was nivolumab by itself. The duration of treatment was 1 year. The patient population consisted of resected high-risk stage III or IV patients. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed RFS. Stage and geography were the standard stratifying factors, and they were included, and most of the criteria were balanced across both arms. What we know at this point is that the 2-year RFS rate was 64% and 62% in the nivolumab and nivolumab-combination arms, respectively. The 2-year DMFS rate was similarly equivalent: 76% with nivolumab monotherapy, 73% with the combination. And similar to what you had talked about with CheckMate 915, unfortunately, the addition of LAG-3 did not appear to improve the RFS or DMFS compared to control in this patient population. So, tell us a little bit about your take on this and what do you think might be the reasons why this trial was negative? Dr. Jason Luke: It's really unfortunate that we have this negative phase 3 trial. There had been a lot of hope that the combination of nivolumab with relatlimab would be a better tolerated combination that increased the efficacy. So in the metastatic setting, we do have 047, the study that demonstrated nivolumab plus relatlimab, but now we have this negative trial in the adjuvant setting. And so as to why exactly, I think is a complicated scenario. You know, when we look at the hazard ratios for relapse-free survival, the primary endpoint, as well as the secondary endpoints for distant metastasis-free survival, we see that the hazard ratio is approximately 1. So there's basically no difference. And that really suggests that relatlimab in this setting had no impact whatsoever on therapeutic outcomes in terms of efficacy. Now, it's worth noting that there was a biomarker subanalysis that was presented in conjunction with these data that looked at some immunophenotyping, both from circulating T cells, CD8 T cells, as well as from the tumor microenvironment from patients who were treated, both in the previous metastatic trial, the RELATIVITY-047 study, and now in this adjuvant study in the RELATIVITY-098 study. And to briefly summarize those, what was identified was that T cells in advanced melanoma seemed to have higher expression levels of LAG-3 relative to T cells that are circulating in patients that are in the adjuvant setting. In addition to that, there was a suggestion that the magnitude of increase is greater in the advanced setting versus adjuvant. And the overall summary of this is that the suggested rationale for why this was a negative trial may have been that the target of LAG-3 is not expressed as highly in the adjuvant setting as it is in the metastatic setting. And so while the data that were presented, I think, support this kind of an idea, I am a little bit cautious that this is actually the reason for why the trial was negative, however. I would say we're not really sure yet as to why the trial was negative, but the fact that the hazard ratios for the major endpoints were essentially 1 suggests that there was no impact whatsoever from relatlimab. And this really makes one wonder whether or not building on anti–PD-1 in the adjuvant setting is feasible because anti–PD-1 works so well. You would think that even if the levels of LAG-3 expression were slightly different, you would have seen a trend in one direction or another by adding a second drug, relatlimab, in this scenario. So overall, I think it's an unfortunate circumstance that the trial is negative. Clearly there's going to be no role for relatlimab in the adjuvant setting. I think this really makes one wonder about the utility of LAG-3 blockade and how powerful it really can be. I think it's probably worth pointing out there's another adjuvant trial ongoing now of a different PD-1 and LAG-3 combination, and that's cemiplimab plus fianlimab, a LAG-3 antibody that's being dosed from another trial sponsor at a much higher dose, and perhaps that may make some level of difference. But certainly, these are unfortunate results that will not advance the field beyond where we were at already. Dr. Diwakar Davar: And to your point about third-generation checkpoint factors that were negative, I guess it's probably worth noting that a trial that you were involved with, KeyVibe-010, that evaluated the PD-1 TIGIT co-formulation of vibostolimab, MK-4280A, was also, unfortunately, similarly negative. So, to your point, it's not clear that all these third-generation receptors are necessarily going to have the same impact in the adjuvant setting, even if they, you know, for example, like TIGIT, and they sometimes may not even have an effect at all in the advanced cancer setting. So, we'll see what the HARMONY phase 3 trial, that's the Regeneron cemiplimab/fianlimab versus pembrolizumab control with cemiplimab with fianlimab at two different doses, we'll see how that reads out. But certainly, as you've said, LAG-3 does not, unfortunately, appear to have an impact in the adjuvant setting. So let's move on to LBA9501. This is the primary analysis of EORTC-2139-MG or the Columbus-AD trial. This was a randomized trial of encorafenib and binimetinib, which we will abbreviate as enco-bini going forward, compared to placebo in high-risk stage II setting in melanoma in patients with BRAF V600E or K mutant disease. So Jason, you know, you happen to know one or two things about the resected stage II setting, so maybe contextualize the stage II setting for us based on the trials that you've led, KEYNOTE-716, as well as CheckMate-76K, set us up to talk about Columbus-AD. Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks for that introduction, and certainly stage II disease has been something I've worked a lot on. The rationale for that has been that building off of the activity of anti–PD-1 in metastatic melanoma and then seeing the activity in stage III, like we just talked about, it was a curious circumstance that dating back about 7 to 8 years ago, there was no availability to use anti–PD-1 for high-risk stage II patients, even though the risk of recurrence and death from melanoma in the context of stage IIB and IIC melanoma is in fact similar or actually higher than in stage IIIA or IIIB, where anti–PD-1 was approved. And in that context, a couple of different trials that you alluded to, the Keynote-716 study that I led, as well as the CheckMate 76K trial, evaluated pembrolizumab and nivolumab, respectively, showing an improvement in relapse-free and distant metastasis-free survival, and both of those agents have subsequently been approved for use in the adjuvant setting by the US FDA as well as the European Medicines Agency.  So bringing then to this abstract, throughout melanoma oncology, we've seen that the impact of anti–PD-1 immunotherapy versus BRAF and MEK-targeted therapy have had very similar outcomes on a sort of comparison basis, both in frontline metastatic and then in adjuvant setting. So it was a totally reasonable question to ask: Could we use adjuvant BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy? And I think all of us expected the answer would be yes. As we get into the discussion of the trial, I think the unfortunate circumstance was that the timing of this clinical trial being delayed somewhat, unfortunately, made it very difficult to accrue the trial, and so we're going to have to try to read through the tea leaves sort of, based on only a partially complete data set. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, in terms of the results, they wanted to enroll 815 patients, they only enrolled 110. The RFS and DMFS were marginally improved in the treatment arm but certainly not significantly, which is not surprising because the trial had only accrued 16% to 18% of its complete accrual. As such, we really can't abstract from the stage III COMBI-AD data to stage II patients. And certainly in this setting, one would argue that the primary treatment options certainly remain either anti–PD-1 monotherapy, either with pembrolizumab or nivolumab, based on 716 or 76K, or potentially active surveillance for the patients who are not inclined to get treated.  Can you tell us a little bit about how you foresee drug development going forward in this space because, you know, for example, with HARMONY, certainly IIC disease is a part of HARMONY. We will know at least a little bit about that in this space. So what do you think about the stage IIB/C patient population? Is this a patient population in which future combinations are going to be helpful, and how would you think about where we can go forward from here? Dr. Jason Luke: It is an unfortunate circumstance that this trial could not be accrued at the pace that was necessary. I think all of us believe that the results would have been positive if they'd been able to accrue the trial. In the preliminary data set that they did disclose of that 110 patients, you know, it's clear there is a difference at a, you know, a landmark at a year. They showed a 16% difference, and that would be in line with what has been seen in stage III. And so, you know, I think it's really kind of too bad. There's really going to be no regulatory approach for this consideration. So using BRAF and MEK inhibition in stage II is not going to be part of standard practice moving into the future. To your point, though, about where will the field go? I think what we're already realizing is that in the adjuvant setting, we're really overtreating the total population. And so beyond merely staging by AJCC criteria, we need to move to biomarker selection to help inform which patients truly need the treatment. And in that regard, I don't think we've crystallized together as a field as yet, but the kinds of things that people are thinking about are the integration of molecular biomarkers like ctDNA. When it's positive, it can be very helpful, but in melanoma, we found that, unfortunately, the rates are quite low, you know, in the 10% to 15% range in the adjuvant setting. So then another consideration would be factors in the primary tumor, such as gene expression profiling or other considerations.  And so I think the future of adjuvant clinical trials will be an integration of both the standard AJCC staging system as well as some kind of overlaid molecular biomarker that helps to enrich for a higher-risk population of patients because on a high level, when you abstract out, it's just clearly the case that we're rather substantially overtreating the totality of the population, especially given that in all of our adjuvant studies to date for anti–PD-1, we have not yet shown that there's an overall survival advantage. And so some are even arguing perhaps we should even reserve treatment until patients progress. I think that's a complicated subject, and standard of care at this point is to offer adjuvant therapy, but certainly a lot more to do because many patients, you know, unfortunately, still do progress and move on to metastatic disease. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Let's transition to Abstract 2508. So we're moving on from the melanoma to the novel immunotherapy abstracts. And this is a very, very, very fascinating drug. It's IMA203. So Abstract 2508 is a phase 1 clinical update of IMA203. IMA203 is an autologous TCR-T construct targeting PRAME in patients with heavily pretreated PD-1-refractory metastatic melanoma. So Jason, in the PD-1 and CTLA-4-refractory settings, treatment options are either autologous TIL, response rate, you know, ballpark 29% to 31%, oncolytic viral therapy, RP1 with nivolumab, ORR about 30-ish percent. So new options are needed. Can you tell us a little bit about IMA203? Perhaps tell us for the audience, what is the difference between a TCR-T and traditional autologous TIL? And a little bit about this drug, IMA203, and how it distinguishes itself from the competing TIL products in the landscape. Dr. Jason Luke: I'm extremely enthusiastic about IMA203. I think that it really has transformative potential based on these results and hopefully from the phase 3 trial that's open to accrual now. So, what is IMA203? We said it's a TCR-T cell product. So what that means is that T cells are removed from a patient, and then they can be transduced through various technologies, but inserted into those T cells, we can then add a T-cell receptor that's very specific to a single antigen, and in this case, it's PRAME. So that then is contrasted quite a bit from the TIL process, which includes a surgical resection of a tumor where T cells are removed, but they're not specific necessarily to the cancer, and they're grown up in the lab and then given to the patient. They're both adoptive cell transfer products, but they're very different. One is genetically modified, and the other one is not. And so the process for generating a TCR-T cell is that patients are required to have a new biomarker that some may not be familiar with, which is HLA profiling. So the T-cell receptor requires matching to the concomitant HLA for which the peptide is bound in. And so the classic one that is used in most oncology practices is A*02:01 because approximately 48% of Caucasians have A*02:01, and the frequency of HLA in other ethnicities starts to become highly variable. But in patients who are identified to have A*02:01 genotype, we can then remove blood via leukapheresis or an apheresis product, and then insert via lentiviral transduction this T-cell receptor targeting PRAME. Patients are then brought back to the hospital where they can receive lymphodepleting chemotherapy and then receive the reinfusion of the TCR-T cells. Again, in contrast with the TIL process, however, these T cells are extremely potent, and we do not need to give high-dose interleukin-2, which is administered in the context of TIL. Given that process, we have this clinical trial in front of us now, and at ASCO, the update was from the phase 1 study, which was looking at IMA203 in an efficacy population of melanoma patients who were refractory at checkpoint blockade and actually multiple lines of therapy. So here, there were 33 patients and a response rate of approximately 50% was observed in this population of patients, notably with a duration of response approximately a year in that treatment group. And I realize that these were heavily pretreated patients who had a range of very high-risk features. And approximately half the population had uveal melanoma, which people may be aware is a generally speaking more difficult-to-treat subtype of melanoma that metastasizes to the liver, which again has been a site of resistance to cancer immunotherapy. So these results are extremely promising. To summarize them from what I said, it's easier to make TCR-T cells because we can remove blood from the patient to transduce the T cells, and we don't have to put them through surgery. We can then infuse them, and based on these results, it looks like the response rate to IMA203 is a little bit more than double what we expect from lifileucel. And then, whereas with lifileucel or TILs, we have to give high-dose IL-2, here we do not have to give high-dose IL-2. And so that's pretty promising. And a clinical trial is ongoing now called the SUPREME phase 3 clinical trial, which is hoping to validate these results in a randomized global study. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Now, one thing that I wanted to go over with you, because you know this trial particularly well, is what you think of the likelihood of success, and then we'll talk a little bit about the trial design. But in your mind, do you think that this is a trial that has got a reasonable likelihood of success, maybe even a high likelihood of success? And maybe let's contextualize that to say an alternative trial, such as, for example, the TebeAM trial, which is essentially a T-cell bispecific targeting GP100. It's being compared against SOC, investigator's choice control, also in a similarly heavily pretreated patient population. Dr. Jason Luke: So both trials, I think, have a strong chance of success. They are very different kinds of agents. And so the CD3 bispecific that you referred to, tebentafusp, likely has an effect of delaying progression, which in patients with advanced disease could have a value that might manifest as overall survival. With TCR-T cells, by contrast, we see a very high response rate with some of the patients going into very durable long-term benefit. And so I do think that the SUPREME clinical trial has a very high chance of success. It will be the first clinical trial in solid tumor oncology randomizing patients to receive a cell therapy as compared with a standard of care. And within that standard of care control arm, TILs are allowed as a treatment. And so it will also be the first study that will compare TCR-T cells against TILs in a randomized phase 3. But going back to the data that we've seen in the phase 1 trial, what we observe is that the duration of response is really connected to the quality of the response, meaning if you have more than a 50% tumor shrinkage, those patients do very, very well. But even in patients who have less than 50% tumor shrinkage, the median progression-free survival right now is about 4.5 months. And again, as we think about trial design, standard of care options for patients who are in this situation are unfortunately very bad. And the progression-free survival in that population is probably more like 2 months. So this is a trial that has a very high likelihood of being positive because the possibility of long-term response is there, but even for patients who don't get a durable response, they're likely going to benefit more than they would have based on standard chemotherapy or retreatment with an anti–PD-1 agent. