Podcasts about Asco

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

周術期EV+PembroのKEYNOTE-B15試験をはじめとして、大きな話題が多かった今年のASCOGU。結果の解釈から今後の臨床への影響まで語り尽くします。

In this episode of the Oncology Brothers podcast, we welcomed Dr. Petros Grivas, medical oncologist from the Fred Hutch Cancer Center, who walked through practice-changing and practice-reinforcing data across bladder cancer, kidney cancer, and prostate cancer. Listen us on: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/31BXhY9FM4gPWG10WgE11o Follow us on social media: X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ Key topics discussed included: CREST & POTOMAC: IO-BCG combination data in high-risk BCG-naive NMIBC, both demonstrating a hazard ratio of 0.68 for DFS / EFS. EV-304/KEYNOTE-B15: established EV-Pembrolizumab as the new perioperative standard of care for resectable muscle-invasive bladder cancer regardless of cisplatin eligibility, with a pathological complete response rate of 56% and overall survival hazard ratio of 0.65. LITESPARK-022 & LITESPARK-011: data exploring Belzutifan combinations in adjuvant and refractory RCC settings, while managing key toxicities of anemia and hypoxia. CAPITELLO-281: evaluating capivasertib in PTEN-deficient metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, where patient related outcomes were reported.  Join us for this comprehensive discussion covering the latest GU oncology advances that will directly impact your clinical practice. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and check out our other episodes for more insights on oncology! #GUASCO2026, #BladderCancer, #RenalCellCarcinoma, #ProstateCancer, #OncBrothers

Hoy hablamos de esas comidas que a ti te encantan, pero cuando alguien más las ve o las huele… pone cara de asco. Desde combinaciones raras hasta platos que dividen opiniones, abrimos el debate sobre esos gustos culinarios que para unos son deliciosos y para otros simplemente incomibles. ¿Cuál es esa comida que amas pero siempre te critican cuando la pides?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Racistas y quemados en este episodio poselectoral de Radio Macondo, vicepresidencia y además hablamos un poco de la chumbimbiza internacional, gracias a todos por escucharnos y compartir .

Dr. Timothy Gilligan and Dr. Calvin Chou discuss the updated guideline on patient-clinician communication in oncology. They highlight clinical recommendations and strategies on topics such as communication skills and practices that apply at every visit, principles for telehealth interactions, cross-disciplinary communication, facilitating involvement of the patient's support network, discussing prognosis, goals of care, treatment selection – including clinical trials, end-of-life discussions, overcoming barriers to communication, facilitating discussions of cost of care and financial toxicity, mitigating stigma, and setting boundaries with patients. Dr. Gilligan and Dr. Chou also share how clinicians can enhance their communication skills through skills practice opportunities and experiential learning. They discuss how fundamental communication is to optimal patient care and look to the future on how generative AI may impact healthcare communication. Read the full guideline, "Patient-Clinician Communication: ASCO Guideline Update"  TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools and resources are available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-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-26-00118       Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I am interviewing Dr. Timothy Gilligan from Taussig Cancer Institute and the Center for Excellence in Healthcare Communication at Cleveland Clinic, and Dr. Calvin Chou from the University of California and Veterans Affairs Health Care System in San Francisco, co-chairs on "Patient-Clinician Communication: ASCO Guideline Update." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Gilligan and Dr. Chou. Dr. Timothy Gilligan: Thank you for having us. Dr. Calvin Chou: Delighted to be here. Brittany Harvey: And then just before we discuss this guideline, I would like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Gilligan and Dr. Chou who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then I would like to dive into what we are here really today to talk about. So Dr. Gilligan, this guideline updates the patient-clinician communication guideline that was first published in 2017. What prompted this update and what is the scope of this updated guideline? Dr. Timothy Gilligan: So I think with the first guideline, that was the first draft of it that we published five or six, seven years ago, really we were focused on getting the content right, what was the state of the knowledge at that time, and I was very happy with what came out of that. But when I looked back on it, I thought there were ways we could make it more accessible and more practical. Because what we really would like would be for people to apply what we know and then communicate more effectively with patients and colleagues. And one of the reasons I was really excited on the membership of the panel we had this time was I thought they were very well selected to help us do that, is to really think about what are practical guidelines, practical steps we can tell people to take that will improve their own experience and the experience of patients and the quality of care. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely, thinking about operationalizing that guideline really improves the dissemination and the uptake of these recommendations. So then, Dr. Chou, I would like to review the key recommendations and strategies across the clinical questions that the guideline addressed. I realize today with our limited time we may not be able to go through every recommendation and strategy, so we will start with some of the highlights. First, let's address the highlights of the process of communication with patients and their support networks. This includes the questions that address what communication skills and practices apply at every visit across the continuum of care, principles for telehealth interactions, cross-disciplinary communication, and facilitating involvement of the patient's support network. In your view, what are the most important recommendations across these clinical questions? Dr. Calvin Chou: I think the thing that all clinicians know in their bones that they want to be able to do effectively with patients is to communicate information clearly, as well as to communicate in a way that really deepens the relationship, demonstrates empathy, and also demonstrates understanding bilaterally between the various parties. So the communication guidelines that we established in this group, they are fundamental to communication in all conversations throughout healthcare. And the first guideline talks about how clinicians and their team can communicate effectively with the patient and the patient's support network. And those include things like preparing ahead of time; getting a list of the topics that are important to the patient support network so that we can consider them in the visit; making certain that we are hearing what the patients' and the patients' support networks are saying very, very closely; responding to those empathically; and being able to have conversations about care throughout the visit that demonstrate respect and deepen the trust; and then finally, to have some kind of bidirectional understanding, usually through teach-back, that allow both sides to know that communication has occurred as opposed to just been downloaded. The guidelines also talk about applying these same communication skills throughout telehealth communication - that is both in terms of synchronous communication, audio or video, as well as asynchronous communication, i.e., through secure messaging. We also talk about how we can use these same communication skills to communicate effectively with members of our own team. Interprofessional communication is an important part of all the work that we do, and how we can use these very, very same skills in communication with colleagues, with nursing staff, with social workers, and other allied health professionals. These are all very, very important, crucial members of our healthcare team in the delivery of care to our patients. And that is something that we really need to emphasize throughout to try to bring the best of communication in every conversation that we have. Dr. Timothy Gilligan: I totally agree with that. Those are really important points. When I was looking over it in preparation for this podcast, it struck me that we have a lot of recommendations and a lot of small things that we can do either well or not well. And it reminded me of a quotation from a famous chef, Marco Pierre White, who said that perfection is a lot of little things done well. This guideline has a lot of little things that if you do them well, you get better outcomes. And I think the chef's point was that if you want a really delicious dish, you have to pay attention to all those little details. And I think if people go through the guidelines carefully and apply the skills that are along the lines of what Dr. Chou was talking about, we get better results. And those results are really important results. It is not only patient satisfaction, which is really important, but it is also quality of care and outcomes for patients. It is better medical care. It is a better day for us, we have a better day if we have better conversations. Poor communication creates endless headaches for everybody. What I see in the guidelines is it is a lot of little best practices and it requires discipline to learn those. The good news is none of them I don't think are all that hard. The bad news is doing it consistently well every day requires discipline and practice. And what I would hope for these guidelines is that people will read them carefully and think about what they can do to apply what we know more consistently. And I think the interprofessional communication piece, that was something we added this year, is really critical. Medicine has a bad history of really disrespectful behavior. It was almost normalized that different specialties would make fun of each other, that different professions would talk disrespectfully of each other. And we know now that uncivil behavior results in more healthcare errors. And it is not only bad for our teams and our culture, but it is bad for our patients if we are not communicating well with each other. So I thought it was really critical that we added that piece to the update. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Those fundamental principles that Dr. Chou outlined are really key across every healthcare interaction, including those interdisciplinary interactions. And as you alluded to, Dr. Gilligan, I think it will really serve clinicians well to review the details and go through every table to read the recommendations and each individual strategy to help them improve their communication in day-to-day interactions. Moving to some of those day-to-day clinical communication scenarios, Dr. Gilligan, I'd like to think through some of those key points. So what is recommended for discussion of prognosis, goals of care, treatment selection, including discussion of clinical trials, and end-of-life discussions? Dr. Timothy Gilligan: So my perspective is that there is a broad theme of flattening the hierarchy that runs through these recommendations and this part of the guideline - that the sections that Dr. Chou just talked about really have a lot to do with the details. What does good communication look like? What are best practices that we can adopt? And I think these other sections are a little bit more, they also have a lot of specific guidelines, but there is a philosophical point that we do better when we talk to the patient at their own level. And we sometimes fail to do that. I remember from about 10 years ago I was in a room with a patient and one of the other doctors said to the patient, "We're going to bronch you tomorrow." And I was trying to think, like, what do they think the patient hears when we use language like that? Like they don't understand what the word means. We are just expecting them to step up to our level. We are not accommodating them, and I think that really interferes with our ability to form effective relationships with patients and communicate clearly. So if we are going to talk about prognosis, goals of care, treatment selection, clinical trials, end of life, the first step for me is that we have to get down to the patient's level, which means listening. We have to ask them what they know, we have to get their perspective. We have to understand what their health literacy level is so that we can have a conversation that takes into account the patient's perspective. And we need to be humble and remember that the patient often has information that we do not have yet unless we ask them and listen to what they say. That is going to change what we think is the best plan of care. And so shared decision-making is really a critical piece of that. One of my favorite trainers who I follow online says, "I make suggestions, you make decisions." And I like to bring that attitude into the room when I talk to patients. It is their life, it is their body, it is their health, it is their decision. It is not my decision. I don't get to tell them what to do. I want to make sure that they make a decision that is based on the best available evidence, but also a decision that is based on who they are and what their values are. And we try to give pointers to how we can have these conversations in a way that is really fully respectful of the patient's autonomy and the importance of the patient's expertise in their own body, their own lived experience. Because there is a risk that we come in with our white coat and we overpower them with our authority, our medical authority, our medical knowledge, and no one likes to be overpowered. And I think we all have a better day if we go in and have a conversation as human beings with each other. Dr. Calvin Chou: I want to underscore this point of having the patient and their support network make the ultimate decisions. Reviewing the evidence from more general literature, it is clear that across demographics that only 10% of patients want us to make decisions for them. 90% of patients want to have at least some say, if not full say, in the decisions that they make, and this is true across age, across gender, educational status, socioeconomic status, veteran status. This is a very, very important point. I think oftentimes we go in thinking we know what's going to happen and we need to make them do that. Thinking about this as a conversation as opposed to a download is an important point. Dr. Timothy Gilligan: And one thing that I think that the guidelines are relevant for here, which is I think one way to achieve honoring the patient autonomy, is to really make a commitment to having a good process, to not be committed to an outcome. So that when we start the conversation, we're not going to say it's a good conversation based on whether it ends up where I wanted it to end up. It's a good conversation based on whether we have a good process, a fair process. And the steps of good communication that are outlined in this guideline help us to establish a good process. And I think if we have a good process, we can trust it will take us to the appropriate outcome, which may be different than the outcome we thought was going to be the appropriate outcome when we started the conversation. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. I think, as you mentioned, tailoring discussions to each individual patient and situation is really critical. And I think in every other podcast episode across guidelines we've really emphasized the importance of shared decision-making. And so talking through the process of it in this guideline will really have impacts across all of ASCO's guidelines. Moving on to the next section of the guideline, this guideline also addresses barriers in the communication process. So Dr. Gilligan, what highlights are there for overcoming barriers to communication, facilitating discussions of cost of care and financial toxicity, mitigating stigma, and setting boundaries with patients? Dr. Timothy Gilligan: Yeah, it's interesting. I want to hear Dr. Chou's perspective on this too. I thought that the communication skills are really important for these conversations, but less powerful or less effective, potentially. For instance, barriers to communication, the big one that comes to mind is language differences. If the patient and the clinician do not share the same language, that results in less good care unfortunately. It results in less good communication. Having skilled translators or interpreters there is essential, and using them with skill is essential, but it does not get us to equality. I mean the best thing for a patient is to have a clinician who speaks their language. Unfortunately, that's not possible. So the second best thing we can do is to have good interpreters or translators to help us work. And then for us to use those people effectively, because oftentimes we cut corners when working with interpreters and shortchange the patient. So it is important to do the best we can. I think it is also important to acknowledge that it's a challenge and no matter how good your communication skills are, it's not going to be the same conversation if you're talking through another person versus directly to the patient. Similarly, with financial toxicity, it is important to talk about it. We need to be open about it. We need to talk to patients about it, but financial stress from healthcare is a real problem, and however well you communicate it, it doesn't make that problem go away. You know, in oncology, our drugs are obscenely expensive, and I can't communicate my way to lower prices. So I can talk about it and legitimize it and empathize, but I feel like I have more power in the other sections to really change the outcome by communicating well than I do with these. But it is important to talk about it. Patients are hugely affected by the cost of care and we need to talk about it with them. I do think for mitigating stigma and setting boundaries, then our communication skills become more powerful. We see everyone in the healthcare system, and when working with individuals who have been subject to stigma because of aspects of their identity, we can help lessen their vulnerability and fear by proactively letting them know that we will strive to avoid perpetuating that stigma, that we will treat them with respect and address them as they wish to be addressed, that we will care for them as dignified and valued human beings. That is not always their experience in the system, but we can choose to be different. We can choose to do better. And our communication skills are important because listening and curiosity are super important in that space. Because if we are talking to people who may be different from us, we need to learn about them by listening and being open and being curious, and replacing, if we have any tendency towards judgment, to replace judgment with curiosity. With setting boundaries, I think it is also really important. I don't think you can show up and be fully present with patients the way I want to, the way we want other people to, if we don't know that there are boundaries. And we know this in other aspects of our care, right? I go into the room and I do intimate physical exams and I ask about intimate aspects of the patient's life. And I'm allowed to do that because there is a non-negotiable barrier to any kind of sexual or romantic contact between me and my patients. We know there's a hard wall there that we don't cross that line, so that when I am doing an intimate exam, we know where that stops and that we're not going to cross boundaries there. But the same thing applies verbally, and I think doctors sometimes and other healthcare professionals sometimes feel like they need to accommodate the patient no matter what. I was hoping the guidelines would send a strong message that, you know, we don't need to put up with disrespectful behavior. That when you go into the room, as a clinician or as a patient, you should be treated with respect. You should feel safe, you should feel like you belong, and if patients are behaving in a way that violates that, then clinicians have a right to speak up and to set limits and to set boundaries. And if we know those boundaries are there, then I think we can lean in closer. If we don't know those boundaries are there, then we kind of have to hold back to protect ourselves. And just to give one of like a million examples you can give, I don't know a woman in healthcare who hasn't had a patient say something sexually inappropriate to them at some point. And that's not okay. I want my colleagues to know that's not okay, and it's okay to set boundaries and they don't have to put up with that. And my hope is that if we know where the boundaries are, then we can step in closer. That's my perspective on these, but Calvin, please, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Dr. Calvin Chou: I want to double-click on everything that you said, Tim. It is so important that we recognize what we have control over and what we don't have control over. And what we don't have control over, for example, language discordance or financial woes of a patient, I have no possible way of controlling that. And so the best I can do in those situations is to sit with them, empathize, and do what I can, whatever power I might have in advocacy or I often refer folks to a social worker that I work very, very closely with, because I have no agency over any of that. At the same time, when we talk about mitigating stigma in healthcare encounters, we have full control over the biases that we have. We may not be aware of them, but we do have control over them ultimately. And so it is up to us really to examine our practices, to see where we have maybe been steered in the wrong direction, where we double down on internal implicit biases that we have carried for our entire lives. And that requires that we approach all of our encounters with everybody in healthcare, with humility, and with an extra eye toward understanding how we are coming across to them, and whether or not at least some of those interactions are infused with bias that we can decrease. And then finally, with the idea of boundaries, there are boundaries in two directions, as Tim was saying a moment ago, that there are boundaries that we must place in between ourselves and patients during examinations and also during interactions. And there's also boundaries that we have to set up that require that we uphold the standards ethically of clinical medicine. And that is, there are certain things- I would never ask a patient out, for example, on a date. And that's an important proscription; that's an important boundary that we must set up between ourselves and patients. Those are clear barriers that we must not breach. There are some barriers that are a little bit less clear. For example, there are some instances where physicians are asking patients who have means to perhaps contribute to a foundation or contribute to the university or to make a large donation to an institution. In some instances, that's a much less clear boundary. For myself, I feel uncomfortable making those kinds of requests, and there are other instances where those requests are actually not just okay to do, but the patient is willing to do those kinds of things. So I think we need to consider that these boundaries are not always set in stone. Sometimes the boundaries move, sometimes the boundaries are different. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I think this latest question covered a lot of ground, and I think some key points here are that treating everyone with dignity is really paramount to this guideline. Recognizing the challenges even when they're not solvable is really important, such as thinking about financial issues or perhaps not speaking the same language as a patient. And then building trust and mutual respect between patients and clinicians to establish clear boundaries is really important as well. So, I want to thank you both for reviewing at a high level the recommendations and the strategies from this guideline, and I encourage listeners to review the full guideline and tables for all of the recommendations and strategies to implement these clinical recommendations. So, Dr. Chou, this guideline panel also addressed one education question. So, what are the recommendations for effective ways for clinicians to enhance their communication skills? Dr. Calvin Chou: Thanks for asking, Brittany. When we talk about all of these communication skills, Dr. Gilligan and I have talked for a long time about all these individual communication skills. These are not skills that are necessarily naturally formed within us and that we just roll out without any practice. And that's why we both feel, if I can speak for you, Tim, that we both feel that communication skills training, and high-quality communication skills training, is deeply important. This is training that is less about I'm listening to this podcast and therefore I can communicate better, it's more about skills practice opportunities, experiential learning, oftentimes using that horrifying word 'roleplay' that people don't like to think about roleplay before they're in it, but then once they've done those skills exercises they realize how important it is to actually have practiced some of these skills so that when you get into the real situation, you have an approach to it as opposed to trying to just improvise or make it up on the fly. The other aspect of communication skills training that is deeply important is not just forming the words and speaking to somebody else, it also needs to incorporate practitioner self-awareness and situational awareness that allows us to understand what's going on within us emotionally and attitudinally so that we are interacting moment by moment with patients and their support networks in a way that's authentic, that brings the appropriate amount of vulnerability and expertise to deepen trust between all of those relationships. And finally, when we talk about communication skills training, there are ways to do this kind of training that, I've used ChatGPT, for example, when I'm having some difficulty wondering how to navigate a particular situation, sometimes you can use ChatGPT to give you some suggestions on how to approach that interaction. But at the same time, the most important thing is to be able to have really meaningful practice with other people, with other human beings. Because as much as I might interact with a computer, that computer is not a human being. And what we are talking about is interpersonal communication with emphasis on 'person'. And us as human beings, we understand, in a way that ChatGPT probably will never fully understand, the nuances of the emotional reactions and the importance of human connection between people when we talk to each other. And so therefore, if we can't depend on computers to do this communication skills training, we need institutions to emphasize and invest in all of our continuing ability to communicate effectively with everybody in healthcare. This is probably one of the most important outcomes of this guideline, is not just that communication skills are important, and not just that communication skills training is important, it's that we need everybody to invest in everybody's ability to communicate with each other on the highest possible level that we can bring. Brittany Harvey: Yes, I think it's really important that the panel addressed this question, to emphasize that it's not just individual clinicians, but institutions that really need to value communication and this training to make sure that clinicians are being the most effective communicators that they can be. So, I'd like to move on to the next question, and Dr. Gilligan, ask, in your view, what is the importance of this guideline and how will it impact both clinicians and people with cancer? Dr. Timothy Gilligan: So I would build off of what Dr. Chou was just talking about, which is what we're hoping is that it will serve as a resource that will give people interested in communicating better guidance on where to go, what to do, what are the best practices, what do we know at this time. if you want to get better, what are the methods that are going to help you get better. And ideally I hope it will inspire people to want to get better. Communicating is such a fundamental part of our day-to-day work in healthcare that it needs to be something that we're very, very good at. And as professionals we should aspire to be as good as possible. A lot of this stuff is pretty basic, but we forget to do it. When I had young kids and was teaching them to ski, one of the ski instructors said to me once that there were Olympic skiers who trained at the same mountain where my kids were learning. And he said they would go down easy slopes and just practice basic techniques still. They were good enough to ski in the Olympics going at crazy speeds, but they kept going back to their fundamentals. And my son is a serious soccer player and they do role plays in soccer. They practice drills. They have scenarios they know are going to come up and they artificially recreate that scenario and they practice it over and over again. There's a famous line from a college football coach that you don't practice it until you get it right, you practice it until you can't get it wrong. And I think if people would bring that sense of professionalism to communication, it's a lifelong journey. I'm still trying to get better. It requires practice, it requires discipline. There's a lot that we know, but it doesn't happen without practice. And as Dr. Chou was saying, it's a motor skill. You don't learn it by reading about it. You don't learn it by listening to us talk about it. You learn it by practicing it. And I practice with patients. Not in the sense that I'm doing an experiment, but I work on my skills with patients. And I see how it goes. And when things don't go well, I think of what I could have done differently. And when things do go well, I think of what did I do that helped it go well that I need to make sure I do again next time. And I think I'd love to see people adopt an attitude that they want to be fantastic communicators and they want to get better. And I think the guidelines provide a lot of clues and steps to take for all of us to get better. Dr. Calvin Chou: I heard Tim, you talk about communication being a procedure and that we would never think about going into a room and sticking a central line into a patient without having practiced that over and over and over again to get it right. Not to get it right, to never get it wrong, like you were just saying. And so if we think about communication as the most common procedure in healthcare, then it behooves us all to do the best we can with it. It is a frame shift because we are communicating with each other all the time, oftentimes without thinking. And what we're advocating right now is for everyone to really bring it in terms of communication skills in all settings, because the effect of ineffective communication is not necessarily just making people feel bad. As Tim said at the top of the program, it also impinges on quality of care. It's not just the right thing to do, it's the safe thing to do. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And highlighting the fundamentals here and practicing them as clinicians will improve each healthcare interaction. So then, finally, to wrap us up, Dr. Chou, earlier you mentioned ChatGPT and thinking about maybe some technological advances and how those will impact in the future. What are the outstanding questions and priorities for future research for optimal patient-clinician communication? Dr. Calvin Chou: I think there's a lot we still need to learn about in this very, very nascent time of interacting with generative artificial intelligence. We won't know what things are going to be like probably even tomorrow given the vast advances that AI is allowing us to do. And also, as I was mentioning earlier, what AI can never do is to bring the human element into these interactions. And I think that's part of what, maybe that's a lot of what brings people to healthcare, is if they're in need and they have some physical issue that we need to help them solve, it's not just a physical issue, it also is a deep emotional experience. And we have heard many times now cautionary tales of when AI has led people astray to then, for example, allow them to die by suicide. And that is the last thing that we can allow to happen in healthcare. That is the ultimate low-quality item. We need to make certain that everybody is cared for with high quality and high safety. And we're definitely not there yet with AI. We hope that at some point we'll be able to work with AI in order to bring even better healthcare than we have right now, and I think that has been demonstrated to be possible. That is one major outstanding question that we're all going to have to wrestle with. Brittany Harvey: I think that's absolutely a key point. With generative AI quickly evolving, there need to be guardrails in place. And like any intervention, thinking about how to maximize the benefits of it and reduce the harms to make sure that you're preserving that human interaction and communicating effectively, and that patients can receive their health information in an appropriate way. So I want to thank you both so much for your work to update this guideline, to draft all of these recommendations and the strategies, and work with the entire panel to create this excellent product. So thank you for all that work and thank you for your time today, Dr. Chou and Dr. Gilligan. Dr. Timothy Gilligan: Thank you. Dr. Calvin Chou: Thank you, Brittany, 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/supportive-care-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you have heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Listen to JCO OP's Art of Oncology Practice article, "When Cancer Becomes a Headline: Reflections from the Clinic" by Dr. Carlos Stecca. The article is followed by an interview with Stecca and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr Stecca reflects on the impact of the public illness and death of Brazilian singer and actress Preta Gil on his patients with colorectal cancer and on his own practice as a medical oncologist. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: When Cancer Becomes a Headline: Reflections from the Clinic, by Carlos Stecca, MD Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Welcome back to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. This ASCO podcast features intimate narratives and perspectives from authors exploring their experiences in oncology. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. What a pleasure it is today to have Dr. Carlos Stecca, a medical oncologist at Evangelical Mackenzie University Hospital, to discuss his JCO Oncology Practice article, "When Cancer Becomes a Headline: Reflections From the Clinic". Dr. Stecca and I have agreed to call each other by first names. Carlos, thank you for contributing to JCO Oncology Practice and for joining us today to discuss your article. Dr. Carlos Stecca: So great to be here. Thank you so much for having me. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I wonder if we could start off by asking you to tell us about yourself. Where are you from and what led you to this point in your career? Dr. Carlos Stecca: So I am Brazilian. I was born in Brazil in a small town in the south of Brazil, and I did my medical training all in Brazil. So I did medical school here, internal medicine, and medical oncology. My residency period ended in early 2018. I did my residency at the AC Camargo Cancer Center, which is in Sao Paulo. And then right after that, I moved closer to my parents to start my journey as a medical oncologist. And I stayed here in the south for two more years. And then I was lucky enough to be accepted for a clinical research fellowship in genitourinary malignancies at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center. And I had the pleasure to work with Dr. Kala Sridhar for two years. So this was during the pandemic, so 2020, 2021. And then right after that, I moved back to Brazil. And I've been here for the past four years working as a medical oncologist specialized in genitourinary malignancies. But also, well, unfortunately here in Brazil most of us cannot do only one site, so we have to do a little bit more, so I'm doing gynae and GI as well. And in a few days, I'm moving back to Canada. I was lucky enough again to be accepted for a position at the University of British Columbia, so I'm moving in a few days. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Oh, my word. We caught you just in time then. Dr. Carlos Stecca: Yeah, yeah. I'm moving in four days now. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I can't imagine what it's like to be going between those extremes of weather from Canada down to Brazil. Did your teeth crack when you did that? Dr. Carlos Stecca: Something like that. Yeah, it was like, I moved in December. So in December we have summer here in Brazil, and it was like 35, 40 degrees Celsius when I left Brazil at the airport. And when I arrived, it was close to minus 20 when I went to Toronto. Yeah. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Oh, my word. Dr. Carlos Stecca: It was rough. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, those of us who live at or near the Southern Hemisphere, I will tell you, I've started to wear puffy jackets and snow caps when it drops into the 60s. Good luck with reacclimating to Canada. I wonder if we could talk a little bit about the story that sparked this terrific essay. It was so interesting. The Brazilian singer and actress Preta Gil died of rectal cancer in July of 2025 at the age of 50. And she went public with her diagnosis. What is it that she communicated to the public about colorectal cancer? Dr. Carlos Stecca: So she was very open about her diagnosis since the beginning. So this was very interesting. She is very famous here. She had tons of followers on Instagram and social media, and she was very outspoken about her diagnosis since the first beginning. So she was diagnosed with an early stage disease, and she did a great job raising awareness for this condition, for colorectal cancer. She had a beautiful journey discussing the specifics of her case. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: So she talked both about her diagnosis and some of the treatments she was undergoing, but also about symptoms of cancer, right? Dr. Carlos Stecca: She really engaged in this discussion about her diagnosis and how she found out about her cancer. So rectal bleeding, this was disclosed in her stories on Instagram, and so she was very open about this. And it really helped people understand the condition, and it really increased the number of screening tests that Brazilians were doing. And of course, we saw this increasing uptake of the screening tests, which was amazing. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: In a way, I think she did a real public service, I think, both for early detection of colorectal cancer with symptoms, also for screening, so asymptomatic people who would undergo colonoscopies, and also demystified a little bit the treatment of colorectal cancer. In the US, we saw a similar phenomenon when the actor Chad Boseman of Black Panther movie franchise fame died of colorectal cancer in 2020 at the age of 43. These deaths have also sparked an international conversation about cancer in younger adults. Are you seeing that in your clinic? Dr. Carlos Stecca: Yes, definitely. We're seeing many more cases of cancer diagnosed in the younger population, right? So yeah, this discussion was very important to have, not only because the screening tests increased in patients after the age of 50 years old without any symptoms, but also raised awareness for those symptoms that should trigger the proper investigation. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I wonder if you could speculate a little bit about why it is that we're seeing more cancer in younger adults. Do you think it has anything to do, for example, with diet and people eating more ultra-processed foods? Is it a phenomenon? I've even heard people talk about microplastics and whether that could be contributing. Also, recently, there was an article that came out that speculated that while we're seeing more cancers in younger adults, we're not seeing more deaths in younger adults, so we may just be picking these up earlier as more people are going to be screened or for additional testing at a younger age. Dr. Carlos Stecca: Yeah, I think so. I think this is definitely the case. I think younger adults are eating more processed foods, and we know that this is an obvious risk factor for colorectal cancer and other cancers as well. And maybe obesity as well, we are seeing this as a pandemic now in the world, right? So we are seeing this especially in developing countries. And here in Brazil, of course, we are seeing this as a phenomenon. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It's so fascinating. I feel like we won't really know the answer about the uptick in cancers in younger adults for years until some of the data settle out, including the data about people during the COVID pandemic not going for screening and testing as often and whether we're now starting to see the downstream effects of that. Dr. Carlos Stecca: For sure, I think this is- well, during the pandemic I was in Canada, but shortly after the pandemic was coming to an end, I came back to Brazil, and I saw that. I saw that a lot of patients came to the clinic with more advanced cancers because they missed those opportunities of being seen by a physician during the pandemic, because of course, for obvious reasons, people were not coming to the clinic. And we saw that, a huge number of patients being diagnosed with late-stage disease because of that. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It's fascinating. There's a named phenomenon called the Angelina Jolie effect. I don't know if you remember following the actress's 2013 opinion piece about genetic testing for hereditary cancers such as BRCA1 and following her prophylactic mastectomy. She is a carrier of a mutation. There was a wave of testing that occurred thereafter. So some good can come from celebrities going public with their cancer diagnosis. Dr. Carlos Stecca: Oh, definitely, definitely. I think that more good can come from their diagnosis and them being verbal about this than the downsides. Of course, the positive side of it is definitely outweighing the negative effect. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: You write a really thoughtful essay. You mention downsides, and there can be some downsides. One of the things you wrote in your essay was, "Yet for others already living with colorectal cancer, the same story had the opposite effect. Instead of empowerment, it fueled anxiety, guilt, and resignation. Some patients grew silent, fearing their treatment was futile as they compared themselves to a celebrity who had access to the best hospitals, specialists, and resources, and still passed away. Others questioned why they had not caught their cancer earlier, internalizing blame." Can you talk a little bit more about some of the unintended consequences of a celebrity who goes public with his or her cancer diagnosis? Dr. Carlos Stecca: That was exactly it, right? I was witnessing this in my clinic. I work in a public hospital here, and I would see those patients coming to me and voicing their concerns about their diagnosis, colorectal cancer, that was now in the spotlight because of that famous person that battled with colorectal cancer and unfortunately passed away after two years of starting her journey. And that was something quite difficult for the patients because, as you mentioned, and as I wrote in the text, some of those patients were in the public system and they were comparing themselves, comparing their diagnosis with the diagnosis of someone who had endless resources. And in fact, she even went to the United States and took part in a clinical trial. She participated in a clinical trial. And yet she was not able to overcome this diagnosis, and sadly she passed away. So, most of our patients were coming to the clinic and voicing their fears, like, "If even she couldn't get through this, how can I? I'm a simple person and I'm here in this world of limited resources." And here in Brazil, we do have the public system and the private system, and there is a huge gap between what we can do in one system and another. That was a concern that they voiced. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I'm sorry she passed away. How did you deal with that? So how did you respond to patients who said, "Gee, if this famous actress with unlimited resources dies from her cancer, what hope do I have?" Dr. Carlos Stecca: Yeah, so I think this is very difficult, right? And this is something that I was learning to understand now. Because as you mentioned, Chadwick Boseman and Angelina Jolie, we heard of those stories, but I never felt that this would be impactful in my clinic, that there would be patients voicing their concerns about their diagnosis being in the spotlight. And this is something that happened to me now. I would often see those patients, and I started to think about the downsides of a cancer being on a headline for those already living with cancer, and already living with that cancer and having their cancer in the spotlight. And so that was something that I needed to hear and address their concerns more actively than before, right? So this is something that is really important. And sometimes it is as important as discussing toxicity related to chemotherapy or other things related to the treatment itself. But addressing their concerns, it would be a way to alleviate the burden that the patients are experiencing from that. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: So what would you say to them? If somebody said to you, "How can I do well when this famous actress didn't do well?", what would you say? Dr. Carlos Stecca: The first thing is to talk to the patient that every diagnosis is different. So we do have differences in staging, we do have differences in biology of the tumor. And as we study more those diseases and every type of cancer, but here, especially colorectal cancer, we are seeing that those differences are very important in the treatment and they will be part of the prognosis as well. So no disease is the same as other disease. So your experience is unique. So your diagnosis is in a certain way unique. Your treatment might be different, right? Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I like how you personalized that for each patient. I really love how you end this essay. You write, "In those quiet moments after a headline, when fear enters the exam room, my responsibility is clear. I must not only prescribe treatment, but also restore perspective, dignity, and courage. Sometimes that is the most difficult, yet most essential part of being an oncologist." I remember, Carlos, one of my patients once described what we do as being almost pastoral. He himself was a minister and said this. And an important part of our job is to provide that context, but also a space where people can feel forgiveness for what they perceive as their fault. I wonder if you could reflect on that a little bit. How is it that, it almost sounds like it's too extreme, but we provide a sanctuary where patients can forgive themselves for the guilt they've been carrying around. Dr. Carlos Stecca: Yeah. No, I think this is very important. As medical oncologists, we are more than just physicians. We become friends with the patients, right? So most of the time I do create this relationship, this strong bond with the patient, because I worked as a family doctor before, so I treated patients very intimately as well. But nothing compares to being an oncologist now, because I think that the emotional burden associated with the profession is extremely high. And it's very difficult for the patient, for the family. And so we become part of their families and part of their story and their journey throughout their whole journey with the cancer. So it can be very emotional. I think that it's much more than being a physician and treating patients and prescribing treatments and discussing the biology of the tumor. And it's much more than that. And I think that being an oncologist entails all that, entails being part of their story and engaging in an emotional journey that they are having with the cancer. Especially here in Brazil, I think that the diagnosis of cancer has always been challenging. And I think that a patient's experience is unique and addressing the emotional part of it is very important. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, what a beautiful way to sum up what we do. We become part of our patients' stories and journey, and they become part of ours, and I think that's why we write about it. It has been such a pleasure to have Dr. Carlos Stecca to discuss his essay, "When Cancer Becomes a Headline: Reflections From the Clinic". Carlos, thank you so much for submitting your article and for joining us today. Dr. Carlos Stecca: Thank you so much for having me. It was a pleasure. If you enjoyed this episode, consider sharing it with a friend or colleague or leave us a review. Your feedback and support helps us continue to have these important conversations. If you are looking for more episodes and context, follow our show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen and explore more from ASCO at asco.org/podcasts. Until next time, this has been Mikkael Sekeres for JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Show notes:Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr Carlos Stecca is a medical oncologist at Evangelical Mackenzie University Hospital.

We had the opportunity to dive into the evolving landscape of bladder cancer treatment in this insightful podcast episode at GU ASCO 2026. Featuring expert guests Dr. Chad Reichard, Dr. Shilpa Gupta, Dr. Matt Galsky, and Dr. Sia Daneshmand, the discussion covered the latest FDA-approved options for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) and non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), and exciting data that we are seeing presented at GU ASCO 2026. Listen us on: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/31BXhY9FM4gPWG10WgE11o Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/oncology-brothers-practice-changing-cancer-discussions/id1653340966 Follow us on social media: X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ In this episode, you'll learn about: The current treatment options for MIBC, including neoadjuvant Gem/Cis with perioperative durvalumab vs. EV/pembrolizumab combination Key findings from pivotal studies like KEYNOTE-905, NIAGARA, and KEYNOTE-B15 The implications of these studies on clinical practice and patient management The importance of a multidisciplinary approach in treating bladder cancer Emerging data on BCG plus immunotherapy combinations for NMIBC and their potential impact on treatment protocols Tune in for a comprehensive discussion that highlights the importance of collaboration between medical oncologists and urologists in optimizing patient care. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell for more episodes from the Oncology Brothers! #BladderCancer, #MIBC, #NMIBC, #Immunotherapy, #EVpembro

Dr. Pedro Barata and Dr. Kathryn Schmitz discuss evidence-based exercise oncology programs, how to incorporate exercise into cancer care and connect the right patient to the right program, and ultimately build a culture of exercise in oncology. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pedro Barata: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a podcast series from ASCO that features compelling perspectives from authors and editors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm Dr. Pedro Barata. I'm a medical oncologist and a clinical trialist at the University Hospital Seidman Cancer Center and an associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. I'm also happy to serve as a deputy editor for the ASCO Educational Book. Today, we'll be talking about exercise. We have plenty of evidence that exercise benefits symptoms, improves the quality of life of patients, and actually has been shown to reduce risk of recurrence of cancer but also improve survival. And I think that's increasingly clear as data emerges. Today, I'm delighted to be speaking to Dr. Kathryn Schmitz. She's a leading expert on integrating exercise into cancer care. Dr. Schmitz serves as the deputy director of the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center and also a professor of hematology-oncology at University of Pittsburgh Medical School. She's the senior author of a fantastic article in the ASCO Educational Book that's titled "Implementation Science as the Secret Sauce for Integrating Exercise Screening and Triage Pathways in Oncology." She also led a really compelling piece that just got published in JCO titled "If Exercise Were a Pill, We'd All Prescribe It to Patients With Cancer. But It's Not" So I'm thrilled to have Dr. Schmitz joining us today and helping us explore evidence-based exercise oncology programs, how to incorporate exercise into cancer care, and also how to connect the right patient to the right program.  So with that, welcome, Dr. Schmitz. Thank you so much for taking the time to chat with us. Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: Thank you for the opportunity. Dr. Pedro Barata: One of the highlights of ASCO last year and practice changing, in my opinion, data out of The New England [Journal of Medicine] is called the CHALLENGE trial. It did provide high level evidence that a structured, supervised exercise program could improve both disease-free survival and overall survival. This is a study in the GI world, but I think it got a lot of attraction and attention beyond the GI world, across solid tumors, really. Could you give us a little brief recap of that trial and what have you seen as being the impact in practices around oncology? Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: So, CHALLENGE was very exciting. Prior to CHALLENGE, there were any number of observational studies that indicated that there was a relationship between being more physically active and reduced recurrence and improved overall survival for colon cancer in particular. You know, notably, in 2006, Jeff Meyerhardt published two papers in the same journal, of the same issue of JCO, showing very, very similar data from two very large studies. And those were studies number five and six in this area. You know, there's a lot of evidence observationally, but we don't generally change clinical practice on the basis of observational data. So, we were all waiting very impatiently for the results of the CHALLENGE trial. And it was very exciting to be in the front row when the results were reported out and to be part of the group with a standing ovation for the authors when it was presented. To summarize, 889 colon cancer patients, stage II and III, were randomized into either a structured exercise program or a health education control comparison group and followed for an average of 7.9 years. And the structured exercise group had a 27% reduced risk of recurrence and a 38% improvement in overall survival. One of the things that's really notable about this is that what we typically expect is that when we go from the observational literature to the clinical trial literature, that we expect effects to go down. We expect to see a larger effect in the observational than in the RCT land, and that did not happen here. We actually see an effect that matches what we've seen in observational literature, which is really, really exciting.  And, you know, one of the reasons why this has been so exciting across not just GI but other cancers is the notable finding of a reduced risk of second primaries. So, they only observed two breast cancer second primaries in the treatment group and 12 in the comparison group. And overall, they reduced the second primaries occurrence, hazard ratio was 0.5, a 50% reduction of second primaries, which is just remarkable. It really got everybody very, very excited. And now the big question, of course, is, all right, how do I do this? How do I make this happen?  The thing to note is that what they did in CHALLENGE is probably not doable in your clinic tomorrow. It's a heavy intervention. The number of touchpoints from staff is extensive, and the amount of time needed from staff for the coaching and supervised exercise is extensive as well. The criteria for getting people into the program required that people go through a series of blood tests and imaging tests that would just simply not be possible for the average community oncologist. So I'm guessing that you're going to ask me some questions about how we do this. Dr. Pedro Barata: Right. That's a fantastic segue. That's exactly right. Walk us through maybe starting by, what does that mean? Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: The first thing to say is I have to go back to the observational literature. And the observational literature shows really compellingly that we have a strong reduction of breast cancer recurrence and mortality from being more physically active, prostate cancer recurrence and mortality, and colon cancer recurrence and mortality. I find it very difficult to believe in this day and age, in our current environment, if you will, that we are ever going to have the equivalent of CHALLENGE for prostate or for breast cancer. There is an ongoing study in prostate that's led by some Australian researchers, but I just don't think that it's likely that we're going to mount something similar for another tumor site. We have tremendous correlative data that indicates that there are a number of biomarkers and biological pathways through which breast, colon, and prostate cancer would be reduced in recurrence if people were more physically active. And so, there is really, from my thinking, very little to state that it would be just a colon cancer effect. And so this is something we probably can enact in more than just the colon cancer community, overall, which is great news, and it makes it easier for us to be able to enact this type of programming. Dr. Pedro Barata: One of the things that comes up perhaps often is, if I were the leader of the cancer center and were to incentivize the different care teams to implement an exercise program at each level: GI team, GU, breast, thoracic, etc. How do we do that? Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: So, I want to give you an analogy. You're a medical oncologist, and you prescribe your patients chemotherapy. Now, just imagine, if you will, what would happen and how likely it would be for your patients to get chemotherapy if there was no chemoinfusion suite. If the chemoinfusion suite disappeared tomorrow and you were to tell your patients, "Go get some chemotherapy," what proportion of those patients do you think would go find all of the equipment necessary and all of the drugs necessary and understand how to dose the chemotherapy for themselves and get that all done? Very few people would do it. So with exercise, why would we be surprised then that our patients don't actually do a whole lot if we just simply tell them to go get some exercise? Exercise is a medicine. It is effective like a medicine. We've shown this through the CHALLENGE trial and many other correlative studies and an ocean of observational data as well. So the question is, how do we build the infrastructure that is necessary in order for your patients to do this? So the very first thing that has to happen is that somebody has to tell the patient to exercise. We currently do not have a culture of exercise in oncology. We do in heart disease. If you ask the average person on the street, "Is exercise good for your heart?" Anybody with an eighth-grade education is going to say, "Yes, of course," because the American Heart Association has done an amazing job telling everybody that exercise is good for your heart. But what has ASCO done, frankly? Can I be that bold? What has ASCO done to tell patients that they should be exercising during and after their cancer treatment? I'm not sure that I know more than a guideline. There is a guideline, and that's great. And the guideline is very helpful, but I'm not sure that patients know that there's a guideline. In fact, I can tell you that patients don't know that there is a guideline. So, you know, making sure that there's a paradigm shift in the country that says exercise is good for patients during and after their cancer treatment is the first step. The second step is getting a medical professional to say something to the patient about the exercise. And I'm very careful with the two words that I just chose: medical professional. I do understand medical oncologists are very busy. I understand that there's a whole lot to say in that 15 minutes when you're with the patient. And so maybe it isn't the medical oncologist. Ideally, it would be, but I get it that there's limited time. So it could be a nurse practitioner, it could be a nurse, there could be a social worker, it could be somebody else on the team that says, "Hey, you know, we want you to do an exercise program. We want to connect you to an exercise program." And then there's what is the program itself? You know, I'm very interested in this happening across the entire country. And so I've been working with the leadership of the Commission on Cancer on the question of, well, how would you do this in community oncology? You know, it's not enough to do it in academic medicine, but how do you do this in community oncology? And you can't expect that every community hospital is going to build a gym for their cancer patients. That is just not reasonable to do. So, we start to try to figure out some phone counseling. Could we give people Fitbits and follow them? Could we use technology to help us? Are there telehealth opportunities for us to do? Are there apps that have been built? In fact, there is a [free] app called Cancer Exercise that's on, you know, all of the platforms and available to patients. So there are programs. I've developed a directory of over 2,000 programs that exist across the country for exercise oncology that patients can find, medical oncologists can find.  So there are a lot of people trying to figure out how best to get the information to medical oncologists and other medical professionals so that they can have an 'easy button' to be able to connect their patients to existing programming so that you don't feel like you have to build a whole new program. Dr. Pedro Barata: If I don't have the resources around me, what would be your advice for the care team or for the providers that might not have that available at their site? Where do they start? Who do they reach out to? Who should they be looking at to get more information on how to set it up? Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: I lead an international consortium called Moving Through Cancer. You can find us at movingthroughcancer.org. That's where you'll find the map of all of the programs across the country and the directory. We actually have a triage tool that sits at the front of the directory that allows people to discern what type of exercise they're safe to do. We do recognize that, you know, the 80-year-old that fell last week doesn't need the same program as the 35-year-old that was playing pickleball the day before diagnosis. So, you know, there are different kinds of programs for people at different levels of acuity. We're happy to be helpful to folks to help them set up programs.  But the number one thing is to really be very aware of the power of saying something about doing exercise, just simply the power of saying, "I want you to be moving." Because frankly, I don't think anybody listening to this would disagree, no one benefits from sitting on the couch all day, no one. No one, no one. It doesn't matter how acute their medical issues are. We get people out of bed. We try to move people even when they're in the hospital. So I think saying something is huge. And then, if you can, applying a triage tool, if you can get something embedded within your clinical flow so that you can understand who it is that needs to go to physical therapy as opposed to who's ready for an exercise program. Those are the two things. So triage and referral is kind of step one. And if you can get that done, the rest will fall into place. Dr. Pedro Barata: This is really powerful message, where one, awareness of the care teams. Number two, bring it up to the patient. And then working on the referral, triage and referral process. That's fantastic. Another aspect that comes up quite a bit is like, "Look, this is great, but we have a system that relies on payers to make things happen, or at least to get them approved." And that can be very different or heterogeneous. The coverage can be different. Sometimes already going through a system programs for interventions, therapeutic interventions, let alone probably the insurance is not going to cover that. Is that true? Is it not true? How do you walk through the different insurance supports, perhaps, depending on where you're practicing? Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: You've just hit on the hot button. I've been working on this issue for about nine years now, trying to figure out using efforts to talk to CMS and see if we can get third party payer coverage going. We were making good progress there, and there was a change of administration and a new focus on "Make America Healthy Again," the MAHA movement. And, you know, CMS is really no longer interested in one-off national coverage determination. They instead, they want to know, "How do we make exercise happen for every American over 65?" And my question is, "Well, wait a minute, cancer patients are not just older patients. There's a lot going on there. They need something special." So I've been working on that. It's been working with accrediting bodies for policy with a little p. Very proud of the work that I've done in collaboration with the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers, trying to get standards to get exercise referrals for breast patients. And I'm currently holding my breath to see whether the CoC is going to try to make some forward motion in this area as well, crossing all period appendages, waiting for news there. So it's not paid for unless it's done by a physical therapist. And, you know, there's published evidence and I have plenty of evidence from UPMC as well, that people don't really want to go to the physical therapist for this. I'm not saying physical therapists aren't great. Physical therapists are great, and there are people who really need to go to physical therapy, and we try hard to get those patients connected. But for the patients that are ready for something more than physical therapy, we really have an uphill battle to try to figure out what insurers are willing to pay for and what the return on investment is.  One of the challenges with the return on investment is that the timeline, time course for return on investment for American insurers is about one year. And I'll remind you that the time course for return on investment for CHALLENGE was 7.9 years. So we have a mismatch there. So we're trying to figure out if we can produce the evidence to show that there is an improvement in unplanned health care utilization. We have documented that for breast cancer. We're working on it for other cancers. If we can document that it is worthwhile to the insurer to pay for these programs, then I believe that they will pay for them. You know, my conversations are very positive with UPMC, which is a very large insurer and a large health plan. We're slowly working our way towards the middle, where there's a program that they can pay for and a program that is efficacious. That's the puzzle we're trying to solve for right now. Dr. Pedro Barata: This has been wonderful and super helpful. Before we wrap it up, is there anything else you would like to share with our listeners? Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: I want to make sure that your audience is aware that there are a variety of ways that exercise oncology is practiced. The program that most oncologists will be familiar with is LIVESTRONG, which is a program at the YMCA. It's a free program. At one point, there were over 800 locations across the U.S. They have contracted since COVID, probably because of COVID. So they still do exist but imagine, if you will, telling your patients that chemo is only available Tuesdays and Thursdays at 7:00 p.m. It would be difficult for patients to get there and get the chemotherapy. The same thing is true for the LIVESTRONG program. It's a fantastic, fantastic program for people who are able to get there, but that's one option. Another option for patients is there are a variety of online opportunities. I'll call out 2Unstoppable for women's cancers. It's literally the number 2Unstoppable.org. It's a free program available to women with cancer to have live, small group training programs. And they're based in Virginia, but they have programs all over the country. And then finally, I just want to overemphasize the app, the Cancer Exercise app. It's literally called Cancer Exercise in the app store. And that is a super duper easy button, very comprehensive, developed by a nurse scientist, Anna Schwartz. And then there are a variety of books. I wrote a book called Moving Through Cancer. There's a new book out [MyExerciseMedicine for Cancer] by Dr. Rob Newton as well, who's an Australian author. And there are certifications for exercise professionals that folks can look into as well through the American College of Sports Medicine. Dr. Pedro Barata: Dr. Schmitz, this is fantastic. Thank you for sharing those great insights with us. Super, super helpful. Thank you for taking the time. Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: Thank you so much. Dr. Pedro Barata: Thank you to our listeners for your time today. Remember, you'll find links to Dr. Schmitz's fantastic Educational Book as well as the JCO articles in the transcript of this episode. I'll invite all of you to go and read. And we'll also include a link to Dr. Schmitz's book titled Moving Through Cancer: An Exercise and Strength Program for the Fight of Your Life, which empowers patients and caregivers in simple five steps.  So with that, please join us again next month on By the Book for more insights on key advances and innovations that are shaping modern oncology. Thank you very much for your attention. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:           Dr. Pedro Barata    @PBarataMD     Dr. Kathryn Schmitz @fitaftercancer Follow ASCO on social media:           @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)           ASCO on Bluesky          ASCO on Facebook           ASCO on LinkedIn           Disclosures:        Dr. Pedro Barata:    Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Luminate Medical    Honoraria: UroToday    Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Caris Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, AVEO, Merck, Ipson, Astellas Medivation, Novartis, Dendreon    Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Merck, Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Pfizer/Astellas    Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Blue Earth, AVEO, Pfizer, Merck     Dr. Kathryn Schmitz: Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Fees from the educational program developed by Dr. Schmitz that is now offered through Klose Training and Consulting.

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Andrea Apolo discuss practice-changing studies and other novel approaches in bladder, kidney, and prostate cancers that were presented at the 2026 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I'm a medical oncologist, professor and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles.  And today is super exciting, we're highlighting key abstracts that were presented at the 2026 ASCO GU Cancers Symposium, and I'm just delighted to be joined by the chair of this year's meeting, who is also a dear friend, Dr. Andrea Apolo. Dr. Apolo serves within the Center for Cancer Research at the NCI as head of the Bladder Cancer Section, and she is also acting deputy chief of the Genitourinary Malignancies Branch.  Welcome, Andrea, it is so great to have you on the podcast. Dr. Andrea Apolo: Oh, thank you so much for having me. What a great ASCO that we had, it is really exciting, lots of really great data. So I look forward to chatting about it. Dr. Monty Pal: Excellent. And you know, our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode in case our listeners want to have a peek.  The theme of this year's GU meeting was "Patient-Centered Care: From Discovery to Delivery." I love that theme. And really, this is one of the most competitive meetings out there, more than 850 abstracts being presented on high-impact science. Andrea, I just wanted to get right into it and dive into what I think we both felt were some of the most exciting abstracts of the meeting.  And the first of those is one that I know is near and dear to your heart, being a bladder cancer expert yourself, and that is the KEYNOTE-B15 study presented by Matt Galsky. Can you give us a flavor for what that study entailed and some of the key results? Dr. Andrea Apolo: Yeah, I think this was kind of the missing study that we have been waiting for since we saw the EV-302 data in metastatic disease in the frontline setting. We wanted to know how well this combination would work in muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients. And we saw half of that puzzle, you can say half of the piece of the puzzle, when we saw the data at ESMO, the EV-303 data in patients that were cisplatin-ineligible. And then now we are getting the full story with patients that are platinum-eligible, cisplatin-eligible, with the EV-304 data. So that study randomized patients to receive chemotherapy, so different than the EV-303 where the patients were randomized just to receive the radical cystectomy. These patients were randomized to receive neoadjuvant EV plus pembro and then adjuvant EV plus pembro versus neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin with no adjuvant component to the control arm. So I think this is a really, really important study. Dr. Monty Pal: And share with us some of the results because this in my mind is definitely practice-changing. This is one of those studies that I think you walked into the office on Monday and you are like, "Okay, this is what I am doing now," right? Dr. Andrea Apolo: Yeah. So the study was positive. The primary endpoint was event-free survival, and it met the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoint of overall survival was also met. So really, really great results. Consistent with what we saw with EV-303, the median event-free survival was not reached for the EV plus pembro arm, and it was 48 months for the patients receiving gem-cis. And then looking at the 24-month estimated event-free survival, it was 79% for the EV plus pembro and 66% for the chemo, the gem-cis arm. And that was a hazard ratio of 0.5. So that is really exciting. That is the event-free survival. And then the overall survival, the medians were not reached for either arm, but when you look at the 24-month estimated overall survival, it was 87% for the EV plus pembro versus 81% for the gem-cis, and that was a hazard ratio of 0.65. So very positive study.  And then another question that we had was the pathologic CR rate. Very consistent with what we saw with the EV-303, the pathologic response rate was about 56% for the patients that received EV plus pembro and about 32%, 33% for the patients that received gem-cis. So very consistent with the findings that we have been kind of seeing in phase 2 studies, and this is a pT0N0, so that is important. Dr. Monty Pal: So Andrea, you know, I think that the big question in folks' minds is at this point, we see the data from NIAGARA, cis-gem-durva, we have now seen this data. Put it into context for us. Is there a patient in this day and age who maybe shouldn't get IO altogether, who should maybe get the NIAGARA regimen as opposed to EV-pembro in this context? What are your thoughts there? Dr. Andrea Apolo: Now, that is a great question. I would say with this data, it is very enticing to give EV pembro to our patients in the perioperative setting, and for that to be the new standard of care for all patients, regardless of cisplatin eligibility. So similar to what we saw with EV-302 really changing the standard of care in the frontline setting, I think these two studies, the EV-303 and the EV-304, change the standard of care for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the perioperative setting, and this should be the new standard of care if the patients don't have a restriction to receiving an immunotherapy. Dr. Monty Pal: I totally agree with that assessment. It is great to hear it from the expert's mouth as well. Thanks a lot for that, Andrea.  The next abstract I wanted to tackle is one that is, I would say, near and dear to my heart because I know these folks really well. It is led by the SWOG group, and this is SWOG S1602. The number there for the audience gives you a sense of how long the study has been running for. The 16 prefix means it is something that we kicked off back in 2016. So this study is really 10 years in the making, right? So Rob Svatek presented this data. It is interesting, right, because it addresses this issue of the BCG (Bacille Calmette-Guérin) shortage, right, where we have needed to sort of rely potentially on other alternative sources or regimens and so forth. Tell us about this trial, Andrea. Dr. Andrea Apolo: This is one of my favorite studies. We talked about putting it in the main oral abstracts, but we put it in one of the educational sessions that talked about non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer because we thought that would be the best audience for it. But it doesn't take away from how important this abstract is, and the tremendous effort that went into the study. Almost a thousand patients enrolled. I think 984 were eligible to enroll in this study. So it is a very high enrolling, randomized, cooperative group study in high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. And really the study was designed to address two questions. One is the BCG shortage and can we use a different strain, Tokyo versus TICE? And whether there is a priming effect if you gave intradermal BCG to patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, can that enhance the effect if you gave it a little bit earlier? I think the study is really important, and it met its primary endpoint, which was it is not inferior to TICE. The findings were really terrific in terms of the outcomes. Numerically. When you look at the endpoint, it looked like the Tokyo strain was as good, if not maybe a little bit better, but not statistically significant than the TICE. And then they broke it down by carcinoma in situ, they broke it down by papillary tumors, and the Tokyo strain was non-inferior in both of those instances. But interestingly, the intradermal BCG did not change outcomes. There was really no priming effect, which was really backed up by pre-clinical data that there would be, but there wasn't a priming effect when the intradermal BCG was given in the Tokyo strain. So that was a really, really interesting finding. But a great study, really important outcomes in the field for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Monty Pal: Totally. And it just seems like we can't get away from BCG, right? You know, as hard as we try, I mean, I appreciate the studies that sort of build on it that are emerging right now, but it seems like BCG at least for the foreseeable future is kind of here to stay, right? Dr. Andrea Apolo: It works. It is one of the most effective treatments we have for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. So, you know, I think it is here to stay and, you know, we need to find alternatives in terms of strains so we don't deal with this shortage that we have been dealing with for so many years now. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, indeed. Moving on to some of the other highlighted studies from the meeting, you had mentioned the EV-303 data, so we probably don't need to rehash that study design in much detail. But there was also a rapid oral abstract presented by Dr. Ullén that I think is of interest here, right, that really hones in on pathologic outcomes and DFS from that trial. Do you mind just outlining that for our listenership? Dr. Andrea Apolo: This is the KEYNOTE-905, also known as the EV-303 study. This is a follow-up to the EV-303 data looking at the pathologic response rates, looking at the downstaging effect, looking at the surgical margins after treatment with the neoadjuvant EV plus pembro in the 303. Now, remember in the 303, patients got three cycles of neoadjuvant EV plus pembro and then six cycles in the adjuvant setting. A little bit different than the 304, where they got four cycles, which is really kind of the standard in the neoadjuvant setting, and then five cycles in the adjuvant setting. So still a total of nine cycles. But in the 303, the treatment arm had no systemic therapy, so it was just radical cystectomy. And they looked at the negative margins that you get with the EV plus pembro treatment, which was 92.6% versus 79% with patients receiving just the surgery alone. And then the pathologic CR rate, there was more follow-up on that, it was 57% for the patients receiving EV plus pembro, and as we would expect, about 9% for the patients that just went on to surgery alone because you can achieve a pathologic response rate with TURBT alone. Then they looked at the pathologic downstaging, so anything less than a pT2, and that was 66% in the patients that received the EV plus pembro. So very interesting findings, and it is also really just nice to have now the EV-304 data, like I was saying, there were two pieces of it, the cisplatin-eligible and the cisplatin-ineligible, and just to have those contemporary controls are really important. How did the cisplatin-ineligible do versus the cisplatin-eligible patient in terms of the event-free survival and in terms of the overall survival? So I feel like now we have all of this data that we can kind of put together in the perioperative setting and we can really inform our patients a little bit more about their outcomes depending on whether they are cisplatin-eligible or not, which you know cisplatin-ineligible patients often just, they are sicker, they may have obstruction, their tumors may be larger, they just tend to be a more delicate population than the cisplatin-eligible patients. So not surprisingly, you know, we see that in the EV-303 the disease-free survival for the patients is pretty poor. So the disease-free survival that was reported for this follow-up of the specific abstract was 23.6 months for the patients that just got surgery, and it was not reached for the patients that had the EV plus pembro, and that was a hazard ratio of 0.37. Dr. Monty Pal: Excellent, excellent distillation. So Andrea, in the interest of time, I mean, we could probably talk about bladder cancer forever, but I am going to move us on to the subject of kidney cancer. We have two late-breaking abstracts, LITESPARK-011, which looked at lenvatinib and belzutifan versus cabozantinib in the advanced setting, and then we have an adjuvant study, LITESPARK-022, that looked at pembrolizumab with or without belzutifan in the adjuvant setting. Both studies positive. One for progression-free survival, the other for disease-free survival. Both I think making a big dent in how we treat kidney cancer. Can you tell us a little bit about that? Dr. Andrea Apolo: Yeah, we have been waiting for these trials for a long time. So one of the things that we have been talking about at GU ASCO is to have plenary sessions. And if we would have had a plenary session, these two abstracts would have been part of it because they are important data, really big studies where we are trying to improve the outcomes of our patients with kidney cancer. So the first one, the LITESPARK-011, like you said, this is for advanced renal cell carcinoma, clear cell renal cell carcinoma, where we really don't have a standard of care after IO therapy, right? So we give IO-IO, we give VEGF-IO, but we don't really have a good standard of care. We usually give monotherapy TKIs. So the combination of belzutifan and lenvatinib versus what a standard of care is, cabozantinib, is really an important question to ask. And you know, this is a pretty large study, about 750 patients were randomized. And belzutifan plus lenvatinib demonstrated an improvement in progression-free survival and overall survival versus cabozantinib, but not overall survival, at least not yet, is what the authors are saying. So for the progression-free survival, the hazard ratio was 0.7 and it was 14.8 months for the combination, belzutifan plus lenvatinib arm versus cabozantinib, which was 10.7 months. So I think that is significant. And for the overall survival, it did favor the combination again with a hazard ratio of 0.85. The median was 35 months versus 28 months for the monotherapy cabozantinib, but it did not reach statistical significance. And the authors said that this will be further tested at a final analysis, these were the interim results.  And for the overall survival, the overall survival was 53% for the combination versus 40%. This is significant. And the CR rates were lowish for both of them, it was like 5% for the combo and 1% for cabo monotherapy. So I think that the findings are important because we don't have a standard of care. And although there is no survival benefit, there was a trend. So I think this could be considered in patients that are fit, a treatment option for these patients in the later line settings. Dr. Monty Pal: Great points. I mean lots of great discussion around toxicity as well as efficacy. I mean certainly this is a regimen that may not be suitable for every patient in my portfolio, but certainly one to consider.  Now Andrea, let's shift focus to LITESPARK-022, the adjuvant trial that I mentioned previously. So this is again looking at pembrolizumab with or without belzutifan, met the primary endpoint of disease-free survival. What are your impressions there of the data? Dr. Andrea Apolo: Yeah, the data looks great. And this was a really large study, 1,800 patients were randomized, and the study met the primary endpoint of disease-free survival, benefiting the combination of pembro plus belzutifan. And that is really terrific. The medians were not reached for either arm. And in terms of the overall survival results, also the medians were not reached, but the hazard ratio was 0.78 and did not reach a statistical significance. So there was again a statistically significant improvement in disease-free survival for the combination of pembrolizumab plus belzutifan, but not an overall survival benefit.  So I guess, Monty, you know, we can kind of talk about what that means. There was a lot of discussion about belzutifan and some of the side effects, specifically anemia and managing anemia in this setting and requirements for transfusions. Generally, the authors said it was well tolerated, but we know that combination studies do have more toxicity. So it may be a select group of patients again, similar to the advanced setting, where we opt for a combination, possibly until we see more follow-up data in terms of the overall survival. Dr. Monty Pal: I have to agree with you. You know, in my group, we have been talking about a lot of pembrolizumab-based studies that are running right now, some through the NCI, some, you know, our own sort of homegrown investigator-sponsored trials, and you know, I think for the foreseeable future we are comfortable just maintaining pembrolizumab. Things might change if, for instance, we ultimately see a survival advantage emerge, but I just have my own personal doubts around that, that will be interesting.  Okay, so now we are going to move to the last disease category that we are going to cover, which is prostate cancer. So there, we have the long-awaited results from the PEACE-3 study. These are the final OS results from this trial looking at enzalutamide with or without radium-223 in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. So Andrea, would love to get your perspectives on this. Dr. Andrea Apolo: Yeah, so this study had been presented before and we had seen positive results for the combination of enzalutamide and radium with some interim overall survival results also showing a benefit. But like you said, these are the final results with a median follow-up of 58 months. So it was really nice to see the final results. And with the combination of enzalutamide and six cycles of radium, it did show an improvement in overall survival with a hazard ratio of 0.76. The median overall survival increased from 32.6 months to 38.2 months with the combination. So that is really great. There was some crossing over of the overall survival curves around 18 months was still seen. And again, there was also an improvement in the rPFS with a hazard ratio of 0.71, and the median rPFS improved from 16.4 to 19 months with the combination. So, you know, we have been awaiting the final results, but we kind of knew a lot about the benefits of the combination. And it is something that is kind of slowly trickling into the community in terms of adapting it and using it. There is more buzz now about it and I think these overall survival results will hopefully shift the community into incorporating the combination in these patients. Dr. Monty Pal: Brilliant. So well said. I mean, Andrea, congratulations on a terrific meeting. You have really done it again. Incredible, incredible output from this year's ASCO GU. I just want to thank you for joining us on the program today. Dr. Andrea Apolo: Oh, thank you so much for having me, Monty. It was really a joy to work with the ASCO team and with all the investigators and the Education Committee and the Scientific Committee. Everyone was really outstanding. So to me it was an honor to be part of this meeting, and I am so happy that it was so successful and really presented some amazing data that I think will be practice-changing to our patients. Dr. Monty Pal: Oh, thanks a ton. And also a huge thanks to our listeners. If you enjoyed the content of today's podcast, please don't forget to like and subscribe to our channel wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks so much. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:     Dr. Monty Pal   @montypal  Dr. Andrea Apolo @apolo_andrea  Follow ASCO on social media:          ASCO on X    ASCO on Bluesky         ASCO on Facebook          ASCO on LinkedIn          Disclosures:       Dr. Monty Pal:      Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview     Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical     Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis     Dr. Andrea Apolo: No disclosures to report.

Send a textThe Oncology Journal Club Podcast hosted by Professor Craig Underhill, Dr Kate Clarke and Professor Chris Jackson | Proudly Produced by The Oncology NetworkVisit oncologynetwork.com.au for Show Notes, to send us Voice Notes and more information. We explore practical wins and bold ideas across supportive care, colorectal cancer prevention, immunotherapy timing, digital triage and equity. From halving hot flushes with an NK1/NK3 blocker to biomarker-guided aspirin in colon cancer, we weigh value, risk and what truly improves lives.• Elinzanetant cutting severe hot flushes and improving treatment adherence• Current non-hormonal options and gaps in symptom control• Biomarker-selected aspirin reducing recurrences in colorectal cancer• Limits of DFS, toxicity trade-offs and subgroup signals• Rising early-onset colorectal cancer and system planning needs• Possible environmental and microbiome drivers under study• ASCO geriatric assessment guidance and G8 screening in clinics• PD-1 with short-course radiotherapy boosting rectal pCR rates• Large language models for safe, efficient symptom triage• Rare cancers report on access, cost, and rural inequities• Telehealth standards to link expertise closer to home• Healthy workplace culture to retain a resilient oncology workforceJoin the Oncology Network, registration is free, and leave us a voice note on the OJC page at oncologynetwork.com.au. Physicians, don't forget you can claim CME points for listening to the show!Thanks for listening

In this episode, UROONCO BCa chief editor Dr Benjamin Pradere (France) sits down with Matthew Galsky, Professor of Medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (New York, USA), to discuss the newly published results of the KEYNOTE-B15 trial.This marks a truly pivotal moment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The presentation of KEYNOTE-B15 represents one of the most practice-changing advances in localised MIBC management in recent years, opening a new era of peri-operative systemic therapy and renewed hope for our patients.KEYNOTE-B15 is a randomised phase III trial evaluating peri-operative enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab in cisplatin-eligible patients with MIBC. In this in-depth discussion, Prof. Galsky walks us through the scientific rationale behind the study, the key efficacy and safety results, and crucially, how these data are likely to reshape clinical practice, not only in the immediate future but for years to come.A must-listen conversation for urologists and multidisciplinary teams involved in the care of bladder cancer patients.The KEYNOT-B15 study will be also presented and discussed at upcoming EAU26 on Saturday 14th March in the Game Changer Session. Don't miss the chance to hear more on this important study and mark your agenda! This interview was recorded at ASCO GU26. For more updates on bladder cancer, please visit our educational platform UROONCO BCa.For more EAU podcasts, please go to your favourite podcast app and subscribe to our podcast channel for regular updates: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, EAU YouTube channel.

Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev and Dr. Manish Shah join the podcast to discuss the updated guideline on immunotherapy and targeted therapy in unresectable locally advanced, advanced, or metastatic gastroesophageal cancer. They share first-line and subsequent-line recommendations for both gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma based on actionable biomarkers including PD-L1 expression, MMR and/or MSI, CLDN18.2 expression, and HER2 status. They note the importance of the algorithms and tables in the guidelines that provide visual illustrations and quick reference guides of the evidence-based recommendations. They also comment on ongoing and recently presented trials that may impact future guidelines in this space. Read the full guideline, "Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update" at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines" TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools and resources are available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-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-25-02958      Timestamps ·       00:00 – 02:15 Introduction and Overview ·       02:16 - 08:20 First-line treatment for patients with pMMR/MSS, HER2-negative gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma ·       08:21 –10:29 First-line treatment for patients with pMMR/MSS, HER2-positive gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma ·       10:30 – 14:39 First-line treatment for patients with dMMR/MSI-H, gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma ·       14:40 – 18:03 First-line treatment for ESCC ·       18:04 – 22:04 Second- and third-line therapy for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma and ESCC ·       22:05 – 24:38 Importance of guideline ·       24:39 – 27:45 Outstanding questions and future research   Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts.   My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I am interviewing Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Dr. Manish Shah from Weill Cornell Medicine, co-chairs on "Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Rajdev and Dr. Shah. Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev: Thank you. Dr. Manish Shah: Thank you for having us. It is wonderful. Brittany Harvey: And then just before we discuss this guideline, I would like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Rajdev and Dr. Shah, who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then to dive into what we are here today to talk about, Dr. Shah, I would like to start first with what prompted the update to this guideline, which was previously published in 2023, and what is the scope of this updated guideline? Dr. Manish Shah: Yes, terrific. So even in the last few years, the pace of drug development in gastroesophageal cancers has just been astounding. So, what prompted this guideline is actually the practice-changing results for a new biomarker, CLDN18.2 hat was based on the GLOW and SPOTLIGHT studies, as well as a practice-changing study in HER2-positive disease where we added pembrolizumab to trastuzumab and chemotherapy for tumors that are HER2-positive and PD-L1 CPS 1 or greater. And then there were also new studies and new approvals in esophageal squamous cell cancer that you will hear about as well. So there were several studies, overall more than 5,000 patients were reported on, and that led to several new therapies, new indications, and it really necessitated this guideline. Brittany Harvey: Excellent. It is great to hear about all of these exciting updates in this space. So then to next review the key recommendations of this guideline by clinical question that the expert panel addressed. So, Dr. Rajdev, what is the recommended first-line treatment for patients with proficient mismatch repair, microsatellite stable, HER2-negative gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma? Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev: Thank you for that question. So historically, we have sort of used fluoropyrimidine and platinum doublets, which yielded a survival of about one year. More recently, immunotherapy and targeted therapy options have improved outcomes in patients with advanced esophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma, as well as squamous cell carcinoma. Patients with gastric and GE junction adenocarcinoma have a high rate of actionable alterations, so it is imperative that physicians test the following biomarkers upfront so that it can help guide therapy. The markers recommended by the ASCO panel are HER2, MMR or MSI, CLDN18.2, and PD-L1. And also, it was recommended to use NGS if feasible in this patient population. HER2, as we know, is expressed in about 15% to 25% of patients; PD-L1 expression occurs in about 80% of patients; MSI-high, deficient MMR is present in about 5% to 8% of patients; and CLDN18.2 expression is present in about 40% of patients. There is, of course, biomarker overlap. About 13% to 22% of CLDN18.2 patients are also PD-L1 positive. For patients with pMMR or microsatellite stable HER2-negative disease with PD-L1 expression greater than 1 and absence of CLDN18.2, the panel recommended a first-line therapy with fluoropyrimidine and platinum-based therapy in combination with immunotherapy. These recommendations stem from large phase 3 trials, and the agents approved in the United States are pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and tislelizumab. It has been shown that immunotherapy benefit is greater in patients with higher PD-L1 expression, and it is not possible to comment on the individual PD-L1 cutoff scores and sort of identify the optimal PD-L1 cutoff score that sort of balances benefits and harms. But what is recommended is that immunotherapy-based treatments can be offered in patients with a CPS score of greater than 1. With regard to the choice of immunotherapy agents, that is pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or tislelizumab, these agents are considered to have similar efficacy, and the selection of an agent could be based on dosing schedule, cost considerations, toxicity, and the method of administration. Typically, clinicians should avoid withholding the start of chemotherapy while awaiting biomarker testing, depending on the clinical scenario. Now, for patients with pMMR microsatellite stable disease that is HER2-negative with PD-L1 expression less than 1 and positive CLDN18.2 expression, zolbetuximab-based treatments or in combination with chemotherapy is recommended, and this is based on two global phase III randomized controlled trials, the GLOW and the SPOTLIGHT. And across both studies, the hazard ratio for the overall survival was 0.78, and similarly, there was also an improvement in progression-free survival favoring the zolbetuximab group compared to the chemotherapy group alone. An important note is that nausea, vomiting is commonly associated with zolbetuximab-based treatments, and the panel recommended prophylactic antiemetics, adjusting zolbetuximab infusion rates, pausing infusion temporarily, using non-prophylactic antiemetics, and hydration intravenously prior to discontinuation of zolbetuximab-based chemotherapy. So effective handling of the GI-related symptoms with zolbetuximab is recommended prior to discontinuation of therapy. Now, for patients with pMMR microsatellite stable HER2-negative gastric, GE junction adenocarcinoma with PD-L1 expression greater than 1 and CLDN18.2 positivity, the ones with the dual expression with CLDN18.2 as well as PD-L1 chemotherapy, the choice of therapy can be based on the degree of PD-L1 expression, the toxicity profile, the burden of symptoms, and the anticipated improvement in symptoms associated with response to treatment, the patient comorbidities, the prior medical and treatment history. So this decision needs to be made on a case-by-case basis, and these are some of the factors that we suggested that could potentially influence the choice of therapy. For patients with pMMR microsatellite stable disease that is HER2-negative and a PD-L1 expression less than 1 and an absence of CLDN18.2 expression, first-line therapy with fluoropyrimidine and platinum-based chemotherapy is recommended. So you can see we have segmented out patients based on PD-L1 expression, pMMR and microsatellite stable disease expression, and also based on CLDN expression. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And that first point you noted, I think is really important, that biomarker testing is really critical for treatment decision-making in this space. So then the next subgroup of patients that the panel looked at, Dr. Shah, what first-line therapy is recommended for patients with proficient mismatch repair, microsatellite stable, HER2-positive gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma? Dr. Manish Shah: So this was an update from a few years ago. So we have known for 15 years now that if you are HER2-positive, you should get trastuzumab plus chemotherapy. That was based on the ToGA trial. And the update now is based on a trial called KEYNOTE-811, where it examined the addition of pembrolizumab to trastuzumab and chemotherapy versus trastuzumab and chemotherapy, and there was a progression-free and overall survival benefit. And again, here, the biomarkers are important. If your CPS PD-L1 is less than 1, we would not recommend Pembrolizumab in that setting, so you would still get trastuzumab and chemotherapy. But if it is 1 or greater, the PD-L1 CPS score, then we do recommend pembrolizumab unless there is a contraindication to immunotherapy. The take-home message really is from the onset of diagnosis, please check your biomarkers. And I will just, it is worth repeating, it is important to check your PD-L1 status, HER2 status, mismatch repair status, and CLDN18.2 status. And then the optimal therapy, and it is outlined in the publication, is really biomarker-driven. We know that if we are able to hit the target that is overexpressed, we are going to have a better outcome. And Dr. Rajdev did mention where there is overlap, there can be a lack of data, and that is where we are with both PD-L1 positive and CLDN positive. Here we do have data in HER2-positive cases where if you are both HER2-positive and PD-L1 positive, you would combine trastuzumab and pembrolizumab for the best outcomes. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I really appreciate you detailing what is most important for each individual biomarker combination that patients may have. So then following that, Dr. Rajdev, what does the expert panel recommend for first-line treatment for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma that is not amenable to definitive chemoradiation? Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev: There are three phase III randomized clinical trials that have influenced practice in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma examining the benefit of immunotherapy in this patient population. The RATIONALE-306 was a randomized trial of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy with platinum and fluoropyrimidine or paclitaxel versus placebo with chemotherapy. And then you have the KEYNOTE-590, which compared pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. And then you have CheckMate-648, which included comparisons of nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus nivolumab plus ipilimumab or chemotherapy. And the primary endpoints for these studies were overall survival, and they did look at subgroups with PD-L1 expression. They used TPS score greater than 1% in CheckMate-648 and PD-L1 CPS greater than 10 in KEYNOTE-590. The bottom line is that the overall hazard ratio for overall survival across this patient population was 0.72. So clearly, there is benefit in patients that express PD-L1 CPS greater than 1 for benefit for the addition of immunotherapy. Now, the benefit again in patients with a PD-L1 expression less than 1 remains limited, and so the panel has made a recommendation for using immunotherapy in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with a PD-L1 greater than 1. Again, we know that it is hard to make recommendations on what PD-L1 cutoffs are recommended in this patient population, meaning that should it be limited to patients with a PD-L1 of 1 to 4 or greater than 10? I think that the general consensus that has been gleaned from the data is that the higher the PD-L1 expression, the greater the benefit. I do want to comment on another option that is available in patients with squamous cell carcinoma compared to adenocarcinoma, and that is the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab. Now, in CheckMate-648, nivolumab with ipilimumab was also recommended as a treatment option in patients that have a PD-L1 score of greater than 1. There was a survival benefit demonstrated with this combination compared to chemotherapy alone. And an important observation in this study is that, although there was a slightly increased rate in early death, but there was really no significant difference in PFS and OS compared to chemotherapy alone. Importantly, the treatment appeared to be pretty well tolerated by the study population. There was a notable difference in the objective response rate, which was 35% in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group compared to patients receiving nivolumab and chemotherapy, where it was 53%. So superiority is, so the importance of chemotherapy in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is to be noted. However, there is no difference in overall survival and progression-free survival when using the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab, and thus it affords a chemotherapy-free option for this patient population with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and a CPS with a score of greater than 1. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you reviewing the evidence underpinning those recommendations as well. So then the next patient population that the guideline panel addressed, what first-line therapy is recommended for patients with deficient mismatch repair, microsatellite instability-high, gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma or esophageal squamous cell carcinoma? Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev: The rate of MSI-high expression is about 3% to 7% across different studies. Now, the KEYNOTE-158 was a tumor-agnostic study in patients with non-colorectal cancers, and again, the problem with the MSI-high population, given that it is so rare, the numbers in the individual studies are fairly small. But consistent outcomes do emerge, indicating high response to immunotherapy. So in KEYNOTE-158, a response rate of about 46% was noted. The number of patients was small, it was about 24. In CheckMate-649, which is a study of chemotherapy plus or minus nivolumab in patients with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma, there was again a very small number of patients, and patients that were MSI-high or deficient MMR did experience substantial benefits with the addition of immunotherapy, with hazard ratios in the order of about 0.38. In KEYNOTE-062, again, it was a very small number of patients, again about 6% or so, and similar to CheckMate-649, a substantial benefit was noted in combination with chemotherapy, but also there were benefits noted with pembrolizumab alone. The RATIONALE-305 again was a study of tislelizumab in combination with chemotherapy and similarly showed benefits to the combination of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy in this patient population. I think that we are all aware of the dramatic benefits of immunotherapy in this particular subset of patients, deficient MMR MSI-high, and also we have seen in CheckMate-649 they did have a subset of patients that received nivolumab and ipilimumab. And in this patient population, they noted unstratified hazard ratio of 0.28. So I think that the overall consensus is that immunotherapy is a very important treatment modality in patients with deficient MMR MSI-high disease, given that a lot of the trials in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma have utilized chemotherapy-based options, that is certainly a recommendation of the panel to use chemotherapy in combination with immunotherapy. However, on a case-by-case basis, the panel recommended immunotherapy alone as well, and given the high response rates noted in trials across different diseases as well as noted in this disease as well. Brittany Harvey: Certainly. And I appreciate you both for reviewing these first-line recommendations. So moving to later lines of therapy, Dr. Rajdev, what recommendations did the expert panel make for second or third-line therapy for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma? Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev: So, I think that the RAINBOW trial that investigated the utility of the addition of ramucirumab as second-line therapy has been around since 2014, and those results have led to the addition of ramucirumab to taxane-based therapy in the second-line setting. Based on the utilization of oxaliplatin and platinum-based therapy in the front-line setting, there may be patients that have an underlying neuropathy, and so we wanted to really include treatment options for this patient population so that an agent that is less neurotoxic could also be recommended in combination with ramucirumab. The RAMIRIS trial is one such trial where ramucirumab was combined with FOLFIRI, and it demonstrated benefit in combination with ramucirumab. So we have listed that as a potential treatment option for patients in the second-line setting who may have an underlying neuropathy or even for whatever reason that based on the toxicity profile, that needs to be the preferred option by a physician, that recommendation is new from the older guidelines that we have. With regard to the utility of PD-1 inhibitors, there really has been no benefit noted in the second-line setting with regard to overall survival or progression-free survival, so no recommendation is made for that option. I think an important study that has been recently presented is the DESTINY-Gastric04 trial, which really has been practice-changing and has led to the recommendation for trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients that have HER2-positive metastatic gastric or GE junction adenocarcinoma. Now, this is a phase III trial in patients who retained HER2-positive disease after progressing on front-line trastuzumab-based treatments, and the comparator for this trial was trastuzumab deruxtecan versus ramucirumab plus paclitaxel. There was significant improvement and progression-free survival in patients that received trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patients that were excluded from the trial are patients that have pulmonary problems, interstitial lung disease; that is one of the toxicities of this particular agent, and close monitoring and prompt initiation of therapy such as glucocorticoid treatment in patients who develop this toxicity was also highlighted by the panel. So to summarize, the new guidelines highlight the possibility of FOLFIRI plus ramucirumab as a second-line option and then trastuzumab deruxtecan as a later-line option in patients that still retain HER2 expression. And that is very important because the trial did retest patients whether they expressed HER2. As we know, in a substantial number of patients, there is downregulation of HER2, and there is emerging data that the benefit for subsequent HER2-directed therapies is best noted in patients that still retain HER2 expression. Brittany Harvey: Great. So as our listeners have heard, there are many recommendations and new treatment options for advanced gastroesophageal cancer. Dr. Shah, earlier you highlighted the importance of biomarker testing, but I would like to hear in your view, what is the importance of this guideline and how will it impact both clinicians and patients with gastroesophageal carcinoma? Dr. Manish Shah: So as we have discussed throughout this podcast, the treatment for gastroesophageal cancer, both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer, is increasingly complex, increasingly biomarker-driven. And I think the value of the guideline is to place all of that into context. So it provides the data for why certain biomarkers are important, what therapies should be indicated. Not only that, but if you are able to review the guideline, it provides the details of each of these studies and summarizes them in a meta-analysis fashion to sort of give you the context, because sometimes the individual studies can be maybe a little bit discordant or confusing and the guideline attempts to harmonize all that. And then also, I think the tables are very, very interesting because they give you actual numbers in terms of how many patients over a thousand would this benefit or how many patients over a thousand would this cause harm in terms of nausea, vomiting, or other things like that. So it gives you context for helping clinicians and patients weigh the potential benefits of the novel treatment strategies against the potential adverse events. And then finally, the guideline does also provide an algorithm that you are able to follow based on the biomarkers, and those are in figures 4 and 5. So I think overall, it is a very comprehensive guideline. It intends to make more manageable a very complex subject, and you know, I really encourage our listeners to review it after listening to the podcast. Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev: If I can add to that, I think that what is also really good about the guidelines is there are quick summaries. So if someone is busy in the clinic, of course, there is the opportunity to review the data supporting the guidelines in great depth in the manuscript, but what is also really good is that there are good summaries. In the event that you are very busy, you can easily identify what the recommendations should be for that particular patient based on these summaries. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Listeners are encouraged to review the full guideline, including those tables and figures that may be more helpful when they are looking for something quick to look at in the clinic as well. So, as you both mentioned, there have been a number of recent practice-changing trials in this area. So I imagine there is still a lot of ongoing research as well. So Dr. Shah, what are the outstanding questions regarding treatment options for patients with locally advanced unresectable, advanced, or metastatic gastroesophageal carcinoma? Dr. Manish Shah: I think we touched upon it a little bit. The guidelines are based on the data available, and they are primarily examining one novel therapy with chemotherapy in a specific biomarker population. But as you know, the biomarkers are not either/or; you are not either CLDN18.2 positive or PD-L1 positive. A portion of patients could have dual biomarkers, and you know, I think that we are generating data on how to manage those patients. At the recent GI Symposium in January this year, the ILUSTRO trial was presented by Dr. Shitara, which looked at combining zolbetuximab and chemotherapy with immunotherapy for dual-positive biomarkers, and that is leading to a phase III study that has begun to enroll. So unanswered questions are: how do we manage dual-positive biomarkers? The other thing that was mentioned is that the current data for mismatch repair deficiency involve chemotherapy plus immunotherapy. Only squamous cell cancer is there a study with a positive non-chemotherapy kind of backbone, that is CheckMate-648 that Dr. Rajdev mentioned. As we move forward, it will be good to get data on non-chemotherapy options in certain biomarker-positive populations. And then finally, another update, which is likely to be practice-changing, is the HERIZON-GEA-01 study that looked at zanidatamab, which is another biparatopic antibody that targets HER2, and that is likely to change practice. And as that data gets published, we may look to even do a rapid update for the current immunotherapy and targeted therapy guideline that is just being published. Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev: So, if I can add to that, there are numerous ADCs that look very interesting. There are bispecific antibodies; in fact, the zanidatamab is a bispecific antibody showing improved activity in patients with HER2-positive disease. So I think there are studies from Asia looking at CLDN CAR T-based therapies. So, I think that there are a lot of novel agents and a lot of excitement in the field. We know that the bemarituzumab study, unfortunately, the FGFR2 inhibitor failed to demonstrate any benefit, but I think that there are other agents that are being explored, so there are newer targets, newer agents, ADCs, bispecifics that could potentially change the field in the future. Brittany Harvey: Yes, we will look forward to the data to address these unanswered questions and new agents and inform future guideline updates. So, I would like to thank you both for all of your work to review the evidence here and update this important guideline, and for your time today, Dr. Rajdev and Dr. Shah. Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev: Thank you. Dr. Manish Shah: Thank you. 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/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you have heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Dr. Bishal Gyawali and Dr. Tessa Cigler share the new, comprehensive, evidence-based update of the ASCO guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors in patients with cancer. They discuss recommendations on primary prophylaxis, secondary prophylaxis, and treatment of febrile neutropenia along with stem cell mobilization, efficacy, safety, duration, dosing, and administration of CSFs – including biosimilars. They highlight where it is appropriate to use a CSF, and importantly, when not to use a CSF. They touch on the significance of individual patient considerations and cost implications, and future work to refine the risk factors for the development of complications of febrile neutropenia. Read the full guideline, "White Blood Cell Growth Factors: ASCO Guideline Update" at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools and resources are available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-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-25-02938     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. Bishal Gyawali from Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and Dr. Tessa Cigler from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, New York, co-chairs on "White Blood Cell Growth Factors: ASCO Guideline Update." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Gyawali and Dr. Cigler. Dr. Bishal Gyawali: Thank you very much for having me. It's a pleasure. Dr. Tessa Cigler: Hi there. Nice to be here as well. Brittany Harvey: Great. 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. Cigler and Dr. Gyawali, who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then I'd like to dive into the guideline that we're here today to talk about. So first, what prompted an update to this guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors in patients with cancer, and what is the scope of this updated guideline? Dr. Bishal Gyawali: The last version of the guidelines from ASCO on this topic was back in 2015, so it has been more than a decade since ASCO had a guideline on the use of G-CSF in patients with cancer receiving treatment. So it was due for an update because there has been a lot more evidence based on not necessarily new drugs, but evidence for proper timing of these agents and the duration of these agents, as well as there have been a lot of new biosimilars, and there are questions about are these biosimilars equivalent or how do we choose among these different options. One is that content of the evidence that has evolved over time in the last decade, but also I think the last time we had these guidelines, the ASCO guidelines were not incorporated to have those evidence GRADE tables. So the quality of the ASCO guidelines itself has evolved over the years, so we wanted to have a new version of the guideline that includes not only the new evidence, but also contains those evidence GRADE tables that will help to quantify the benefits. And so I think it was high time, and even more than that, the newer ASCO guidelines for any guideline, they also include considerations of cost, access, equity, and all these factors that were not included in the previous version of the guideline. So I think it's only natural that with time the guideline should also evolve. Dr. Tessa Cigler: I agree completely, and just as a framework, as we all know, neutropenia and its complications, including febrile neutropenia and infections, are still an important toxicity of many myelosuppressive chemotherapies. And these neutropenic complications do require prompt evaluation and treatment and often hospitalization, and we know that hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors, which I'm going to refer to as growth factors, can reduce the duration and severity of neutropenia and the risk of febrile neutropenia, so it remains an important topic in the practice of clinical oncology. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's an important topic for both clinicians and for patients who are receiving treatment for their cancer. And as you said, there was a substantial amount of literature to review here and updating everything to be in line with the GRADE evidence rating system, so there was a lot of work that you both put into this. So then next, I'd like to review the key recommendations of this guideline by clinical question. So first, what factors did the expert panel identify that should influence the decision to administer primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with a CSF? Dr. Bishal Gyawali: Yeah, so I think that constitutes one of the most important recommendations in our guidelines about primary prophylaxis with G-CSF. And this is important because not only it's about when to use it, it's also about when not to use it, as in the ASCO "Choosing Wisely" campaign has also made some recommendations about this. So our guideline recommendations are also aligned with that. So first of all, we recommend that primary prophylaxis with G-CSF is recommended when the risk of febrile neutropenia because of the chemotherapy regimen is equal to or more than 20% unless an alternative chemotherapy regimen with comparable efficacy and safety that does not need G-CSF is available. And the quality of evidence to make this recommendation is high, so we give a strong strength of recommendation for this. Having said that, even for patients where the risk of febrile neutropenia is not necessarily 20%, it's a little lower, but because of other patient-related factors, the patient is at a higher risk of complications from febrile neutropenia, such as age, comorbidities, and other factors, in such case primary prophylaxis with G-CSF should be offered. And we also make a recommendation that if G-CSF is not affordable or available, then antibiotic prophylaxis can also be offered, but the evidence quality for this is low, and the strength of recommendation is very conditional. A couple of things to highlight here would be that, I think Dr. Cigler can attest to that, we ran into lots of problems about finding the data for the evidence base to say what are the patient-related factors that actually make them at a higher risk of febrile neutropenia, you know, like how did that 20% benchmark come about? Why 20%? Or when we say even if it's less than 20%, if based on other comorbidities, if the risk is higher, we tried to dig into that evidence. For example, we're talking about our "Box 1" in the guideline, what is the evidence for each item we have included under that "Box 1"? And we tried to do a lot of search to find the evidence for that, and some of them do have strong evidence, and that will tie into our future research ideas as well. And some of them actually don't have such solid evidence too, so that was one of the reasons why we ran into lots of problems about how do we quantify whether someone is at a high risk of febrile neutropenia and where that 20% benchmark comes from. Dr. Tessa Cigler: And definitely, because there's not very clear data, our guidelines definitely leave room for physician discretion in all these situations. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I find that in a lot of these guidelines the key point is that there's a lot of shared decision-making with patients after talking through what risk factors they may have and what is best for them in their individual clinical scenario. So then moving on to secondary prophylaxis, what factors did the expert panel identify that should influence the decision to administer secondary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with a CSF? Dr. Tessa Cigler: So for patients who've already experienced a neutropenic complication from a previous cycle of chemotherapy, the question is which patients should then receive prophylactic G-CSF for subsequent cycles of chemotherapy. And without a lot of evidence again to guide us, the panel really felt strongly that secondary prophylaxis should be used when a treatment delay or when a reduced dose of chemotherapy would be thought to compromise cure rates or survival outcomes. We do note that in many situations, certainly a dose reduction or a delay would be a very reasonable alternative or an additional strategy to G-CSF administration. Dr. Bishal Gyawali: Yeah, I think it's more like if there is going to be compromise in outcomes without using G-CSF, as in if we can't maintain the dose intensity and that's going to lead to inferior outcomes, then we should. But if we can reduce the dose intensity and treatment frequency and still have the same outcomes, then I guess in simple words, we're just trying to say use it when it's absolutely needed, or you can also look into other alternatives that might not need G-CSF but you could maintain the same outcomes. Brittany Harvey: Understood. It's helpful to review those options for clinicians and showing that there's not just one way to address potential neutropenic complications for later cycles of chemotherapy. So then following those recommendations for prophylaxis, what does the expert panel recommend regarding CSFs for the treatment of febrile neutropenia? Dr. Bishal Gyawali: This is an important question because this ties strongly with the "Choosing Wisely" campaign. In other words, primary and secondary prophylaxis we talked about when CSF should be used; here we make a sort of negative recommendation in that we say when CSF should not be used, because this is where we see most overuse or overtreatment with G-CSF. So first, we say that we should not be using a CSF routinely simply because a patient has neutropenia. If they are afebrile but they only have neutropenia, we recommend against using CSF just to boost neutrophil counts; that's not a meaningful metric. Then the second recommendation we make is CSF should not be routinely used as an adjunctive treatment with antibiotic therapy for patients with fever and neutropenia. So the first one was neutropenia, no fever, don't use it. The second one is okay, there is neutropenia and fever, but the treatment for that is use of antibiotic therapy, and so in such situations routinely we should not be using G-CSF just to boost the neutrophil count. And that is tied on to the third recommendation where if the patient has fever and neutropenia but is also at a very high risk for infection-related complications or who have other prognostic factors that we think will lead to poor outcomes for the patient, then in such situations, a CSF can be used as an adjunctive treatment. But we talk about the data in the manuscript, but the data show that the most that this will do is reduce the days of hospitalization by a couple of days. It actually does not have any data that it's going to improve the mortality rates. So as of now, we use the word "may be offered," it's not "should be offered," it's "may be offered" if there are other factors that we think will make the patient at the very poor risk of mortality outcomes, and the evidence quality here therefore is low and our strength of recommendation is conditional. And we also have a box that lists those items that we think might be associated with poor prognosis for the patients, but again the data for those, are they really hard evidence? No. And that is also tied with our future research recommendation that we should study more about these factors that might lead to these poor outcomes. Dr. Tessa Cigler: And again, allowing for discretion of the treating physician. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's just as important to know when not to use CSFs routinely, and those risk factor boxes that you mentioned are available in the full manuscript along with the full list of recommendations, and our listeners can refer to that; a link will be in the show notes of the episode . Dr. Tessa Cigler: Just so you know, the panel, we really discussed those criteria a lot and agonized over them and gave you our best recommendations. Brittany Harvey: Definitely, and it sounds like there was varying degrees of evidence to support a lot of those risk factors, and so it's really important that the evidence supports those, but also there was expert consensus of the panel in reviewing each of those factors individually to come up with recommendations that can be applicable for all clinicians. Dr. Bishal Gyawali: If I may add, we're proud of our panel because I think our panel is quite inclusive of people representing different specialties within cancer care, as in we had radiation oncologist, we had infectious disease expert, pharmacists, and most importantly, we also had patient partners. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Having a multidisciplinary panel is really important for each and every guideline. So then, this is probably relevant now, but addressing a few more specific sections addressed in the guideline, what is the role of CSFs as adjuncts to progenitor cell transplantation? Dr. Tessa Sigler: Great question, and so, as solid tumor oncologists, Dr. Gyawali and I really leaned heavily on our hematology experts within the panel. The panel decided that a CSF should be used alone after chemotherapy or in combination with a CXCR4 inhibitor to mobilize peripheral blood progenitor cells. Clearly the choice of mobilization strategy depends on the type of cancer and the type of transplantation. The panel noted that a CSF should be routinely administered after autologous stem cell transplantation to reduce the risk of severe neutropenia, and that a CSF may be administered after allogeneic stem cell transplant to reduce the duration of severe neutropenia. Again, this last recommendation has not a lot of evidence to support it, and so we kind of tempered our language that it may be administered or can be considered based on clinical judgment of the physician and the clinical status of the patient. Brittany Harvey: And that really highlights the need for a multidisciplinary panel, because as you are solid tumor oncologists, you need the hematologists to make recommendations for all sorts of patients and make sure that these guidelines are comprehensive.   So then moving on to another smaller subset population, for patients receiving concomitant chemotherapy and radiation therapy, are CSFs recommended? Dr. Bishal Gyawali: I think there is very little evidence for patients who are receiving radiation therapy alone, so there is no evidence to suggest the use of CSF in patients with radiation therapy alone. The bigger question is in patients who are receiving both chemo and radiation together, chemoradiotherapy. In those patients, up until now, the classical recommendation has been to avoid G-CSF use. I think in our updated guidelines we discuss a couple newer trials that are trying to address this issue, but in the totality of evidence, we still stick with the same recommendation as before, which is CSFs are not recommended in patients receiving concomitant chemotherapy and radiation therapy, especially those involving the mediastinum because the biggest evidence of harm is for these patients. Dr. Tessa Cigler: I agree completely. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. It's important to recognize when that balance of benefits and harms leans more towards harms, and so that this should not be recommended for those patients. So there are several different CSFs that are recommended in the guideline, including biosimilars. So do the recommended CSFs differ in efficacy or safety? Dr. Tessa Cigler: So as supported by evidence, and the panel all agreed, that the various forms of CSFs, including the biosimilars, really have the same evidence for efficacy and for safety, and that the choice of agent really should depend on cost, availability, accessibility, patient convenience, and sometimes disease subtypes and treatment regimens. But, in essence, these can be used interchangeably without concern for efficacy or toxicity differences. Dr. Bishal Gyawali: I completely agree. I think in terms of efficacy outcomes, I don't think there is anything to choose between these agents. The choice between these agents would largely depend on different patient and treatment-related factors: cost, availability, affordability, feasibility. We even discuss things like where does the patient live, as in how frequently the patient can commit to the cancer center, and we also discussed things like even for the daily shots of filgrastim, patients can be taught and they can get it by themselves at home. So we discussed all these factors, but in a nutshell, the choice within these agents primarily depends not on efficacy factors, but simply based on all these other factors that are equally important but which can lead to informed decision-making about what is best for a given patient. But we mention it explicitly that the biosimilars, there is nothing to choose between them, especially the biosimilars; it's about price competition and what you can get at an affordable rate. Brittany Harvey: Understood. It's great to have many different options for patients so that there's something that can work for them based off access, cost, and all these factors that you listed. As you mentioned, it may be easier for some patients to get their treatment at home rather than in clinic, and so having different options and reviewing those with patients is very important. Dr. Bishal Gyawali: As we are having this conversation, I'm thinking that we might be a very unique guideline in that I don't think in many other settings you have this many options that you are asking about, you know, choices between equally good options and making decisions based on cost. I don't think there are any other areas in oncology where we have the privilege of making these decisions based on cost and convenience and all these factors, as well as we might be one of those guidelines where we have, as discussed before, so many recommendations about when not to do things and trying to promote judicial use of treatments. Dr. Tessa Cigler: As you might imagine, our panel discussions were very lively. Dr. Bishal Gyawali: Yes. But Dr. Cigler, do you recall any other guideline where there is so much discussion about when not to use things and how we have so many biosimilar options and we can choose the one that's most appropriate? I don't recall any other. Dr. Tessa Cigler: I agree with you. Brittany Harvey: It's certainly a unique guideline in that regard. So we'll move into the last clinical question that the expert panel addressed. But what does the expert panel recommend for the initiation, duration, dosing, and administration of CSFs? Dr. Bishal Gyawali: Yeah, I think there has been some new data in this regard that were not available in the previous guideline. For example, we have new trials testing a shorter duration of filgrastim injections compared to the standard of care. So we have some data, we call this 'de-escalation of treatment'. So we have more data supporting de-escalation of treatment. We have some data for lower dose of pegfilgrastim, we have data for lower duration of filgrastim, we have also some new data about timing of treatment, as in there has been some newer data presented about the relationship of timing of the drug and the frequency of adverse events from G-CSF such as bone pain. There is also the question about, for patients who don't live near the cancer center, can they get their pegfilgrastim shot on the day of chemo while they are in the cancer center? So all these questions that are very pragmatic and important questions, but were not answered before, we're glad that we had more evidence to talk about all these factors and give a more solid recommendation to our users of the guideline. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And listeners can review the full list of dosing and administration recommendations in Table 2 in the guideline, and that will be linked in the show notes of the episode. So then I really want to thank you both for reviewing all of these recommendations. There's certainly a large amount of clinical questions and recommendations that you went through. I'd like to next ask, in your view, what is the importance of this updated guideline and how will it impact both clinicians and patients? Dr. Bishal Gyawali: I think the importance of this updated guideline is that, as mentioned before, we talk about newer data that have come up with regards to not just the most important two questions as in when to use it as primary prophylaxis and when to use it as secondary prophylaxis and when to use it as treatment, but also with regards to the duration and timing and dosing and multiple options and how these all factors as well as patient-related factors should be combined to make an informed decision, the most appropriate decision for the patient. And as mentioned before, we have the GRADE tables that were not in the previous version of this guideline. So I think even those users that are familiar with the 2015 guideline, I think they will find very novel content in this new updated guideline, and they will find it useful for their practice. I would encourage the readers to not only read the headlines of the box recommendations, but also read the full text of these guidelines because we have worked really hard to incorporate the latest evidence and also interpret them contextually. The discussion regarding de-escalation, patient considerations, cost implications; usually, people just skip these portions when they read a guideline. But I think these are also one of the most important paragraphs in our guideline, so they have been written with very careful thought, and I think reading the whole guideline is very much worth your time. Dr. Tessa Cigler: As you can imagine, I agree completely, having just spent several months thinking about these guidelines and all their nuances. Brittany Harvey: Certainly, this guideline is definitely a very comprehensive update, and that nuance in the manuscript is really important for clinicians to understand and read through and understand when it's appropriate to make certain decisions. So then to wrap us up, I'd like to ask, what are the outstanding questions and active research areas regarding the use of white blood cell growth factors in patients with cancer? Dr. Tessa Cigler: As you all know from clinical practice and that we've said several times already in this podcast is that the risk factors for the development of complications of febrile neutropenia are still not clearly worked out. And one of the things that is, I think, really needed in clinical practice is the development of predictive algorithms or biomarkers to really allow us to understand who might be more at risk and to allow for the clinician to be able to tailor the use of G-CSF as needed. Brittany Harvey: Yes, and so we'll look forward to future updates in this space to inform new recommendations and an updated guideline in the future. So I want to thank you both so much for your work to develop this comprehensive guideline. It was certainly a lot of effort, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Gyawali and Dr. Cigler. Dr. Tessa Cigler: Oh, my pleasure. It's nice to be here and to speak with you all. Dr. Bishal Gyawali: Yeah, it was great to speak with both of you but also through you to the audience, and we had a great time. Thank you. Brittany Harvey: And then 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/supportive-care-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