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Really, a very important trial to enroll, a trial that is first in many ways. First of a new generation of TCR-T agents, first trial to look at cell therapy in the control arm, a new standard of efficacy, but potentially also if this trial is successful, it will also be a new standard of trial conduct, a new kind of trial, of a set of trials that will be done in the second-line immunotherapy-refractory space. So let's pivot to the last trial that we were going to discuss, which was Abstract 2501. Abstract 2501 is a first-in-human phase 1/2 trial evaluating BNT142, which is the first-in-class mRNA-encoded bispecific targeting Claudin-6 and CD3 in patients with Claudin-positive tumors. We'll talk a little bit about this, but maybe let's start by talking a little bit about Claudin-6. So Claudin-6 is a very interesting new target. It's a target that's highly expressed in GI and ovarian tumors. There are a whole plethora of Claudin-6-targeting agents, including T-cell bispecifics and Claudin-6-directed CAR-Ts that are being developed. But BNT142 is novel. It's a novel lipid nanoparticle LNP-encapsulated mRNA. The mRNA encodes an anti–Claudin-6 CD3 bispecific termed RiboMAB-021. And it then is administered to the patient. The BNT142-encoding mRNA LNPs are taken up by the liver and translated into the active drug. So Jason, tell us a little bit about this agent. Why you think it's novel, if you think it's novel, and let's talk a little bit then about the results. Dr. Jason Luke: So I certainly think this is a novel agent, and I think this is just the first of what will probably become a new paradigm in oncology drug development. And so you alluded to this, but just to rehash it quickly, the drug is encoded as genetic information that's placed in the lipid nanoparticle and then is infused into the patient. And after the lipid nanoparticles are taken up by the liver, which is the most common place that LNPs are usually taken up, that genetic material in the mRNA starts to be translated into the actual protein, and that protein is the drug. So this is in vivo generation, so the patient is making their own drug inside their body. I think it's a really, really interesting approach. So for any drug that could be encoded as a genetic sequence, and in this case, it's a bispecific, as you mentioned, CD3-Claudin-6 engager, this could have a tremendous impact on how we think about pharmacology and novel drug development moving into the future in oncology. So I think it's an extremely interesting drug, the like of which we'll probably see only more moving forward. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Let's maybe briefly talk about the results. You know, the patient population was heavily pretreated, 65 or so patients, mostly ovarian cancer. Two-thirds of the patients were ovarian cancer, the rest were germ cell and lung cancer patients. But let's talk a little bit about the efficacy. The disease control rate was about 58% in the phase 1 population as a whole, but 75% in the ovarian patient population. Now tell us a little bit about the interesting things about the drug in terms of the pharmacokinetics, and also then maybe we can pivot to the clinical activity by dose level. Dr. Jason Luke: Well, so they did present in their presentation at ASCO a proportionality showing that as higher doses were administered, that greater amounts of the drug were being made inside the patient. And so that's an interesting observation, and it's an important one, right? Suggesting that the pharmacology that we classically think of by administering drugs by IV, for example, would still be in play. And that did translate into some level of efficacy, particularly at the higher dose levels. Now, the caveat that I'll make a note of is that disease control rate is an endpoint that I think we have to be careful about because what that really means is sometimes a little bit unclear. Sometimes patients have slowly growing tumors and so on and so forth. And the clinical relevance of disease control, if it doesn't last at least 6 months, I think is probably pretty questionable. So I think these are extremely interesting data, and there's some preliminary sense that getting the dose up is going to matter because the treatment responses were mostly observed at the highest dose levels. There's also a caveat, however, that across the field of CD3 bispecific molecules like this, there's been quite a bit of heterogeneity in terms of the response rate, with some of them only really generating stable disease responses and other ones having more robust responses. And so I think this is a really interesting initial foray into this space. My best understanding is this molecule is not moving forward further after this, but I think that this really does set it up to be able to chase after multiple different drug targets on a CD3 bispecific backbone, both in ovarian cancer, but then basically across all of oncology. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Perfect. This is a very new sort of exciting arena where we're going to be looking at, in many ways, these programmable constructs, whether we're looking at in vivo-generated, in this case, a T-cell bispecific, but we've also got newer drugs where we are essentially giving drugs where people are generating in vivo CAR T, and also potentially even in vivo TCR-T. But certainly lots of new excitement around this entire class of drugs. And so, what we'd like to do at this point in time is switch to essentially the fact that we've got a very, very exciting set of data at ASCO 2025. You've heard from Dr. Luke regarding the advances in both early drug development but also in advanced cutaneous melanoma. And Jason, as always, thank you so much for sharing your very valuable and great, fantastic insights with us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Jason Luke: Well, thanks again for the opportunity. Dr. Diwakar Davar: And thank you to our listeners for taking your time to listen today. You will find the links to the abstracts that we 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. Follow today's speakers:    Dr. Diwakar Davar    @diwakardavar    Dr. Jason Luke @jasonlukemd Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter       ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook       ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures:     Dr. Diwakar Davar:      Honoraria: Merck, Tesaro, Array BioPharma, Immunocore, Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences     Consulting or Advisory Role: Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences     Consulting or Advisory Role (Immediate family member): Shionogi     Research Funding: Merck, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CellSight Technologies, GSK, Merck, Arvus Biosciences, Arcus Biosciences     Research Funding (Inst.): Zucero Therapeutics     Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Application No.: 63/124,231 Title: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING CANCER Applicant: University of Pittsburgh–Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education Inventors: Diwakar Davar Filing Date: December 11, 2020 Country: United States MCC Reference: 10504-059PV1 Your Reference: 05545; and Application No.: 63/208,719 Enteric Microbiotype Signatures of Immune-related Adverse Events and Response in Relation to Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy     Dr. Jason Luke:     Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical, Pyxis, Alphamab Oncology, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch Oncology, Stipe, NeoTX     Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, Alphamab Oncology, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius, Tesaro, Xilio, Xencor, Alnylam, Crown Bioscience, Flame Biosciences, Genentech, Kadmon, KSQ Therapeutics, Immunocore, Inzen, Pfizer, Silicon Therapeutics, TRex Bio, Bright Peak, Onc.AI, STipe, Codiak Biosciences, Day One Therapeutics, Endeavor, Gilead Sciences, Hotspot Therapeutics, SERVIER, STINGthera, Synthekine     Research Funding (Inst.): Merck , Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma , EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring bank, Trishula, KAHR Medical, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena Oncology, Numab, Replimmune, Rubius Therapeutics, Synlogic, Takeda, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc., BioNTech AG, Scholar Rock, Next Cure     Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), and Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof)     Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal and Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching discuss important advances in the treatment of prostate, bladder, and kidney cancers that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I am the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program and a professor of medicine at the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute and editor-in-chief of the ASCO Daily News.  I am delighted to be joined by Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching, a GU medical oncologist and the clinical program director of the GU Center at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute in Virginia. Today, we will be discussing some key abstracts in GU oncology that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Jeanny, it is great to have you on the podcast. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Oh, thank you so much, Neeraj. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Jeanny, let's begin with some prostate cancer abstracts. Let's begin with Abstract 5017 titled, “Phase 1 study results of JNJ-78278343 (pasritamig) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.” Can you walk us through the design and the key findings of this first-in-human trial? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, absolutely, Neeraj. So this study, presented by Dr. Capucine Baldini, introduces pasritamig, a first-in-class T-cell redirecting bispecific antibody that simultaneously binds KLK2 on prostate cancer cells and CD3 receptor complexes on T cells. KLK2 is also known as human kallikrein 2, which is selectively expressed in prostate tissue. And for reference, KLK3 is what we now know as the PSA, prostate-specific antigen, therefore making it an attractive and specific target for therapeutic engagement. Now, while this was an early, first-in-human, phase 1 study, it enrolled 174 heavily pretreated metastatic CRPC patients. So many were previously treated with ARPIs, taxanes, and radioligand therapy. So given the phase 1 nature of this study, the primary objective was to determine the safety and the RP2D, which is the recommended phase 2 dose. Secondary objectives included preliminary assessment of antitumor activity. So, pasritamig was generally well tolerated. There were no treatment-related deaths. Serious adverse events were rare. And in the RP2D safety cohort, where patients received the step-up dosing up to 300 mg of IV every 6 weeks, the most common treatment-related adverse events were low-grade infusion reactions. There was fatigue and grade 1 cytokine release syndrome, what we call CRS. And no cases of neurotoxicity, or what we call ICANS, the immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, reported. Importantly, the CRS occurred in just about 8.9% of patients. All were grade 1. No patients required tocilizumab or discontinued treatment due to adverse events. So, this suggests a favorable safety profile, allowing hopefully for outpatient administration without hospitalization, which will be very important when we're thinking about bispecifics moving forward. In terms of efficacy, pasritamig showed promising activity. About 42.4% of evaluable patients achieved a PSA50 response. Radiographic PFS was about 6.8 months. And among patients with measurable disease, the objective response rate was about 16.1% in those with lymph node or bone metastases, and about 3.7% in those with visceral disease, with a median duration of response of about 11.3 months. So, altogether, this data suggests that pasritamig may offer a well-tolerated and active new potential option for patients with metastatic CRPC.   Again, as a reminder, with the caveat that this is still an early phase 1 study. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. These are promising results for a bispecific T-cell engager, pasritamig, in prostate cancer. I agree, the safety and durability observed here stand out, and this opens the door for further development, possibly even in earlier disease settings.  So, shifting now from immunotherapy to the evolving role of genomics in prostate cancer. So let's discuss Abstract 5094, a real-world, retrospective analysis exploring the prognostic impact of homologous recombination repair gene mutations, especially BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Can you tell us more about this abstract, Jeanny? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Sure, Neeraj. So this study was presented by Dr. David Olmos, represents one of the largest real-world analyses we have evaluating the impact of homologous recombination repair, or what we would call HRR, alterations in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. So, this cohort included 556 men who underwent paired germline and somatic testing. Now, about 30% of patients had HRR alterations, with about 12% harboring BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and 16% having alterations in other HRR genes. Importantly, patients were stratified via CHAARTED disease volume, and outcomes were examined across treatment approaches, including ADT alone, doublet therapy, and triplet therapy. The prevalence of BRCA and HRR alterations were about similar between the metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and the metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, with no differences observed, actually, between the patients with high volume versus low volume disease.  So, the key finding was that BRCA and HRR alterations were associated with poor clinical outcomes in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. And notably, the impact of these alterations may actually be even greater in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer than previously reported in metastatic CRPC. So, the data showed that when BRCA mutations are present, the impact of the volume of disease is actually limited. So, poor outcomes were observed across the board for both high-volume and low-volume groups. So, the analysis showed that patients with HRR alterations had significantly worse outcomes compared to patients without HRR alterations. Median radiographic progression-free survival was about 20.5 months for the HRR-altered patients versus 30.6 months for the non-HRR patients, with a hazard ratio of 1.6. Median overall survival was 39 months for HRR-altered patients compared to 55.7 months for the non-HRR patients, with a hazard ratio of 1.5. Similar significant differences were observed when BRCA-mutant patients were compared with patients harboring non-BRCA HRR mutations. Overall, poor outcomes were independent of treatment of ARPI or taxanes. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. So, these data reinforce homologous recombination repair mutations as both a predictive and prognostic biomarker, not only in the mCRPC, but also in the metastatic hormone-sensitive setting as well. It also makes a strong case for incorporating genomic testing early in the disease course and not waiting until our patients have castration-resistant disease. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Absolutely, Neeraj. And I think this really brings home the point and the lead up to the AMPLITUDE trial, which is LBA5006, a phase 3 trial that builds on this very concept of testing with a PARP inhibitor, niraparib, in the hormone-sensitive space. Can you tell us a little bit more about this abstract, Neeraj? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure. So, the AMPLITUDE trial, a phase 3 trial presented by Dr. Gerhardt Attard, enrolled 696 patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and HRR gene alterations. 56% of these patients had BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Patients were randomized to receive abiraterone with or without niraparib, a PARP inhibitor. The majority of patients, 78% of these patients, had high-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, and 87% of these patients had de novo metastatic HSPC. And 16% of these patients received prior docetaxel, which was allowed in the clinical trial. So, with a median follow-up of nearly 31 months, radiographic progression-free survival was significantly prolonged with the niraparib plus abiraterone combination, and median was not reached in this arm, compared to abiraterone alone, which was 29.5 months, with a hazard ratio of 0.63, translating to a 37% reduction in risk of progression or death. This benefit was even more pronounced in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroup, with a 48% reduction in risk of progression, with a hazard ratio of 0.52. Time to symptomatic progression also improved significantly across all patients, including patients with BRCA1, BRCA2, and HRR mutations. Although overall survival data remain immature, early trends favored the niraparib plus abiraterone combination. The safety profile was consistent with prior PARP inhibitor studies, with grade 3 or higher anemia and hypertension were more common but manageable. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events remained low at 11%, suggesting that timely dose modifications when our patients experience grade 3 side effects may allow our patients to continue treatment without discontinuation. These findings support niraparib plus abiraterone as a potential new standard of care in our patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer with HRR alterations, and especially in those who had BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj. This trial is especially exciting because it brings PARP inhibitors earlier into the treatment paradigm. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Exactly. And it is exciting to see the effect of PARP inhibitors in the earlier setting.  So Jeanny, now let's switch gears a bit to bladder cancer, which also saw several impactful studies. Could you tell us about Abstract 4502, an exploratory analysis from the EV-302 trial, which led to approval of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab for our patients with newly diagnosed metastatic bladder cancer? So here, the authors looked at the outcomes in patients who achieved a confirmed complete response with EV plus pembrolizumab. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Sure, Neeraj. So, EV-302 demonstrated significant improvements in progression-free and overall survival for patients previously treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, I'll just call it metastatic UC, as a frontline strategy, establishing EV, which is enfortumab vedotin, plus pembro, with pembrolizumab as standard of care in this setting.  So, this year at ASCO, Dr Shilpa Gupta presented this exploratory responder analysis from the phase 3 EV-302 trial. Among 886 randomized patients, about 30.4% of patients, this is about 133, in the EV+P arm, and 14.5% of the patients in the chemotherapy arm, achieved a confirmed complete response. They call it the CCR rates. So for patients who achieved this, median PFS was not reached with EV+P compared to 26.9 months with chemotherapy, with a hazard ratio of 0.36, translating to a 64% reduction in the risk of progression. Overall survival was also improved. So the median OS was not reached in either arm, but the hazard ratio favored the EV+P at 0.37, translating to a 63% reduction in the risk of death. The median duration of complete response was not reached with EV+P compared to 15.2 months with chemotherapy. And among those patients who had confirmed CRs at 24 months, 78% of patients with the EV+P arm remained progression-free, and around 95% of the patients were alive, compared to 54% of patients who were progression-free and 86% alive of the patients in the chemotherapy arm. Safety among responders were also consistent with prior reports. Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 62% of EV+P responders and 72% of chemotherapy responders. Most adverse events were managed with dose modifications, and importantly, no treatment-related deaths were reported among those who were able to achieve complete response.  So these findings further reinforce EV and pembro as the preferred first-line therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma, offering a higher likelihood of deep, durable responses with a fairly manageable safety profile. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you for the great summary, Jeanny. These findings underscore the depth and durability of responses achievable with this combination and also suggest that achieving a response may be a surrogate for long-term benefit in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma.  So now, let's move to Abstract 4503, an exploratory ctDNA analysis from the NIAGARA trial, which evaluated perioperative durvalumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. So what can you tell us about this abstract? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Absolutely, Neeraj. So, in NIAGARA, presented by Dr. Tom Powles, the addition of perioperative durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, gem/cis, significantly improved event-free survival, overall survival, and pathologic complete response in patients with cisplatin-eligible muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Recall that this led to the U.S. FDA approval of this treatment regimen on March 28, 2025.  So, a planned exploratory analysis evaluated the ctDNA dynamics and their association with clinical outcomes, which was the one presented recently at ASCO. So, the study found that the incidence of finding ctDNA positivity in these patients was about 57%. Following neoadjuvant treatment, this dropped to about 22%, with ctDNA clearance being more common in the durvalumab arm, about 41%, compared to the chemotherapy control arm of 31%. Notably, 97% of patients who remained ctDNA positive prior to surgery failed to achieve a pathologic CR. So, this indicates a strong association between ctDNA persistence and lack of tumor eradication. So, postoperatively, only about 9% of patients were ctDNA positive. So, importantly, durvalumab conferred an event-free survival benefit regardless of ctDNA status at both baseline and post-surgery. Among patients who were ctDNA positive at baseline, durvalumab led to a hazard ratio of 0.73 for EFS. So, this translates to a 27% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence, progression, or death compared to the control arm. In the post-surgical ctDNA-positive group, the disease-free survival was also improved with a hazard ratio of 0.49, translating to a 51% reduction in the risk of recurrence.  So, these findings underscore the prognostic value of ctDNA and suggest that durvalumab provides clinical benefit irrespective of molecular residual disease status. So, the data also supports that ctDNA is a promising biomarker for future personalized strategies in the perioperative treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. It is great to see that durvalumab is improving outcomes in these patients regardless of ctDNA status. However, based on these data, presence of ctDNA in our patients warrants a closer follow-up with imaging studies, because these patients with positive ctDNA seem to have a higher risk of recurrence. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: I agree, Neeraj.  Let's round out the bladder cancer discussion with Abstract 4518, which reported the interim results of SURE-02, which is a phase 2 study evaluating neoadjuvant sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Can you tell us more about this abstract, Neeraj? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure, Jeanny. So, Dr Andrea Necchi presented interim results from the SURE-02 trial. This is a phase 2 study evaluating neoadjuvant sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab, followed by a response-adapted bladder-sparing treatment and adjuvant pembrolizumab in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer.  So, in this interim analysis, 40 patients were treated and 31 patients were evaluable for efficacy. So, the clinical complete response rate was 38.7%. All patients achieving clinical complete response underwent bladder-sparing approach with a repeat TURBT instead of radical cystectomy. Additionally, 51.6% of patients achieved excellent pathologic response with a T stage of 1 or less after neoadjuvant therapy. The treatment was well tolerated, with only 12.9% of patients experiencing grade 3 or higher adverse events without needing dose reduction of sacituzumab. Molecular profiling, interestingly, showed that clinical complete response correlated with luminal and genomically unstable subtypes, while high stromal gene expression was associated with lack of response.  These results suggest that sacituzumab plus pembrolizumab combination has promising activity in this setting, and tolerability, and along with other factors may potentially allow a bladder preservation approach in a substantial number of patients down the line. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, agree with you, Neeraj. And the findings are very provocative and support completing the full trial enrollment and further exploration of this strategy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer in order to improve and provide further bladder-sparing strategies. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Agree. So, let's now turn to the kidney cancer, starting with Abstract 4505, the final overall analysis from CheckMate-214 trial, which evaluated nivolumab plus ipilimumab, so dual checkpoint inhibition strategy, versus sunitinib in our patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, absolutely, Neeraj. So, the final 9-year analysis of the phase 3 CheckMate-214 trial confirms the long-term superiority of nivolumab and ipilimumab over sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced metastatic renal cell carcinoma. So, this has a median follow-up of 9 years. Overall survival remains significantly improved with the combination. So, in the ITT patient population, the intention-to-treat, the hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.71. So, this translates to a 29% reduction in the risk of death. 31% of patients were alive at this 108-month follow-up compared to 20% only in those who got sunitinib. So, similar benefits were observed in the intermediate- and poor-risk groups with a hazard ratio of 0.69, and 30% versus 19% survival at 108 months.  Importantly, a delayed benefit was also seen in those favorable-risk patients. So, the hazard ratio for overall survival improved from 1.45 in the initial report and now at 0.8 at 9 years follow-up, with 35% of patients alive at 108 months compared to 22% in those who got sunitinib. Progression-free survival also favored the nivo-ipi arm across all risk groups. At 96 months, the probability of remaining progression-free was about 23% compared to 9% in the sunitinib arm in the ITT patient population, 25% versus 9% in the intermediate- and poor-risk patients, and 13% compared to 11% in the favorable-risk patients. Importantly, at 96 months, 48% of patients in the nivo-ipi responders remained in response compared to just 19% in those who got sunitinib. And in the favorable-risk group, 36% of patients who responded remained in response, although data were not available for sunitinib in this subgroup.  So, this data reinforces the use of nivolumab and ipilimumab as a durable and effective first-line effective strategy for standard of care across all risk groups for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. And of course, since ipi-nivo data were presented, several other novel ICI-TKI combinations have emerged. And I'm really hoping to see very similar data with TKI-ICI combinations down the line. It is really important to note that we are not seeing any new safety signals with the ICI combinations or ICI-based therapies, which is very reassuring given the extended exposure. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Absolutely agree with you there, Neeraj.  Now, going on and moving on to Abstract 4514, which is the KEYNOTE-564 trial, and they reported on the 5-year outcomes of adjuvant pembrolizumab in clear cell RCC in patients who are at high risk for recurrence. Can you tell us a little bit more about this abstract, Neeraj? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure. So, the KEYNOTE-564 trial established pembrolizumab monotherapy as the first adjuvant regimen to significantly improve both disease-free survival and overall survival compared to placebo after surgery for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. So, Dr Naomi Haas presented the 5-year update from this landmark trial.  A total of 994 patients were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab or placebo. The median follow-up at the time of this analysis was approximately 70 months. Disease-free survival remained significantly improved with pembrolizumab. The median DFS was not reached with pembrolizumab compared to 68.3 months with placebo, with a hazard ratio of 0.71, translating to a 29% reduction in risk of recurrence. At 5 years, 60.9% of patients receiving pembrolizumab remained disease-free compared to 52.2% with placebo. Overall survival also favored pembrolizumab. The hazard ratio for OS was 0.66, translating to a 34% reduction in risk of death, with an estimated 5-year overall survival rate of 87.7% with pembrolizumab compared to 82.3% for placebo. Importantly, these benefits were consistent across all key subgroups, including patients with sarcomatoid features. In addition, no new serious treatment-related adverse events have been reported in the 3 years since treatment completion.  So, these long-term data confirm pembrolizumab as a durable and effective standard adjuvant therapy for patients with resected, high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you for that wonderful summary, Neeraj. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: That wraps up our kidney cancer highlights. Any closing thoughts, Jeanny, before we conclude? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: It's been so wonderful reviewing these abstracts with you, Neeraj. So, the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting showcased a lot of transformative data across GU cancers, from first-in-class bispecifics to long-term survival in RCC. And these findings are already shaping our clinical practices. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I agree. And we have covered a broad spectrum of innovations in GU cancers with strong clinical relevance.  So, thank you, Jeanny, for joining me today and sharing your insights.  And thank you to our listeners for joining us. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. If you find these conversations valuable, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to the ASCO Daily News Podcast wherever you listen. 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. Find out more about today's speakers:    Dr. Neeraj Agarwal     @neerajaiims     Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching   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. Jeanny Aragon-Ching:   Honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs Inc., Pfizer/EMD Serono   Consulting or Advisory Role: Algeta/Bayer, Dendreon, AstraZeneca, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi, EMD Serono, MedImmune, Bayer, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, Immunomedics, Amgen, AVEO, Pfizer/Myovant, Exelixis,    Speakers' Bureau: Astellas Pharma, Janssen-Ortho, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas/Seattle Genetics

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti and Dr. Nate Pennell discuss novel treatment approaches in small cell and non-small cell lung cancer that were featured at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Hello, I'm Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm a professor of medicine and chief of hematology and oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. The 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting featured some exciting advancements in small cell lung cancer, targeted therapies for non-small cell lung cancer, and other novel [treatment] approaches. Today, I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Nate Pennell to discuss some of the key abstracts that are advancing the lung cancer field. Dr. Pennell is the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and also the vice chair of clinical research at the Taussig Cancer Institute. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Nate, it's great to have you back on the podcast. Thanks so much for being here. Dr. Nate Pennell: Thanks, Vamsi. Always a pleasure. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Let's get started, and I think the first abstract that really caught my attention was Abstract 8516, “The Randomized Trial of Relevance of Time of Day of Immunotherapy for Progression-Free and Overall Survival in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.” What are your thoughts about this, Nate? Dr. Nate Pennell: I agree. I thought this was one of the most discussed abstracts, certainly in the lung cancer session, but I think even outside of lung cancer, it got some discussion. So, just to put this in perspective, there have been a number of publications that have all been remarkably consistent, and not just in lung cancer but across multiple cancer types, that immunotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, are commonly used. And all of them have suggested, when looking at retrospective cohorts, that patients who receive immune checkpoint inhibitors earlier in the day – so in the morning or before the early afternoon – for whatever reason, appear to have better outcomes than those who get it later in the day, and this has been repeated. And I think many people just sort of assumed that this was some sort of strange association and that there was something fundamentally different from a prognostic standpoint in people who came in in the morning to get their treatment versus those who came later in the afternoon, and that was probably the explanation. The authors of this randomized trial actually decided to test this concept. And so, about 210 patients with previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to get chemo and immune checkpoint inhibitor – either pembrolizumab or sintilimab – and half of them were randomly assigned to get the treatment before 3 PM in the afternoon, and half of them were assigned to get it after 3 PM in the afternoon. And it almost completely recapitulated what was seen in the retrospective cohorts. So, the median progression-free survival in those who got earlier treatment was 13.2 months versus only 6.5 months in those who got it later in the day. So, really enormous difference with a hazard ratio of 0.43, which was statistically significant. And perhaps even more striking, the median overall survival was not reached in the early group versus 17.8 months in the late group with a hazard ratio of 0.43, also highly statistically significant. Even the response rate was 20% higher in the early patients; 75% response rate compared to 56% in the late-time-of-day patients. So very consistent across all measures of efficacy with pretty good matched characteristics across the different groups. And so, I have to tell you, I don't know what to make of this. I certainly was a skeptic about the retrospective series, but now we have a prospective randomized trial that shows essentially the same thing. So, maybe there is a difference between getting treated in the morning, although I have yet to hear someone give a very good mechanistic explanation as to why this would be. What were your thoughts on this? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: It's indeed fascinating, Nate, and I actually think this was a very interesting abstract. Really, I was caught off guard looking at the data. I mean, if it were a drug, we would be so excited, right? I mean, with those kind of survival benefits. I don't know. I think circadian rhythm probably has something to do with it, like different cytokine profiles at the time of administration. I mean, who knows? But I think it's a randomized trial, and I think I would expect to see a mad rush for treatment appointments early in the morning given this, and at least I want my patients to come in first thing in the morning. It'll be interesting to see. Dr. Nate Pennell: It's important to point out that in this study, everyone got chemo and immunotherapy. And, at least in our cancer center, most patients who are getting platinum-doublet chemotherapy and immunotherapy actually do get treated earlier in the day already, just because of the length of the infusion appointment that's needed. So it really is oftentimes people getting single-agent immunotherapy who are often getting the later, shorter visits. But if you have a choice, I think it would be very reasonable to have people treated earlier in the day. And I do think most of the impressions that I got from people about this is that they would like to see it reproduced but certainly well worth further investigation. And I personally would like to see more investigation into what the rationale would be for this because I still can't quite figure out, yes, if you got it at, say, you know, 5 PM, that's later in the day and I can understand that maybe your immune system is somewhat less receptive at that point than it would be in the morning. But because these checkpoint inhibitors have such long half-lives, it's still in your system the next morning when your immune system is supposedly more receptive. So I don't quite understand why that would be the case. Well, let's move on to the next study. I would like to hear your thoughts on Abstract 8515, “Plasma-Guided, Adaptive First-Line Chemoimmunotherapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.” Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, this was another abstract that seems to be really interesting in my opinion. I think there's kind of a lot of emphasis lately on ctDNA and MRD-based assays to monitor disease. In the lung cancer space, we haven't had a lot of clinical trials looking at this prospectively, and this was one of those pilot studies where they looked at circulating free DNA (cfDNA)-based response-adaptive strategy for frontline patients who are PD-L1 positive. So, patients started with pembrolizumab monotherapy, and based on plasma molecular response after 2 cycles, those patients without response received early treatment intensification with a platinum doublet. So the approach essentially was to reduce the chemotherapy exposure in patients who respond to immunotherapy. And only about 17.5% of the patients on the trial received chemotherapy based on lack of molecular response. So, in this trial, what they found was patients with the cfDNA response had a markedly improved PFS of 16.4 months versus 4.8 months. So essentially, like, this is a really nice study to set a foundation on which we have to do larger studies to incorporate molecular markers trying to look at cfDNA response to inform treatment strategy, either escalation or de-escalation strategies. So, I thought it was a very interesting study. Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah. I mean, we always have this question for patients, “Should they get immunotherapy alone or combined with chemo?” and I think this certainly is intriguing, suggesting that there may be ways you can monitor people and perhaps rescue those that aren't going to respond to single agent. I'd like to see a randomized trial against, you know, this strategy, perhaps against everyone getting, say, chemoimmunotherapy or make sure that you're not potentially harming people by doing this strategy. But I agree, it's time to move beyond just observing that cell-free DNA is prognostic and important and start using it to actually guide treatment. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, and I would just caution though, like, you know, I think we need more data, but, however, it's certainly a very interesting piece of data to kind of help inform future trials. So, there was another abstract that caught my attention, and I think this would be a very interesting abstract in the EGFR space. Abstract 8506, "Patritumab Deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) in Resistant EGFR-Mutant Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients After Third-Generation EGFR TKI," it's the HERTHENA-Lung02 study. What do you think about the results of this study? Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, this was, I would say, very widely anticipated and ultimately a little disappointing, despite being a positive trial. So, these are patients with EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer who have progressed after a third-generation EGFR TKI like osimertinib. This is really an area of major unmet need. We do have drugs like amivantamab in this space, but still definitely an area where essentially patients move from having a highly effective oral therapy to being in the realm of chemotherapy as their best option. So, this HER3 antibody-drug conjugate, patritumab deruxtecan, had some good single-arm data for this. And we're sort of hoping this would become an available option for patients. This trial was designed against platinum-doublet chemotherapy in this setting and with a primary endpoint of progression-free survival. And it actually was positive for improved progression-free survival compared to chemo with a hazard ratio of 0.77. But when you look at the medians, you can see that the median PFS was only 5.8 versus 5.4 months. It was really a modest difference between the two arms. And on the interim analysis, it appeared that there will not be a difference in overall survival between the two arms. In fact, the hazard ratio at the interim analysis was 0.98 for the two arms. So based on this, unfortunately, the company that developed the HER3-DXd has withdrawn their application to the FDA for approval of the drug, anticipating that they probably wouldn't get past approval without that overall survival endpoint. So, unfortunately, probably not, at least for the near future, going to be a new option for these patients. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think this is a space that's clearly an unmet need, and this was a big disappointment, I should say. I think all of us were going into the meeting anticipating some change in the standard of care here. Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, I agree. It was something that I was telling patients, honestly, that I was expecting this to be coming, and so now, definitely a bit of a disappointment. But it happens and, hopefully, it will still find perhaps a role or other drugs with a similar target. Certainly an active area. Well, let's leave the EGFR-mutant space and move into small cell. There were a couple of very impactful studies. And one of them was Abstract 8006, “Lurbinectedin Plus Atezolizumab as First-Line Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer, Primary Results from the Phase III IMforte Trial.” So, what was your impression of this? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think this is definitely an interesting study, and small cell, I remember those days when we had barely any studies of small cell at ASCO, and now we have a lot of exciting developments in the small cell space. It's really good to see. The IMforte trial is essentially like a maintenance lurbinectedin trial with atezolizumab maintenance. And the study was a positive trial. The primary endpoint was a PFS, and the study showed improvement in both PFS and OS with the addition of lurbinectedin to atezolizumab maintenance. And definitely, it's a positive trial, met its primary endpoint, but I always am a little skeptical of adding maintenance cytotoxic therapies here in this setting. In my practice, and I'd like to hear your opinion, Nate, most patients with small cell after 4 cycles of a platinum doublet, they're kind of really beaten up. Adding more cytotoxic therapy in the maintenance space is going to be tough, I think, for a lot of patients. But also, most importantly, I think this rapidly evolving landscape for patients with small cell lung cancer with multiple new, exciting agents, actually like some FDA-approved like tarlatamab, also like a lot of these emerging therapeutics like I-DXd and other ADCs in this space. You kind of wonder, is it really optimal strategy to bring on like another cytotoxic agent right after induction chemotherapy, or do you kind of delay that? Or maybe have like a different strategy in terms of maintenance. I know that the tarlatamab maintenance trial is probably going to read out at some point too. I think it's a little challenging. The hazard ratio is also 0.73. As I said, it's a positive trial, but it's just incremental benefit of adding lurbi. And also on the trial, we need to also pay attention to the post-progression second-line treatments, number of patients who received tarlatamab or any other investigational agents.  So I think it's a lot of questions still. I'm not quite sure I'd be able to embrace this completely. I think a vast majority of my patients might not be eligible anyway for cytotoxic chemotherapy maintenance right away, but yeah, it's tough. Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah. I would call this a single and not a home run. It definitely is real. It was a real overall survival benefit. Certainly not surprising that a maintenance therapy would improve progression-free survival. We've known that for a long time in small cell, but first to really show an overall survival benefit. But I completely agree with you. I mean, many people are not going to want to continue further cytotoxics after 4 cycles of platinum-doublet chemo. So I would say, for those that are young and healthy and fly through chemo without a lot of toxicity, I think certainly something worth mentioning. The problem with small cell, of course, is that so many people get sick so quickly while on that observation period after first-line chemo that they don't make it to second-line treatment. And so, giving everyone maintenance therapy essentially ensures everyone gets that second-line treatment. But they also lose that potentially precious few months where they feel good and normal and are able to be off of treatment. So, I would say this is something where we're really going to have to kind of sit and have that shared decision-making visit with patients and decide what's meaningful to them. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I agree. The next abstract that was a Late-Breaking Abstract, 8000, “Overall Survival of Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy in Patients With Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in CheckMate-816.” This was a highly anticipated read-out of the OS data from 816. What did you make of this abstract? Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, I thought this was great. Of course, CheckMate-816 changed practice a number of years ago when it first reported out. So, this was the first of the neoadjuvant or perioperative chemoimmunotherapy studies in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. So, just to review, this was a phase 3 study for patients with what we would now consider stage II or stage IIIA resectable non-small cell lung cancer. And they received three cycles of either chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus nivolumab, and that was it. That was the whole treatment. No adjuvant treatment was given afterwards. They went to resection. And patients who received the chemoimmunotherapy had a much higher pathologic complete response rate and a much better event-free survival. And based on this, this regimen was approved and, I think, at least in the United States, widely adopted.  