In this JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights episode, host Dr. Carolyn Lineen summaries the article, "Concordance of Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score Assay Results Between Paired Core Needle Biopsy and Surgical Excision Specimens in Hormone Receptor Positive, HER2-Negative Early-Stage Breast Cancer," by Nassar et al. TRANSCRIPT Carolyn Lineen: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host, Carolyn Lineen, from St. James's Hospital, Dublin, and today we will be discussing the JCO Precision Oncology article titled "Concordance of Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score Assay Results Between Paired Core Needle Biopsy and Surgical Excision Specimens in Hormone Receptor Positive, HER2-Negative Early-Stage Breast Cancer" by Dr. Aziza Nassar and colleagues. The Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score assay is a 21-gene expression test that provides both prognostic information regarding distant recurrence risk and predictive information regarding the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer. The recurrence score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a greater risk of recurrence and a potentially higher likelihood of benefit from chemotherapy. Traditionally, genomic testing is performed on surgical excision specimens following tumor resection. However, this approach can potentially delay access to biological risk stratification, which may be important when early treatment planning or neoadjuvant therapy is being considered. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the level of concordance between recurrence scores derived from paired core needle biopsy specimens and surgical excision specimens obtained from the same untreated primary breast tumors. Investigators specifically evaluated both continuous recurrence score agreement and categorical risk classification concordance. The study included 134 patients with paired biopsy and surgical specimens. The median patient age was 62 years, with a wide age range from 33 to 99 years. Approximately 17% of patients were aged 50 years or younger, while 83% were older than 50 years. All patients had hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer and had not received prior systemic treatment before either specimen collection. Each patient contributed two tumor samples: a core needle biopsy specimen obtained at initial diagnosis and a surgical excision specimen obtained during definitive tumor resection. Both samples underwent Oncotype DX testing, allowing direct within-patient comparison. The investigators reported mean recurrence scores of 15.6 for core needle biopsy specimens and 16.6 for surgical excision specimens. Although this absolute mean difference between specimen types did reach statistical significance with a P value of 0.003, the authors note that this numerical difference was small at one recurrence score unit and may not therefore be clinically meaningful. Additionally, categorical recurrence score results did not differ significantly. The primary measure of agreement between recurrence scores was the Lin's concordance correlation coefficient. The study demonstrated a Lin concordance correlation coefficient of 0.86 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.80 to 0.90, indicating strong agreement between biopsy and surgical specimens. Additionally, categorical agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistic. The study reported a kappa value of 0.64 with a 95% confidence interval from 0.44 to 0.83, indicating substantial agreement between specimen types. Comparing this study to previously published evidence, the authors referenced prior smaller studies examining concordance between paired tissue samples. For example, earlier research evaluating 50 patients demonstrated correlation coefficients of approximately 0.8 and categorical concordance rates ranging from 72% to 78%, depending on the classification cut points used. Compared with earlier studies, the present study provides stronger evidence supporting consistency between biopsy and surgical testing. These findings have several important implications for clinical practice. First, early availability of recurrence score results may enhance multidisciplinary care planning. Obtaining genomic risk data at the time of diagnosis allows tumor boards to integrate molecular risk stratification into initial treatment discussions rather than waiting for postoperative results. Second, biopsy-based testing may support decision making regarding treatment sequencing. Earlier genomic information may help guide selection of neoadjuvant therapy or inform early decisions about adjuvant chemotherapy necessity. Third, early testing may reduce delays in treatment initiation. Separate research evaluating presurgical Oncotype DX testing has demonstrated potential reductions in time to initiation of adjuvant therapy by approximately 8 days, suggesting potential improvements in care efficiency. Additionally, biopsy-based testing demonstrates strong technical feasibility. Studies examining real-world implementation have reported test success rates as high as 99.1% when performed on core biopsy specimens. Despite the encouraging results, certain limitations must be considered. Core needle biopsy samples evaluate only a portion of the tumor, and intratumoral heterogeneity could theoretically influence recurrence score results in selected cases. Preanalytical factors, including tissue fixation and sample handling, may also affect RNA integrity and assay performance. Standardization of specimen processing protocols will be essential if biopsy-based testing becomes routine. Furthermore, although analytical concordance is strong, prospective outcome studies demonstrating equivalent long-term clinical outcomes based on biopsy-directed treatment decisions would further strengthen the evidence base. In conclusion, this study demonstrates strong concordance between Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Scores derived from core needle biopsy specimens and surgical excision specimens in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer. With a concordance correlation coefficient of 0.86 and overall categorical agreement exceeding 90%, the findings support the clinical feasibility of performing genomic testing at the time of diagnostic biopsy. If validated through additional prospective studies, this approach may enable earlier risk stratification and improve multidisciplinary treatment planning. Thank you for tuning in to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. Don't forget to subscribe and join us next time as we explore more groundbreaking research shaping the future of oncology. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Listen to JCO's Art of Oncology article, "Mother's Grief" by Dr. Margaret Cupit-Link, who is an assistant professor of pediatric hematology/oncology at Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital of St. Louis University. The article is followed by an interview with Cupit-Link and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr Cupit-Link shares a pediatric oncologist's experience of a patient's death through the new lens of motherhood. TRANSCRIPT AOO 26E03 Narrator: Mother's Grief, by Margaret Cupit-Link, MD, MSCI  Mikkael Sekeres: Welcome back to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. This ASCO podcast features intimate narratives and perspectives from authors exploring their experiences in oncology. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm professor of medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. What a treat it is today to have joining us our third place Narrative Medicine Contest winner, Maggie Cupit-Link, an assistant professor of Pediatric Hematology Oncology at Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital of St. Louis University to discuss her Journal of Clinical Oncology article, "Mother's Grief." Both Maggie and I have agreed to call each other by first names. Maggie, thank you for contributing to the Journal of Clinical Oncology and for joining us to discuss your winning article. Maggie Cupit-Link: Thank you so much for having me and for choosing my article. It's an honor to get to speak with this group. I know a lot of our listeners have a lot in common with us in our profession, so I'm excited to be here. Mikkael Sekeres: We're excited to have you. You are such a terrific writer. Tell us about yourself. Where are you from, and walk us through where you are at this stage of your career? Maggie Cupit-Link: I grew up in a small town in Mississippi called Brookhaven, and I ended up attending college in Memphis, Tennessee, which is important to note because I was a pre-med student when I got diagnosed with childhood cancer, Ewing sarcoma, at the age of 19. And so that really shaped my career goals. And I was treated at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, which is very formative as well, given that I was surrounded by childhood cancer patients. I ended up doing my medical school at the Mayo Clinic Medical School in Minnesota, which was very cold for me but a wonderful experience. And then went to St. Louis to WashU, St. Louis Children's for my residency, and then back to Memphis for my fellowship at St. Jude. But now I'm back in St. Louis at the other hospital, Cardinal Glennon, which is affiliated with St. Louis University. And my husband's originally from St. Louis, so it was always a dream of his to be back here. And once I ended up here, I really have loved St. Louis as well. So this is home for us and our two babies who are ages one and two, and they are one year and one day apart exactly. Mikkael Sekeres: Oh my word. Well, you are definitely in the thick of it, aren't you? Maggie Cupit-Link: It's a very busy, chaotic life, but I'm very grateful. And so that makes it worth it. Mikkael Sekeres: That sounds fantastic. Well, I'm calling in from Miami today, so believe me, the thought of being in Rochester, Minnesota is not very appealing in mid-February. Maggie Cupit-Link: I believe that. I'm glad I'm not there right now. Mikkael Sekeres: Gee, I didn't know about your history of having cancer yourself. What was it like to return for fellowship at the place where you yourself were treated? Maggie Cupit-Link: That was an incredible experience for me. It was very emotional as well. I remember the first day of fellowship getting a tour and crying throughout the tour. More tears of joy, but it was, it was really surreal. It was really special. And I got to learn from some of the doctors who treated me, which made it really special as well. I'm really glad I got to train there and to be at a place with such a large volume of pediatric oncology patients was a really great learning experience. Mikkael Sekeres: I wonder, infrastructures, buildings change over a few years, particularly in medical centers. Was there ever a moment when you were talking to a patient who was sitting in the same chair where you were sitting when you were a patient? And was that something that you were open to sharing with people? Maggie Cupit-Link: All the time, on all accounts. Yes. The infrastructure has changed. It continues to grow significantly, but the clinic hadn't changed at that time. I think it will in the next couple of years. But the solid tumor clinic where I was treated was exactly the same. And there were many times where I took care of sarcoma patients and Ewing sarcoma patients who were teenagers as I had been in the very same rooms and times where I learned from my own oncologist as he was teaching me and training me. So it made it really special. It made empathy a big part of my experience. And I think it is for all of our experiences in oncology in particular, but I think that empathy has always been a huge part of my job and something that comes to me naturally, which is a gift. But as is sort of alluded to in my piece that we're discussing today, can be difficult at times. Empathy can also sometimes be a curse when it's hard to turn off, and that's been something as a mother now that I've really had to learn to cope with is like figuring out when my empathy might not serve me in moments and might not serve the patient in moments, and when it is an asset and a gift. Mikkael Sekeres: Empathy at the deepest possible level, having walked the same path your patients have walked as well. Really a remarkable story, Maggie. Maggie Cupit-Link: I'm very blessed to get to be alive and well, but especially to get to have a job that's so meaningful to me and hopefully can share my experience in a way that helps my patients. Mikkael Sekeres: And you share it through writing as well. When did you start writing narrative pieces? Maggie Cupit-Link: I started writing a lot when I was a cancer patient for more like a journal experience. And I had a CaringBridge page, which is one of these social media pages where families update their friends a lot on what's going on. And I started journaling daily, and then ended up publishing a book of my experience as a patient. I had also done a lot of writing of letters to my grandfather who's a retired professor of Christian philosophy because during my illness, I was really struggling with my faith and having a lot of questions as we all do when encountering children with cancer, "Why? Why God?" And so the book is actually called Why God? Suffering Through Cancer Into Faith, and it's a collection of narratives that I exchanged with my grandfather. And his part is more philosophical, and mine is more raw and emotional and expressive of the grief that I was feeling at the time as a patient. So that was the first big time I did narrative medicine, but I've found myself continuing to do so as a way to cope and process things that I go through. And the most recent one before the one we're discussing today was a piece about fertility that was published in JCO Cancer Stories and also I got to do the podcast for that piece. And that was about my experience losing fertility as a patient and how that has impacted what I tell patients about fertility and how I counsel them about possible fertility loss. And the plot twist there is that I actually have two miracle babies that I birthed for some reason after 13 years of menopause. So now I'm not infertile, but I'm very passionate about fertility as well. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, I remember that essay. I also remember how impactful that was to a lot of people who read it and how helpful it was. And gave a lot of people hope. Maggie Cupit-Link: I think hope is very, very important and necessary in the realm of cancer. Mikkael Sekeres: My word, you have so much that you could potentially share with your patients on their journey. Have you also been open to sharing your faith with them? Maggie Cupit-Link: Absolutely. I am. I think that it's something I'm really cautious not to push on anyone, but whenever patients bring up faith and want to talk about that or when they introduce that as a topic and make it clear that that's something that they are thinking about, then I'm definitely very open about that too. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, that must be a comfort to them. Maggie Cupit-Link: I hope so. It's a comfort to me as well. For me, I don't know how I would do this job and lose patients and children to death if I didn't believe in something more. Mikkael Sekeres: It's beautifully said. In this essay, you make a close connection to your patient and his mother when you write, "I imagined my own son contained in a hospital room, attached to an IV pole, vomiting from chemotherapy. I could feel the warmth of his skin against mine and the weight of his body on my chest. And as I looked back at Tristan's mother, I could only support her decision to hold her baby." What is the importance of this connection to patients, and are there any downsides? In other words, you know, in medical school, we're often taught to keep a distance, or there was an essay I wrote with Tim Gilligan, who's a GU oncologist and this incredible communicator, where we wonder if all the communication classes we're exposed to in medical school actually undo our natural communication and our natural connection because we figure, "Gee, if we have to take all these classes on communication, maybe we've got to communicate differently." What is the importance of this connection to patients, and are there any downsides? Like, should we keep a distance or not? Maggie Cupit-Link: I don't know if we should, but I know that I can't. This is my gift and my curse. I think that taking care of someone with a sick baby, especially as a parent, is so human and so full of emotion that it's not possible for me not to feel that connection. Now, I do think there's a point at which I have to be careful that what I'm doing and what I'm expressing doesn't make it harder for them. I think it's important for them to know that I feel for them and that I am having these feelings, but I don't want it to become about me when I'm trying to help them. So I once in one of these medical school situations was told that the moment the family begins to comfort me might be a moment that I've known I've gone too far. And so I think that's a rule of thumb I think about is like, if I'm crying in this moment with this family, does that make them feel loved, or does that make them feel like they need to worry about me? And I think most of the time it just makes them feel loved, but that's sort of the tension there. I think when it comes to me too, I've been unable so far to put up boundaries to protect myself emotionally. I don't know that I'm capable of that, but more importantly, I don't think that's authentic for me. And so I don't do that. I'm trying to process and grieve so that I can cope and continue to be the doctor and person that I am. But I refuse to put up emotional walls because I don't think that will serve the patient or be authentic to who I am as a person. Mikkael Sekeres: You bring up a couple of really important notions, and the first is authenticity, being true to ourselves. And if we're not true to ourselves, our patients will see through that and wonder if we're not being true to them. And also having our antennae up to get the pulse of the room, to see how people are reacting to what we're doing and making sure that we're serving our patient's needs more than we're serving our own needs when we're actually in the clinic room with our patients. Maggie Cupit-Link: Definitely, I agree. And and those scenarios in medical school, I remember just thinking to myself that it didn't make a lot of sense to me and that I was lucky that this class wasn't meant for me, that I'll just do what I feel is appropriate. And I always did really well in the simulations, but I had no way to articulate why I knew what to do. It just, for me, I was so lucky that part came naturally, and I think it does in many of us who find medicine as a calling. But I don't know how to teach or learn that. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, you've seen it from the other side as well. I mean, you strike me as being a naturally empathic person and someone who's tuned into other people's emotions. But you've also been there. You're more tuned in than I am, having been someone who's had cancer. I've certainly had close family members who've had cancer, my mom has lung cancer, for example. So I've been in the role of somebody in the room who's supporting somebody with cancer, but I haven't myself had cancer the way you have. Maggie Cupit-Link: It definitely impacts my empathy. And I think that I was surprised after becoming a mother how much that also changed things for me and impacted my empathy further. Until you're a parent, you really don't know the depth and intensity of your love for a child or a person. And it was only then that I realized how heartbreaking it might be to lose a child. It's very difficult to suppress that empathy. And that's when it might not be helpful sometimes is when I'm leaving work and thinking about someone who lost their baby and knowing that no matter how much I empathize with them, it's not going to fix it. It's been the first time in my career and maybe my life where I've had to tell myself that maybe it's okay not to have empathy in this moment. Like, maybe I should turn it off for a little bit so that I can relax and enjoy my baby. Mikkael Sekeres: My God, it's such an interesting perspective. I think as oncologists, we have this different perspective on illness and, and if we're smart about it, if we're really focused and in the moment, we appreciate the aspects of life and realize how precious they can be. And that can be a lovely thing and something we pass on to our kids. I will tell you, my own children have accused me of brushing off some of their maladies with the refrain, "Well, it may hurt you, but it's not leukemia." Maggie Cupit-Link: I've heard that's common with physician's children, but it takes a lot to get a rise out of the parent. Mikkael Sekeres: You write at one point in the essay, "At first, I believed that I had no right to grieve in this way, that it was his mother's grief, Tristan's mother, not mine. I reminded myself that I was not Tristan's mother. I did not give birth to him or name him." Now, we recently published an essay about grieving called "Are You Bereaved?" by Trisha Paul, where she also wonders whether we as oncologists have a right to grieve. What do you think? Do we? Maggie Cupit-Link: I have to note that Trisha and I were co-fellows together in our training, so I'm happy that you mentioned her. And I need to go read that essay. I haven't read that one, so I will. It's weird to wonder if we have the right to grieve. My grandmother is a psychologist, and I remember as a child saying like, "I know I shouldn't feel this way, but" about some random thing. And I remember her saying, "Feelings aren't 'should'. Feelings just 'are'." So like, maybe it doesn't matter if we should or shouldn't, but if we are grieving, we're grieving. I think in some ways it feels like I don't have the right to grieve because I have this wonderful, happy life. And this can be true of survivorship as well when I'm taking care of many children who won't get to be survivors, especially because I care for a lot of sarcoma patients. But I often wonder like, "Am I allowed to be this happy," or "am I allowed to not be happy because there's so much grief in their lives?" So it's hard. I feel this tension often like, I'm not allowed to grieve as much as this mom, but also I better be really, really happy because I'm okay and my baby's okay. It's hard when we compare our emotions to other people's who are going through different things. But it, but it's hard not to wonder, like, "Am I allowed to feel this way?" "Am I supposed to feel this way?" For me, that's when writing is helpful. Just writing down what I feel in great detail helps me move through the feelings, I guess. Mikkael Sekeres: Part of the processing of it. You described the code call for your patient vividly. You know, you draw us as readers into your essay and into that moment. We've all been in that moment. I remember when I was just talking to somebody about when I was in the intensive care unit, when I was a resident, and how at that time, a psychiatrist actually met with us every week to help us process what we were seeing in the intensive care unit, which was really remarkably forward thinking for how long ago I trained. Maggie Cupit-Link: That's really great. Mikkael Sekeres: How did you process it in real time and afterwards though? Maggie Cupit-Link: That day, even now, an aspect of me was dreading this conversation because I feel nauseated when I think back to that day, to that code, and I feel like I'm going to cry. And I don't feel like that in every code, but I think it was because of the parallels between the little boy and my baby. To note, my baby, Houston, he is a big, bald, fat faced baby with a binky in his mouth at all times, and Tristan was a fat, bald baby with a binky in his mouth at all times. And so even though there was a bit of an age difference, when I saw Tristan, I just thought of Houston, and I couldn't separate that. I feel often when I'm doing a lumbar puncture or running a code in real time on a patient, I can sort of dehumanize to the degree that's helpful where I just do what needs to be done and put aside the ick feelings. But with that child, in that code, I couldn't. And luckily I didn't have to do anything but stand there and tell them when to stop or just be supportive, but I felt sick. I felt like I couldn't do anything to help. I didn't feel like a doctor in that moment. I felt like a family member of that child. And that was really difficult. I was so lucky, and I don't know how much the piece reflects this, but the other doctor who was there, the other oncologist, is a mentor of mine who's older than me and wiser than me and very experienced. And I call her my 'work mom' lovingly. She was there, and she stepped in and helped me and checked on me and made me feel like I could handle things. It would have been much worse without her there. Mikkael Sekeres: We're fortunate when we do have our friends and colleagues to help process this because if you're not in this field, at that moment it's hard to understand just how deeply we can also feel the pain that our patients are going through. Maggie Cupit-Link: Absolutely. Mikkael Sekeres: And I do hope you'll retain that description of Houston for when you give the speech at his wedding because I'm sure he'd appreciate that. Maggie Cupit-Link: The big fat bald binky baby. Yes. Houston is now in his 'mama phase' where if I'm not holding him at all times, he fake cries, "Mama," until I do pick him up. So it's been exhausting physically, but I must pick him up. Mikkael Sekeres: I have to say it has been such a pleasure having you, Maggie Cupit-Link, join us to discuss your essay, "Mother's Grief." Thank you so much for submitting your article and for joining us today. Maggie Cupit-Link: Thank you so much for having me, and thank you for everyone for reading. Mikkael Sekeres: If you've enjoyed this episode, consider sharing it with a friend or colleague or leave us a review. Your feedback and support helps us continue to have these important conversations. If you're looking for more episodes and context, follow our show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen and explore more from ASCO at asco.org/podcasts. Until next time, this has been Mikkael Sekeres for JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Show Notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review.   Guest Bio: Dr Margaret Cupit-Link is an assistant professor of pediatric hematology/oncology at Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital of St. Louis University.   Additional Reading:  It Mattered Later Why, God?: Suffering Through Cancer into Faith, by Margaret Carlisle Cupit, et al

Today, in honor of Black History Month, we're exploring what happens when inequity itself becomes a risk factor for breast cancer in the Black community — shaping who gets screened, how quickly they're diagnosed and, ultimately, who survives. Our guest, Dr. Lori Pierce, is a renowned radiation oncologist, former ASCO president and Komen Scholar, and national leader in advancing equity in cancer care. She has dedicated her career to improving outcomes of women with breast cancer, with a focus on the underserved, by transforming not just treatments but the systems that deliver them. Her perspective is rigorous, compassionate and urgently needed.

In this episode of JCO Article Insights, host Dr. Melis Canturk summarizes the article, "Phase 2 Trial of Ribociclib plus Letrozole in Women with Recurrent Low-Grade Serous Cancer of the Ovary, Fallopian Tube, or Peritoneum: A GOG Partners Trial," by Slomovitz et al.  TRANSCRIPT Melis Canturk: Hello, and welcome to JCO Article Insights. I'm your host, Melis Canturk, and today we will be discussing the JCO article, "Phase 2 Trial of Ribociclib plus Letrozole in Women with Recurrent Low-Grade Serous Cancer of the Ovary, Fallopian Tube, or Peritoneum: A GOG Partners Trial." Building on the fact that more than 95% of low-grade serous carcinoma are estrogen receptor positive and often exhibit abnormalities in the CDK4/6 signaling pathway, researchers launched the GOG 3026 trial. This study investigated the effectiveness of pairing the CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib with letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor, adapting a therapeutic approach that has already transformed the treatment landscape for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. Low-grade serous ovarian cancer is a rare malignancy characterized by its hormonally driven nature and relative resistance to traditional platinum-based chemotherapy. While it's associated with longer survival than high-grade serous carcinoma, recurrent disease presents a significant clinical challenge due to low response rates to standard treatments. The GOG 3026 trial was an open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 2 study that enrolled 51 women with measurable, recurrent, low-grade serous ovarian cancer. To ensure diagnostic accuracy, all cases underwent central pathology review. Participants were required to be at least 18 years old with an ECOG performance status of 0 to 2. While there was no limit on the number of prior therapies, patients were excluded if they had previously used CDK4/6 inhibitors. Prior endocrine therapy was permitted only if the patient had discontinued it at least 6 months before the study and had not experienced disease progression while on that specific therapy. Additionally, women with intact ovarian function were required to undergo ovarian suppression. The treatment regimen consisted of 600 mg of oral ribociclib daily for the first 21 days of a 28-day cycle, paired with a continuous daily dose of 2.5 mg of letrozole. The trial's primary endpoint was the investigator-assessed objective response rate. The results were clinically meaningful. The confirmed overall response rate was 30.6%, which included one complete response and 14 partial responses. The clinical benefit rate, which includes stable disease, reached 84%. These outcomes are particularly notable given the heavily pretreated study population, where nearly 40% of patients had received three or more prior lines of systemic therapy. Durability and survival data further underscored the potential of this combination. Among those who responded to treatment, the median duration of response was 21.2 months. The median progression-free survival was 14.5 months, and the median overall survival reached 44.5 months. In terms of safety, the profile was consistent with previous CDK4/6 inhibitor studies. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse event was neutropenia, occurring in 47% of patients. However, it was asymptomatic and managed through dose modification. Only 4% of patients discontinued the trial due to adverse events, and no dose-limiting toxicities were observed. When comparing these results to other therapeutic benchmarks, the ribociclib-letrozole combination demonstrated more favorable outcomes than historical endocrine monotherapy. It yields response rates of only 13% to 14%. Furthermore, while MEK inhibitors like trametinib or the combination of avutometinib defactinib show similar response rates, the ribociclib-letrozole regimen displayed significantly better tolerability. Specifically, only 4% of patients in this trial discontinued the therapy due to adverse events, compared to much higher discontinuation rates seen with MEK inhibitor strategies. In conclusion, the GOG 3026 trial successfully establishes ribociclib plus letrozole as a clinically active and well-tolerated regimen for recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer. By achieving durable disease control in a heavily pretreated, relatively chemoresistant population, this combination may redefine the therapeutic paradigm for this rare cancer. These findings support the continued evaluation of CDK4/6 endocrine strategies as a preferred chemotherapy-sparing option that prioritizes both disease control and patients' quality of life. Thank you for tuning into JCO Article Insights. Don't forget to subscribe and join us next time as we explore more groundbreaking research shaping the future of oncology. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

In this episode of JCO Article Insights, host Dr. Melis Canturk summarizes the article, "Atezolizumab With Bevacizumab and Nonplatinum Chemotherapy for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: Final Results From the Placebo-Controlled AGO-OVAR 2.29/ENGOT-ov34 Phase III Trial," by Harter et al. TRANSCRIPT Melis Canturk: Hello, and welcome to the JCO Article Insight. I'm your host, Melis Canturk, and today we will be discussing the JCO article, "Atezolizumab With Bevacizumab and Nonplatinum Chemotherapy for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: Final Results From the Placebo-Controlled AGO-OVAR 2.29/ENGOT-ov34 Phase III Trial." While integrating immune checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionized the treatment of various gynecologic cancers, these agents have historically shown limited single agent activity in ovarian cancer. Despite a strong biological rationale for combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy and bevacizumab to enhance T-cell infiltration and normalized tumor vasculature, several phase III trials have failed to demonstrate a significant survival benefit in this setting. The AGO-OVAR 2.29/ENGOT-ov34 trial was launched to definitely evaluate whether adding the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab to this combination could improve long-term outcomes for patients experiencing early relapse. This international, double-blind, randomized phase III trial enrolled 574 patients with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer. Eligible participants had to be in their first or second relapse within 6 months of completing platinum therapy or in their third relapse regardless of the treatment-free interval. All patients received bevacizumab and an investigator selected chemotherapy backbone, either paclitaxel or doxorubicin. They were randomly assigned to receive either 840 mg of atezolizumab or a placebo every 2 weeks until disease progression or for a maximum of 2 years. The study population was an all-comer group, though patients were stratified by their PD-L1 status, previous bevacizumab use, and the number of prior treatment lines. The trial did not meet its primary end points, as the addition of atezolizumab failed to significantly improve overall survival or progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. For the primary end point of overall survival, the median was 14.2 months with atezolizumab compared to 13 months with the placebo. Progression-free survival was similarly insignificant, with a median of 6.4 months in the experimental arm versus 6.7 months in the control arm. Furthermore, the objective response rates were nearly identical between the groups, recorded at 40% for atezolizumab and 44% for the placebo. Interestingly, exploratory subgroup analyses revealed potential signals of benefit in specific populations, even though the overall trial was negative. Patients who had been previously treated with bevacizumab appeared to derive a greater benefit from the addition of atezolizumab than those who were bevacizumab-naïve. Additionally, outcomes seemed more favorable for patients receiving a paclitaxel chemotherapy backbone compared to those receiving doxorubicin. However, PD-L1 status did not appear to be a predictive marker for success, as hazard ratios for survival were similar regardless of whether the tumor was PD-L1 positive or negative. The safety profile of the triple combination was consistent with the known toxicities of the individual drugs. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 73% of the atezolizumab group and 70% of the placebo group. While the experimental arm saw higher incidences of immune-mediated events, such as thyroid-related issues, these were generally manageable. Serious adverse events were more frequent in the atezolizumab arm than in the placebo arm, but discontinuation rates due to toxicity were relatively low and comparable between the two groups. In conclusion, the AGO-OVAR 2.29 trial confirms that adding atezolizumab to bevacizumab and nonplatinum chemotherapy does not provide a statistically significant survival advantage for patients who receive nonplatinum chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer. This study contributes to the growing body of evidence showing that immune checkpoint inhibitors have yet to find a definitive role in the standard treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer. Future research will likely focus on more sophisticated molecular stratification and the use of novel agents, such as bispecific antibodies, to overcome the challenging tumor microenvironment of low-grade serous ovarian cancer. Thank you for tuning into JCO Article Insights. Don't forget to subscribe and join us next time as we explore more groundbreaking research shaping the future of oncology. 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. Monty Pal and Dr. Ari Rosenberg discuss the evolution of treatment strategies in head and neck cancers, including the challenges of treating both HPV-positive and HPV-negative disease and the emergence of blood-based biomarkers to advance personalized therapy across different subtypes. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I'm a medical oncologist, professor, and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. Today, we're going to explore the evolving landscape of treatment strategies in head and neck cancer management, including locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, which happens to be on the rise in United States, in part due to spike in HPV-mediated oropharyngeal cancers. We're also going to discuss the emerging strategies of using blood-based biomarkers to really advance personalized therapy. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Ari Rosenberg. He's a medical oncologist focused on head and neck cancer, and he's an associate professor – congratulations on the recent promotion – at the University of Chicago. The University of Chicago has really produced luminaries in this field, Dr. Rosenberg included. I've had the pleasure of getting to know Dr. Ezra Cohen over the years, who really had his grounding there, and of course Everett Vokes, former ASCO President. I'm really looking forward to this conversation, Ari. Thanks so much for joining us. Dr. Ari Rosenberg: Thanks, Monty. Thanks for the invitation. Dr. Monty Pal: You got it. And just a quick note for our listeners, our full disclosures are going to be in the transcript at the end of this episode. So let's start with the basics, if you don't mind. So, head and neck cancers are very diverse and they're challenging, right? In the sense that they're near vital organs, the treatments, you know, as we all saw during fellowship, if not now in clinical practice. They can really have such a major impact on vital organ function, speech, swallowing, et cetera. Can you just comment on head and neck cancers that are on the rise in the U.S.? I alluded to this briefly. Particularly, we've heard this in the context of colorectal cancer and so forth. Are you actually seeing younger adults being affected by this? Dr. Ari Rosenberg: Yeah, thanks for that. The vast majority of head and neck cancers are head and neck squamous cell carcinomas, as I'm sure many of the listeners recall as well from fellowship or their current training. And as you alluded to, the organ function, long-term and functional quality of life outcomes are quite important, particularly in the context that these develop in high value real estate, parts of our head and neck area that we use for speaking, swallowing, all sorts of other essential functions as well. As you also alluded to, we think of this in two different particular subtypes of head and neck cancer. The historical head and neck cancer from 50, 60 years ago was almost exclusively related to carcinogen exposure, tobacco, alcohol use, and that subtype of carcinogen-induced head and neck cancer has been slowly declining. However, over the last now several decades, we've been seeing an increase in primary oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, mostly tonsil, base of tongue. These are attributable to HPV, human papillomavirus exposure. And that's now the majority of the head and neck cancers that we tend to see in our clinic. As you also alluded to, these have very different prognoses as well. HPV-related head and neck cancer has a much more favorable prognosis where much of the interest has been in can we de-intensify to optimize long-term function? But then the non-HPV-related head and neck cancer, or what we call HPV-negative head and neck cancer, continue to be very, very challenging. We only managed to cure about half of these folks, with many of these patients developing the current disease. These patients, in addition to being difficult to treat, also have major impacts both in terms of the treatments they undergo as well as their disease that can impact their function and quality of life. And you hinted at this a little bit, but we have been seeing an increase in younger patients with HPV-negative head and neck cancer as well, which is quite concerning. Younger patients, oftentimes never smokers, never drinkers, who are developing non-HPV-negative head and neck cancer. And that's been a little bit of a more recent trend that we've been seeing as well. So, definitely a lot of work to be done to optimize and improve outcomes across all of these different head and neck cancer subtypes. Dr. Monty Pal: I mean, I'm just curious, you know, in the context of colorectal cancer, one of the things that we talk about is the potential role of the microbiome driving some of these young-onset cancers with, you know, perhaps there being an impact on, for instance, inflammation and the gut and what have you. Tell me about head and neck cancer. Is this anything known as to why younger patients might be getting diagnosed with non-HPV type cancers? It's odd to me. Dr. Ari Rosenberg: Yeah, it's a great question. A lot of people are working on it. I think we folks have hypotheses, but it hasn't totally panned out exactly what's going on there. It does have a little bit more of a tendency towards women, whereas historically head and neck cancer is much more common in men than it is in women. But lots of people working on that, whether it's related to chronic inflammation, whether it's related to the microbiome. Whether it's related to dental exposure, dental work. So, a lot of folks trying to parse that out because I agree with you, it needs to be identified alongside improving treatment paradigms for these patients, the young ones and the older patients as well. Dr. Monty Pal: Interesting, interesting. You know, one of the phenomena that was sort of coming around when I was in training 25 years ago was this role of sort of induction therapy for head and neck cancers. And of course, it's really come full circle now to include checkpoint inhibitors and so forth. Tell me a little bit about this and how you apply it, maybe in an HPV-mediated context, maybe in a non-HPV context. Dr. Ari Rosenberg: Yeah, absolutely. Induction chemotherapy, as you alluded to, or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, depending on what the locoregional treatment approach is. Similar to other cancer types where systemic control early on has many potential advantages in this setting. Now, in head and neck cancer, even though induction chemotherapy is quite active in head and neck cancer, both HPV-positive and HPV-negative with pretty good response rates. A survival advantage for all comers with local regionally advanced disease remains unproven. There's been two randomized trials, both underpowered, but essentially did not show a survival advantage, showing that induction chemotherapy for all patients with locoregionally advanced and neck cancer can't be justified for a survival advantage. That being said though, there remains a number of potential advantages of giving induction or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, of course, improving systemic control and debulking the disease early on has potential advantages, and predicting the responsiveness to subsequent radiation treatment. We know for some time in head and neck cancer that the percentage of shrinkage or the response to induction chemotherapy actually predicts outcome related to radiation as a dynamic biomarker where response can be used to select patients, for example, for de-escalated radiation has been an area of active investigation, active research. And it also remains a key opportunity to evaluate predictive biomarkers and understanding pre and post treatment to better understand the biology. I'll just add to your question that recently over this past year, we also saw phase 3 data for neoadjuvant immunotherapy for a subset of head and neck cancer that is surgically resectable. And so that's reintroducing the potential benefit in the immunotherapy era of incorporating immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant or the induction setting as part of the evolving treatment paradigm for these diseases. Dr. Monty Pal: That's really interesting. And you kind of alluded to already several topics that I plan to hit on, you know, for instance, the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors, induction, chemotherapy, and so forth. And you started to touch on biomarkers. And of course, I think that's something near and dear to many of us in academic oncology. One thing that we've started talking a lot about in the context of colorectal cancer is circulating tumor DNA. How do you think this might fit in the context of head and neck cancer? Can you give us a flavor for that? Dr. Ari Rosenberg: Yeah, absolutely. In head and neck cancer, the current landscape is most developed for circulating tumor DNA for HPV-related head and neck cancer. The advantage of HPV-related head neck cancer is that you have a distinctive HPV DNA that does tend to spill out into the peripheral blood and can be detected using various different blood-based assays. And because of that advantage as a tissue agnostic approach, it turns out that a number of HPV DNA plasma assays are actually quite sensitive and quite specific. And a number of them have indeed been commercialized. Of course, not only for detecting a baseline, but also grading responsiveness during treatment and probably most importantly in the post-treatment surveillance setting, the detection of HPV DNA in the plasma remains a very important and substantial predictor of developing recurrent disease. There's been a number of trials that have been emerging looking at ctDNA and HPV-related head and neck cancer, using it, for example, as a strategy to deescalate patients. That was something we saw this past ASCO from the Dana-Farber group, and also using it to early detect recurrence and potentially intervene earlier for patients with minimal residual disease positivity. So, that remains evolving and as many folks are, I think, already using it in the clinic. But ctDNA also has a lot of potential for HPV-negative head and neck cancer. This is actually a bit more challenging to develop because you don't have that HPV DNA that you can track predictably because the tumor is an HPV- negative disease are much more heterogeneous, but there are a number of data that are coming out both for personalized assays such as Signatera or some of the other assays that require tumor. Unlike colon cancer, which you referenced, where most patients get surgery upfront, in head and neck cancer, many of the patients receive non-surgical pre-chemoradiation. So sometimes the amount of tumor available to generate a personalized assay is more limited and can be one of the challenges that we see in head neck cancer. But certainly that also seems to be emerging. And there's also further assays that are being developed for HPV-negative head neck cancers, such as methylomic signatures and others that may be tissue informed or tissue agnostic. And these are also emerging, particularly in the post-treatment surveillance setting as strong predictors of recurrent disease. So while we're certainly behind some of these other more common tumor types, colon cancer, lung cancer, we're right there with them and more and more trials are going report out, including a number of trials in our upcoming [University of Chicago] Head and Neck Cancer Symposium where I'll be presenting some data and others in the field will be presenting some data looking at ctDNA both for HPV-positive and for HPV- negative to try to improve outcomes for these patients. Dr. Monty Pal: That's so interesting. I've got to tell you that in kidney cancer, what I deal with day to day is a very low shedding disease, right? So techniques as opposed to ctDNA looking for tumor-informed information, that might be less preferred to something like methylomics where you might not necessarily be so contingent on what's happening in the primary tumor. I'm really interested in you mentioning that. Just a point of clarification, this is something I'm trying to wrap my head around. You'd mentioned circulating tumor HPV DNA, right? I assume this is markedly different from just looking for HPV titers in the patient, right? So is this actually incorporated elements of HPV within, you know, essentially host genome, if you will? Dr. Ari Rosenberg: Yeah, correct. This is circulating tumor HPV DNA. And we think of it biologically as a plasma-based tumor DNA biomarker that's specific for HPV-related head and neck cancers. Dr. Monty Pal: Got it, got it. It makes me wonder whether or not this might be applicable to diseases like cervical cancer and so forth where there's also extensively, you know, biology driven by HPV. Is that fair? Dr. Ari Rosenberg: Yes, definitely. And in the head and neck cancer field, much of this ctDNA actually was derived from a different viral mediated head neck cancer, is less common in the U.S., but nasopharyngeal cancer, which is oftentimes associated with EBV. That has been a biomarker for quite some time in nasopharyngeal cancer. Of course, in places where EBV-associated nasopharyngeal cancer, is endemic, such as East Asia, this has been around for quite some time, but we've been using that in the U.S., and there's been trials that have used EBV DNA plasma to predict recurrence and stratify for adjuvant treatment, for example. And so now with HPV, it's much more applicable to our US population because the vast majority of our head and neck cancer patients that we see in the US that are viral mediated in the US tend to be HPV-related. So having assays that we can use to improve outcomes for that biological subset remains of particular interest for us. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, that's fascinating. By the way, for the fellows listening, there's tons of boards pearls here that Dr. Rosenberg shared, EBV-associated cancers, the role of HPV and treatment association. So if you're recertifying anytime soon, I definitely think there's notes to take from this conversation indeed. I wanted to shift gears a little bit. And obviously, you're a prolific researcher. I don't think anyone goes through their fellowship in medical oncology without recounting these experiences of our head and neck patients really suffering from treatment-related toxicities. It's a real challenge. And I'm just wondering, I know a big body of work that you're focused on is really using multimodality treatment paradigms to perhaps reduce the cumulative treatment burden of patients with head and neck cancers. Can you talk about that a little bit? Dr. Ari Rosenberg: Yeah, definitely. Thanks for the question. And before I start going into some of the strategies, I'll just say that head and neck cancer, this is particularly for the fellows that are listening as well, just in reference to your prior comment, that this is really a multidisciplinary disease. At our center, all head and neck cancer patients are seen upfront at that first visit by all three specialties, med onc, rad onc, and surgery, because the choice and sequencing of modalities to optimize not only survival, but also functional quality of life outcome is so critical. And I think that's probably the biggest takeaway for anyone who treats a lot of head and neck cancer or will be treating a lot of head and neck cancer in the clinic. But in terms of more specific attempts at trying to optimize some of those parameters that you described, we really think about these separately in terms of HPV-positive and HPV-negative head and neck cancer. For HPV-positive head and neck cancer, the cure rates are quite high with chemo radiation, although not for everyone. There's still about 15, 10 to 15 % of folks that will develop a recurrence. But for the vast majority of patients, standard chemoradiation is quite a cure to therapy, but the toxicity associated with that can be quite substantial. And so there's been a number of attempts to try to deescalate treatment. It turns out that deescalating everyone with locoregionally advanced HPV-positive head and neck cancer is not a good strategy because it's not able to select out the patients that really do need full dose treatment. And we have seen some negative trials that show inferior outcomes when everyone is deescalated. But what does remain promising is again, trying to select out who the best candidates are for deescalated treatment. The folks at MSK have hypoxia imaging that they're using in trials that looks quite promising to select for the more favorable deescalatable biology. At our center, we've been interested in using induction chemotherapy to stratify response and select patients for deescalated treatment with excellent survival outcomes and reduce toxicity with deescalated treatment. And more recently, ctDNA that us and other groups, such as the Dana-Farber group, is using. And that also looks quite promising. Again, how do you select the patient who will do well with less radiation versus the ones that really need the full doses and volumes of radiation? And then for HPV-negative head and neck cancer, this is a much trickier disease because already the survival outcomes are not like we want it to be. Trying to figure out how to improve survival outcomes remains an important thing. Using immunotherapy seems to be one of the key cornerstones to that. But these are patients that also suffer from a lot of toxicity related to their treatment. We completed a trial not too long ago that we published this past year where we, in HPV-negative head and neck cancer patients, de-intensified the radiation for responders to neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy. And those patients did similar, if not even a little bit better, than the non-responders who got full dose treatment. So something that does warrant further investigation as well. How do we not only improve survival for those patients, but also reduce some of the long-term toxicities? Dr. Monty Pal: This is brilliant. I'm taking so many notes as you were mentioning these items. There are so many areas where I think the research crosses over. I already mentioned, know, ctDNA, for instance, and metabolomics and the places where that might apply to kidney cancer. The hypoxia imaging really caught my ear too. Obviously, kidney cancer is disease highly predicated on hypoxia. So thank you for all of this. We've got about a minute or so. So, I'm going to ask you for a really tall task here. Can you tell us what you foresee being some of the biggest challenges that sort of lie ahead and head and neck cancer. You've already kind of alluded to it with ongoing research, but if you had to pick maybe 2, 3 problems, the very most that we really need to get to and head and neck cancer, what would that be? Dr. Ari Rosenberg: Yeah, that's a great question. Obviously, lots of things to be done, but if I'm going to limit it to just a couple, I would say number one is really trying to improve the survival for HPV negative local regionally advanced head and neck cancer. We talked early on about how we are seeing, you know, of course we see many of these people that were smokers and drinkers, but also seeing these in younger patients, in patients without a history of tobacco use. Some of these are very biologically aggressive and we need better treatments beyond surgery, beyond chemo radiation, beyond immunotherapy to improve outcomes for these patients and cure more of them. So, I would say that's one big area. And the other is, which we didn't speak about so much in this talk, but remains one of the biggest challenges that we see in the clinic is the recurrent metastatic head and neck cancer patients. This is an incredibly challenging disease to treat, not only with poor survival, but also with substantial impacts on quality of life and function. mean, these are bad recurrences that cause a lot of pain, functional deficits, really impacts quality of life as well. So developing novel therapies, many of which are currently in clinical trials and many of which are currently continuing to be developed, remains so critical. How do we develop better systemic therapies, better targeted therapies, better biomarkers for recurrent metastatic head neck cancer to improve their survival and quality of life and functional outcomes. Those are the two big areas that require the most work at this time within the head and neck cancer field. Dr. Monty Pal: That's brilliant. I mean, I have to tell you I could probably talk to you all day about this, such a fascinating topic. It's a very exciting time in the field. Thank you, Dr. Rosenberg, for all your incredible contributions and thanks for sharing with us your insights on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Ari Rosenberg: Yeah, and thanks for the introduction. Hope to do it again soon. Dr. Monty Pal: And many thanks to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear from the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. More on today's speakers:      Dr. Monty Pal   @montypal  Dr. Ari Rosenberg @AriRosenbergMD Follow ASCO on social media:           ASCO on X     ASCO on Bluesky          ASCO on Facebook           ASCO on LinkedIn           Disclosures:        Dr. Monty Pal:       Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview      Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical      Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis  Dr. Ari Rosenberg:     Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Privo Technologies Consulting or Advisory Role: Nanobiotix, EMD Serono, Vaccitech, Novartis, Eisai, Astellas Pharma, Regeneron, RAPT Therapeutics, Geovax Labs, Janssen, Summit Therapeutics Speakers' Bureau: Coherus Biosciences Research Funding (Inst.): Hookipa Biotech, EMD Serono, Purple Biotech, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, BeiGene, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Janux Therapeutics