Now, since the first presentation of CheckMate 816, there have been a number of perioperative studies that have included an adjuvant component of immunotherapy – KEYNOTE-671, the AEGEAN study – and these also have shown improved outcomes. The KEYNOTE study with pembrolizumab also with an overall survival benefit. And I think people forgot a little bit about CheckMate-816. So, this was the 5-year overall survival final analysis. And it did show a statistically and, I think, clinically meaningful difference in overall survival with the 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemo-nivo compared to chemo with a hazard ratio of 0.72. The 5-year overall survival of 65% in the chemo-IO group versus 55% with the chemo alone. So a meaningful improvement. And interestingly, that hazard ratio of 0.72 is very similar to what was seen in the peri-operative pembro study that included the adjuvant component. So, very much still relevant for people who think that perhaps the value of those neoadjuvant treatments might be really where most of the impact comes from this type of approach. They also gave us an update on those with pathologic complete response, showing really astronomically good outcomes. If you have a pathologic complete response, which was more than a quarter of patients, the long-term survival was just phenomenal. I mean, 95% alive at 5 years if they were in that group and suggesting that in those patients at least, the adjuvant treatment may not be all that important.  So, I think this was an exciting update and still leaves very much the open question about the importance of continuing immunotherapy after surgery after the neoadjuvant component. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I completely agree, Nate. I think the million-dollar question is: “Is there like a population of patients who don't have complete response but like maybe close to complete response?” So, would you like still consider stopping adjuvant IO? I probably would not be comfortable, but I think sometimes, you know, we all have patients who are like very apprehensive of continuing treatments. So, I think that we really need more studies, especially for those patients who don't achieve a complete CR. I think trying to find strategies for like de-escalation based on MRD or other risk factors. But we need more trials in that space to inform not just de-escalation, but there are some patients who don't respond at all to a neoadjuvant IO. So, there may be an opportunity for escalating adjuvant therapies. So, it is an interesting space to watch out for. Dr. Nate Pennell: No, absolutely. Moving to KRAS-mutant space, so our very common situation in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, we had the results of Abstract 8500, “First-Line Adagrasib With Pembrolizumab in Patients With Advanced or Metastatic KRASG12C-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer” from the phase 2 portion of the KRYSTAL-7 study. Why was this an interesting and important study? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: First of all, there were attempts to kind of combine KRASG12C inhibitors in the past with immune checkpoint inhibitors, notably sotorasib with pembrolizumab. Unfortunately, those trials have led to like a lot of toxicity, with increased especially liver toxicity, which was a major issue. This is a phase 2 study of adagrasib in combination with pembrolizumab, and this is a study in the frontline setting in patients with the G12C-mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. And across all the PD-L1 groups, the ORR was 44%, and the median PFS was 11 months, comparable to the previous data that we have seen with adagrasib in this setting. So it's not like a major improvement in clinical efficacy. However, I think the toxicity profile that we were seeing was slightly better than the previous trials in combination with sotorasib, but you still have a fair amount of transaminitis even in the study. At this point, this is not ready for clinical primetime. I don't think we should be using sotorasib or adagrasib in the frontline or even in the second line in combination with checkpoint inhibitors. Combining these drugs with checkpoint inhibitors in the clinical practice might lead to adverse outcomes. So, we need to wait for more data like newer-generation G12C inhibitors which are also being studied in combination, so we'll have to kind of wait for more data to emerge in this space. Dr. Nate Pennell: I agree, this is not immediately practice changing. This is really an attempt to try to combine targeted treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitor. And I agree with you that, you know, it does appear to be perhaps a little bit better tolerated than some of the prior combinations that have tried in this space. The outcomes overall were not that impressive, although in the PD-L1 greater than 50%, it did have a better response rate perhaps than you would expect with either drug alone. And I do think that the company is focusing on that population for a future randomized trial, which certainly would inform this question better. But in the meantime, I agree with you, there's a lot of newer drugs that are coming along that potentially may be more active and better tolerated. And so, I'd say for now, interesting but we'll wait and see. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, so now moving back again to small cell. So, there was a Late-Breaking Abstract, 8008. This is a study of tarlatamab versus chemotherapy as second-line treatment for small cell lung cancer. They presented the primary analysis of the phase III DeLLphi-304 study. What do you think about this? Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, I thought this was really exciting. This was, I would say, perhaps the most important lung study that was presented. Tarlatamab is, of course, the anti-DLL3 bispecific T-cell engager compound, which is already FDA approved based on a prior single-arm phase II study, which showed a very nice response rate as a single agent in previously treated small cell lung cancer and relatively manageable side effects, although somewhat unique to solid tumor docs in the use of these bispecific drugs in things like cytokine release syndrome and ICANS, the neurologic toxicities. So, this trial was important because tarlatamab was approved, but there were also other chemotherapy drugs approved in the previously treated space. And so, this was a head-to-head second-line competition comparison between tarlatamab and either topotecan, lurbinectedin, or amrubicin in previously treated small cell patients with a primary endpoint of overall survival. So, a very well-designed trial. And it did show, I think, a very impressive improvement in overall survival with a median overall survival in the tarlatamab group of 13.6 months compared to 8.3 months with chemotherapy, hazard ratio of 0.6. And progression-free survival was also longer at 4.2 months versus 3.2 months, hazard ratio of 0.72. In addition to showing improvements in cancer-related symptoms that were improved in tarlatamab compared to chemotherapy, there was actually also significantly lower rates of serious treatment-related adverse events with tarlatamab compared to chemotherapy. So, you do still see the cytokine release syndrome, which is seen in most people but is manageable because these patients are admitted to the hospital for the first two cycles, as well as a significant number of patients with neurologic side effects, the so-called ICANS, which also can be treated with steroids. And so, I think based upon the very significant improvement in outcomes, I would expect that this should become our kind of standard second-line treatment since it seems to be much better than chemo. However, tarlatamab is definitely a new drug that a lot of places are not used to using, and I think a lot of cancer centers, especially ones that aren't tied to a hospital, may have questions about how to deal with the CRS. So, I'm curious your thoughts on that. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, thank you, Nate. And I completely agree. I think the data looked really promising, and I've already been using tarlatamab in the second-line space. The durability of response and overall, having used tarlatamab quite a bit - like, I participated in some of the early trials and also used it as standard of care - tarlatamab has unique challenges in terms of like need for hospitalization for monitoring for the first few treatments and make sure, you know, we monitor those patients for CRS and ICANS. But once you get past that initial administration and monitoring of CRS, these patients have a much better quality of life, they're off chemotherapy, and I think it's really about the logistics of actually administering tarlatamab and coordination with the hospital and administration in the outpatient setting. It's definitely challenging, but I think it definitely can be done and should be done given what we are seeing in terms of clinical efficacy here. Dr. Nate Pennell: I agree. I think hospital systems now are just going to have to find a way to be able to get this on formulary and use it because it clearly seems to be more effective and generally better tolerated by patients. So, should move forward, I think. Finally, there's an abstract I wanted to ask you about, Abstract 8001, which is the “Neoadjuvant osimertinib with or without chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in resectable epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: The NeoADAURA Study”. And this is one that I think was also fairly highly anticipated. So, what are your thoughts? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: You know, I wasn't probably surprised with the results, and I believe we were all expecting a positive trial, and we certainly were handed a positive trial here. It's a phase III trial of osimertinib and chemotherapy or osimertinib in the neoadjuvant space followed by surgery, followed by osimertinib. It's a global phase 3 trial and very well conducted, and patients with stage II to stage IIIB were enrolled in the study. And in the trial, patients who had a neoadjuvant osimertinib with or without chemotherapy showed a significant improvement in major pathologic response rates over chemotherapy alone. And the EFS was also positive for osimertinib and chemotherapy, osimertinib monotherapy as well compared to chemotherapy alone. So overall, the study met its primary endpoint, and I think it sheds light on how we manage our patients with early-stage lung cancer. I think osimertinib, we know that osimertinib is already FDA approved in the adjuvant space, but what we didn't really know is how was osimertinib going to work in the neoadjuvant space. And there are always situations, especially for stage III patients, where we are on the fence about, are these patients already close to being metastatic? They have, like, almost all these patients have micrometastatic disease, even if they have stage III. As we saw in the LAURA data, when you look at the control arm, it was like a very short PFS. Chemoradiation does nothing for those patients, and I think these patients have systemic mets, either gross or micrometastatic disease at onset. So, it's really important to incorporate osimertinib early in the treatment course. And I think, especially for the locally advanced patients, I think it's even more important to kind of incorporate osimertinib in the neoadjuvant space and get effective local control with surgery and treat them with adjuvant. I'm curious to hear your thoughts, Nate. Dr. Nate Pennell: I am a believer and have long been a believer in targeted adjuvant treatments, and, you know, it has always bothered me somewhat that we're using our far and away most effective systemic therapy; we wait until after they go through all their pre-op treatments, they go through surgery, then they go through chemotherapy, and then finally months later, they get their osimertinib, and it still clearly improves survival in the adjuvant setting. Why not just start the osimertinib as soon as you know that the patient has EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer, and then you can move on to surgery and adjuvant treatment afterwards? And I think what was remarkable about this study is that all of these patients almost - 90% in each arm - went to surgery. So, you weren't harming them with the neoadjuvant treatment. And clearly better major pathologic response, nodal downstaging, event-free survival was better. But I don't know that this trial is ever going to show an overall survival difference between neoadjuvant versus just surgery and adjuvant treatment, given how effective the drug is in the adjuvant setting. Nonetheless, I think the data is compelling enough to consider this, certainly for our N2-positive, stage IIIA patients or a IIIB who might be otherwise surgical candidates. I think based on this, I would certainly consider that. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, and especially for EGFR, like even for stage IIIB patients, in the light of the LAURA study, those patients who do not do too well with chemoradiation. So you're kind of delaying effective systemic therapy, as you said, waiting for the chemoradiation to finish. So I think probably time to revisit how we kind of manage these locally advanced EGFR patients. Dr. Nate Pennell: Yep, I agree. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Nate, thank you so much for sharing your fantastic insights today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. It's been an exciting ASCO again. You know, we've seen a lot of positive trials impacting our care of non-small cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer patients. Dr. Nate Pennell: Thanks for inviting me, Vamsi. Always a pleasure to discuss these with you. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: And thanks to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to all of the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of the episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear from the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. More on today's speakers:    Dr. Vamsi Velcheti   @VamsiVelcheti    Dr. Nathan Pennell   @n8pennell   Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter     ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn   ASCO on BlueSky   Disclosures:   Dr. Vamsi Velcheti:   Honoraria: ITeos Therapeutics   Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Foundation Medicine, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Novartis, Lilly, EMD Serono, GSK, Amgen, Elevation Oncology, Taiho Oncology, Merus   Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech, Trovagene, Eisai, OncoPlex Diagnostics, Alkermes, NantOmics, Genoptix, Altor BioScience, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Atreca, Heat Biologics, Leap Therapeutics, RSIP Vision, GlaxoSmithKline   Dr. Nathan Pennell:     Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron    Research Funding (Inst): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi 

Dr. Vivek Subbiah returns for another edition of Vivek's Takes, offering his expert insights on the standout science from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. He breaks down key developments including trispecific antibodies, the growing role of radioligand therapies, a new standard of care in small cell lung cancer, and paradigm-shifting data in adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer. The discussion also highlights a long-term exercise intervention, adjuvant vaccine studies, ctDNA and MRD integration, resistance mechanisms, artificial intelligence, and other emerging trends shaping the future of oncology. Check out Chadi's website for all Healthcare Unfiltered episodes and other content. www.chadinabhan.com/ Watch all Healthcare Unfiltered episodes on YouTube. www.youtube.com/channel/UCjiJPTpIJdIiukcq0UaMFsA

In this episode, OncLive On Air® partnered with Two Onc Docs to bring discussion of data from the phase 3 SERENA-6 trial (NCT04964934), which were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. SERENA-6 evaluated switching to camizestrant plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor vs continuing with a standard-of-care aromatase inhibitor plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the frontline setting in patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer whose tumors harbor an emergent ESR1 mutation. Drs Armstrong and Tawagi highlighted key efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes from the study. They also noted the clinical implications of these findings, including how they might be currently applicable to clinical practice, as well as limitations of the research that warrant further investigation. 