JCO PO author Dr. Foldi at UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine shares insights into the JCO PO article, "Personalized Circulating Tumor DNA Testing for Detection of Progression and Treatment Response Monitoring in Patients With Metastatic Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast." Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Foldi discuss how serial ctDNA testing in patients with mILC is feasible and may enable personalized surveillance and real-time therapeutic monitoring. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello, and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I am your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, podcast editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Associate Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma. Today, we are thrilled to be joined by Dr. Julia Foldi, Assistant Professor of Medicine in the Division of Hematology-Oncology at University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and the Magee-Womens Hospital of the UPMC. She is also the lead and corresponding author of the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled "Personalized Circulating Tumor DNA Testing for Detection of Progression and Treatment Response Monitoring in Patients with Metastatic Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast." At the time of this recording, our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Julia, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us today. Dr. Julia Foldi: Thank you so much for having me. It is a pleasure. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Again, your manuscript and project address a few interesting things, so we will start with the basics, since we have a broad audience that comprises trainees, community oncologists, and obviously precision medicine experts as well. So, let us start with invasive lobular breast carcinoma. I have been out of fellowship for several years now, and I do not know much about invasive lobular carcinoma. Could you tell us what it is, what some of the genomic characteristics are, why it is different, and why it is important to have a different way to understand disease biology and track disease status with this type of breast cancer? Dr. Julia Foldi: Yes, thank you for that question. It is really important to frame this study. So, lobular breast cancers, which we shorten to ILC, are the second most common histologic subtype of breast cancer after ductal breast cancers. ILC makes up about 10 to 15 percent of all breast cancers, so it is relatively rare, but in the big scheme of things, because breast cancer is so common, this represents actually over 40,000 new diagnoses a year in the US of lobular breast cancers. What is unique about ILC is it is characterized by loss of an adhesion molecule, E-cadherin. It is encoded by the CDH1 gene. What it does is these tumors tend to form discohesive, single-file patterns and infiltrate into the tumor stroma, as opposed to ductal cancers, which generally form more cohesive masses. As we generally explain to patients, ductal cancers tend to form lumps, while lobular cancers often are not palpable because they infiltrate into the stroma. This creates several challenges, particularly when it comes to imaging. In the diagnostic setting, we know that mammograms and ultrasounds have less sensitivity to detect lobular versus ductal breast cancer. When it comes to the metastatic setting, conventional imaging techniques like CT scans have less sensitivity to detect lobular lesions often. One other unique characteristic of ILC is that these tumors tend to have lower proliferation rates. Because our glucose-based PET scans depend on glucose uptake of proliferating cells, often these tumors also are not avid on conventional FDG-PET scans. It is a challenge for us to monitor these patients as they go through treatment. If you think about the metastatic setting, we start a new treatment, we image people every three to four cycles, about every three months, and we combine the imaging results with clinical assessment and tumor markers to decide if the treatment is working. But if your imaging is not reliable, sometimes even at diagnosis, to really detect these tumors, then really, how are we following these patients? This is really the unique challenge in the metastatic setting in patients with lobular breast cancer: we cannot rely on the imaging to tell if patients are responding to treatment. This is where liquid biopsies are really, really important, and as the field is growing up and we have better and better technologies, lobular breast cancer is going to be a field where they are going to play an important role. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for that easy-to-understand background. The second aspect that I would like to have some context on, to help the audience understand why you did what you did, is ctDNA, tumor informed and non-informed. Could you tell us what these subtypes of liquid biopsies are and why you chose a tumor informed assay for your study? Dr. Julia Foldi: Yes, it is really important to understand these differences. As you mentioned, there are two main platforms for liquid biopsy assays, circulating tumor DNA assays. I think what is more commonly used in the metastatic setting are non-tumor informed assays, or agnostic assays. These are generally next-generation sequencing-based assays that a lot of companies offer, like Guardant, Tempus, Caris, and FoundationOne. These do not require tumor tissue; they just require a blood sample, a plasma sample, essentially. The next-generation sequencing is done on cell-free DNA that is extracted from the plasma, and it is looking for any cell-free DNA and essentially, figuring out what part of the cell-free DNA comes from the tumor is done through a bioinformatics approach. Most of these assays are panel tests for cancer-associated mutations that we know either have therapeutic significance or biologic significance. So, the results we receive from these tests generally read out specific mutations in oncogenic genes, or sometimes things like fusions where we have specific targeted drugs. Some of the newer assays can also read out tumor fraction; for example, the newest generation Guardant assay that is methylation-based, they can also quantify tumor fraction. But the disadvantage of the tumor agnostic approach is that it is a little bit less sensitive. Opposed to that, we have our tumor informed tests, and these require tumor tissue. Essentially, the tumor is sequenced; this can either be whole exome or whole genome sequencing. The newer generation assays are now using whole genome sequencing of the tumor tissue, and a personalized, patient-specific panel of alterations is essentially barcoded on that tumor tissue. This can be either structural variants or it can be mutations, but generally, these are not driver mutations, but sort of things that are present in the tumor tissue that tend to stay unchanged over time. For each particular patient, a personalized assay, if you want to call it a fingerprint or barcode, is created, and then that is what then is used to test the plasma sample. Essentially, you are looking for that specific cancer in the blood, that barcode or fingerprint in the blood. Because of this, this is a much more sensitive way of looking for ctDNA, and obviously, this detects only that particular tumor that was sequenced originally. So, it is much more sensitive and specific to that tumor that was sequenced. You can argue for both approaches in different settings. We use them in different settings because they give us different information. The tumor agnostic approach gives us mutations, which can be used to determine what the next best therapy to use is, while the tumor informed assay is more sensitive, but it is not going to give us information on therapeutic targets. However, it is quantified, and we can follow it over time to see how it changes. We think that it is going to tell us how patients respond to treatment because we see our circulating tumor DNA levels rise and fall as the cancer burden increases or decreases. We decided to use the tumor informed approach in this particular study because we were really interested in how to determine if patients are having response to treatment versus if they are going to progress on their treatment, more so than looking for specific mutations. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: When you think about these tumor informed assays and you think about barcoding the mutations on the original tumor that you try to track or follow in subsequent blood samples, plasma samples, in your experience, if you have done it in non-lobular cancers, do you think shedding from the tumor has something to do with what you capture or how much you capture? Dr. Julia Foldi: Absolutely. I think there are multiple factors that go into whether someone has detectable ctDNA or not, and that has to do with the type of cancer, the location, right, where is the metastatic site? This is something that we do not fully understand yet: what are tumors that shed more versus not? There is also clearance of ctDNA, and so how fast that clearance occurs is also something that will affect what you can detect in the blood. ctDNA is very short-lived, only has a half-life of hours, and so you can imagine that if there is little shedding and a lot of excretion, then you are not going to be detecting a lot of it. In general, in the metastatic setting, we see that we can detect ctDNA in a lot of cases, especially when patients are progressing on treatment, because we imagine their tumor burden is higher at that point. Even with the non-tumor informed assays, we detect a lot of ctDNA. Part of this study was to actually assess: what is the proportion of patients where we can have this information? Because if we are only going to be able to detect ctDNA in less than 50 percent of patients, then it is not going to be a useful method to follow them with. Because this field is new and we have not been using a lot of tumor informed assays in the metastatic setting, we did not really know what to expect when we set out to look at this. We did not know what was going to be the baseline detection rate in this patient population, so that was one of the first things that we wanted to answer. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Excellent. Now going to this manuscript in particular, what was the research question, what was the patient population, and what was the strategy that you used to investigate some of these questions? Dr. Julia Foldi: So, we partnered with Natera, and the reason was that their Signatera tumor-informed assay was the first personalized, tumor-informed, really an MRD assay, minimal residual disease detection assay. It has been around the longest and has been pretty widely used commercially already, even though some of our data is still lacking. but we know that people are using this in the real world. We wanted to gather some real-world data specifically in lobular patients. So, we asked Natera to look at their database of commercial Signatera testing and look for patients with stage 4 lobular breast cancer. The information all comes from the submitting physicians sending in pathologic reports and clinical notes, and so they have that information from the requisitions essentially that are sent in by the ordering physician. We found 66 patients who were on first-line or close to first-line endocrine-based therapies for their metastatic lobular breast cancer and had serial collections of Signatera tests. The way we defined baseline was that the first Signatera had to be sent within three months of starting treatment. So, it is not truly baseline, but again, this is a limitation of looking at real-world data is that you are not always going to get the best time point that you need. We had over 350 samples from those 66 patients, again longitudinal ctDNA samples, and our first question was what is the baseline detection rate using this tumor informed assay? Then, most importantly, what is the concordance between changes in ctDNA and clinical response to treatment? That is defined by essentially radiologic response to treatment. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Interesting. So, what were some of your observations in terms of ctDNA dynamics, whether baseline levels made a difference, whether subsequent levels at different time points made a difference, or subsequent levels at, let us say, cycle three made a difference? Were there any specific trends that you saw? Dr. Julia Foldi: So, first, at baseline, 95 percent of patients had detectable ctDNA, which is, I think, a really important data point because it tells us that this can be a really useful test. If we can detect it in almost all patients before they start treatment, we are going to be able to follow this longitudinally. And again, these were not true baseline samples. So, I think if we look really at baseline before starting treatment, almost all patients will have detectable ctDNA in the metastatic setting. The second important thing we saw was that disease progression correlated very well with increase in ctDNA. So, in most patients who had disease progression by imaging, we saw increase in ctDNA. Conversely, in most patients who had clinical benefit from their treatment, so they had a response or stable disease, we saw decrease in ctDNA levels. It seems that what we call molecular response based on ctDNA is tracking very nicely along with the radiographic response. So, those were really the two main observations. Again, this is a small cohort, limited by its real-world nature and the time points that ctDNA assay was sent was obviously not mandated. This is a real-world data set, and so we could not really look at specific time points like you asked about, let us say, cycle three of therapy, right? We did not have all of the right time points for all of the patients. But what we were able to do was to graph out some specific patient scenarios to illustrate how changes in ctDNA correlate with imaging response. I can talk a little bit about that. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: That was going to be my question. Did you see patients who had serial monitoring using the tumor informed ctDNA assay where the assay became positive a few months before the imaging? Did you have any of those kinds of observations? Dr. Julia Foldi: Yes, so I think this is where the field is going: are we able to use this technology to maybe detect progression before it becomes clinically apparent? Of course, there are lots of questions about: does that really matter? But it seems like, based on some of the patient scenarios that we present in the paper, that this testing can do that. So, we had a specific scenario, and this is illustrated in a figure in the paper, really showing the treatment as well as the changes in ctDNA, tumor markers, and also radiographic response. So, this particular patient was on first-line endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitor with palbociclib. Initially, she had a low-level detectable ctDNA. It became undetectable during treatment, and the patient had a couple of serial ctDNA assays that were negative, so undetectable. And then we started, after about seven months on this combination therapy, the ctDNA levels started rising. She actually had three serial ctDNA assays with increasing level of ctDNA before she even had any imaging tests. And then around the time that the ctDNA peaked, this patient had radiographic evidence of progression. There was also an NGS-based assay sent to look for specific mutations at that point. The patient was found to have an ESR1 mutation, which is very common in this patient population. She was switched to a novel oral SERD, elacestrant, and the ctDNA fell again to undetectable within the first couple months of being on elacestrant. And then a very similar thing happened: while she was on this second-line therapy, she had three serial negative ctDNA assays, and then the fourth one was positive. This was two months before the patient had a scan that showed progression again. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: And Julia, like you mentioned, this is a small sample size, limited number of patients, in this case, one patient case scenario, but provides insights into other important aspects around escalation or de-escalation of therapy where perhaps ctDNA could be used as an integral biomarker rather than an exploratory biomarker. What are some of your thoughts around that and how is the breast cancer space? I know like in GI and bladder cancer, there has been a significant uptrend in MRD assessments for therapeutic decision making. What is happening in the breast cancer space? Dr. Julia Foldi: So, super interesting. I think this is where a lot of our different fields are going. In the breast cancer space, so far, I have seen a lot of escalation attempts. It is not even necessarily in this particular setting where we are looking at dynamics of ctDNA, but in the breast cancer world, of course, we have a lot of data on resistance mutations. I mentioned ESR1 mutation in a particular patient in our study. ESR1 mutations are very common in patients with ER-positive breast cancer who are on long-term endocrine therapy, and ESR1 mutations confer resistance to aromatase inhibitors. So, that is an area that there has been a lot of interest in trying to detect ESR1 mutations earlier and switching therapy early. So, this was the basis of the SERENA-6 trial, which was presented last year at ASCO and created a lot of excitement. This was a trial where patients had non-tumor-informed NGS-based Guardant assay sent every three to six months while they were on first-line endocrine therapy with a CDK4/6 inhibitor. If they had an ESR1 mutation detected, they were randomized to either continue the same endocrine therapy or switch to an oral SERD. The trial showed that the population of patients who switched to the oral SERD did better in terms of progression-free survival than those who stayed on their original endocrine therapy. There are a lot of questions about how to use this in routine practice. Of course, it is not trivial to be sending a ctDNA assay every three to six months. The rate of detection of these mutations was relatively low in that study; again, the incidence increases in later lines of therapy. So, there are a lot of questions about whether we should be doing this in all of our first-line patients. The other question is, even the patients who stayed on their original endocrine therapy were able to stay on that for another nine months. So, there is this question of: are we switching patients too early to a new line of therapy by having this escalation approach? So, there are a lot of questions about this. As far as I know, at least in our practice, we are not using this approach just yet to escalate therapy. Time will tell how this all pans out. But I think what is even more interesting is the de-escalation question, and I think that is where tumor informed assays like Signatera and the data that our study generated can be applied. Actually, our plan is to generate some prospective data in the lobular breast cancer population, and I have an ongoing study to do that, to really be able to tease out the early ctDNA dynamics as patients first start on endocrine therapy. So, this is patients who are newly diagnosed, they are just starting on their first-line endocrine therapy, and measure, with sensitive assays, measure ctDNA dynamics in the first few months of therapy. In those patients who have a really robust response, that is where I think we can really think about de-escalation. In the patients whose ctDNA goes to undetectable after just a few weeks of therapy with just an endocrine agent, they might not even need a CDK4/6 inhibitor in their first-line treatment. So, that is an area where we are very interested in our group, and I know that other groups are looking at this too, to try to de-escalate therapy in patients who clear their ctDNA early on. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much. Well, lots of questions, but at the same time, progress comes through questions asked, and your project is one of those which is asking an interesting question in a rarer cancer and perhaps will lead to subsequent improvement in how we monitor these individuals and how we escalate or de-escalate therapy. Hopefully, we will get to see more of what you are working on in subsequent submissions to JCO Precision Oncology and perhaps talk more about it in a couple of years and see how the space and field is moving. Thanks again for sharing your insights. I do want to take one to two quick minutes talking about you as an investigator, Julia. If you could speak to your career pathway, your journey, the pathway to mentorship, the pathway to being a mentor, and how things have shaped for you in your personal professional growth. Dr. Julia Foldi: Sure, yeah, that is great. Thank you. So, I had a little bit of an unconventional path to clinical medicine. I actually thought I was going to be a basic scientist when I first started out. I got a PhD in Immunology right out of college and was studying not even anything cancer-related. I was studying macrophage signaling in inflammatory diseases, but I was in New York City. This was right around the time that the first checkpoint inhibitors were approved. Actually, some of my friends from my PhD program worked in Jim Allison's lab, who was the basic scientist responsible for ipilimumab. So, I got to kind of first-hand experience the excitement around bringing something from the lab into the clinic that actually changed really the course of oncology. And so, I got very excited about oncology and clinical medicine. So, I decided to kind of switch gears from there and I went back to medical school after finishing my PhD and got my MD at NYU. I knew I wanted to do oncology, so I did a research track residency and fellowship combined at Yale. I started working early on with the breast cancer team there. At the time, Lajos Pusztai was the head of translational research there at Yale, and I started working with him early in my residency and then through my fellowship. I worked on several trials with him, including a neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitor trial in triple-negative breast cancer patients. During my last year in fellowship, I received a Conquer Cancer Young Investigator Award to study estrogen receptor heterogeneity using spatial transcriptomics in this subset of breast cancers that have intermediate estrogen receptor expression. From there, I joined the faculty at the University of Pittsburgh in 2022. So, I have been there about almost four years at this point. My interests really shifted slowly from triple-negative breast cancers towards ER-positive breast cancers. When I arrived in Pittsburgh, I started working very closely with some basic and translational researchers here who are very interested in estrogen signaling and mechanisms of resistance to endocrine therapy, and there is a large group here interested in lobular breast cancers. During my training, I was not super aware even that lobular breast cancer was a unique subtype of breast cancers, and that is, I think, changing a little bit. There is a lot more awareness in the breast cancer clinical and research community about ILC being a unique subtype, but it is not even really part of our training in fellowship, which we are trying to change. But I have become a lot more aware of this because of the research team here and through that, I have become really interested also on the clinical side. And so, we do have a Lobular Breast Cancer Research Center of Excellence here at the University of Pittsburgh and UPMC, and I am the leader on the clinical side. We have a really great team of basic and translational researchers looking at different aspects of lobular breast cancers, and some of the work that I am doing is related to this particular manuscript we discussed and the next steps, as I mentioned, a prospective study of early ctDNA dynamics in lobular patients. I also did some more clinical research work in collaboration with the NSABP looking at long-term outcomes of patients with lobular versus ductal breast cancers in some of their older trials. And so, that is, in a nutshell, a little bit about how I got here and how I became interested in ILC. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Well, thank you for sharing those personal insights and personal journey. I am sure it will inspire other trainees, fellows, and perhaps junior faculty in trying to find their niche. The path, as you mentioned, is not always straight; it often tends to be convoluted. And then finding an area that you are interested in, taking things forward, and being persistent is often what matters. Dr. Julia Foldi: Thank you so much for having me. It was great. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: It was great chatting with you. And thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/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.  