Dr. Shaalan Beg and Dr. Kristen Ciombor discuss practice-changing studies in GI cancers and other novel treatment approaches that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Transcript Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello, I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg, welcoming you to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm a medical oncologist and an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. There were some remarkable advances in gastrointestinal cancers that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, and I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Kristen Ciombor to discuss some exciting GI data. Dr. Ciombor is the Ingram Associate Professor of Cancer Research and a co-leader of Translational Research and the Interventional Oncology Research Program at the Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Ciombor, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Thanks, Dr Beg. It's great to be here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Alright, let's kick it off. Big year for GI cancers. We'll start off with LBA1. This was the ATOMIC study sponsored by NCI and the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and the Alliance group. This is a randomized study of standard chemotherapy alone or combined with atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy for stage III mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: I think this study was really definitely practice-changing, as you can tell because it was a Plenary. But I do have some concerns in terms of how we're actually going to implement this and whether this is the final answer in this disease subtype. So, as you said, the patients were enrolled with stage III resected mismatch repair deficient colon cancer, and then they were randomized to either modified FOLFOX6 with or without atezolizumab. And that's where it starts to become interesting because not many of us give FOLFOX for 6 months like was done in this study. Obviously, the study was done over many years, so that was part of that answer, but also the patients received atezolizumab for a total of 12 months. So the question, I think, that comes from this abstract is, is this practical and is this the final answer? I do think that this is practice-changing, and I will be talking to my patients with resected mismatch repair deficient colon cancer about FOLFOX plus atezolizumab. I think the big question is, do these patients need chemotherapy? And can we do a neoadjuvant approach instead? And that's where we don't have all the answers yet. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, but it has been great to see immunotherapy make its way into the adjuvant space after having made such a big impact in the metastatic space, but still some unanswered questions in terms of the need for chemotherapy and then the duration of therapy, which I guess we'll have to stay tuned in for the next couple of years to to get a lot of those questions answered. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, but a big congratulations to the study team, to the NCTN, the NCI. I mean, this is really a great example of federally funded research that needs to continue. So, great job by the study team. The DFS 10% difference is really very large and certainly a practice-changing study. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and and sticking with colon cancer, and and this another federally funded study, but this time funded by a Canadian cancer clinical trials group was LBA3510. This is the CHALLENGE study. It's a randomized phase 3 trial of the impact of a structured exercise program on disease-free survival for stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer. This study got a lot of buzz, a lot of mainstream press coverage, and a lot of discussions on what that means for us for the patients who we're going to be seeing next week in our clinic. What was your takeaway? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, this is a really interesting study, and I was so glad to see it presented because this partially answers one of the questions that patients always have for us in clinic, right? You know, once they've completed their standard chemotherapy and surgery, what else can they do to help prevent recurrence? And so we've always known and sort of extrapolated that healthy lifestyle habits are good, but now we have data, particularly in these patients. Most of them were stage III colon cancer patients, those had high-risk stage II cancer. And basically, the goal was to increase their physical activity by at least 10 MET hours per week. So, my big question, of course, as I came into this presentation was, “Okay, what does that mean exactly? How does that translate to real life?” And really what the author presented and explained was that basically most patients could hit their target by adding a 45- to 60-minute brisk walk 3 to 4 times a week. So I think this is very approachable.  Now, in the confines of the study, this was a structured exercise program, so it wasn't just patients doing this on their own. But I do think kind of extrapolating from that, that this is very achievable for most patients. And not only did this prevent recurrence of their prior cancer, but actually the rate of new primary cancer diagnoses, was less, which is really interesting, especially in the breast and prostate cancer. So this was a really interesting, and I think practice-changing study as well, especially given that this is something that most patients can do. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and there was a lot of discussion in the hallways after the presentation in terms of how this really changes our existing practice because most folks already recommend exercise as a way for improving outcomes in cancer patients. So we've already been doing that. Now we have some data on how much it can impact the benefit. But there was some discussion about what the actual degree of impact was. There was a drop-off rate in terms of how long folks were able to stick with this exercise regimen. But you've seen this in clinic when someone have their surgery, they have their chemotherapy, they've been so intimately involved with the oncology world, with the oncology practice, and they somehow feel that they're being let loose into this mean, angry world without any guidance and they're looking for something to do. “What more can I do in terms of my lifestyle?” And then here we have very solid data, as solid as can be for an intervention like exercise, showing that there is an impact and you can give a prescription for exercise when someone wraps up their chemotherapy for colon cancer, thanks to the study. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah. It was a great study. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Moving to gastroesophageal cancer, another late-breaking abstract. This is LBA5. The MATTERHORN trial was a phase 3 trial of durvalumab plus FLOT for resectable GE junction and gastric cancer. And again, another area where immunotherapy has made an impact, and here we're seeing it move closer for earlier-stage disease. What was your take-home for the MATTERHORN trial? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, so this study looked at neoadjuvant perioperative durvalumab plus our current standard chemotherapy of FLOT versus placebo plus FLOT. And this was a large study, almost 1,000 patients were randomized. And the primary endpoint was event-free survival, and it was definitely met in favor of the D + FLOT arm, as Dr. Klempner discussed after Dr Janjigian's presentation. I do think there are still some unanswered questions here. Overall survival is not yet mature, so we do have to wait and see how that shakes out. But it's very interesting and kind of is reflective of what, as you said, we're looking at earlier and earlier lines of therapy, particularly with immunotherapy, in these GI cancer spaces. So it makes a lot of sense to test this and and to look at this. So the toxicity was pretty similar to what we would expect. Primary endpoint was met, but again, we'll have to wait and see what the survival data looks like. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and in oncology, we know, especially for treatment that does add additional cost, it does add additional potential toxicity that we want to see that overall survival nudged. I did see some polls on social media asking folks whether their practices changed from this, and I think the results were favoring adding durvalumab for this group of patients but understanding that there are caveats to the addition of treatments and the eventual FDA approval in that indication as well. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Exactly. I completely agree with that. Dr. Shaalan Beg: All right. How about we stick with gastroesophageal cancer? LBA4002 was trastuzumab deruxtecan versus ramucirumab plus paclitaxel for second-line treatment in HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer or GE junction cancer. This was the DESTINY-Gastric04 study. And again, antibody-drug conjugates making a big impact across different diseases. And here we have more data in the HER2-positive gastric cancer space. Your thoughts on this study? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, so this is a really important space in gastroesophageal cancer because the HER2 positivity rate is fairly high as compared to some of our other tumor types. So, I do think one of the important things was that patients did have biopsy confirmation of HER2 status, which was very important, and then they were randomized to either T-DXd versus the kind of second-line standard of ramucirumab-paclitaxel. So this was a great practical study and really answers a question that we had for a while in terms of does anti-HER2 therapy in the second-line really impact and improve survival. So we did see a statistically significant improvement favoring T-DXd. I do think it's always important to look at toxicity, though, too. And there was about almost 14% rate of interstitial lung disease, which of course is the most feared toxicity from some of these antibody-drug conjugates, especially T-DXd. So I do think it's important to keep that in mind, but this is definitely a great addition to the armamentarium for these HER2-positive patients. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And pancreas cancer was on the stage after a very long time with a positive clinical trial. This is Abstract 4006. These were preliminary results from a phase 2 study of elraglusib in combination with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel alone for previously untreated metastatic pancreas cancer. This is a frontline clinical trial of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel plus/minus the study drug. There were other cohorts in this study as well, but they reported the results of their part 3B arm. And great to see some activity in the pancreas space. And your thoughts? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, we definitely need better treatments in pancreas cancer. This was a very welcome presentation to see. The elraglusib is an inhibitor of GSK-3beta, and it's thought that that mediates drug resistance and EMT. And so this is, I think, a perfect setting to test this drug. So patients basically were randomized. Patients with metastatic pancreas cancer were randomized 2: 1 to gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel plus or minus this elraglusib. So, what we saw was that overall survival was better with the addition of this new drug. And overall, not only the 1-year overall survival, but also median overall survival.  The thing that was interesting, though, was that we saw that the overall survival rates were 9.3 months with the combination versus 7.2 months with just gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. And that's a little bit lower than we've seen in other studies. So, not sure what was going on there. Was it the patients that were a bit sicker? Was it a patient selection, you know, thing? I'm not really sure how to explain that so much. Also, the toxicity profile was much higher in terms of visual impairment, with over 60% of patients being treated with the combination versus 9% with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. So these were mild, grade 1 and 2, but still something to be cautious about. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And especially with this being a phase 2 trial, making sure that in a larger study we're able to better evaluate the toxicity and see if the control arm in the larger confirmatory study performs differently will be really important before this compound makes it to the clinic in our space. But very exciting to see these kinds of results for pancreas adenocarcinoma. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah. Dr. Shaalan Beg: We've talked, it seems, a couple of times on this podcast about the BREAKWATER clinical trial. We did hear PFS and updated OS data, updated overall survival data on first-line encorafenib plus cetuximab plus modified FOLFOX6 for BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer. This was LBA3500. And eagerly anticipated results – we have all previously heard the progression-free survival results – but here we heard updated overall survival results, and very well-received study it seemed from the audience that time. So what are your takeaways on the updated results for BREAKWATER? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: In my opinion, this was one of the most practice-confirming studies. As you mentioned, we've already seen some of the preliminary data of BREAKWATER at prior meetings. But really what was particularly impactful for me was the median overall survival with the BREAKWATER regimen. So, again, patients received FOLFOX, encorafenib cetuximab in the first line if they had BRAF-mutated V600E-mutated colorectal cancer. And the median PFS was 12.8 months, which was actually really remarkable in this traditionally very aggressive, poor prognosis subtype of tumors. So, by seeing a median overall survival of 30.3 months was just incredible, in my opinion. Just a few years ago, that was considered the median overall survival for all comers for metastatic colorectal cancer. And we know the median overall survival was more in the less than 12 months range for BRAF. So this was incredibly impactful, and I think should be absolutely practice-changing for anyone who is eligible for this regimen.  I think again, where the practice meets the study is what's kind of important to think about too, how long did patients get FOLFOX, and certainly it adds toxicity to add a BRAF-targeted regimen on top of FOLFOX already. So, one of the other interesting things about the study, though, was that even though it didn't complete treatment, they actually did look at encorafenib/cetuximab alone and in the first line without chemotherapy. And those preliminary results actually looked okay, especially for patients who might not be able to tolerate chemotherapy, which we certainly see in practice. So, overall, definitely more data. And I agree that it's certainly practice-changing. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And it completely, as you mentioned, changes the outlook for a person who's diagnosed with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer today versus even 7 or 8 years ago. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: And we're seeing this over and over in other subtypes too, but how you choose to treat the patient up front really matters. So really giving the right regimen up front is the key here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And along the same lines, Abstract 3501 wanted to answer the question on whether people with MSI-high metastatic colorectal cancer need double checkpoint inhibitor therapy or is single therapy enough. So this [CheckMate-8HW] study compared nivo plus ipi with nivo alone, nivo monotherapy for MSI-high metastatic colorectal cancer. And we've known that both of these are fairly active regimens, but we also know the chance of immune-related adverse events is significantly higher with combination therapy. So this was a much-needed study for this group of patients. And what were your takeaways here? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: This, of course, has been really nivo-ipi in the first-line MSI-high metastatic colorectal cancer is now a standard of care. And not everybody is eligible for it, and there could be reasons, toxicity reasons, and other things too. But as we've been seeing for the last couple of years, immunotherapy clearly beats chemo in this space. And now looking at doublet versus single immunotherapy treatment in the first line, I think really nivo-ipi does beat out monotherapy. I will say, however, there is a caveat in that we still haven't seen the nivo-ipi versus nivo in the first line. So what has been presented thus far has been across all lines of therapy, and that does muddy the waters a little bit. So definitely looking forward and and we've asked this many times and based on the statistical plan and and what not, you know, we just haven't seen that data yet. But I do think it's becoming increasingly important to consider doublet immunotherapy for these patients as long as there are no contraindications. With the again, with the caveat that we have to have these toxicity discussions in the clinic with patients because many patients can tolerate it, you know, this regimen fairly well, but there can be very severe toxicities. So, I think an informed discussion should really be had with each patient before moving forward. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, informed decision, making them aware of the potential of real significant toxicities, immune-related toxicities with double therapy. But I am curious in your practice, how often do you see people choosing doublet therapy as frontline? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: So patients are really savvy, and a lot of times they've heard this data before or have come across it in patient advocacy groups and other things, and it's really nice to be able to have that conversation of the risk versus benefit. So I will say not all of my patients choose doublet, and many of them are still cured with immunotherapy monotherapy. So the big question there is, will we ever understand who actually needs the doublet versus who can still be cured or have very good long-term outcomes with just the single agent? And that has not been answered yet. Dr. Shaalan Beg: What a great point. So the last abstract I was hoping we could talk about is POD1UM-303 or the INTERAACT2 subgroup analysis and impact of delayed retifanlimab treatment for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. What were your thoughts here? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: This was a study, actually we saw at ESMO, we saw the primary data at ESMO last year, and this was an update with some exploratory analyses. But this was really an important study because once again, we're looking at immunotherapy in later lines of therapy. That's how we started looking at and investigating immunotherapy, and now we're moving it up and up in the treatment course. So this was a study of carboplatin/paclitaxel plus or minus retifanlimab. Actually it was retifanlimab versus placebo. And it was a positive study, as we heard last year. This actually led to FDA approval of this regimen last month, just before ASCO, and it has now been incorporated in the NCCN guidelines as the preferred first-line option.  So what I thought was important from the additional data presented at ASCO was looking at the different subgroups, it did not appear that patients with liver mets or not had different outcomes. So that was really good to see because sometimes in colon cancer we see that immunotherapy doesn't work as well when patients have liver mets. And interestingly, because we use immunotherapy in anal cancer without any biomarkers, unlike with colon cancer or some of the other tumor types, also the authors looked at PD-L1 status, and it did look like maybe patients did a little bit better if they had higher PD-L1 expression, but patients still could benefit even if they were PD-L1 negative. So that was important, I think, and we will continue to see further data come out from this study. I want to mention also that EA2176 just completed accrual, so that was carbo-taxol plus or minus nivolumab. And so we should be seeing that data sometime soon, which will hopefully also confirm the ongoing role for immunotherapy in the first-line setting for anal cancer. Dr. Shaalan Beg: That was a fantastic review. Thank you, Dr Ciombor. Thanks for sharing your valuable insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Thanks for having me here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And if you value the insights that you hear on the podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe, wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. More on today's speakers:   Dr. Shaalan Beg  @ShaalanBeg  Dr. Kristen Ciombor @KristenCiombor Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter   @ASCO on BlueSky  ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures:   Dr. Shaalan Beg:   Consulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Cancer Commons, Foundation Medicine, Science37, Nant Health, Lindus Health Speakers' Bureau: Sirtex Research Funding (Inst.): Delfi Diagnostics, Universal Diagnostics, Freenome Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Incyte, Exelixis, Bayer, ALX Oncology, Tempus, Agenus, Taiho Oncology, Merck, BeiGene Research Funding (Inst.): Pfizer, Boston Biomedical, MedImmune, Onyx, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Incyte, Amgen, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, Incyte, Daiichi Sankyo, Nucana, Abbvie, Merck, Pfizer/Calthera, Genentech, Seagen, Syndax Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Incyte, Tempus

This week's episode will be focusing on one of the 2025 plenary sessions: SERENA-6, Camizestrant, a novel selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) + CDK 4/6i for tx of emergent ESR1 during 1L endocrine-based therapy + ahead of progression in stage 4 HR+/Her-2 negative breast cancer.We discuss the trial design, endpoints, results, safety concerns, and how it fits into current practice.