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guests Dr. David Einstein and Dr. Ravi Madan discuss JCO article, "National Cancer Institute's Working Group on Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Clinical Trial Design Considerations," underscoring the need for a consensus on clinical trial designs implementing novel endpoints in this population, the importance of PSA doubling time as a prognostic factor and with an emphasis on treatment de-escalation to limit toxicity and improve patient outcomes. TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. Davide Soldato: Hello and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, medical oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by JCO authors Dr. David Einstein and Dr. Ravi Madan. Dr. Einstein is a medical oncologist specializing in genitourinary malignancy working at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, part of the DFCI Cancer Center, and an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Madan is a senior clinician at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where he focuses on conducting clinical research in prostate cancer, particularly in the field of immunotherapy. Today, we will be discussing the article titled, "National Cancer Institute's Working Group on Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Clinical Trial Design Considerations." So, thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Einstein and Dr. Madan. David Einstein: Thanks for having us. This is a great pleasure. Ravi Madan: Appreciate being here. Davide Soldato: So, I just want to start from a very wide angle. And the main question is why did you feel that there was the need to convey a consensus and a working group to talk about this specific topic: biochemically recurrent prostate cancer? What has been the change in current clinical practice and in the trial design that we are seeing nowadays? And so, why was it necessary to convey such a consensus and provide considerations on novel clinical trials? David Einstein: Yeah, so I think it's very interesting, this disease state of biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. It's very different from other disease states in prostate cancer, and we felt that there was a real need to define those differences in clinical trials. Years ago, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was the primary disease state that was explored, and over time, a lot of things shifted earlier to metastatic disease defined on a CAT scan and bone scan to an earlier disease state of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. And the clinical trial principles from late-stage could be applied to MCSPC as well. However, BCR is very different because the patients are very different. And for those reasons, there are unique considerations, especially in terms of toxicity and treatment intensity, that should be applied to biochemically recurrent prostate cancer as opposed to just using the principles that are used in other disease states. And for that reason, we thought it was very important to delineate some of these considerations in this paper with a group of experts. Davide Soldato: Thanks so much. So, one of the main changes that have been applied in recent years in clinical practice when looking at biochemically recurrent prostate cancer is the use of molecular imaging and particularly of PSMA PET. So, first of all, just a quick question: was the topic of the consensus related on which threshold of PSA to use to order a PET scan to evaluate this kind of patient? David Einstein: Yeah, thanks for that question. It's a super important one. The brief answer is that no, we did not address questions about exactly when clinicians would decide to order scans. We were more concerned with the results of those scans in how you define different disease states. But I think as a broader question, I think a lot of folks feel that finding things on a scan equates that with what we used to find on conventional scans. And fundamentally, we actually sought to redefine that disease space as something that's not equivalent to metastatic disease, and rather coined the term "PSMA-positive BCR" to indicate that traditional BCR prognostic criteria and factors still apply, and that these patients have a distinct natural history from those with more advanced metastatic disease. Ravi Madan: And if I may just add that the National Cancer Institute is running a trial where we're prospectively monitoring PSMA-positive BCR patients. And that data is clearly showing that, much like what we knew about BCR a decade ago, PSMA findings in BCR patients do not change the fact that overall, BCR is an indolent disease state. And the findings, which are usually comprised of five- to seven-millimeter lymph nodes, do not endanger patients or require immediate therapy. And so, while PSMA is a tool that we can be using in this disease state, it doesn't really change the principal approach to how we should manage these patients. And as Dr. Einstein alluded to, there is a drive to create a false equivalency between PSMA-positive BCR and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, but that is not supported by the data we're accumulating or any of the clinical data as it exists. Davide Soldato: One thing that it's very important and you mentioned in your answer to my question was actually the role of PET scan and conventional imaging, so CAT scan and bone scan that we have used for years to stage patients with metastatic prostate cancer. And you mentioned that there is a distinction among patients who have a positive PET scan and a BCR, and patients who have a positive conventional imaging. And yet, we know that sometimes the findings of the PET scan are not always so clear to interpret. So, I just wanted to understand if the consensus reached an agreement as to when to use conventional imaging to potentially resolve some findings that we have on PET scan among thess patients with BCR? David Einstein: Yeah, I think there's a number of questions actually buried within that question. One of which is: does PSMA PET result in false positives? And the answer has definitely been yes. There's a known issue with false-positive rib lesions. And so, first and foremost, we need to be very careful in calling what truly is suspicious disease and what might actually not be cancer or might be something that is totally separate. So I think that's the first part of the answer to that question. The second is to what extent do we need to use paired PET and conventional imaging to define this disease state? In other words, do you have to have positive findings on one and negative findings on the other in order to enter this definition? The challenge there, as we discussed, is that logistically, oftentimes it's hard to get patients to do multiple sets of scans to actually create that definition. Sometimes it's difficult to get insurers to pay for such scans. And finally, it's hard to sometimes blind radiologists to the results of one scan in reading the other. So, we did have some deliberations about to what extent you could use some of the CAT scan portion of a PSMA PET in order to at least partially define that. We also talked about using bone scans to confirm any bone findings seen on PET. But I think another important part of this is not just the baseline imaging, but also what's going to be done serially on a study in order to define responses and progression. And that's sort of a whole separate conversation about to what extent you can interpret changes in serial PET. Ravi Madan: And just to pick up on the key factor here, I think that the PSMA PET in BCR is pretty good at defining lymph node disease, and that's actually predominantly 80 to 90 percent of the disease seen on these findings. It might be pretty good at also defining other soft tissue findings. The real issues come to bone findings. And one thing the group did not feel was appropriate was to just define only PSMA-positive bone findings confirmed on a CT bone window. There's not really great data on that, but the working group felt that, when in the rare situation, because it is relatively rare, a PSMA-positive finding is in a bone, a bone scan should be done. And it's worth noting that Phu Tran, who is a co-author and a co-leader of this working group, his group has already defined that underlying genomics of conventionally based lesions, such as bone scan, are more aggressive than findings on next-gen imaging, such as PSMA. So, there is also a genomic underlying rationale for defining the difference between what is seen on a PET scan in a bone and what is seen on a bone scan. Davide Soldato: Coming back to this issue of PET PSMA sometimes identifying very small lesions where we don't see any kind of correlates on conventional imaging or where we see only very little alteration on the bone scan or in the CT scan, was there any role that was imagined, for example, for MRI to distinguish this type of findings on the PET scan? Ravi Madan: So, I think that, again, what can be identified on a PSMA frequently cannot be seen on conventional imaging. We didn't feel that it was a requirement to get an MRI or a CT to necessarily confirm the PSMA findings. I think that generally, we have to realize that in this disease state, that questionable lesions are going to be seen on any imaging, including PSMA. We've actually probably put way too much faith in PSMA findings thus far, as Dr. Einstein alluded to with some of the false positives we're seeing. So, I think that these false positives are going to have to be baked into trials. And in terms of clinical practice, it highlights the need to again, not overreact to everything we see and not necessarily need to biopsy everything and put patients' health in jeopardy to delineate a disease that's indolent anyway. Davide Soldato: Thanks so much. That was very clear. So, basically, the main driver was really also the data showing that if we have a BCR, so a patient with a biochemically recurrent disease that is positive on the conventional imaging, this is usually associated with a different aggressiveness of the disease. But coming back to a comment that you made before, Dr. Madan, you said that even if we talk about PSMA-positive BCR, we are still talking about BCR and the same criteria should apply. So, what we have used for years in this space to actually try to stratify the prognosis of patients is the PSA doubling time, so how quickly the PSA rises over time. So, coming back to that comment, was the consensus on the PSA doubling time basically retained as what we were using before, so defining patients with a doubling time less than 12 months, 10 months, 9 months, as patients with a higher risk of progressing in terms of developing metastatic disease? Ravi Madan: Yes, so that's a very important point. And the working group defined high-risk BCR as a PSA doubling time less than six months. And this really comes from Johns Hopkins historical data, which shows that if your doubling time is three months or less, there's about a 67 percent chance of metastasis at five years. If it's between three and six months, it's 50 percent. And if it's over six months, if it's between six and nine months, it's roughly only 27 percent. There are trials that are accruing with eligibility criteria that they may describe as high-risk that are beyond six months, but the data as really it's been defined in the literature highlights that truly high-risk BCR is less than six months. And the working group had a consensus on that opinion, and that was our recommendation. David Einstein: And I think an important follow-on to that is that's regardless of PET findings, right? And so, we present a couple of case studies of patients with positive PET findings who have a long doubling time, in whom the disease is in fact indolent, as you would have expected from a traditional BCR prognostic standpoint. Obviously, there are patients in whom they have fast doubling times, and even if they do not have PET findings, that doesn't make them not high-risk. Ravi Madan: And just to follow up that point, I will let you know a little bit of a free preview that my colleague Melissa Abel from the NCI will be presenting PSMA findings in the context of PSA doubling time at ASCO GU if that data is accepted. Davide Soldato: Looking forward for those data because I think that they're going to clarify a lot of the findings that we have in this specific population. And coming back to one of the points that we made before, so PET PSMA has a very high ability to discriminate also a very low burden of disease, which we currently refer to as oligometastatic biochemically recurrent prostate cancer, which is not entirely defined as an entity. But what we are seeing both in some clinical trials, which use mainly conventional imaging, but also what we're starting to see in clinical practice, is that frequently we use the metastasis-directed therapy to treat these patients. So, just a little bit of a comment on the use of this type of strategy in clinical practice and if the panel thought of including this as, for example, a stratification criteria or mandated in the design of novel clinical trials in the field of BCR? David Einstein: Yeah, I think that's an incredibly important point. You know, fundamentally, there's a lot of heterogeneity in practice where some folks are using local salvage approaches, some are using systemic therapies, in some cases surveillance may be reasonable, or some combination of these different strategies. We certainly have phase two data from multiple trials suggesting that met-directed therapy may help buy patients time off of treatment until subsequent treatments are started. And that in and of itself may be an important goal that we can come back to in discussing novel endpoints. I think what our panel acknowledged was that, in some sense, the clinical practice has gotten even farther ahead than where the data are, and this is being offered pretty routinely to patients in practice. And so, what became clear was that we, in developing clinical trials, cannot forbid investigators from doing something that would be within their usual standard of care, even if it might not be supported by the most robust data. But at minimum, it definitely should be used as a stratification factor, or in some trial designs, you can do met-directed therapy after a primary endpoint is assessed. And that offers a compromise between testing, say, the effect of a systemic therapy but also not excluding patients and investigators from doing what they would have done had they not been on a study. Ravi Madan: And I would just like to follow up your phrasing in the question of "oligometastatic prostate cancer." We have a figure in the paper and it highlights the fact that, unfortunately, that term in prostate cancer is imaging agnostic. And we've already discussed in this podcast, as well as in the paper, that imaging used to define a metastatic lesion, whether it's PSMA or conventional imaging, carries with it a different clinical weight and a different prognosis. So, we feel in the working group, that the correct term for this disease state of PSMA-positive BCR is just that: PSMA-positive BCR. We also have to realize that when we talk about oligometastatic disease, while it's imaging agnostic, it seems to be numerically based, whether it's five or three or 10 depending on the trial. But PSMA-positive BCR does not have a limit in terms of the number of lesions. And so again, we just feel that there is an important need to delineate what we're seeing in this disease state, which again is PSMA-positive BCR, and that should be differentiated frankly from oligometastatic disease defined on other imaging platforms. David Einstein: Right, and that also makes clear that patients can have polyfocal disease on PET that still is not what we would consider metastatic, but goes beyond the traditional definition of oligometastatic. So, in other words, just because someone has PET-detected disease only, that does not automatically equate with oligometastatic. Davide Soldato: Thanks so much. So, you were speaking a little bit, Dr. Einstein, about the different types of treatment that we can propose or not propose to this patient because you mentioned, for example, that in clinical practice MDT, so metastasis-directed therapy, is becoming more and more used. For these patients, we can potentially use systemic treatments, which include androgen deprivation therapy, which can be given continuously or in an intermittent fashion. And recently, we can also use novel systemic therapies, for example, enzalutamide, to treat this type of patient. So, given that the point of the consensus was really to provide consideration for novel clinical trials in this space, what was the opinion on the panel regarding the control arm? So, if we're looking at a novel therapy in the BCR space, does the control arm need to include a therapy or not? And if so, which therapy? David Einstein: Yeah, this is a super important question and one that's subject to a lot of discussion, especially in light of recent data from EMBARK. What we came to a consensus around was the fact that neither MDT nor systemic therapy should be required as a control arm on BCR trials. And we can talk about a number of reasons for that. There's also the pragmatics of what investigators might actually accrue patients to and what they would consider their standard of care, and that's important to factor in, too. I think that one of the major goals of our working group was outlining what kinds of trials we would like to see in the future and where the limitations of the current data stand. For example, EMBARK proposes a strategy of a single treatment discontinuation and resumption at a predefined threshold indefinitely. That's probably not how most people are practicing. Most folks are probably using some version of intermittent therapy as they would have before this trial, but we actually don't have any data supporting that. Moreover, we don't have data comparing different intermittent strategies to one another. We don't know what the right thresholds are, we don't know how much time we buy patients off treatment, and we don't know to what extent MDT modifies that. And so, those are all really important questions to be asking in future versions of these trials. I'd say my second point would be that a lot of drug development is happening with novel therapies that are not hormonal, trying to bring them into this space. And when you think about trying to compare one of those types of therapies to a hormonal therapy on short-term endpoints, the hormonal therapy is always going to win. Hormonal therapy is almost universally effective, it will bring down PSAs, and it will prolong, quote-unquote, "progression." The downside of that is that hormonal therapy doesn't actually modify the disease, it suppresses it, and it tends to have fairly transient effects once you remove it. And so, part of our goal was in trying to figure out some novel endpoints that would allow these novel types of therapies to be examined head-to-head against a more traditional type of hormonal therapy and have some measurement of some of the more long-term impacts. Davide Soldato: So, jumping right into the endpoints, because this is a very relevant and I think very well-constructed part of the paper that you published. Because in the past we have used some of these endpoints, for example, metastasis-free survival, as potentially a proxy for long-term outcomes. But is this the right endpoint to be using right now, especially considering that frequently this outcome is measured using conventional imaging, but we are including in these trials patients who are actually negative on conventional imaging but have a positive PSMA when they enter this type of trial? David Einstein: Yeah, there's a number of challenges with those types of endpoints. One of which is, as you say, we're changing the goalposts a little bit on how we're calling progression. We still don't exactly understand what progression on PET means, and so that's something that is challenging. That said, we're also cognizant of the fact that many times investigators are likely to get PET scans in the setting of rising PSA, and that's going to affect any endpoint that relies purely on conventional imaging. So, there's some tension there between these two different sets of goalposts. One thing that we emphasize is that not only are there some challenges in defining those, but also there're challenges in what matters to a patient. So, if a progression event occurs in the form of a single lesion on a PET scan or even a conventional image, that might be relevant for a clinical trial but might be less relevant for a patient. In other words, that's something that, in the real world, an investigator might use serial rounds of metastasis-directed therapy or intermittent therapy to treat in a way that doesn't have any clinical consequences for the patient necessarily. In other words, they're asymptomatic, it's not the equivalent of a metastatic castration-resistant disease progressing. And so, we also need to be cognizant of the fact that if we choose a single endpoint like PFS, that there's going to be many different versions of progression, some of which probably matter clinically more than others, and some of which are more salvageable by local therapies than others. Ravi Madan: So I think the working group really thoughtfully looked at the different options and underscored perhaps strengths and weaknesses, and I think that's presented as you mentioned in the paper. But I think it's also going to depend on the modality, the approach of the therapeutic intervention. In some cases if it's hormone-based, then maybe PSA is providing some early metrics, maybe metastasis-free survival is more relevant in a continuous therapy, but intermittent therapies might have a different approach. There's emerging immunotherapy strategies, radiopharmaceutical strategies, they might have some more novel strategies as well. I think we have to be open-minded here, but we also have to be very clear: we do not know what progression is on a PSMA scan. Just new lesions may not carry the clinical significance that we think, and we may not know what threshold that ultimately becomes clinically relevant is. So, I do think that there was some caution issued by the working group about using PSMA as an endpoint because we still do not have the data to understand what that modality is telling us. Again, I'm optimistic that the National Cancer Institute's prospective data set that we've been collecting, which has over 130 patients now, will provide some insights in the months and years ahead. Davide Soldato: So, just to ask the question very abruptly, what would you feel like the best endpoint for this type of trials is? I understand that is a little bit related to the type of treatments that we're going to use, whether it's intermittent, whether it's continuous, but do we have something that can encapsulate all of the discussion that we have up until this point? David Einstein: Yeah, so that's a perfect segue to the idea of novel endpoints, which we feel are very important to develop in these novel disease spaces. So, one thing that we discussed was an endpoint called treatment-free survival, which conceptually you can think of as exactly what it sounds like, but statistically you actually have to do some work to get there. And so essentially, you imagine a series of Kaplan-Meier curves overlaid: one about overall survival, one time to next therapy, one time on initial therapy. You can actually then take the area under those curves or between those curves and essentially sum it up using restricted mean survival time analysis. And that can give you a guide about the longitudinal experience of a patient: time spent on treatment versus off treatment; time spent with toxicity versus without toxicity. And importantly, each one of those time-to-event metrics can be adjusted depending on exactly what the protocol is and what is allowed or not allowed and what's prespecified as far as initiation of subsequent therapies. So, we felt that this was a really important endpoint to develop in this disease space because it can really capture that longitudinal aspect. It can really reward treatments that are effective in getting durable responses and getting patients off of therapy, because unfortunately, PFS-based endpoints generally reward more or longer systemic therapy versus shorter or no systemic therapy, and that's sort of an artificial bias in the way those endpoints are constructed. So, I think that there are challenges of course in implementing any new endpoint, and some of the things that are really critical are collecting data about toxicity and about subsequent therapies beyond what a typical trial might collect. But I think in this kind of disease space, that longitudinal aspect is critical because these are really patients who are going to be going through multiple rounds of therapy, going to be going on and off treatments, they're going to be using combinations of local and systemic therapies. And so, any one single endpoint is going to be limited, but I think that really highlights the limitations of using PFS-based endpoints in this space. Ravi Madan: I also think that in the concept of treatment-free survival lies one of the more powerful and, honestly, I was surprised by this, that it was so universally accepted, recommendations from the committee. And that was that the general approach to trials in this space should be a de-escalation of the EMBARK strategy as it's laid out with relatively continuous therapy with one pause. And so, I think again, buried in all of this highlights the need for novel endpoints like treatment-free survival. We get to the fact that these are patients who are not at near-term clinical risk from symptoms of their disease, so de-escalating therapies does not put them at risk. And if you look at, for example, lower-volume metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, it's become realized that we need to de-escalate, and there are now trials being done to look at that. Historically, we know that BCR is an indolent disease process for the vast majority of patients who are not at near-term risk from clinical deterioration. So, therefore, we shouldn't wait a decade into abundant BCR trials to de-escalate. The de-escalation strategy should be from the outset. And that was something the committee really actually universally agreed on. David Einstein: And that de-escalation can really take multiple forms. That could be different strategies for intermittent therapy, different start-stop strategies. It could also mean actually intensifying in the short-term with the goal long-term de-intensification, kind of analogous to kidney cancer where we might use dual checkpoint inhibitors up front with some higher upfront toxicity but with the hope of actually long-term benefit and actually being able to come off treatment and stay in remission. Those kinds of trade-offs are the types of things that are challenging to talk about. There's not a one-size-fits-all answer for every patient. And so, that's why some of these endpoints like treatment-free survival would be really helpful in actually quantifying those trade-offs and allowing each patient to make decisions that are concordant with their own wishes. Davide Soldato: Thanks so much. That was very clear, especially on the part of de-escalation, because, as you were mentioning, I think that we are globally talking about a situation, a clinical situation, where the prognosis can be very good and patients can stay off treatment for a very long period of time without compromising long-term outcomes. And I think that well-constructed de-escalation trials, as you were mentioning and as the consensus endorsed, are really needed in this space also to limit toxicity. This brings us to the end of this episode. So, I would like to thank again Dr. Einstein and Dr. Madan for joining us today. David Einstein: We really appreciate the time and the thought, and I think that even starting these types of discussions is critical. Even just recognizing that this is a unique space is the beginning of the conversation. Ravi Madan: Yeah, and I want to thank JCO for giving us this forum and the opportunity to publish these results and all the expert prostate cancer investigators who were part of this committee. We produced some good thoughts for the future. Davide Soldato: We appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled, "National Cancer Institute's Working Group on Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Clinical Trial Design Considerations." If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinion of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Listen now to the latest episode of JCO Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, North Star, by Dr Manuela Spadea. As a pediatric oncologist, Spadea shares a luminous, gut-honest reflection that reminds us that beyond protocols and outcomes, the deepest medicine is presence. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: North Star, by Manuela Spadea, MD  Mikkael Sekeres: Welcome back to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. This ASCO podcast features intimate narratives and perspectives from authors exploring their experiences in oncology. I am your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I am professor of medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. What a pleasure it is to have joining us today Manuela Spadea, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Turin in Italy and consultant oncologist at the Regina Margherita Children's Hospital in Turin, Italy. We will discuss her Journal of Clinical Oncology article and second place winner in our Narrative Medicine Contest, "North Star." At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. We have agreed to address each other by first names. Manuela, thank you for contributing to the Journal of Clinical Oncology and to our Narrative Medicine Contest, and especially for joining us to discuss your winning article today. Manuela Spadea: Hi Mikkael. Thank you for having me today. It is a pleasure and an honor being invited to speak with you. Mikkael Sekeres: No, the pleasure and honor is mine, I promise. You know, on these podcasts, I often like to ask our guests to tell us something about yourself. Where are you from, and walk us through your career and where you are right now. Manuela Spadea: Sure. I am from Italy. I work in Turin, where I work as a consultant pediatrician, a consultant oncologist, and also as an assistant professor of pediatrics. So my work is divided in these two duties: clinical duties on one hand and on the other hand, research and also teaching activities. I was drawn to choose pediatric oncology because this sits at the intersection of science and humanity, in my opinion, of course. I think that in pediatric oncology, we face different and several challenges, so we need to perform at our best in diagnosis, treatment, and whatever. But also, we are asked to not forget being human and to connect always with our children and their families. So it was basically this intersection, this connection between science, research on one hand, and humanity and heart on the other hand that led me to what I am today. Mikkael Sekeres: It is a fantastic explanation, and it is interesting how you have framed that, that there is an aspect of arts and humanities that you have found in focusing on pediatric hematology oncology. I do think that is more so than what we face in adult oncology. Manuela Spadea: I think that it is kind of different because if you think about our world and you think about a sentence, just putting the words 'child', 'cancer', and 'death' in the same sentence is very hard to think about. An adult is someone that has already had the chance and the gift to grow up. Mikkael Sekeres: Huh. It is an interesting perspective on it. Manuela Spadea: Yeah. A child is someone who is growing up and cancer stays in between his possibility to become an adult or not. Mikkael Sekeres: So the emotional burden right out of the gate of having a child with cancer and the possibility of death and the reaction to the compromise of a full life and the shortening of a full life automatically invokes that extra step of humanity and arts and how we have to approach a medical situation. I had not heard somebody put that into a concise phrase like that before, but you are absolutely right. When did you start writing narrative pieces? Manuela Spadea: I started writing when I was an adolescent, basically. And writing for me was a way to cope with whatever kind of feeling I felt during my life and during what I experienced as a human beforehand. But thereafter, when I became a clinician, writing was a way to cope with difficult shifts or hard nights in which you are asked to make very hard decisions as a clinician. Mikkael Sekeres: Often, either on this podcast or outside of it, doctors will approach me and want to get into writing and write a piece. And I think what many people do not realize is it is entirely possible later in life to start writing and to be very skilled at it. Many of our authors for JCO's Art of Oncology, though, have been writing their entire lives. It is not like they woke up one morning and decided, "Today I am going to write and I am going to write creatively." We have all been working on it for decades. Manuela Spadea: Sure. Mikkael Sekeres: I wonder who are some of your favorite authors or are there writers who have influenced your own writing? Manuela Spadea: I would go with Paulo Coelho and Alda Merini. The reasons are very different because from Paulo Coelho, I learned how to express life as a journey and how to use and exploit, of course, symbolic images to express what we want to tell to our readers. From Alda Merini, I learned that pain and suffering are worthy of being mentioned and they still deserve a place in our writings. And she taught me how to collocate, how to find the right place and the right words to express pain and suffering that are parts of our life, of course, in pediatric oncology, of course, and are worthy being expressed in a manner that can reach our readers and touch them. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, as you have beautifully in your essay, I wonder if you could give us an example of a symbolic image. Manuela Spadea: For example, referring to my essay, "North Star." I chose the North Star because it is a very important image because it recalls to us about being a fixed point in a collapsing world. Basically, it is the world of our children that is collapsing and you are the one who represents this fixed point, this anchor. Mikkael Sekeres: So in your essay, which our entire editorial staff just loved, you write about, and I am going to quote you to you, which is always a little bit awkward, but here I go. You write about "the unbearable beautiful vulnerability of being a North Star for a child with cancer." And you write, "We never call it that, of course, not in rounds, not in protocols, but that is what we become: a fixed point in a collapsing sky. When nothing else makes sense, when numbers fail and outcomes blur, they look to us, not because we promise survival, but because we promise we won't leave." Wow. I mean, that is an incredible collection of sentences. I wonder, in our relationships with our patients, when does that happen? When do we become a North Star? Manuela Spadea: I think that we become a North Star when our patients experience our humanity because they can trust us, not only for our degrees or our experience as clinicians, physicians, researcher, whatsoever. They trust us as a North Star when they feel that we are empathetic with them, when they know that we are feeling what they are experiencing. And so they leave their feelings to us, they share their feelings and they begin to connect with us. Mikkael Sekeres: When does that happen in the timeline of when we meet a patient? Is that something that can happen at our very first meeting where a patient may identify us or a member of our team as their North Star, or is that something that only happens over time as we build trust and build empathy? Manuela Spadea: It is definitely something that happens over time, day by day. Sometimes, but only occasionally, in my opinion, it can happen on the very first days, for example, the days in which we give them the diagnosis. But these are only small occasions because in the majority of cases, in my experience, the trust is built day by day. Mikkael Sekeres: There are also times that doesn't happen, though, right? What are those scenarios like when either patients do not need us to be a North Star or when that deep connection never happens? Manuela Spadea: I think that these are very challenging situations. It can happen when outcomes blur, of course, because sometimes patients are experiencing too much suffering and they cannot share with us because they are not able of sharing with us their feelings. Sometimes it is just because you are not their North Star. Sometimes it is inexplicable, basically. "I do not trust you, not because you are not what I am looking for, but because I do not feel I can trust you. And I do not know how to explain because I cannot trust you." Mikkael Sekeres: It is interesting. It is complicated to develop that relationship where you become a North Star. It sounds like what you are saying is it is a combination of trust, first and foremost, honesty, attentiveness to a patient's needs, and time. Manuela Spadea:Sure. Mikkael Sekeres: In your piece, you write about a couple of patients you have treated, Eva and Cecilia, and you write, "In both Eva's and Cecilia's journeys, I was not the most experienced doctor in the hospital. I wasn't the one who had written the protocol they were enrolled in or published the paper that dramatically shifted their chances. But I was the one who stayed, the one they chose. Incredibly, this is both a gift and a responsibility." There is a lot in those sentences, Manuela. You give patients the agency to identify us as a North Star, not us. Can you talk about that a little bit? Manuela Spadea: I think that there is a word in pediatric oncology that could be used as recurrent. And this word is 'impossible'. Why I chose this word? Because we live impossible diagnosis. Let's be honest. Impossible diagnosis, impossible suffering, impossible losses. When you face the impossible, being a North Star without being burned out by this, it is accepting that you are going to face uncertainty just being present. Because you are not the one that will change the outcome, or you can't be sure that that child will have the chance to survive. So if you give the possibility to face the uncertainty, being sure that whenever it goes, you can just be present for your patient and remember every day to your patient that you are there for them. So basically you win. And on the other hand, you also need to protect yourself because being a North Star is a responsibility, as I wrote. And a responsibility can be overwhelming for the one who is responsible for that child. So in that case, the only thing that can protect you is taking the part of being a North Star with boundaries. So you should also try to maintain your objectivity as a clinician and protect that objectivity that allows you to also serve as a good clinician. Mikkael Sekeres: So I wonder if I could follow up on that a little bit. It is a lot of work to be a North Star, isn't it? I mean, we have to choose our words and our actions so very carefully when we are in a room with a patient and that patient's family. Do you think serving as a North Star contributes to burnout or is it actually the opposite? It keeps our work vibrant and real? Manuela Spadea: Good question. I think that it is both, indeed. I think that burning out comes not by being a North Star, but by being a North Star in isolation, without caring about yourself, without finding a way to cope with your grief, with your sense of fear because we are human, so it is basically we experience these feelings. I mean, if we do not have a way to cope and to protect our feelings, we can absolutely go into burnout. On the other hand, it can be very important thing for our work because it can give our work the possibility to be vibrant and real because we are allowed to take the journey of our patient in a moment in which their journey is very unbearable. This is also not only a responsibility, but also a very important place that we have in their lives. This is very beautiful for me. This is astonishing because we are allowed to enter our patients' lives in a very difficult moment, and we can walk with them. Basically, being present and walking through what cancer journeys reserve for them. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, I think that is a lovely place to end our podcast. What a real pleasure it has been to have Manuela Spadea, who is an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Turin, Italy, and consultant oncologist at the Regina Margherita Children's Hospital in Turin, Italy, to discuss her essay, "North Star." Manuela, thank you so much for submitting your article both to JCO and to our contest, and for joining us today. Manuela Spadea: Thank you, Mikkael. It has been an honor to share these stories with you. Mikkael Sekeres: If you have enjoyed this episode, consider sharing it with a friend or colleague or leave us a review. Your feedback and support helps us continue to have these important conversations. If you are looking for more episodes and context, follow our show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen, and explore more from ASCO at asco.org/podcasts. Until next time, this has been Mikkael Sekeres for JCO Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Show Notes:Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr Manuela Spadea is an Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Turin, Italy, and Consultant Oncologist at the Regina Margherita Children's Hospital, in Turin, Italy.

Dr. Pedro Barata and Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe discuss the evolving treatment landscape in gastroesophageal junction and gastric cancers, including the emergence of organ preservation as a selective therapeutic goal, as well as strategies to mitigate disparities in care. Dr. Maduekwe is the senior author of the article, "Organ Preservation for Gastroesophageal Junction and Gastric Cancers: Ready for Primetime?" in the 2026 ASCO Educational Book. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pedro Barata: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a podcast series from ASCO that features compelling perspectives from authors and editors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm Dr. Pedro Barata. I'm a medical oncologist at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and an associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. I'm also the deputy editor of the ASCO Educational Book. Gastric and gastroesophageal cancers are the fifth most common cancer worldwide and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Over the last decade, the treatment landscape has evolved tremendously, and today, organ preservation is emerging as an attainable but still selective therapeutic goal. Today, I'm delighted to be speaking with Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe, an associate professor of surgery and the director of regional therapies in the Division of Surgical Oncology at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Dr. Maduekwe is also the last author of a fantastic paper in the 2026 ASCO Educational Book titled "Organ Preservation for Gastroesophageal Junction and Gastric Cancers: Ready for Prime Time?" We explore these questions in our conversations today.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode as well. Welcome. Thank you for joining us today. Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe: Thank you, Dr. Barata. I'm really, really glad to be here. Dr. Pedro Barata: There's been a lot of progress in the treatment of gastric and gastroesophageal cancers. But before we actually dive into some of the key take-home points from your paper, can you just walk us through how systemic therapy has emerged and actually allowed you to start thinking about a curative framework and really informing surgery decision-making? Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe: Great, thank you. I'm really excited to be here and I love this topic because, I'm terrified to think of how long ago it was, but I remember in medical school, one of my formative experiences and why I got so interested in oncology was when the very first trials about imatinib were coming through, right? Looking at the effect, I remember so vividly having a lecture as a first-year or second-year medical student, and the professor saying, "This data about this particular kind of cancer is no longer accurate. They don't need bone marrow transplants anymore, they can just take a pill." And that just sounded insane. And we don't have that yet for GI malignancies. But part of what is the promise of precision oncology has always been to me that framework. That framework we have for people with CML who don't have a bone marrow transplant, they take a pill. For people with GIST. And so when we talk about gastric cancers and gastroesophageal cancers, I think the short answer is that systemic therapy has forced surgeons to rethink what "necessary" really means, right? We have the old age saying, "a chance to cut is a chance to cure." And when I started out, the conversation was simple. We diagnose the cancer, we take it out. Surgery's the default. But what's changed really over the last decade and really over the last five years is that systemic therapy has gotten good enough to do what is probably real curative work before we ever enter the operating room. So now when you see a patient whose tumor has essentially melted away on restaging, the question has to shift, right? It's no longer just, "Can I take this out?" It's "Has the biology already done the heavy lifting? Have we already given them systemic therapy, and can we prove it safely so that maybe we don't have to do what is a relatively morbid procedure?" And that shift is what has opened the door to organ preservation. Surgery doesn't disappear, but it becomes more discretionary. Necessary for the patients who need it, and within systems that can allow us to make sure that we're giving it to the right patients. Dr. Pedro Barata: Right, no, that makes total sense. And going back to the outcomes that you get with these systemic therapies, I mean, big efforts to find effective regimens or cocktails of therapies that allow us to go to what we call "complete response," right? Pathologic complete response, or clinical complete response, or even molecular complete response. We're having these conversations across different tumors, hematologic malignancies as well as solid tumors, right? I certainly have those conversations in the GU arena as well. So, when we think of pathologic CRs for GI malignancies, right? If I were to summarize the data, and please correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not an expert in this area, the traditional perioperative chemo gives you pCRs, pathologic complete response, in the single digits. But then when you start getting smarter at identifying biologically distinct tumors such as microsatellite instability, for instance, now you start talking about pCRs over 50%. In other words, half of the patients' cancer goes away, it melts down by offering, in this case, immunotherapy as a backbone of that neoadjuvant. But first of all, this shift, right, from going from these traditional, "not smart" chemotherapy approaches to kind of biologically-driven approaches, and how important is pCR in the context of "Do I really need surgery afterwards?" Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe: That's really the crux of the entire conversation, right? We can't proceed and we wouldn't be able to have the conversation about whether organ preservation is even plausible if we hadn't been seeing these rates of pathologic complete response. If there's no viable tumor left at resection, did surgery add something? Are we sure? The challenge before this was how frequently that happened. And then the next one is, as you've already raised, "Can we figure that out without operating?" In the traditional perioperative chemo era, pathologic complete response was relatively rare, like maybe one in twenty patients. When we go to more modern regimens like FLOT, it got closer to one in six. When you add immunotherapy in recent trials like MATTERHORN, it's nearly triple that rate. And it's worth noting here, I'm a health services-health disparities researcher, so we'll just pause here and note that those all sound great, but these landmark trials have significant representation gaps that limit and should inform how confidently we generalize these findings. But back to what you just said, right, the real inflection point is MSI-high disease where, with neoadjuvant dual-checkpoint blockade, trials like NEONIPIGAS and INFINITY show pCR rates that are approaching 50% to 60%. That's not incremental progress, that's a whole new different biological reality. What does that mean? If we're saying that 50% to 60% of the people we take to the OR at the time of surgery will end up having no viable tumor, man, did we need to do a really big surgery? But the problem right now is the gold standard, I think we would mostly agree, the gold standard is pathologic complete response, and we only know that after surgery. I currently tell my patients, right, because I don't want them to be like, "Wait, we did this whole thing." I'm like, "We're going to do this surgery, and my hope is that we're going to do the surgery and there will be no cancer left in your stomach after we take out your stomach." And they're like, "But we took out my stomach and you're saying it's a good thing that there's no cancer." And yes, right now that is true because it's a measure of the efficacy of their systemic therapy. It's a measure of the biology of the disease. But should we be acting on this non-operatively? To do that, we have to find a surrogate. And the surrogate that we have to figure out is complete clinical response. And that's where we have issues with the stomach. In esophageal cancer, the preSANO protocol, which we'll talk about a little bit, validated a structured clinical response evaluation. People got really high-quality endoscopies with bite-on biopsies. They got endoscopic ultrasounds. They got fine-needle aspirations and PET-CT, and adding all of those things together, the miss rate for substantial residual disease was about 10% to 15%. That's a number we can work with. In the stomach, it's a lot more difficult anatomically just given the shape of people's stomachs. There's fibrosis, there's ulceration. A fair number of stomach and GEJ cancers have diffuse histology which makes it difficult to localize and they also have submucosal spread. Those all conceal residual disease. I had a recent case where I scoped the patient during the case, and this person had had a 4 cm ulcer prior to surgery, and I scoped and there was nothing visible. And I was elated. And on the final pathology they had a 7 cm tumor still in place. It was just all submucosal. That's the problem. I'm not a gastroenterologist, but I would have said this was a great clinical response, but because it's gastric, there was a fair amount of submucosal disease that was still there. And our imaging loses accuracy after treatment. So the gap between what looks clean clinically and what's actually there pathologically remains very wide. So I think that's why we're trying to figure it out and make it cleaner. And outside of biomarker-selected settings like MSI-high disease, in general, I'm going to skip to the end and our upshot for the paper, which is that organ preservation, I would say for gastric cancer particularly, should remain investigational. I think we're at the point where the biology is increasingly favorable, but our means of measurement is not there yet. Dr. Pedro Barata: Gotcha. So, this is a perfect segue because you did mention the SANO, just to spell it out, "Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal" trial, so SANO, perfect, I love the abbreviation. It's really catchy. It's fantastic, it's actually a well-put-together perspective effort or program applying to patients. And can you tell us how was that put together and how does that work out for patients? Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe: Yeah, I think for those of us in the GI space, we have SANO and then we also have the OPRA for rectum. SANO for the upper GI is what takes organ preservation from theory to something that's clinically credible. The trial asked a very simple question. If a patient with a GEJ adenocarcinoma or esophageal adenocarcinoma achieved what was felt to be a clinical complete response after chemoradiation, would they actually benefit from immediate surgery? And the question was, "Can you safely observe?" And the answer was 'yes'. You could safely observe, but only if you do it right. And what does that mean? At two years, survival with active surveillance was not inferior to those who received an immediate esophagectomy. And those patients had a better early quality of life. Makes sense, right? Your quality of life with an esophagectomy versus not is going to be different. That matters a lot when you consider what the long-term metabolic and functional consequences of an esophagectomy are. The weight loss, nutritional deficiencies that can persist for years. But SANO worked because it was very, very disciplined and not permissive. You mentioned rigor. They were very elegant in their approach and there was a fair amount of rigor. So there were two main principles. The first was that surveillance was front-loaded and intentional. So they had endoscopies with biopsies and imaging every three to four months in the first year and then they progressively spaced it out with explicit criteria for what constituted failure. And then salvage surgery was pre-planned. So, the return-to-surgery pathway was already rehearsed ahead of time. If disease reappeared, take the patient to the OR within weeks. Not sit, figure out what that means, think about it a little bit and debate next steps. They were very clear about what the plan was going to be. So they've given us this blueprint for, like, watching people safely. I think what's remarkable is that if you don't do that, if you don't have that infrastructure, then organ preservation isn't really careful. It's really hopeful. And that's what I really liked about the SANO trial, aside from, I agree, the name is pretty cool. Dr. Pedro Barata: Yeah, no, that's a fantastic point. And that description is spot on. I am thinking as we go through this, where can this be adopted, right? Because, not surprisingly, patients are telling you they're doing a lot better, right, when you don't get the esophagus out or the stomach out. I mean, that makes total sense. So the question is, you know, how do you see those issues related to the logistics, right? Getting the multi-disciplinary team, getting the different assessments of CR. I guess PETs, a lot of people are getting access to imaging these days. How close do you think this is, this kind of program, to be implemented? And maybe I would assume it might need to be validated in different settings, right, including the community. How close or how far do you think you see that being applied out there versus continuing to be a niche program, watch and wait program, in dedicated academic centers? Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe: I love this question. So I said at the top of this, I'm a health equity/health disparities researcher, and this is where I worry the most. I love the science of this. I'm really excited about the science. I'm very optimistic. I don't think this is a question of "if," I think it's a question of "when." We are going to get to a point where these conversations will be very, very reasonable and will be options. One of the things I worry about is: who is it going to be an option for? Organ preservation is not just a treatment choice, and I think what you're pointing out very rightly is it's a systems-level intervention. Look at what we just said for SANO. Someone needs to be able to do advanced endoscopy, get the patients back. We have to have the time and space to come back every three to four months. We have to do molecular testing. There needs to be multi-disciplinary review. There needs to be intensive surveillance, and you need to have rapid access to salvage surgery. Where is that infrastructure? In this country, it's mostly in academic centers. I think about the panel we had at ASCO GI, which was fantastic. And as we were having the conversation, you know, we set it up as a debate. So folks were debating either pro-surveillance or pro-surgery. But both groups, both people, were presenting outcomes based on their centers. And it was folks who were fantastic. Dr. Molena, for example, from Memorial Sloan Kettering was talking about their outcomes in esophagectomies [during our session at GI26], but they do hundreds of these cases there per year. What's the reality in this country? 70% to 80% to 90%, depending on which data you look at, of the gastrectomies in the United States occur at low-volume hospitals. Most of the patients at those hospitals are disproportionately uninsured or on government insurance, have lower income and from racial and ethnic minority groups. So if we diffuse organ preservations without the system to support it, we're going to create a two-tiered system of care where whether you have the ability to preserve your organs, to preserve bodily integrity, depends on where you live and where you're treated. The other piece of this is the biomarker testing gap. One of the things that, as you pointed out at the beginning, that's really exciting is for MSI-high tumors. Those are the patients that are most likely to benefit from immunotherapy-based organ preservation. But here's the problem. If the patient isn't tested at time of initial diagnosis before they ever see me as a surgeon, the door to organ preservation is closed before it's ever open. And testing access remains very inconsistent across academic networks. And then there's the financial toxicity piece where, for gastrectomy, pancreatectomy, I do peritoneal malignancies, more than half of those patients experience significant financial toxicity related to their cancer treatment. We're now proposing adding at least two years, that's the preliminary information, right? It's probably going to be longer. At least a couple of years of surveillance visits, repeated endoscopies, immunotherapy costs. How are we going to support patients through that? We're going to have to think about setting up navigation support, geographic solutions, what financial counseling looks like. My patient for clinic yesterday was driving to see me, and they were talking about how they were sliding because it was snowing. And they were sliding for the entire three-hour drive down here. Are we going to tell people like that that they need to drive down to, right, I work at a high-volume center, they're going to need to come here every three months, come rain or snow, to get scoped as opposed to the one-time having a surgery and not needing to have the scopes as frequently? My concern, like I said, I'm an optimist, I think it is going to work. I think we're going to figure out how to make it work. I'm worried about whether when we deploy it, we widen the already existing disparities. Dr. Pedro Barata: Gotcha, and that's a fantastic summary. And as I'm thinking also of what we've been talking in other solid tumors, which one of the following do you think is going to evolve first? So we are starting to use more MRD-based assays, which are based on blood test, whether it's a tumor-informed ctDNA or non-informed. We are also trying to get around or trying to get more information response to systemic therapies out of RNA-seq through gene expression signatures, or development of novel therapeutics which also can help you there. Which one of these areas you think you're going to help this SANO-like approach move forward, or you actually think it's actually all of the above, which makes it even more complicated perhaps? Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe: I think it's going to be all of the above for a couple of reasons. I would say if I had to pick just one right now, I think ctDNA is probably the most promising and potentially the missing piece that can help us close the gap between clinical and pathologic response. If you achieve clinical complete response and your ctDNA is negative, so you have clinical and molecular evidence of clearance, maybe that's a low-risk patient for surveillance. If you have clinical complete response but your ctDNA remains positive, I would say you have occult molecular disease and we probably need intensified therapy, closer monitoring, not observation. I think the INFINITY trial is already incorporating ctDNA into its algorithm, so we'll know. I don't think we're at the point where it alone can drive surgical decisions. I think it's going to be a good complement to clinical response evaluation, not a replacement. The issue of where I think it's probably going to be multi-dimensional is the evidence base: who are we testing? Like, what is the diversity, what is the ancestral diversity of these databases that we're using for all of these tests? How do we know that ctDNA levels and RNA-seq expression arrays are the same across different ancestral groups, across different disease types? So I think it's probably going to be an amalgam and we're going to have to figure out some sort of algorithm to help us define it based on the patient characteristics. Like, I think it's probably different, some of this stuff is going to be a little bit different depending on where in the stomach the cancer is. And it's going to be a little bit more difficult to figure out if you have a complete clinical response in the antrum and closer to the pylorus, for example. That might be a little bit more difficult. So maybe the threshold for defining what a clinical complete response needs to be is higher because the therapeutic approach there is not quite as onerous as for something at the GE-junction. Dr. Pedro Barata: Wonderful. And I'm sure AI, whether it's digitization of the pathology from the biopsies and putting all this together, probably might play a role as well in the future.  Dr. Maduekwe, it's been fantastic. Thank you so much for sharing your insights with us and also congrats again for the really well-done review published.  For our listeners, thank you for staying with us. Thank you for your time. We will post a link to this fantastic article we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And of course, please join us again next month on the By the Book Podcast for more insights on key advances and innovations that are shaping modern oncology. Thank you, everyone. Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe: Thank you. Thank you for having me. Watch the ASCO GI26 session: Organ Preservation for Gastroesophageal and Gastric Cancers: Ready for Primetime? Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:          Dr. Pedro Barata   @PBarataMD    Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe @umaduekwemd Follow ASCO on social media:          @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)          ASCO on Bluesky         ASCO on Facebook          ASCO on LinkedIn          Disclosures:       Dr. Pedro Barata:   Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Luminate Medical   Honoraria: UroToday   Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Caris Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, AVEO, Merck, Ipson, Astellas Medivation, Novartis, Dendreon   Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Merck, Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Pfizer/Astellas   Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Blue Earth, AVEO, Pfizer, Merck    Dr. Ugwuji Maduekwe: Leadership: Medica Health Research Funding: Cigna    

Featuring perspectives from Dr Stacey A Cohen, Dr Christopher Lieu and Dr Jenny Seligmann, moderated by Dr Lieu, including the following topics:  Introduction (0:00) Neoadjuvant Treatment for Localized Colorectal Cancer (CRC) — Dr Seligmann (2:39) Emerging Novel Approaches to Adjuvant Treatment for Localized CRC — Dr Lieu (33:18) Role of Circulating Tumor DNA Testing in Localized CRC — Dr Cohen (59:43) CME information and select publications

[Ep.317] Miedo y Asco. Un encuentro anunciado como catástrofe. Pronósticos apocalípticos, horas de suspenso...Donald Trump y Gustavo Petro se encontraron y, contra todo libreto mediático, el final fue menos dramático de lo esperado. En este episodio miramos cómo los medios narraron el miedo, cómo administraron la incertidumbre en un en vivo eterno de martes y cómo dejaron ver —sin filtros— una opinión pública dividida.Con Andrés Páramo, Juan Álvarez y María Paula MartínezInvitada: María Fernanda FitzgeraldPos producción: Mónica CastiblancoCollage: Santiago Rivas#presunto #CríticadeMedios #Análisis #mediosPresunto es un proyecto que analiza narrativas mediáticas. Gracias por apoyarnos vía Patreon. :)Notas del episodioEn Vivo de Coronell hablando sobre la puerta https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auehzGs2evgLos Danieles, Epstein y Pastrano https://cambiocolombia.com/los-danieles/articulo/2026/2/epstein-y-pastrana/Silla Vacía, Epstein, Pastrana y Maxwellhttps://www.lasillavacia.com/en-vivo/nuevos-archivos-de-epstein-revelan-mensajes-entre-pastrana-y-maxwell/Foto Gerardo Reyes en Xhttps://x.com/GerardoReyesC/status/2002549105927815295Petro-Trump el espectador https://www.elespectador.com/opinion/columnistas/el-espectador/editorial-en-video-cita-petro-trump-no-es-hora-de-provocaciones/?outputType=ampTrump From Epstein, The daily Showhttps://youtu.be/cwXIq81eE24?si=D6VvsBNrrF0nC-32Steve Eder, New York Timeshttps://www.instagram.com/reel/DQ_-rQRj6vh/?igsh=MTIxN2JicTBwMmNhOQ%3D%3DFitzgerald on Epsteinhttps://www.instagram.com/reel/DURfnSSiXy2/?igsh=MWxyMjZiODBsbWdkNQ%3D%3D6 AM W, emisión del martes 3F, 6:30 am / Ahí está la franja divina sobre regalos y “tela ancestral” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dr Stacey A Cohen from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington, Dr Jenny Seligmann from the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom and Dr Christopher Lieu from the University of Colorado Cancer Center in Aurora review clinical findings from the 2026 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium relevant to the management of localized colorectal cancer.CME information and select publications here.

Dr Stacey A Cohen from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington, Dr Jenny Seligmann from the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom and Dr Christopher Lieu from the University of Colorado Cancer Center in Aurora review clinical findings from the 2026 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium relevant to the management of localized colorectal cancer.CME information and select publications here.