Dr. Allison Zibelli and Dr. Rebecca Shatsky discuss advances in breast cancer research that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including a potential new standard of care for HER2+ breast cancer, the future of ER+ breast cancer management, and innovations in triple negative breast cancer therapy. Transcript Dr. Allison Zibelli: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Allison Zibelli, your guest host of the podcast today. I'm an associate professor of medicine and a breast medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Jefferson Health. There was a substantial amount of exciting breast cancer data presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, and I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Rebecca Shatsky today to discuss some of these key advancements. Dr. Shatsky is an associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego and the head of breast medical oncology at the UC San Diego Health Moores Cancer Center, where she also serves as the director of the Breast Cancer Clinical Trials Program and the Inflammatory and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Program.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Shatsky, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Thanks, Dr. Zibelli. It's wonderful to be here. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, we're starting with DESTINY-Breast09, which was trastuzumab deruxtecan and pertuzumab versus our more standard regimen of taxane, trastuzumab pertuzumab for first-line treatment of metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. Could you tell us a little bit about the study? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, absolutely. So, this was a long-awaited study. When T-DXd, or trastuzumab deruxtecan, really hit the market, a lot of these DESTINY-Breast trials were started around the same time. Now, this was a global, randomized, phase 3 study presented by Dr. Sara Tolaney from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute of Harvard in Boston. It was assessing essentially T-DXd in the first-line setting for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer in addition to pertuzumab. And that was randomized against our standard-of-care regimen, which was established over a decade ago by the CLEOPATRA trial, and we've all been using that internationally for at least the past 10 years. So, this was a large trial, and it was one-to-one-to-one of patients getting T-DXd plus pertuzumab, T-DXd alone, or THP, which mostly is used as docetaxel and trastuzumab and pertuzumab every three weeks for six cycles. And this was in over 1,000 patients; it was 1,159 patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. This was a very interesting trial. It was looking at the use of trastuzumab deruxtecan, but patients were started on this treatment for their first-line metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer with no end date to their T-DXd. So, it was, you know, you were started on T-DXd every 3 weeks until progression. Now, CLEOPATRA is a little bit different than that, though, as we know. So, CLEOPATRA has a taxane plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab. But generally, patients drop the taxane after about six to seven cycles because, as we know, you can't be really on a taxane indefinitely. You get pretty substantial neuropathy as well as cytopenias, other things that end up happening. And so, in general, that regimen has sort of a limited time course for its chemotherapy portion, and the patients maintained after the taxane is dropped on their trastuzumab and their pertuzumab, plus or minus endocrine therapy if the investigator so desires. And the primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival by blinded, independent central review (BICR) in the intent-to-treat population. And then it had its other endpoints as overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, objective response rates, and duration of response, and of course, safety. As far as the results of this trial, so, I think that most of us key opinion leaders in breast oncology were expecting that this was going to be a positive trial. And it surely was. I mean, this is a really, really active drug, especially in HER2-positive disease, of course. So, the DESTINY-Breast03 data really established that, that this is a very effective treatment in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. And this trial really, again, showed that. So, there were 383 patients that ended up on the trastuzumab plus deruxtecan plus pertuzumab arm, and 387 got THP, the CLEOPATRA regimen. What was really interesting also to note of this before I go on to the results was that 52% of patients on this trial had de novo metastatic disease. And that's pretty unusual for any kind of metastatic breast cancer trial. It kind of shows you, though, just how aggressive this disease is, that a lot of patients, they present with de novo metastatic disease. It's also reflecting the global nature of this trial where maybe the screening efforts are a little bit less than maybe in the United States, and more patients are presenting as later stage because to have a metastatic breast cancer trial in the United States with 52% de novo metastatic disease doesn't usually happen. But regardless, the disease characteristics were pretty well matched between the two groups. 54% of the patients were triple positive, or you could say hormone-positive because whether they were PR positive or ER positive and PR negative doesn't really matter in this disease. And so, the interim data cutoff was February of this year, of 2025. So, the follow-up so far has been about 29 months, so the data is still really immature, only 38% mature for progression-free survival interim analysis. But what we saw is that T-DXd plus pertuzumab, it really improved progression-free survival. It had a hazard ratio that was pretty phenomenal at 0.56 with a confidence interval that was pretty narrow of 0.44 to 0.71. So, very highly statistically significant data here. The progression-free survival was consistent across all subgroups. Overall survival, very much immature at this time, but of course, the trend is towards an overall survival benefit for the T-DXd group. The median durable response with T-DXd plus pertuzumab exceeded 3 years. Now, importantly, though, I want to stress this, is grade 3 or above treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in both subgroups pretty equally. But there were 2 deaths in the T-DXd group due to interstitial lung disease. And there was a 12.1% adjudicated drug-induced interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis event rate in the T-DXd group and only 1%, and it was grade 1-2, in the THP group. So, that's really the caveat of this therapy, is we know that a percentage of patients are going to get interstitial lung disease, and that some may have very serious adverse events from it. So, that's always something I keep in the back of my mind when I treat patients with T-DXd. And so, overall, the conclusions of the trial were pretty much a slam dunk. T-DXd plus pertuzumab, it had a highly statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus the CLEOPATRA regimen. And that was across all subgroups for first-line metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer here. And so, yeah, the data was pretty impressive. Just to go into the overall response rate, because that's always super important as well, you had 85.1% of patients having a confirmed overall RECIST response rate in the T-DXd plus pertuzumab group and a 78.6 in the CLEOPATRA group. The complete CR rate, complete response was 15.1% in the T-DXd group and 8.5 in the CLEOPATRA regimen. And it was really an effective regimen in this group, of course. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, the investigators say at the end of their abstract that this is the new standard of care. Would you agree with that statement? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, that was a bold statement to make because I would say in the United States, not necessarily at the moment because the quality of life here, you have to think really hard about. Because one thing that's really important about the DESTINY-Breast09 data is that this was very much an international trial, and in many of the countries where patients enrolled on this, they were not able to access T-DXd off trial. And so, for them, this means T-DXd now or potentially never. And so, that is a really big difference whereas internationally, that may mean standard of care. However, in the US, patients have no issues accessing T-DXd in the second- or third-line settings. And right now, it's the standard of care in the second line in the United States, with all patients basically getting this second-line therapy except for some unique patients where they may be doing a PATINA trial regimen, which we saw at San Antonio Breast Cancer in 2024 of the triple-positive patients getting hormonal therapy plus palbociclib, which had a really great durable response. That was super impressive as well. Or there is the patient that the investigator can pick KADCYLA because the patient really wants to preserve their hair or maybe it's more indolent disease. But the quality of life on T-DXd indefinitely in the first-line setting is a big deal because, again, that CLEOPATRA regimen allows patients to drop their chemotherapy component about five to six months in. And with this, you're on a drug that feels very chemo-heavy indefinitely. And so, I think there's a lot more to investigate as far as what we're going to do with this data in the United States because it's a lot to commit a patient in the first-line metastatic setting. These de novo metastatic patients, some of them may be cured, honestly, on the HER2-targeting regimen. That's something we see these days. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, very interesting trial. I'm sure we'll be talking about this for a long time.  So, let's move on to SERENA-6, which was, I thought, a very interesting trial. This trial took patients with ER positive, advanced breast cancer after six months on an AI (aromatase inhibitor) and a CDK4/6 inhibitor. They did ctDNA every two to three months, and when they saw an ESR1 mutation emerge, they changed half of the patients to camizestrant plus CDK4/6 and kept the other half on the AI plus CDK4/6. Can you talk about that trial a little bit, please? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, so this was a big trial at ASCO25. This was presented as a Plenary Session. So, this was camizestrant plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and it could have been any of the three, so palbo, ribo, or abemaciclib in the first-line metastatic hormone-positive population, and patients were on an AI with that. They were, interestingly, tested by ctDNA at baseline to see if they had an ESR1 mutation. So, that was an interesting feature of this trial. But patients had to have already been on their CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI for at least 6 months to enroll. And then, as you mentioned, they got ctDNA testing every 2 to 3 months. This was also a phase 3, double-blind, international trial. And I do want to highlight again, international here, because that's important when we're considering some of this data in the U.S. because it influences some of the results. So, this was presented by Dr. Nick Turner of the Royal Marsden in the UK. So, just a little bit of background for our listeners on ESR1 mutations and why they're important. This is the most common, basically, acquired resistance mutation to patients being treated with aromatase inhibitors. We know that treatment with aromatase inhibitors can induce this. It makes a conformational change in the estrogen receptor that makes the estrogen receptor constitutively active, which allows the cell to signal despite the influence of the aromatase inhibitor to decrease the estrogen production so that the ligand binding doesn't matter as much as far as the cell signaling and transcription is concerned. And camizestrant, you know, as an oral SERD, just to explain that a little bit too; these are estrogen receptor degraders. The first-in-class of a selective estrogen receptor degrader to make it to market was fulvestrant. And that's really been our standard-of-care estrogen degrader for the past 25 years, almost 25 years. And so, a lot of us are just looking for some of these oral SERDs to replace that. But regardless, they do tend to work in the ESR1-mutated population. And we know that patients on aromatase inhibitors, the estimates of patients developing an ESR1 mutation, depending on which study you look at, somewhere between 30% to 50% overall, patients will develop this mutation with hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer. There is a small percentage of patients that have these at baseline without even treatment of an aromatase inhibitor. The estimates of that are somewhere between 0.5 and up to 5%, depending on the trial you look at and the population. But regardless, there is a chance someone on their CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI at 6 months' time course could have had an ESR1 mutation at that time. But anyway, so they got this ctDNA every 2 to 3 months, and once they were found to develop an ESR1 mutation, the patients were then switched to the oral SERD. AstraZeneca's version of the oral SERD is camizestrant, 75 mg daily. And then their type of CDK4/6 inhibitor was maintained, so they didn't switch the brand of their CDK4/6 inhibitor, importantly. And that was looked at then for progression-free survival, but these were patients with measurable disease by RECIST version 1.1. And the data cut off here was November of 2024. This was a big trial, you know, and I think that that's influential here because this was 3,256 patients, and that's a lot of patients. So, they were all eligible. And then 315 patients ended up being randomized to switch to camizestrant upon presence of that ESR1 mutation. So, that was 157 patients. And then the other half, so they were randomized 1:1, they continued on their AI without switching to an oral SERD. That was 158 patients. They were matched pretty well. And so, their baseline characteristics, you know, the two subgroups was good. But this was highly statistically significant data. I'm not going to diminish that in any way. Your hazard ratio was 0.44. Highly statistically significant confidence intervals. And you had a median progression-free survival in those that switched to camizestrant of 16 months, and then the non-switchers was 9.2 months. So, the progression-free survival benefit there was also consistent across the subgroups. And so, you had at 12 months, the PFS rate was 60.7% for the non-treatment group and 33.4% in the treatment group. What's interesting, though, is we don't have overall survival data. This is really immature, only 12% mature as far as overall survival. And again, because this was an international trial and patients in other countries right now do not have the access to oral SERDs that the United States does, the crossover rate, they were not allowed to crossover, and so, a very few patients, when we look at progression-free survival 2 and ultimately overall survival, were able to access an oral SERD in the off-trial here and in the non-treatment group. And so, that's really important as far as we look at these results. Adverse events were pretty minimal. These are very safe drugs, camizestrant and all the other oral SERDs. They have some mild toxicities. Camizestrant is known for something weird, which is called photopsia, which is some flashing lights in the periphery of the eye, but it doesn't seem to have any serious clinical significance that we know of. It has a little bit of bradycardia, but it's otherwise really well tolerated. You know, I hate to say that because that's very subjective, right? I'm not the one taking the drug. But it doesn't have any serious adverse events that would cause discontinuation. And that's really what we saw in the trial. The discontinuation rates were really low. But overall, I mean, this was a positive trial. SERENA-6 showed that switching to camizestrant at the first sign of an ESR1 mutation on CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI improved progression-free survival. That's all we can really say from it right now. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, let's move on to ASCENT-04, which was a bit more straightforward. Sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab in PD-L1-positive, triple-negative breast cancer. Could you talk about that study? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, so this was also presented by the lovely Sara Tolaney from Dana-Farber. And this study made me really excited. And maybe that's because I'm a triple-negative breast cancer person. I mean, not to say that I don't treat hundreds of patients with hormone- positive, but our unmet needs in triple negative are huge because this is a disease where you have got to throw your best available therapy at it as soon as you can to improve survival because survival is so poor in this disease. The average survival with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in the United States is still 13-18 months, and that's terrible. And so, for full disclosure, I did have this trial open at my site. I was one of the site PIs. I'm not the global PI of the study, obviously. So, what this study was was for patients who had had at least a progression-free survival of 6 months after their curative intent therapy or de novo metastatic disease. They were PD-L1 positive as assessed by the Dako 22C3 assay of greater than or equal to a CPS score of 10. So, that's what the KEYNOTE-355 trial was based on as well. So, standard definition of PD-L1 positive in breast cancer here. And basically, these patients were randomized 1:1 to either their sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab, day 1 they got both therapies, and then day 8 just the saci, as is standard for sacituzumab. And then the other group got the KEYNOTE-355 regimen. So, that is pembrolizumab with – your options are carbogem there, paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel. And it's up to investigator's decision which upon those they decided. They followed these patients for disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. It was really an impressive trial in my opinion because we know already that this didn't just improve progression-free survival, because survival is so poor in this disease, of course, we know that it improved overall survival. It's trending towards that very much, and I think that's going to be shown immediately. And then the objective response rates were better, which is key in this disease because in the first-line setting, you've got a lot of people who, especially your relapsed TNBC that don't respond to anything. And you lose a ton of patients even in the first-line setting in this disease. And so, this was 222 patients to chemotherapy and pembro and 221 to sacituzumab plus pembro. Median follow-up has only been 14 months, so it's still super early here. Hazard ratio so far of progression-free survival is 0.65, highly statistically significant, narrow confidence intervals. And so, the median duration of response here for the saci group was 16.5 months versus 9.2 months. So, you're getting a 7-month progression-free survival benefit here, which in triple negative is pretty fantastic. I mean, this reminds me of when we saw the ASCENT data originally come out for sacituzumab, and we were all just so happy that we had this tool now that doubled progression-free and overall survival and made such a difference in this really horrible disease where patients do poorly. So, OS is technically immature here, but it's really trending very heavily towards improvement in overall survival. Importantly, the treatment-related adverse events in this, I mean, we know sacituzumab causes neutropenia, people who are experienced with this drug know how to manage it at this point. There wasn't any really unexpected treatment-related adverse events. You get some people with sacituzumab who have diarrhea. It's usually pretty manageable with some Imodium. So, it was cytopenias predominantly in this disease in this population that were highlighted as far as adverse events. But I'm going to be honest, like I was surprised that this wasn't the plenary over the SERENA-6 data because this, in my mind, there we have a practice-changing trial. I will immediately be trying to use this in my PD-L1 population because, to be honest, as a triple-negative breast cancer clinical specialist, when I get a patient with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who's PD-L1 positive, I think, "Oh, thank God," because we know that part of the disease just does better in general. But now I have something that really could give them a durable response for much longer than I ever thought possible when I started really heavily treating this disease. And so, this was immediately practice-changing for me. Dr. Allison Zibelli: I think that it's pretty clear that this is at least an option, if not the option, for this group of patients. Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, the duration of responses here was – it's just really important because, I mean, I do think this will make people live longer. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, moving on to the final study that we're going to discuss today, neoCARHP (LBA500), which was neoadjuvant taxane plus trastuzumab, pertuzumab, plus or minus carbo(platin) in HER2-positive early breast cancer. I think this is a study a lot of us have been waiting for. What was the design and the results of this trial? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: I was really excited about this as well because I'm one of those people that was waiting for this. This is a Chinese trial, so that is something to take note of. It wasn't an international trial, but it was a de-escalation trial which had become really popular in HER2-positive therapy because we know that we're overtreating HER2-positive breast cancer in a lot of patients. A lot of patients we're throwing the kitchen sink at it when maybe that is not necessary, and we can really de-escalate and try to personalize therapy a little bit better because these patients tend to do well. So, the standard of care, of course, in HER2-positive curative intent breast cancer with tumors that are greater than 2 cm is to give them the TCHP regimen, which is docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab. And that was sort of established by several trials in the NeoSphere trial, and now it's been repeated in a lot of different studies as well. And so, that's really the standard of care that most people in the United States use for HER2-positive curative intent breast cancer. This was a trial to de-escalate the carboplatin, which I was super excited about because many of us who treat this disease a lot think carbo is the least important part of the therapy you're giving there. We don't really know that it's necessary. We've just been doing it for a long time, and we know that it adds a significant amount of toxicity. It causes thrombocytopenia, it causes severe nausea, really bad cytopenias that can be difficult in the last few cycles of this to manage. So, this trial was created. It randomized patients one to one with stage 2 and 3 HER2-positive breast cancer to either get THP, a taxane, pertuzumab, trastuzumab, similar to the what we do in first-line metastatic HER2-positive versus the whole TCHP with a carboplatin AUC of 6, which is what's pretty standard. And it was a non-inferiority trial, so important there. It wasn't to establish superiority of this regimen, which none of us, I think, were looking for it to. And it was a modified intent-to-treat population. And so, all patients got at least one cycle of this to be assessed as a standard for an intent-to-treat trial. And so, they assumed a pCR rate of about 62.8% for both groups. And, of course, it included both HER2-positive triple positives and ER negatives, which are, you know, a bit different diseases, to be honest, but we all kind of categorize them and treat them the same. And so, this trial was powered appropriately to detect a non-inferiority difference. And so, we had about 380 patients treated on both arms, and there was an absolute difference of only 1.8% of those treated with carbo versus those without. Which was fantastic because you really realized that de-escalation here may be something we can really do. And so, the patients who got, of course, the taxane regimen had fewer adverse events. They had way fewer grade 3 and 4 adverse events than the THP group. No treatment-associated deaths occur, which is pretty standard for- this is a pretty safe regimen, but it causes a lot of hospitalizations due to diarrhea, due to cytopenias, and neutropenic fever, of course. And so, I thought that this was something that I could potentially enact, you know, and be practice-changing. It's hard to say that when it's a trial that was only done in China, so it's not necessarily the United States population always. But I think for patients moving forward, especially those with, say, a 2.5 cm tumor, you know, node negative, those, I'd feel pretty comfortable not giving them the carboplatin here. Notes that I want to make about this population is that the majority were stage 2 and not stage 3. They weren't necessarily your inflammatory HER2-positive breast cancer patients. And that the taxane that was utilized in the trial is a little different than what we use in the United States. The patients were allowed to get nab-paclitaxel, which we don't have FDA approval for in the first-line curative intent setting for HER2-positive breast cancer in the United States. So, a lot of them got abraxane, and then they also got paclitaxel. We tend to use docetaxel every 3 weeks in the United States. So, just to point out that difference. We don't really know if that's important or not, but it's just a little bit different to the population we standardly treat. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, are there patients that you would still give TCHP to? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, great question. I've been asked that a lot in the past like week since ASCO. I'd say in my inflammatory breast cancer patients, that's a group I do tend to sometimes throw the kitchen sink at. Now, I don't actually use AC in those because I know that that was the concern, but I think the TRAIN-2 trial really showed us you don't need to use Adriamycin in HER2-positive disease unless it's like refractory. So, I don't know that I would throw this on my stage 3C or inflammatory breast cancer patients yet because the majority of this were not stage 3. So, in your really highly lymph node positive patients, I'm a little bit hesitant to de-escalate them from the start. This is more of a like, if there's serious toxicity concerns, dropping carbo is absolutely fine here. Dr. Allison Zibelli: All right, great.  Thank you, Dr. Shatsky, for sharing your valuable insights with us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Thanks so much, Dr. Zibelli and ASCO Daily News. I really want to thank you for inviting me to talk about this today. It was really fun, and I hope you find my opinions on some of this valuable. And so, I just want to thank everybody and my listeners as well. Dr. Allison Zibelli: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find the links to all the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you like this podcast and you learn things from it, please take a moment to rate, review, and describe because it helps other people find us wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you again. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. More on today's speakers Dr. Allison Zibelli Dr. Rebecca Shatsky @Dr_RShatsky Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  @ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures: Dr. Allison Zibelli: No relationships to disclose Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Consulting or Advisory Role: Stemline, Astra Zeneca, Endeavor BioMedicines, Lilly, Novartis, TEMPUS, Guardant Health, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Pfizer Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Greenwich LifeSciences, Briacell, Gilead, OnKure, QuantumLeap Health, Stemline Therapeutics, Regor Therapeutics, Greenwich LifeSciences, Alterome Therapeutics  

Immune-related adverse events (AEs) are becoming more frequent in oncology patients receiving immunotherapy. To better understand emerging trends and education needs, the Association of Cancer Care Centers (ACCC) developed the Immuno-Oncology Census as part of its ongoing commitment to sharing up-to-date strategies for managing adverse events. In this episode, CANCER BUZZ speaks with Bat-ami Gordon, clinical research PhD candidate at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, who discusses best practices for cancer care providers to identify immune-related AEs caused by immunotherapy.   “Understanding the best practices for identification is going to be the best way we can start to implement better treatments for these immune-related adverse events.” – Bat-ami Gordon   Bat-ami Gordon Clinical Research PhD Candidate  Icahn School of Medicine Mount Sinai New York, NY      Additional Reading/Sources   Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai ACCC Immune-Related Adverse Events Resources Clinical Characteristics and Treatment of Immune-Related Adverse Events of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ACCC Immuno-Oncology Census

Welcome to the Oncology Brothers podcast! In this episode, Drs. Rahul and Rohit Gosain are joined by Dr. Erika Hamilton from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute to discuss the latest breakthroughs in breast cancer presented at the ASCO 2025 annual meeting. We dived into five key abstracts that could change the landscape of breast cancer treatment: 1.⁠ INAVO120: observed overall survival data with the combination of inavolisib, with palbociclib and fulvestrant for patients with PIK3CA mutated hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. 2.⁠ ⁠SERENA-6: camizestrant use in patients with emerging ESR1 mutations using ctDNA, showed significant improvement in progression-free survival. 3.⁠ ⁠VERITAC-2: vepdegestrant showed superior progression-free survival compared to fulvestrant, particularly in ESR1 mutated patients. 4.⁠ ⁠DESTINY-Breast09: significant improvement in progression-free survival with TDXd plus pertuzumab in frontline HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, challenging the traditional CLEOPATRA regimen THP. 5.⁠ ⁠ASCENT-04: promising results of sacituzumab combined with pembrolizumab in PD-L1 positive triple-negative breast cancer. Join us for an insightful discussion on these practice changing/informing studies and their implications for clinical practice.  YouTube: https://youtu.be/5XvrOn2p0jc Follow us on social media: •⁠  ⁠X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers •⁠  ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers •⁠  Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ Don't forget to like, subscribe, and check out our other episodes for more updates on treatment algorithms, recent approvals, and conference highlights!