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Atul Batra discuss the PLANeT study from India, which evaluated low-dose pembrolizumab in addition to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for triple-negative breast cancer, and its place among a growing body of international research on improving efficacy while reducing costs and toxicity with lower doses of immunotherapy. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I'm a medical oncologist, professor, and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles. My guest today, I think, is going to be a really riveting one. It's Dr. Atul Batra, who is an additional professor of medical oncology at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, or AIIMS, in New Delhi. And he's also the senior author of the PLANeT study. It's a very compelling study that evaluated low-dose pembrolizumab in addition to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for triple-negative breast cancer. And it's really a big part of a growing body of research that's showing balanced efficacy when we use lower doses of immunotherapy instead of standard doses to reduce cost, as well as potentially toxicity. I think this has huge implications for our global audience, and I'm so thrilled to have you on the podcast today, Dr. Atul Batra, welcome. Dr. Atul Batra: Thank you, Dr. Pal. Dr. Monty Pal: And we'll just take it with first names from here since we're both friends. I have to give the audience some context. Atul, I had the great honor of visiting AIIMS New Delhi. For those that don't know, this is really, you know, the Harvard Medical School of India. It's the most competitive institution for medical training. And on the back end of that, there's also incredible resources when it comes to clinical trials and infrastructure. I just wanted to have you give the audience sort of a scope of the types of trials that you've been able to do at AIIMS New Delhi. Dr. Atul Batra: Thank you, Monty. So, I work at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and we had the honor and pleasure of having Monty here this month. And people are still in awe of his lectures that he delivered there. Coming back to our institute, so it's kind of a medical college. It's one of the oldest ones, it was built in 1956. We are lucky enough that we get the best of the residents and fellows because they have to go through an exam, a competitive exam, and mostly it's them who come to us and we're able to do some good work out here. Regarding the trials that we have conducted, we do conduct some investigator-initiated studies, and we try to answer the questions where we can help our own patients. Like, for example, this PLANeT study. Every other patient in the clinic was almost not able to afford Keytruda at the full dose, pembrolizumab, and we had a lot of evidence creeping in that a lower dose might be helpful. And that's how we planned this study. Before that, there are certain cancers that are peculiar to India, like gallbladder cancer, head and neck cancers. These are much more common in India as compared to the U.S., and there are some good studies that have been conducted from our own institute by our senior colleagues which have been presented at ASCO and published in the JCO. We also did the capecitabine hand-foot syndrome study that was known as the D-ToRCH study: 1% diclofenac gel that became the standard of care to prevent hand-foot syndrome.  So, that's kind of a brief overview of investigator-initiated studies. India is slowly and steadily becoming a partner of the global registration trials. And it's more recently, the last five years or so, we have seen that the number of phase 2 and phase 3 trials are increasing and we are able to offer now these trials as well to our patients. Dr. Monty Pal: That was a terrific overview. I just want to highlight for the audience, as we go through some of your discussions today around specific trials, the speed at which this can be done. Just for context, for me to accrue a clinical trial of 30 patients – I think many people have probably come across some of the work that I've done in the microbiome space – at a single institution, 30 patients, right, takes me about a year and a half, two years. We're going to go through some trials today where Dr. Batra and his team have actually, in fact, accrued close to 200 patients over a span of just a year, which is just remarkable by, I would say, any American standard. So, I see a real need for partnership and Atul, I'll kind of get back to that at the end. But without further ado, the focus of this podcast today, I think, is really this terrific presentation you gave in an oral session at ESMO and subsequently published in Annals of Oncology related to the PLANeT study. Would you give the listeners some context around what the study entailed and population and so forth? Dr. Atul Batra: So, we know the KEYNOTE-522 became the standard of care for triple-negative breast cancer, where Keytruda, when added at 200 mg, the standard dose every three weeks with neoadjuvant, increases the pCR from around 51% to 64% by a magnitude of around 13%. However, in India and other low-middle income countries, less than 5% of the patients actually have access to this dose of pembrolizumab. So, our standard of care was actually just chemotherapy till now. And this kind of led us to design this trial. There are data that come from previous trials conducted in India, from the Tata Memorial, done in head and neck space, some other studies done in Hodgkin's lymphoma, that a much lower dose, probably around one-tenth of the dose, works well in these cancers. So, that's where we designed the PLANeT study, where we gave the standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the control arm, and in the experimental arm we added 50 mg of pembrolizumab. This was given every six weeks for three doses. So, that's a total of 150 mg over the neoadjuvant period as compared to 1,600 mg that was given in the KEYNOTE-522 study. So, this was almost one-tenth of the study. Dr. Monty Pal: So, a tenth of the dose, which is just remarkable. I mean, that's just such an interesting concept. Dr. Atul Batra: And the results, when we – the primary outcome, this was a phase 2 study. We just wanted to see, is there a signal of activity? And to even our surprise, when we looked at the pathological complete response rates, in the control arm this was 40.5%, and in the experimental arm this was 53.8%. So, a difference came to around 13.3%; it was numerically, I mean, so much similar to what KEYNOTE-522 had with just these many doses. So, this was around 160 patients randomized over one year. We could randomize them in one year because of the load that we see. And the primary endpoint was met, and we could see that the path complete response did show a remarkable increase. We are still following these patients to see whether there is a difference in event-free survival at a longer follow-up. Until now, it's a small follow-up, so the number of events absolute, are different: four events in the experimental arm and 11 events in the control arm. So, we are seeing some signal even in this much short follow-up period as well. But we need to see more of what happens in the longer term. Dr. Monty Pal: That's so impressive. I wonder, with this lower dose, do you attenuate toxicity at all as far as you can gather? Dr. Atul Batra: So, although we shouldn't be doing kind of cross-trial comparisons, but if you look at thyroid dysfunction, we saw that around 10% of our patients had this thyroid dysfunction. This was compared to 15% in the KEYNOTE-522, that was a larger sample size though. But we're seeing that all the toxicities are somewhat less as compared to those in the standard dose. So, the exposure is less, but I mean, I can't really commit definitely on this. For this we would need much more data to say this with more confidence. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah. I'm going to ask you a really tough question to follow up, and this is probably something that's on everyone's mind after reading a study like this. Is this something that is disease-specific that needs to be replicated across other histologies? The reason I ask this is, you know, you think about paradigms like, for instance, in the States we're toying between intravenous versus subcutaneous delivery of checkpoint inhibitors, and we have studies focused in specific histologies that might justify use across all histologies. With this particular phenomenon, do you think we need to do dedicated studies in renal cell or in colon cancer and other places where, you know, in selected settings we might use checkpoint inhibitors and then decide whether or not there's this dose equivalence, if you will? Dr. Atul Batra: That's a real tough one, though. But I'm happy to share that there are several ongoing studies within India currently. At our institute, my colleagues are leading studies in lung cancer space, cervical cancer. There was already a publication from Tata Memorial Hospital in head and neck cancers and we see that the signal has been consistent throughout. Regarding renal cancer, there was one study that was presented for sure at ASCO from CMC Vellore, that's again a center in South India. That was in RCC at a much lower dose. And for patients who cannot take the full dose, we actually are offering lower dose nivolumab in such patients and we are seeing responses. I mean, we haven't done those randomized trials again because the numbers are much lower in kidney cancers, we know. We could do this trial in triple-negative ones because we had support and we had numbers to conduct this trial. But I'm sure this should be a class effect. I mean, when we can get tumor-agnostic approvals, then some real-world data has come up in almost all tumors, we have seen that consistent effect across tumors. And as we speak of today, I'm also delighted to share that in India, yesterday, we had the first biosimilar of nivolumab and that's now available at a much, much lower price than the original patent product. There was a long ongoing lawsuit that was there, that's over now, and from yesterday onwards, I'm so happy to share here that we would have the first biosimilar of nivolumab that's available. That's going to bring the cost to almost like one-tenth already. Dr. Monty Pal: Wow. That's huge.  I'm going to be very selfish here for a second and focus on a study that is in the renal cell space that your group has done. You know, when it came out, I was really sort of intrigued by this study as well and it reflects sort of a different capability, I think, of AIIMS New Delhi, and that's in the, what I'm going to call, biomarker space. This, for the audience, was a prospective effort to characterize germline variants in patients with advanced kidney cancer. And it's something that we talk about a lot in the kidney cancer literature, whether or not we're missing a lot of these so-called hereditary patterns of RCC. Can you tell us a little bit about that study too? Dr. Atul Batra: Yeah, so that was led by one of our fellows, Chitrakshi Nagpal, and she's just completed her fellowship. And two years back we published that. So, that was done in almost 160 consecutive patients that we recruited over the span of just one year and we saw, apart from the common known mutations in RCC, that was around 5% or so, but a lot of other mutations were also seen that we don't generally see in kidney cancers and we see in other cancers like BRCA1, BRCA2 and others. We are still, I mean, doing those analyses to see whether we get more things out of there in the somatic: is there a loss of heterozygosity or was it just present and in there? Dr. Monty Pal: I thought it was a terrific study and again, I was just so blown away at the pace. I mean, as I look at 140 patients accrued over a span of one year, this is something that would take us perhaps three times as long at City of Hope, and that's with a very sort of, what I consider to be large and dedicated kidney cancer program. So, it really underscores, I think, the need for collaboration. And ever since I came back from my visit to you at AIIMS Delhi, I think I've just been sort of transformed in the sense of trying to think of better ways for us to collaborate. One tangible thing that I'm going to get cracking on is seeing whether or not perhaps we can form some partnerships through SWOG or what we call the NCTN, the National Clinical Trials Network here within the U.S. Talk to me about collaboration. I mean, you've been really terrific at this. How do you sort of envision collaboration enhancing the global landscape of oncology? Dr. Atul Batra: That's really amazing, Monty. That's what we need. We have the infrastructure, we have the manpower, we have patients. I mean, these are all high-volume centers. Unfortunately, we are a little less in numbers, so we are more clinically occupied as well. So, sometimes it's kind of tougher, but again, when it comes to helping out the patients, global collaboration, we need to kind of take you guys along with us and have our patients finish trials earlier. This is a win-win situation for patients, one, because they also get exposure or an option to participate in the clinical trials, and second, we can answer all these scientific questions that we have at a much faster pace. All those things can be done within a much shorter span of time for sure. We are so happy to hear that, and with open hands we are ready to collaborate for all these efforts. Dr. Monty Pal: That's awesome. You know, I came back thinking, gosh, this would be so ideal for some of these rare subtypes of kidney cancer. Prospective clinical trials that I'm running in that space where really we're threatened with closure all the time. And if we just sort of extended a hand to, you know, our partners in India and other countries, you know, I'm sure we could get this research done in a meaningful way and that's got to be a win for patients. Atul, I had such a terrific time chatting with you today. I'm looking forward to seeing lots more productivity from your group there. By the way, for our viewership here, take a look and see what AIIMS New Delhi is doing under the leadership of Dr. Batra and others. It is just a real powerhouse and I think that after doing so, you'll be enticed to collaborate as well.  I'm hoping this is the first of many times that we have you on the podcast. Thank you so much for joining. Dr. Atul Batra: Thank you so much for having me here, Monty. It was a pleasure as always speaking to you. And thank you again. Dr. Monty Pal: You got it.  Well, and thanks to our listeners. I encourage you to check out Dr. Batra's paper. We'll actually have a link to the study in the transcript of this episode.  Finally, if you value the insights that you heard today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the 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. Monty Pal   @montypal Dr. Atul Batra @batraatulonc Follow ASCO on social media:          ASCO on X    ASCO on Bluesky         ASCO on Facebook          ASCO on LinkedIn          Disclosures:       Dr. Monty Pal:      Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview     Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical     Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis     Dr. Atul Batra: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Zydus Pharmaceuticals, Glenmark, Caplin Point Laboratories, Laurus Research Funding: AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Alkem Laboratories

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

Dr. Sonam Puri discusses the full update to the living guideline on stage IV NSCLC with driver alterations. She shares a new overarching recommendation on biomarking testing and explains the new recommendations and the supporting evidence for first-line and subsequent therapies for patients with stage IV NSCLC and driver alterations including EGFR, MET, ROS1, and HER2. Dr. Puri talks about the importance of this guideline and rapidly evolving areas of research that will impact future updates. Read the full living guideline update "Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2026.3.0" at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools and resources are available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology,  https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-25-02822    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. Sonam Puri from Moffitt Cancer Center, co-chair on "Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2026.3.0." It's great to have you here today, Dr. Puri. Dr. Sonam Puri: Thanks, Brittany. Brittany Harvey: And then just 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. Puri, 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 that we're here today to talk about, Dr. Puri, 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 data prompted this latest update to the recommendations? Dr. Sonam Puri: So Brittany, non-small cell lung cancer is one of the fastest-moving areas in oncology right now, particularly when it comes to targeted therapy for driver alterations. New data are emerging continuously from clinical trials, regulatory approvals, real-world experience, which is exactly why these are living guidelines. The goal is to rapidly integrate important advances as they happen, rather than waiting for years for a traditional update. Since the last full update of the ASCO Stage IV Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Guideline with Driver Alterations published in 2024, there have been seven new regulatory approvals and changes in first-line therapy for some driver alterations. [This version] of the "Stage IV Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Guidelines with Driver Alterations" represents a full update, which means that the panel reviewed and refreshed every applicable section of the guideline to reflect the most current evidence across therapies including sequencing and clinical decision-making. This is to ensure that clinicians have up-to-date practical guidelines that keep pace with how quickly the field is evolving. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. As you mentioned, this is a very fast-moving space and this full update helps condense all of those versions that the panel reviewed before into one document, along with additional approvals and new trials that you reviewed during this time period. So then, the first aspect of the guideline is there's a new overarching recommendation on biomarker testing. Could you speak a little bit to that updated recommendation? Dr. Sonam Puri: Yeah, definitely. So the panel has discussed and provided recommendations on comprehensive biomarker testing and its importance in all patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer. Ideally, biomarker testing should include a broad-based next-generation sequencing panel, rather than single-gene tests, along with immunohistochemistry for important markers such as PD-L1, HER2, and MET. These results really drive treatment decisions, both in frontline settings for all patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer and in subsequent line settings for patients with non-small cell lung cancer harboring certain targetable alterations. Specifically in the frontline setting, it helps determine whether a patient should receive upfront targeted therapy or immunotherapy-based approach. We now have strong data that shows that complete molecular profiling results before starting first-line therapy is associated with better overall survival and actually more cost-effective care. Using both tissue and blood-based testing can improve likelihood of getting actionable results in a timely way, and we've also provided guidance on platforms that include RNA sequencing, which are specifically helpful for identifying gene fusions that might be otherwise missed with other platforms. On the flip side, outside of a truly resource-limited setting, single-gene PCR testing really should not be routine anymore. This is what the panel recommends. It's less sensitive and inefficient and increases the risk of missing important actionable alterations. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you reviewing that recommendation. It really helps identify critical individual factors to match the best treatment option to each individual patient. So then, following that recommendation, what are the updated recommendations on first-line therapy for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer with a driver alteration? Dr. Sonam Puri: Since the last full update in 2024, there have been four additional interim updates which were published across 2024 and 2025. Compared to the last version, there have been several updates which have been included in this full update. One of the most important shifts has been in first-line treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer harboring the classical, or what we call as typical, EGFR mutation. The current version of the recommendation is based on the updated survival data from the phase III FLAURA2 and MARIPOSA studies, based on which the panel recommended to offer either osimertinib combined with platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy or the combination of amivantamab plus lazertinib in the first-line treatment of classical EGFR mutations. And these recommendations, as I mentioned, are grounded in the results of the FLAURA2 and MARIPOSA trials, both of which demonstrated improvement in progression-free survival and overall survival compared to osimertinib alone in patients with common EGFR mutations. That being said, the panel actually spent significant time discussing the toxicities associated with these treatments as well. These combination approaches come with higher toxicity, longer infusion time, increased treatment frequency. So while combination therapy is now recommended as preferred, the panel has recommended that osimertinib monotherapy remains a reasonable option, particularly for patients with poor performance status and for those who are not interested in treatment intensification after knowing the risks and benefits. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's important to consider both those benefits and risks of those adverse events that you mentioned to match appropriately individualized patient care. So then, beyond those recommendations for first-line therapy, what is new for second-line and subsequent therapies? Dr. Sonam Puri: So this is a section that saw several major updates, particularly again in the EGFR space. The first was an update on treatment after progression on osimertinib for patients with classical EGFR mutation. Here the panel recommends the combination of amivantamab plus chemotherapy, and this recommendation was based on the phase III MARIPOSA-2 trial, which compared amivantamab plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone with progression-free survival as the primary endpoint. The study met its primary endpoint, showing an improvement in median PFS with the combination of amivantamab plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone. And as expected, the combination was associated with higher toxicity. So, although the panel recommends this regimen, the panel emphasizes that patients should be counseled on the side effects which may be moderate to severe with the combination therapy approach. In addition, a new recommendation was added for patients who are not candidates for amivantamab plus chemotherapy. In those cases, platinum-based chemotherapy with or without continuation of osimertinib may be offered, and the option of continuing osimertinib with chemotherapy was recommended and supported by data from a recently presented phase III COMPEL study, which randomized 98 patients with EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer who had experienced no CNS progression on first-line osimertinib, and these patients were randomized to receive platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with osimertinib or placebo. Although this study was small, it demonstrated a PFS benefit with continuation of osimertinib with chemotherapy, and this approach may be appropriate for patients without CNS progression who prefer or require alternatives to more intensive treatment strategies. Next was an update on options for patients with EGFR-mutated lung cancer after progression on osimertinib and platinum-based chemotherapy. Here the panel recommended that for patients whose disease has progressed after both osimertinib and platinum-based chemotherapy, a new drug known as datopotamab deruxtecan can be offered as a treatment option. And this treatment recommendation was based on evaluation of pooled data from the TROPION-Lung01 and TROPION-Lung05 study, in which in the pooled analysis about 114 patients with EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer were treated with Dato-DXd, 57% of whom had received three or more prior lines of treatment, and what was observed was an overall response rate of 45% with a median duration of response of 6.5 months. So definitely promising results. Next, we focused on updates to subsequent therapy options for patients with another type of EGFR mutation known as EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations. In this section, the panel added sunvozertinib as a subsequent line option after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy with or without amivantamab. Sunvozertinib is an oral, irreversible, and selective EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor with efficacy demonstrated in the phase II WU-KONG6 study conducted in Chinese patient population. In this study, amongst 104 patients with platinum-pretreated EGFR exon 20 mutated non-small cell lung cancer, the observed response rate was 61%. Staying in the EGFR space, the panel added a recommendation for patients with acquired MET amplification following progression on EGFR TKI therapy. In these situations, the panel recommended that treatment may be offered with osimertinib in combination with either tepotinib or savolitinib. As our listeners may know, MET amplification occurs in approximately 10% to 15% of patients with EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer when they progress on third-generation EGFR TKIs, and detection of MET amplification is done with various methods, such as tissue-based methods like FISH, NGS, and IHC, as well as ctDNA-based NGS with variable cut-offs. Over the last few years, several studies have informed this recommendation. I'm going to be discussing some of them. In the phase II ORCHARD trial, 32 patients with MET-amplified non-small cell lung cancer after progression on first-line osimertinib were evaluated, where the combination of osimertinib plus savolitinib achieved an overall response rate of 47% with a duration of response of 14.5 months. More recently, the phase II SAVANNAH trial reported outcomes in 80 patients with MET-amplified tumors after progression on osimertinib, and in this patient population, the combination of savolitinib and osimertinib achieved an overall response rate of 56% with a median PFS of 7.4 months. And lastly, the phase II single-arm INSIGHT 2 trial assessed the efficacy of osimertinib plus tepotinib in patients with advanced EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer who had disease progression following first-line osimertinib therapy. And in this study, in a cohort of 98 patients with MET-amplified tumors confirmed by central testing, the overall response rate with the combination was 50% with a duration of response of 8.5 months. So definitely informing this guideline recommendation. Next, we had an update on recommendation in patients with ROS1-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer. For patients with ROS1-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer, the panel recommended specifically for patients who progressed after first-line ROS1 TKIs, the addition of taletrectinib as a new option alongside repotrectinib. And this recommendation was based on analysis of the results of the TRUST-I and TRUST-II studies, which showed that amongst 113 tyrosine kinase inhibitor-pretreated patients, taletrectinib achieved a confirmed overall response rate of 55.8% with a median duration of response of 16.6 months and a median PFS of 9.7 months, a very promising agent. Finally, for patients with HER2 exon 20 mutated non-small cell lung cancer, the panel added two new oral HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors, zongertinib and sevabertinib, as options in addition to T-DXd and after exposure to T-DXd. These recommendations are based on early phase data from two trials: the phase I Beamion LUNG-01 study, which evaluated zongertinib, and the phase I/II SOHO-01 study that evaluated sevabertinib. In this study, zongertinib demonstrated an overall response rate of 71% in previously treated patients, with an overall response rate of 48% amongst patients who had received prior HER2-directed ADCs including T-DXd. Sevabertinib in its early phase study showed an overall response rate of 64% in previously treated but HER2 therapy-naive patients, and an overall response rate of 38% in patients previously exposed to HER2-directed therapy. The panel believes that both agents had manageable toxicity profile and represent meaningful new options for this patient population. Brittany Harvey: Certainly, it's an active space of research, and I appreciate you reviewing the evidence underpinning all of these recommendations for our listeners. So, it's great to have these new options for patients in the later-line settings. And given all of these updates in both the first and the later-line settings, what should clinicians know as they implement this latest living guideline update, and how do these changes impact patients with non-small cell lung cancer? Dr. Sonam Puri: Some great questions, Brittany. I think for clinicians when implementing this update, I think about two practical steps. First is reiterating the importance of comprehensive biomarker testing. That is the only way to identify key drivers and resistance mechanisms that we are now targeting. And second, picking a first-line strategy that balances efficacy and toxicity and patient preference for your specific patient. I think informed decision-making, shared decision-making is more important than any time right now. It has always been important, but definitely very important now. For patients, this guideline brings recommendations on more personalized treatment options for both first-line and post-progression settings, which potentially means better outcomes. But it is also very important for our patients to continue to have informed conversations about side effects, time commitment, and what matters most to them with their providers. The panel in this version of the guideline specifically acknowledges the real-world barriers that prevent patients from receiving guideline-concordant therapy, including challenges with access to comprehensive molecular testing and treatment availability, and the panel emphasizes on the importance of shared decision-making, and we provide practical discussion points to help clinicians navigate these conversations with the patient. In addition, the panel has also addressed common real-world clinical complexities, such as treating elderly or frail patients, managing multiple chronic conditions, considerations around pregnancy and fertility, and certain disease scenarios such as oligoprogression or oligometastatic disease. And where available, the guideline summarizes this existing data to support informed individual decision-making in these complex situations. Brittany Harvey: Shared decision-making is really paramount, especially with all of the options and weighing the risks and benefits and considering the individual circumstances of each patient that comes before a clinician. We've talked a lot about all of the new studies that the panel has reviewed, but what other studies or areas of research is the panel examining for future updates to this living guideline as it continues to be updated on an ongoing basis? Dr. Sonam Puri: Yes, definitely, so much to look forward to, right? Looking ahead, the panel is closely monitoring several rapidly evolving areas that are likely to shape future updates of the guideline. This includes emerging data from ongoing later-phase studies, particularly the studies that are evaluating these new targeted agents moving to earlier lines of therapy, alongside studies evaluating additional combination strategies or more refined approaches to treatment sequencing. We're also closely watching advances in biomarker testing, the evolving understanding of resistance mechanisms, development of new targets, and promising therapeutic agents. I think ultimately the living guideline exists to help clinicians and patients navigate this rapidly evolving field, and we would like to ensure that scientific advances are rapidly translated into better, more personalized patient care. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. We'll look forward to those updates from those ongoing trials and future areas of research that you mentioned to provide better options for patients with non-small cell lung cancer and a driver alteration. So I want to thank you so much for your work to rapidly and continuously update this guideline, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Puri. Dr. Sonam Puri: Thanks so much. Thanks so much for the opportunity. Brittany Harvey: And finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. There's also a companion episode with Dr. Reuss on the related living guideline on stage IV non-small cell lung cancer without driver alterations that listeners can find in their feeds as well. And 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.  

Featuring perspectives from Dr Jaffer A Ajani, Dr Samuel J Klempner, Dr Rutika Mehta and Dr John Strickler, moderated by Dr Klempner, including the following topics:  Introduction (0:00) HER2-Targeted Approaches for Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancers — Dr Ajani (2:02) Faculty Panel Discussion: Cases and Questions from the Community (14:13) Targeting Claudin 18.2 in Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancers — Dr Strickler (37:29) Faculty Panel Discussion: Cases and Questions from the Community (49:21) Optimal Incorporation of Immunotherapeutic Strategies into Treatment for Patients with Metastatic Gastroesophageal Tumors — Dr Mehta (1:09:56) Faculty Panel Discussion: Cases and Questions from the Community (1:22:02) Other Novel Agents and Strategies Under Evaluation for Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancers — Dr Klempner (1:44:23) CME information and select publications

Dr Jaffer Ajani from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Dr Rutika Mehta from Weill Cornell Medicine/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital in New York, New York, Dr John Strickler from Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and Dr Samuel Klempner from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston review relevant data supporting immunotherapy for patients with gastroesophageal cancers and review recently presented clinical findings from the 2026 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.CME information and select publications here.

Dr Jaffer Ajani from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Dr Rutika Mehta from Weill Cornell Medicine/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital in New York, New York, Dr John Strickler from Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and Dr Samuel Klempner from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston review relevant data supporting immunotherapy for patients with gastroesophageal cancers and review recently presented clinical findings from the 2026 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.CME information and select publications here.

Featuring perspectives from Dr Haley Ellis, Prof Eric Van Cutsem and Dr Zev Wainberg, moderated by Dr Lionel A Kankeu Fonkoua, including the following topics:  Introduction (0:00) Biliary Tract Cancers — Dr Ellis (1:56) Gastroesophageal Cancers — Dr Wainberg (24:27) Colorectal Cancer — Prof Van Cutsem (59:13) CME information and select publications

Dr Haley Ellis from Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, Prof Eric Van Cutsem from University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium, Dr Zev Wainberg from UCLA School of Medicine in Los Angeles, California, and moderator Dr Lionel KankeuFonkoua from Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, discuss recent data surrounding the management of HER2-positive GI cancers, alongside their perspectives on its clinical application and management.CME information and select publications here.

Dr Haley Ellis from Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, Prof Eric Van Cutsem from University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium, Dr Zev Wainberg from UCLA School of Medicine in Los Angeles, California, and moderator Dr Lionel KankeuFonkoua from Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, discuss recent data surrounding the management of HER2-positive GI cancers, alongside their perspectives on its clinical application and management.CME information and select publications here.

In this JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights episode, host Dr. Jiasen He summaries the article, "Longitudinal Evaluation of Circulating Tumor DNA as a Prognostic Biomarker to Detect Molecular Residual Disease in Germ Cell Tumors," by Hassoun et al. TRANSCRIPT Jiasen He: Hello, and welcome to the JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host, Jiasen He, and today, we'll be discussing the JCO Precision Oncology article, "Longitudinal Evaluation of Circulating Tumor DNA as a Prognostic Biomarker to Detect Molecular Residual Disease in Germ Cell Tumors," by Dr. Rebecca Hassoun and colleagues. Traditionally, treatment response for solid tumors has relied on imaging, which focuses on visible anatomic changes in the tumor. However, imaging does not always reflect molecular or cellular changes and cannot detect microscopic disease, which is clinically important and often linked to relapse. Liquid biopsy, on the other hand, is minimally invasive and can be used for cancer monitoring by analyzing circulating biomarkers in biofluids such as blood. One type of liquid biopsy is circulating tumor DNA, or ctDNA, which measures small fragments of DNA released by tumor cells into the bloodstream. ctDNA can allow precise monitoring of tumor-specific mutations and be a powerful tool for assessing treatment responses. ctDNA has already been applied in clinical settings for cancers such as non-small cell lung cancer and breast cancer, etcetera. However, there is still limited data on the use of ctDNA for germ cell tumors. Germ cell tumors are the most common malignancy affecting men aged 15 to 35 years. Accurate risk stratification and disease monitoring is key to risk-adapted therapy, maximizing the chance of cure while minimizing side effects. One unique tool we use currently for diagnosis, staging, and monitoring is serum tumor markers, such as AFP, beta-hCG, and LDH. However, these markers have limitations, including false elevation in certain clinical scenarios, and studies have shown that they can be normal in up to 40 percent of patients with germ cell tumor. This creates an unmet need for other sensitive and specific biomarkers to improve patient care. In this paper, the authors investigated the use of ctDNA in a cohort of patients with germ cell tumor at various disease time points. They compared ctDNA results with traditional serum tumor markers to evaluate whether ctDNA can predict relapse and survival outcomes. This multi-institutional retrospective study included patients with stage I, II, and III germ cell tumors, primarily testicular cancer, who had at least one ctDNA test result. ctDNA was evaluated longitudinally at different time points, including pre-orchiectomy, during the molecular residual disease, or MRD, window, defined as 1 to 12 weeks post-orchiectomy but before primary therapy, and during the surveillance window, defined as more than 12 weeks post-orchiectomy or follow retroperitoneal lymph node dissection or post-chemotherapy. ctDNA analysis was performed using a tumor-informed 16 multiplex PCR next-generation sequencing assay. A total of 324 plasma samples were analyzed from 74 patients in this cohort. The majority had stage I disease, around 40 percent, and nonseminomatous histology, around 70 percent. 15 patients were evaluated in the pre-orchiectomy window, and only one patient tested negative for ctDNA. This patient had stage I disease. The authors further assessed ctDNA positivity in both the MRD window and surveillance window, evaluating its association with event-free survival. They found that ctDNA outperformed serum tumor markers in both settings. ctDNA positivity was associated with significantly worse event-free survival compared with ctDNA-negative patients. Among the 14 patients with stage II to III disease who had ctDNA assessed in both the MRD window and surveillance window, nine patients consistently had a negative ctDNA or converted from positive to negative over time. In contrast, five patients demonstrated persistent ctDNA positivity, and all of these patients subsequently relapsed. Among the 38 patients who had both ctDNA and serum tumor marker tests during the MRD window, nine patients showed discordant biomarker results. Of these, 6 patients were ctDNA-negative but serum tumor marker-positive, and one of them experienced recurrence. Three patients were ctDNA-positive but serum tumor marker-negative, and one of these patients also recurred. During the surveillance window, 46 patients had both biomarkers available, and 10 showed discordant results. Three patients were ctDNA-negative but serum tumor marker-positive, and none of them recurred. In contrast, all seven patients who were ctDNA-positive but serum tumor marker-negative experienced recurrence. This intriguing data strongly support the potential role of ctDNA in patients with stage I, II, and III germ cell tumors. However, as the authors noted, the retrospective nature of the study presents limitations, as treatment approaches, imaging schedules, and the timing of testing were not standardized, and ctDNA testing varies among participating institutions. Larger prospective trials with standardized protocols and long-term follow-up will be essential to validate these findings and determine how ctDNA can be reliably integrated into clinical practice. Thank you for tuning in to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. Don't forget to subscribe and join us next time as we explore more groundbreaking research shaping the future of oncology. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Listen to JCO's Art of Oncology article, "A Chance to Heal with Cold Hard Steel" by Dr. Taylor Goodstein, who is a fellow at Emory University. The article is followed by an interview with Goodstein and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr. Goodstein shares a story about surgery, grief, and being courageous in the face of one's own fallibility. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: A Chance to Heal with Cold Hard Steel, Taylor Goodstein, MD Mikkael Sekeres: Welcome back to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. This ASCO podcast features intimate narratives and perspectives from authors exploring their experiences in oncology. I am your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I am Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. Joining us today is Dr. Taylor Goodstein, urologic oncology fellow at Emory University and our first Narrative Medicine Contest winner, to discuss her Journal of Clinical Oncology article, "A Chance to Heal with Cold Hard Steel." Dr. Goodstein and I have agreed to address each other by first names. Taylor, thank you for contributing to the Journal of Clinical Oncology, to our contest, and for joining us to discuss your winning article. Taylor Goodstein: Thank you so much for having me. This is a great honor. Mikkael Sekeres: The honor was ours, actually. We had, if you haven't heard, a very competitive contest. We had a total of 159 entries. We went through a couple of iterations of evaluating every entry to make it to our top five, and then you were the winner. So thank you so much for contributing this outstanding essay both to our Art of Oncology Narrative Medicine Contest and also ultimately to JCO. Taylor Goodstein: Oh, thank you so much. Mikkael Sekeres: So, I was wondering if we could start by asking you to tell us something about yourself. Where are you from, and walk us through your career and how you made it to this point? Taylor Goodstein: Well, I grew up in a small town in Colorado - Glenwood Springs, Colorado. It is on the Western Slope, about 45 minutes north of Aspen. I went all the way to the east coast for college, where I ended up minoring in creative writing. So writing has been a part of my medical journey kind of throughout. I went to medical school back in Colorado at University of Colorado in Aurora, and then I did my residency training at he Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. And now I am at Emory University for fellowship. And I have been kind of writing all throughout, trying to make sense of the various journeys we go on throughout the experiences we have with going through our medical training. Mikkael Sekeres: That is amazing, and I noticed how you emphasized the "The" in Ohio State University. Taylor Goodstein: Yes, we fought hard for that "The." Mikkael Sekeres: Right, as do we at The University of Miami. Yes. What drew you to surgery, and specifically surgical oncology? Taylor Goodstein: My dad is a surgeon. My dad is an ear, nose, and throat doctor. And I am essentially him. We are the same person, and it made him very, very happy. So when I was looking at different medical specialties, I knew I was going to do a surgical subspecialty, and that is what I was drawn to. And then I was looking for the one that felt right, ended up finding urology, and then throughout my residency journey, I really gravitated towards cancer care. I really loved the patient population taking care of cancer patients, and surgically it felt like a way that I was going to be engaged and challenged throughout my career as there is so much that is always changing in oncology, almost too fast to keep up with all of it. But that is what really, ultimately, drew me to that career path. Mikkael Sekeres: It is great that you had a role model in your dad as well to bring you into this field. Taylor Goodstein: Well, he is very disappointed that I did urology rather than ENT, and he's in private and I am going into academics, so there is plenty of room for disappointment. Mikkael Sekeres: I am sure the last thing in the world he is is disappointed in you. And I will say, so I am able to see your background here, our listeners of course are listening to a podcast and they are not. You have a very impressive bookshelf with a lot of different types of books on it. Taylor Goodstein: This is your guys' background! This was the option of one of the backgrounds I could choose for coming onto this. I didn't want to do my real background because I have a cat who is wandering around and was going to be very distracting. Mikkael Sekeres: That's funny! Taylor Goodstein: But I did like the books. The books felt like a good option for me. I do have a big bookshelf; books are very important to me. I don't do anything on Kindle. I like the paper and stuff like that, so I do have a big bookshelf. Mikkael Sekeres: There is something rewarding in the tactile feel of actually turning a page of a book. You did writing from a very early stage as well. I was an English minor undergrad and then focused on creative writing as well and continued taking creative writing courses in medical school. Were you able to continue that during medical school and then in your training? Taylor Goodstein: Yeah, I thought that is what I was going to do when I first went to college. Like, I thought I was going to be a journalist or writer of some kind, and then I think maybe the crisis of job security hit me a little bit, and then also my desire to work with my hands and work with people. I wanted something to write about, something about my life that would be very interesting to write about, and that sort of led me initially to medicine. But then yes, to answer your question, I have been participating in a lot of writing competitions, like through the AUA, the American Urological Association, they do one every year that I have been doing in residency. And then in medical school we had some electives that involved writing and medical literature that we did. There was a collection of student writings, a book that got published during my last year of medical school that I had a couple of essays in. And the journey changes over time. When you are a medical student, you are on this grand journey and you are so excited to be there, but at the same time you feel so incredibly unprepared and useless in a lot of ways. You are just this medical student. The whole medical machinery is this well-oiled cog rotating together, and you are just this wild little- by yourself just trying to fit in. And that experience really resonated with me. And then residency has its own things that you are trying to make sense of. I think it all pales in comparison to what it is like to be a new surgeon for the first time, taking not necessarily your first big case but early in your career and having complications and making difficult decisions. I think is one of the hardest things that we probably have to deal with. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, you write about this in an absolutely riveting way. When you and your attending, you are a fellow on this case with your attending, realize that in the mess of this aggressive tumor that you are trying to resect, you have removed the patient's external iliac artery and vein, you write, and I am going to quote you now to you, which is always a little awkward, but I am going to do it anyway: "It is hard to explain what it feels like. Belly drops, hands shake, lungs slow down, and heart speeds up. It takes several seconds, marked out by the beeping metronome of the patient's own heartbeat, but eventually we return to our bodies, ready to face the error we cannot undo." As a reader, you are transported with you into that moment when, oh my God, you realize what did we do in this tremendous tumor resection you were undertaking? What was going through your mind at that moment? Taylor Goodstein: This is going to sound maybe a little bit funny, but I always think about this line from Frozen 2. I don't know if you have any kids or you have seen Frozen 2. Mikkael Sekeres: I have kids, and I have seen Frozen, but I have to admit I have not seen Frozen 2, and that is obviously lacking in my library of experiences. Taylor Goodstein: Frozen 2 is incredible, way better than Frozen 1. The adult themes in Frozen 2 go above and beyond anything in Frozen 1. But they are faced with some really big challenges and one of the themes that happens in that movie is all you can do is the next right thing. And it gets said several times. I remember connecting to that when I saw the movie, and I have said it to myself so many times in the OR since. You can't go backwards, you can't change what just happened. So all you can do is the next right thing. And so I think once the shock of what had happened kind of fades, all I am thinking in my head is like, "Okay, what is the next right thing to do here?" And obviously that was calling the vascular surgeon, and thankfully he was there and able to come in and do what needed to be done to restore flow to the patient's leg. Mikkael Sekeres: It is so interesting how we are able to compartmentalize in the moment our emotions. The way you write about this and the way you express yourself in this essay, you are horrified by what has happened. This is a terrible thing, yet you are able to separate yourself from that and move forward and just do the right thing for the patient at that time and get your patient out of this and yourself out of this situation. Taylor Goodstein: I think that is honestly, and maybe not for everybody, but for me that has been one of the challenges of becoming a surgeon is learning that level of emotional control, because all you want to do is cry and scream and pull your hair out and hit your fists against the table, but you can't do that. You have to remain in charge of that ship and keep things moving forward. And it is one of those hidden skills that you have to learn when you are going to be a surgeon that you don't get taught in medical school, and you kind of learn on the job in residency, but there is not as much explicit training that goes into that level of emotional control that you have to have. And I have kind of gone on my own self-journey to get there that has been very deliberate for me. Mikkael Sekeres: That is amazing. Do you think as we progress through our careers, and I don't want to use a term that is so dismissive, but maybe I will try it anyway, that we become more nonchalant about surgeries or writing for chemotherapy or radiation therapy to deal with cancer, or is that fear, that notion of "with great power comes great responsibility," to loosely quote Spider-Man, is that always there? Do we always pause before we start the surgery, write for the chemotherapy, or write for the radiation therapy and say, "Wait a second, what am I doing here?" Taylor Goodstein: I think it is always there, and I would argue that it even grows as you get farther along in your practice and you gain this collection of experiences that you have as a surgeon where you develop complications and from that you change your practice, you change the way you operate, the way you consider certain operative characteristics. I would argue that, as time goes on, you probably get more cautious approaching surgery for patients, more cautious considering the side effects of different treatment options that people have. Mikkael Sekeres: I think that is right. There is danger in reflecting on the anecdotes of your career experience to guide future treatments, but there is also some value to remembering those times when something went wrong or when it almost went wrong and why we have to check ourselves before doing what may become routine at one point in our careers, and that routineness may be doing a surgery or writing for chemotherapy, but always remembering that there is great danger in what we are about to embark on. Taylor Goodstein: Always, yeah. Mikkael Sekeres: Taylor, what makes this story really special and one of the reasons it won our Art of Oncology Narrative Medicine Contest is just how deep you plunged into reflecting on this surgery. And you write, I am going to quote you to you again, you reflect on how people may criticize you and your attending for embarking on this surgery, but you say: "They never met him, not like you did. They did not see him buckled over in pain, desperation in his eyes. They did not hand his wife tissues or look at photos of his pregnant daughter or hear about his dream of making it to Italy one day. They did not hug his family at the end of it all and cry together as he rattled out sharp breaths. And they certainly did not know how much it meant to get two months free of pain and just enough time to meet his granddaughter." There is a hard truth you write it just perfectly, there is a hard truth to why we don't always follow CMS guidelines for not offering treatment at the end of life, isn't there? Taylor Goodstein: Yeah, it is tough. And you know, I think a lot about this because I have heard a few times to be cautious of the armchair quarterbacks, specifically when you are talking about M&Ms. It is so easy to come in at the other side of a bad outcome and talk about how you shouldn't have done this, you shouldn't have done that. And to be fair, during the M&M in question, as I think back to it, the feedback for the most part was very constructive and ways to maybe be more prepared coming into a surgery like this. Like, there were questions about whether - here at Emory, we operate over various different hospitals - of whether the hospital, it should have been done at an even different hospital was like one of the questions, that maybe had more resources. So things like that, but it is hard I think when you get that question like, maybe you shouldn't have operated. And there is- I think one of the lessons I learned here is being unresectable doesn't mean you can't resect the tumor. We say the word 'unresectable', like we obviously we resected it, but what was the cost of that, obviously? Like we can resect a lot of things, but how much collateral gets damaged in the process of doing that? However, it is a very challenging question. I mean, this guy had one option really. I mean, chemo wasn't going to work, radiation wasn't going to work, and his goals were different than our goals are necessarily when we talk about cancer care. He wanted to be free of pain, he wanted to be able to go home. He was admitted to the hospital, he was on an IV, like Dilaudid, like he could not get off of a PCA because of how much pain he was in. And he just wanted to go home and be there for the birth of his granddaughter, and that is what we tried to do for him. In which case we were successful, but in everything else, we were not. Mikkael Sekeres: And you were successful. I could imagine that when people are in pain, their immediate goal of course is to get rid of the pain. Being in pain is an awful place to be. But with the impending birth of his granddaughter, I have to imagine you realign what your goals are, and that must have been primary for him, and you got him there. Taylor Goodstein: We did. I also talked a little bit about this later on, this idea of providing peace for families. I think that there is this sense of maybe peace and acceptance that comes from having tried to do the long shot surgery, that if you had never tried, if you come to them right away and you say, "Oh, this is- I can guarantee that this isn't ultimately going to end up well," there is still like that what's going to linger in the back of their mind if it never gets attempted versus, okay, we tried, it failed, and now we can come with this almost like satisfaction or comfort knowing that we did everything we could. So I guess I think a little bit about that as well. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, I think that is a beautiful place to end this as well. There are so many factors we have to consider when we embark on this cancer journey with our patients and when we make recommendations for treatment, and it sounds like, and it is so beautifully reflected in your essay that you thought extremely holistically about this patient and what his goals were and appreciated that those goals had to be severely modified once he had his cancer diagnosis. Taylor Goodstein: I think the most important sentence is, "I still don't know what the right answer is." And I think that is important for me to end on. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, and you are still in training. I think it is so important to acknowledge that. When you are training, it is important to acknowledge it when you are at my stage of my career as well. There are still encounters where I come out and I think to myself, I am just still not 100 percent sure what the right thing to do is. But often we let our patients guide us, and we let their goals guide us, and then we know that at least it is right for that person. Taylor Goodstein: Yeah, exactly. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, it has been such a pleasure to have Dr. Taylor Goodstein, who is a fellow at Emory University, to discuss her outstanding essay, "A Chance to Heal with Cold Hard Steel." Taylor, thank you so much for submitting your entry to our first Art of Oncology Narrative Medicine Contest, for winning it, and for joining us today. Taylor Goodstein: Thank you so much for having me. Mikkael Sekeres: If you have enjoyed this episode, consider sharing it with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review. Your feedback and support help us continue to have these important conversations. If you are looking for more episodes and context, follow our show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen, and explore more from ASCO at asco.org/podcasts. Until next time, this has been Mikkael Sekeres for JCO Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Show Notes:   Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr Taylor Goodstein is a Fellow at Emory University.

Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin joins the podcast to discuss the latest changes to the living guideline on metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). She reviews new treatment options for patients treated with ADT alone, ADT and an ARPI, ADT and docetaxel, and ADT, an ARPI, and docetaxel whose disease has progressed to mCRPC and the evidence that underpins these changes. Dr. Taplin highlights the updated algorithms within the guideline and the living format which will provide rapid, up-to-date, evidence-based information for clinicians and patients. Read the full living guideline update, "Systemic Therapy in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2026.1." at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools and resources are available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology,  https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-25-02693 Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I am interviewing Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, lead author on "Systemic Therapy in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2026.1." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Taplin. Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: Thank you, Brittany. It is a pleasure. Brittany Harvey: Before we discuss this guideline, I would like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Taplin 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. To dive into the content here and what we are here today to talk about, this living clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is updated on an ongoing basis. Dr. Taplin, what prompted this latest update to the recommendations? Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: Thank you, Brittany. Several things prompted the latest update. There have been several phase III trials that have been practice-changing that have resulted in the last several years that needed to be added to the guidelines to inform clinicians of comprehensive treatment options. Brittany Harvey: Great, and it is great to have this updated guideline for readers. I would like to review the changes to the recommendations in this latest iteration across the patient populations that are outlined in the guideline. So, starting with: What are the updated recommendations for patients previously treated with androgen deprivation therapy alone whose disease has progressed to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: A nice feature of this guideline is that in addition to the tables, which provide detailed options, is at the end of the guidelines, our readers will find very clear algorithms that describe past treatment scenarios that patients could have had and then outline their treatment options. So it is very clear. Our clinicians will love these algorithms. And one of the changes for the disease state that you mentioned, which is the least treated castration-resistant state of prostate cancer which is previously treated with ADT alone, is that we recommend testing for mutations in the HRR, homologous recombination repair, genes. And the ones that are specifically known and applicable to prostate cancer are the BRCA genes. So there is clear recommendation of testing to remind us, as treating physicians, that now is the time, if it hasn't been done before, to institute both germline and somatic testing. And somatic testing, if it can be done on tissue, is preferable, but if not, the liquid biopsy approaches, the ctDNA approaches, have now advanced to the point that most patients with metastatic prostate cancer will be able to successfully have testing on the liquid biopsies. So that is number one, testing. And then the new treatment options include, if a patient does have an HRR gene alteration, and maybe about 20-25 percent of patients will be in that category, the combinations of an androgen pathway inhibitor and a PARP inhibitor are now treatment options. So for instance, talazoparib and enzalutamide; olaparib and abiraterone; or niraparib and abiraterone are some of the newer treatment options if the patient is HRR-positive. So, Brittany, in regard to patients treated with ADT alone, another new treatment option is the combination of radium-223 with enzalutamide. This is data based on the PEACE-3 trial which did show both an rPFS and OS benefit. For the patient who is HRR-negative and has previously not had an ARPI, just ADT alone, the combination of radium and enzalutamide is a new recommendation added to the algorithm. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for reviewing those options for that patient population. And as you mentioned, I think those algorithms are very helpful as figures in the document. They are clear and can be used as at-a-glance tools for clinicians in their busy clinics. So then the next patient population that the guideline addresses: What is new for patients previously treated with androgen deprivation therapy and an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor whose disease has now progressed to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: Right, so there are several new treatment options. So one is lutetium-PSMA-617, the trade name of which is Pluvicto. So that has now been FDA approved to use after progression on an AR pathway inhibitor and prior to the use of docetaxel chemotherapy. Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing that new option for patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy and an ARPI whose disease has progressed. So then moving into the next set of recommendations, what does the panel now recommend for patients previously treated with androgen deprivation therapy and docetaxel whose disease has progressed to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: The next group of patients is those treated with ADT and docetaxel but haven't had an AR pathway inhibitor. Treatment options, again the HRR testing is important. So all patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer should be considered for both germline and somatic testing. I will repeat that. And if they are BRCA mutation positive, then the option of talazoparib and enzalutamide; olaparib and abiraterone; and niraparib and abiraterone.  So the AR pathway inhibitors plus the PARPs. There are three choices, so that can be somewhat complicated to think through, but most practitioners will get familiar with one of those combinations and be their go-to. So those are for BRCA-positive or HRR-positive. The talazoparib/enzalutamide trial also included non-BRCA HRR-positive gene mutations. And if they are HRR-negative, the option that we discussed above of radium and enzalutamide is new to the guideline. Brittany Harvey: Great. And then the last category of patients that is addressed in this update: What has changed for patients previously treated with androgen deprivation therapy, an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor, and docetaxel whose disease has now progressed to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: Well, in this space, patients who are heavily pretreated with ADT and ARPI, one or even two, and chemotherapy, generally with docetaxel, the recommendations are not new within the last year or two. And they include Pluvicto; a PARP inhibitor if HRR-positive and they have not had one; second-line chemotherapy such as cabazitaxel. And if they are a very rare group and they have been sequenced and they are MSI-high, then considering a PD-1 inhibitor such as pembrolizumab can be considered. I will note that this is a very small percentage of mCRPC patients, probably in the order of 5 percent or less. Brittany Harvey: Understood. And I appreciate you reviewing the recommendations across all of these patient populations. It sounds like some of the key points is that HRR testing is very important for this patient population, and that the algorithms and the tables in the manuscript provide the full list of options that clinicians and patients can refer to. Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: Those are the highlights. And I will note in the tables, all the sections have "Special Considerations" sections because patients never fall into the black and white of one category. And those practical information or special situations sections of each of the recommendations can also help clinicians think about the individual patient in front of them and how they might choose one therapy over another since there are generally choices in all of these treatment situations. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. That information for the individualized patient-clinician decision-making is really key when, as you said, there is a list of options to choose from. So in your view, what should clinicians know as they implement this living guideline update, and how do these changes impact patients? Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: I am so excited about this living document. ASCO has invested to developing the software to, in real time and iteratively, assess the new data that is published in prostate cancer and other diseases. So now we don't have to wait many years for the next guideline to come out. The guidelines will be updated every six months in prostate cancer based on this automatic search of the literature and a standing panel of both academic and community experts in prostate cancer treatment. So we no longer have to wait. That is what makes this guideline stand out to other guidelines. And in the digestible format that we have made, a clinician can seek out the table and read some details, seek out practical information for the recommendations, or they can just go right to the clear figure algorithm and take a quick snapshot. "Yep, I need to do HR testing. Done. Oh, okay. HR-positive or negative, these are my options," and then think about the individual patient in front of them when there is more than one option. For instance, a patient with cardiovascular history, abiraterone might not be a good choice for them. Or a patient with neuropathy, docetaxel might not be a good choice for them. But, within this guideline, it really will be up to date and focused on the busy clinician and knowing what the options are for their patient. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. This new era of living guidelines is very exciting and can provide even more up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations to really support clinicians and patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. So in that vein, finally, what is the panel examining, and what are you excited for for new data coming out for future updates to this living guideline? Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: The future updates will depend on the results of phase III clinical trials. You know, there are many phase III trials ongoing in advanced prostate cancer, some of which include targeted therapy, which has been long awaited in prostate cancer. So such compounds as antibody-drug conjugates that are targeting certain proteins in prostate cancer cells, such as STEAP1, KLK2, B7-H3. So I think we are entering a new era in prostate cancer where we will be targeting cells and delivering drugs and applying them to prostate cancer if the trials are positive. So I think with AI and a large investment in prostate cancer clinical drug development, I think the treatment options for our patients will be rapidly evolving in a manner not previously seen. So the guidelines need to follow along with these developments. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. It sounds like an exciting time for research in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. And we will await the result of those phase III trials to inform this guideline and lead to future updates. So I want to thank you so much for your work to rapidly and continuously update these guidelines and for your time today, Dr. Taplin. Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: Oh, it was my pleasure. ASCO has been a leader in this area, and as a practicing clinician, we are thankful for the investment and guidance that ASCO gives us. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. 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/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines App, available in the  Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you have heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Marta Gutiérrez habla del actor norteamericano que estrena Sin piedad. Cuenta cómo fueron sus inicios y aspectos como su religiosidad.

We're kicking off 2026 with practice-changing data fresh from GI ASCO 2026. In this episode, we were joined once again by Dr. Rachna Shroff from the University of Arizona Cancer Center to break down the four most pivotal studies in upper GI and colorectal cancers presented at the GI ASCO 2026. We dived into the latest updates that will directly impact your clinical decisions, from new standards in perioperative therapy to revolutionary front-line regimens for metastatic disease. Key topics covered in this episode: ● MATTERHORN update: Surgical outcomes & FLOT modifications with Durvalumab in resectable gastric/GEJ cancer ● HERIZON-GEA-01: Zanidatamab + chemo + Tislelizumab the new frontline standard for HER2+ gastric cancer ● BREAKWATER: Confirming Encorafenib + Cetuximab + chemo (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) for BRAF V600E mCRC ● COMMIT: Chemo + Atezolizumab vs. Atezolizumab alone in MSI-H/dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer Tune in for this dense, insightful recap and stay ahead of the curve. Follow us on social media: •⁠  ⁠X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers •⁠  ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers •⁠  Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ Don't forget to subscribe for more expert analysis on treatment algorithms and major conference highlights! #OncologyBrothers #GI26 #GastricCancer #ColorectalCancer #HER2 #BRAF #MSI #OncologyPodcast

In this episode of SurgOnc Today, we discuss the recently updated ASCO guidelines for axillary staging with sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer, as well as considerations for their application in a multidisciplinary setting. This episode is moderated by Dr. Ashley Woodfin from the University of Wisconsin, who is joined by Dr. Clara Park from Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dr. Andrea Abbott from Medical University of South Carolina for a in-depth discussion regarding the guidelines implementation and important considerations.

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

P. Federico (Guatemala)El premio más grande es ir con Jesús, independientemente de quién se acerca y/o quién no. El Señor aprovecha para irnos haciendo capaces en el trato con todo tipo de personas y circunstancias. Déjate curar, déjate moldear, déjate cambiar.[Ver Meditación Escrita] https://www.hablarconjesus.com/meditaciones-escritas/  

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

Dr. Lisa Hicks and Dr. Joseph Mikhael discuss the updated guideline from ASCO and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) on the treatment of multiple myeloma. They cover recommendations for therapeutic options across smoldering multiple myeloma, transplant eligible multiple myeloma, transplant ineligible multiple myeloma, and relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. They highlight the importance of shared decision making and patient-centric care. They comment on the explosion of new treatment options in this space and the impetus for this guideline becoming a living guideline, which will be updated on an ongoing, regular basis. Read the full guideline, "Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: ASCO-Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Living Guideline" at www.asco.org/hematologic-malignancies-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools and resources are available at www.asco.org/hematologic-malignancies-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-25-02587   Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I am interviewing Dr. Lisa Hicks from St. Michael's Hospital and University of Toronto, and Dr. Joseph Mikhael from the Translational Genomics Research Institute, an affiliate of City of Hope Cancer Center, co-chairs on "Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: American Society of Clinical Oncology-Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Living Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Hicks and Dr. Mikhael. Dr. Lisa Hicks: Thanks so much. Dr. Joseph Mikhael: It is a pleasure to be with you, Brittany. Thank you. Brittany Harvey: Before we discuss this guideline, I would like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Hicks and Dr. Mikhael who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then to dive into what we are here today to talk about, Dr. Mikhael, I would like to start by recognizing that this guideline updates the 2019 ASCO-CCO Guideline on the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma. So what prompted this update and what is the scope of this updated guideline? Dr. Joseph Mikhael: It is amazing when we think back in myeloma years, 2019 actually seems a very, very long time ago because really so much has changed in myeloma over these last six to seven years. Indeed, there have been over 150 randomized controlled trials that we didn't have at the prior guideline that we reviewed for this. Myeloma is a disease that has really changed so dramatically over these last several years. Multiple new agents have been introduced. We now have CAR-T cell therapy, bispecific antibodies, and multiple other agents that were not available at the time. Furthermore, with this growing complexity, it is becoming more important than ever to be able to provide practical advice and guidelines to the oncology community. For most oncologists, they have less than 5% of their time dedicated to multiple myeloma. It is important to bring a clarity to them that allows them to care for their patients. And the scope of these guidelines, furthermore, really cover the whole spectrum of myeloma. They go further than our prior guideline where now we have included smoldering multiple myeloma along with frontline therapy and relapsed multiple myeloma. So, we have really tried to provide the full spectrum to our colleagues in oncology to ensure that they have the tools they need to provide the best care possible for their patients. Dr. Lisa Hicks: That is a really terrific summary. And maybe one thing I will just add is it is really unique to have this much literature. I can't think of another guideline that I have ever been involved with that has seen a field move so quickly and develop so many advancements in a period of just over four or five years. Brittany Harvey: Certainly, there is a large volume of evidence that you all had to review for this guideline update. I think to your point probably one of the greater volumes of literature for a guideline update that you both mentioned. Based on that, I would like to review the key recommendations that are updated in this guideline. So Dr. Hicks, that new patient population that Dr. Mikhael mentioned earlier, what are the key recommendations for patients with smoldering multiple myeloma? Dr. Lisa Hicks: So this is the first time that an ASCO guideline is addressing this branch of multiple myeloma care. It is an area where I think some guidance is needed, and smoldering myeloma is not an active cancer. And so one thing that I really want to highlight is that the panel felt very strongly that to recommend any therapy in this space we needed a higher level of evidentiary certainty, of evidentiary confidence, to make recommendations for active therapy. The panel really made two very important recommendations. First of all, the panel did not recommend treatment for low or intermediate risk smoldering myeloma. That is important. And then the area where I think for the first time we have recommended consideration of treatment is patients with high risk smoldering myeloma. And for patients with high risk smoldering myeloma, the panel recommended that it was appropriate to consider either treatment with daratumumab or careful observation. Dr. Joseph Mikhael: And I think that move forward as you have mentioned, Dr. Hicks, is particularly important because it is an area to some degree still of equipoise and many trials are going on in the area. But we do now have a strong phase III trial that supports the use of daratumumab monotherapy for three years when compared to close observation. But of course, that is not for everyone. And one of the key themes of all of our recommendations are going to be now that more and more choices are available, that we have discussions with our patients to ensure that we match the right treatment with the preference of the patient. And I think that is particularly important here in smoldering myeloma. Dr. Lisa Hicks: Multiple myeloma care and the multiple myeloma evidence is really so nuanced, and one of the nuances that readers will appreciate if they read the guideline is that how smoldering myeloma is risk stratified has been different across different trials. And that really adds to the complexity of this recommendation and is one of the reasons that the panel felt that it was appropriate to recommend either observation or treatment. Brittany Harvey: It is great to have these new recommendations for this unique patient population. And as you both mentioned, that individualized patient care is really important across this entire guideline. So then following those recommendations, Dr. Mikhael, what is recommended for initial therapy, autologous stem cell transplantation, post transplant therapy, and measurement of response for patients with transplant eligible multiple myeloma? Dr. Joseph Mikhael: Well, that is an area that has really considerably also grown since the last guideline. Obviously one would have to consult the guidelines to get every last detail, but in essence, we want to assess whether or not patients are transplant eligible or ineligible. And that assessment is not based on age or renal function alone, but indeed on a careful assessment of that patient. When that assessment is made and deemed that a patient is transplant eligible, our recommendation is that a patient typically would receive a quadruplet. That is to say, a monoclonal antibody directed against CD38, a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and dexamethasone to be given for approximately four to six cycles followed by the stem cell transplant, followed by potentially another two cycles of consolidation, and then maintenance therapy. A couple of important caveats. One, we do have two different CD38 antibodies that can be used, either daratumumab or isatuximab. Although typically bortezomib is the preferred proteasome inhibitor, consideration can be given to carfilzomib by virtue of the potential toxicity from bortezomib. And then lastly in the maintenance setting, we are typically recommending at least lenalidomide alone, but consideration can be given to dual maintenance therapy as the data is emerging to either add to that daratumumab or carfilzomib. All the while using the IMWG criteria for response. The goal of course is to achieve the deepest response possible and to maintain that response until such time as patients would relapse. Finally, the length of maintenance therapy continues to be an area of equipoise and study in multiple myeloma. And so at minimum, patients would receive two to three years of maintenance therapy, and based on risk status and depth of response it can be considered that patients would potentially come off maintenance therapy, of course always with the caveat that toxicity would influence length of therapy as well. Brittany Harvey: Yes, as you mentioned, evaluating which patients are eligible is extremely important for considering what is recommended in the guideline for both transplant eligible and transplant ineligible patients. So then Dr. Hicks, following those recommendations for transplant eligible multiple myeloma, what are the recommended treatments, goals of therapy, and measurement of response for patients with transplant ineligible multiple myeloma? Dr. Lisa Hicks: You know, I really can't emphasize enough how important an individualized patient assessment is. When we are thinking about the range of patients that are included in this category of transplant ineligible patients, it is a huge range. You may have fairly fit patients in their late 70s all the way to patients in their 90s. And we really want to see that treatments are tailored both to the fitness of the patient, their individual circumstances, and their preferences. And it is a wonderful thing to have lots of options for patients in this circumstance. What the guidelines have recommended for most patients who are transplant ineligible but fit enough for a stronger therapy is quadruplet therapy. So actually therapy that is very similar to what is being recommended in the transplant eligible population but for a longer period of time. And then for those patients who for whatever reason, be it their fitness or their preference, are not appropriate for that quadruplet therapy, the recommendation is for triplet therapy with a combination of lenalidomide, bortezomib, dexamethasone, or very often, more often in most cases, an antibody based approach with an anti-CD38 plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone. Dr. Joseph Mikhael: The only thing I would add to that, I think we have to also, as we do mention in our recommendations, be particularly cautious with the dosing of these medications. Because even though we think of them as a single agent or a particular class, there can be quite a variation within the dosing regimen that can affect a patient's side effects and their quality of life. And so being very careful with dose modifications, and particularly in the transplant ineligible patient, is an important part of the recommendation as well. Dr. Lisa Hicks: Yeah, this is a podcast so no one can see me nodding vigorously that dose modification is so important particularly with those older and frailer patients, and with particular attention to trying to reduce dexamethasone doses and favoring weekly administration of bortezomib when that drug is used. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Considering the risks and benefits and patient preferences is really key to selecting therapy for these patients. So then Dr. Mikhael, for the final overarching patient population addressed in this guideline, for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, what treatment options are recommended? Dr. Joseph Mikhael: This of course is, if you will, the biggest part of the guideline because there has been so much done in the relapse setting. And I think we start the guideline by saying a decision has to be made as to when to institute therapy. That there may be some patients with slow biochemical relapse that may be monitored for a period of time. But when the decision is made to initiate treatment, instead of a simple algorithm, the guideline emphasizes the fact that there are multiple choices that can be given to a patient that are going to match what comorbidities the patient has, what they have been treated with before, and of course what their preferences are. I think we highlight two particular areas. That now that CAR-T cell therapy is available as early as first relapse, it should be a consideration by virtue of the fact that it has resulted in such deep and durable responses. But that triplets should also be considered in that earlier relapse setting because we do have multiple classes of agents that can be used. We know that in later relapse options exist including bispecific antibodies for which we have four different choices. And that in general, patients will ultimately receive either a triplet or CAR-T cell therapy in earlier relapse, but there are some patients who may be eligible only for a doublet by virtue of their comorbidities and of their prior therapies. Lastly, it really does emphasize the point as we have mentioned a few times in this podcast, and I am so glad it keeps coming up, is that as I often say we don't treat myeloma, we treat people. And engaging the patient in that conversation to ensure that the right treatment gets matched to the right patients is particularly important because with all the new classes that we have with antibody drug conjugates, with XPO1 inhibitors, the traditional three classes of proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, monoclonal antibodies, along with as we have already mentioned CAR-T and bispecific antibodies, it really is an incredible laundry list of choice. And making that choice specific to the patient becomes absolutely critical. I should also lastly note that there are patients who may defer their initial transplant. There may be patients who may be eligible for a second transplant. So autologous stem cell transplant, although primarily used in the frontline setting, may still be a consideration for a smaller subset of patients in the relapse setting. Dr. Lisa Hicks: I think maybe one thing that I would add is an overarching principle which is actually similar to a principle in the first guideline, and that is that in the relapsed or refractory setting, there are many different treatment options. And in fact, the number of treatment options feels like it is evolving every day. But an overarching principle for clinicians to consider is to try and choose combinations of drugs that the patient has either not been exposed to in the past or certainly that they are not refractory to. We really want to be pulling new options out of the toolbox as much as we can. Dr. Joseph Mikhael: Very often we do see where someone may be on a triplet and they are progressing on it and someone just changes out one drug. We have suggested not to take that approach but to take the approach of completely introducing a new therapy when someone is progressing on their current therapy. I think that point is particularly important and the consensus panel was very clear. Brittany Harvey: Understood. That is very helpful when thinking about what options to offer to patients in the relapsed and refractory setting. And as you mentioned earlier, the figures in this guideline provide an outline of options and then the tables really go into some of the details and outcomes of the trials, and those are very helpful for clinicians to refer to. So then Dr. Hicks, we have talked a little bit about some of the nuances of the guideline, but what should clinicians know as they implement these new and updated recommendations? Dr. Lisa Hicks: I think they should feel comfortable that these are trustworthy guidelines. So these are evidence-based guidelines that have been rigorously developed after a very thorough evidence review and put together by a panel of experts who were extremely thoughtful in their review of the evidence. And so all of this contributes to the trustworthiness of the guidance. And then I would also encourage people to take a deep look at the guidelines because of the importance of nuance that is addressed in them, and then to also explore some of the tools that ASCO is developing that helps with implementation including the flow charts that are contained within the guidelines and some additional tools that are available online. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. The tools and resources for this guideline are available online with the publication and we will provide links to that in the show notes of the episode. So then following that, Dr. Mikhael, how does this guideline update affect patients with multiple myeloma? Dr. Joseph Mikhael: As we sort of intimated earlier, I like to say I don't treat myeloma, I treat people. I think we should always be patient-centric and patient-focused. And I think in the discussion we always were. We always wanted to ensure that multiple factors go into a decision-making process. We are not just looking at the biology of the disease, we are looking at patient factors. Those patient factors include their frailty as we commented in a frailty assessment, their preferences, their comorbidities. And I think, in a day where we have so many choices, we emphasize in the guideline the importance of that conversation with the patient. That, if you will, shared decision-making model where options are laid out and based on the patient factors and the treatment factors they can then be meshed together in the best way so that patients can make the right choice. And of course in conjunction with the guidelines, we have patient friendly summaries of them. And we involved, of course, patients in the development of these guidelines. And I think that is one of the greatest strengths of the ASCO guidelines is that there is a patient with us at the table who is giving their perspective on the guideline as we go forward. So I am very thankful that we have created a product that is, if you will, not only for the providers, the practitioners that are prescribing these agents and that are directly giving the care, but indeed for the very patients who of course have the most at stake here. Dr. Lisa Hicks: Yeah Joe, I am so glad you called out the participation of patient partners in the guideline. It is such an important part and they were really- the patient partner was such an important part of this panel in helping us understand the patient perspective as we developed this guidance. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. It is a hugely important role for the panel and for all of the panel including the patient partners and the experts in the disease to review the evidence and come up with comprehensive recommendations. And yes, as you mentioned, the individualized treatment and the shared decision-making is really paramount to this guideline. Finally, Dr. Hicks, you alluded to earlier the vast number of treatment options that is really exploding in multiple myeloma. And so this guideline is becoming a living guideline continuously updated by ASCO. So what are the outstanding questions regarding this topic and what evidence is the panel looking forward to for future updates? Dr. Lisa Hicks: I am really excited about this. This is one of the first guidelines that will be a living guideline for ASCO and it is such a good fit. You have heard Joe and I say a few times how quickly this field is moving, how complex the field is. I think everyone on the panel knew that no matter how quickly we did it and how deeply we reviewed the evidence, it was inevitable that more evidence would be generated as we were putting out the guideline. In a field like that, it is really important that we find a way to provide evidence-based guidelines quickly to the community. You know, waiting another five years, letting another 150 trials accrue before we do another guideline is not what the community needs. And so ASCO has really risen to this challenge and is committed to living guidelines. And so a living guideline is a guideline that commits to reviewing the evolving evidence on an ongoing basis, watching for practice changing trials, and having a standing panel that will review evidence and update recommendations on a regularly scheduled basis. So that is what a living guideline is, and that is what this guideline is becoming. That is just the first thing in terms of what a living guideline is. And then what are we watching? Well, honestly what aren't we watching? There is so much happening in multiple myeloma. We knew as we put the guideline out that there were trials in process, some trials that had been released at conferences but not yet published. We will be waiting for those and if they are practice changing they will be addressed in upcoming updates. There is new evidence just recently presented around combined anti-CD38 and bispecific antibodies. I don't know yet whether that will be addressed but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. There are so many things coming down the pipeline and it is just wonderful that there is going to be a way to try and address them in a robust fashion. Dr. Joseph Mikhael: Yeah I agree with you, Lisa. I can't think of another disease that would be more relevant for a living guideline. I mean we had difficulty because new data kept coming in as we were making recommendations. And so at some point we had to draw a line and say this is where we will stop and produce this guideline and have it ongoing. And I really look forward to seeing the updates because we know as you mentioned that there are so many things that are on the verge of approval and on the verge of changing the way we manage this terrible disease. And before I close, I would love to remind all of our listeners that as we commented from the start, patient engagement is critical at ASCO and in our guidelines process. Unfortunately we lost a very dear patient during the guidelines process, and that is Jack Aiello. Jack Aiello had been a patient and a patient advocate for many, many years in the myeloma community. And indeed we have actually dedicated these guidelines to his honor. And so I thought it would be valuable for us to mention that today. And we miss you Jack, but we are very grateful that we have been able to dedicate this excellent body of work to your memory. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. This guideline and your dedication to him is an honor to his memory and we really recognize him in thinking about this guideline. We will look forward to those future trial results that you mentioned, Dr. Hicks, to update this guideline and continue to provide options for patients with multiple myeloma and improve upon those options and shared decision-making with patients. So I want to thank you both for all of your work to develop this guideline and for your time today, Dr. Hicks and Dr. Mikhael. Dr. Lisa Hicks: You are so welcome. Thanks for featuring this guideline. Dr. Joseph Mikhael: Thank you so much, Brittany. It has been a privilege. Brittany Harvey: 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/hematologic-malignancies-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines App, which is available in the  Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you have heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

"We proposed a concept to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), recognizing that extravasation management requires significant interdisciplinary collaboration and rapid action. There can occasionally be uncertainty or lack of clear guidance when an extravasation event occurs, and our objective was to look at this evidence with the expert panel to create a resource to support oncology teams overall. We hope that the guideline can help mitigate harm and improve patient outcomes," Caroline Clark, MSN, APRN, AGCNS-BC, OCN®, EBP-C, director of guidelines and quality at ONS, told Chelsea Backler, MSN, APRN, AGCNS-BC, AOCNS®, VA-BC, oncology clinical specialist at ONS, during a conversation about the ONS/ASCO Guideline on the Management of Antineoplastic Extravasation. Music Credit: "Fireflies and Stardust" by Kevin MacLeod Licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 3.0  Earn 0.5 contact hours of nursing continuing professional development (NCPD) by listening to the full recording and completing an evaluation at courses.ons.org by January 2, 2027. The planners and faculty for this episode have no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies to disclose. ONS is accredited as a provider of nursing continuing professional development by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation. Learning outcome: Learners will report an increase in knowledge related to the management of antineoplastic extravasation. Episode Notes  Complete this evaluation for free NCPD. ONS/ASCO Guideline on the Management of Antineoplastic Extravasation ONS Podcast™ episodes: Episode 391: Pharmacology 101: Antibody–Drug Conjugates Episode 335: Ultrasound-Guided IV Placement in the Oncology Setting Episode 145: Administer Taxane Chemotherapies With Confidence Episode 127: Reduce and Manage Extravasations When Administering Cancer Treatments ONS Voice articles: Access Devices and Central Lines: New Evidence and Innovations Are Changing Practice, but Individual Patient Needs Always Come First New Extravasation Guidelines Provide Recommendations for Protecting Patients and Standardizing Care Standardizing Venous Access Assessment and Validating Safe Chemo Administration Drastically Lowers Rates of Adverse Venous Events This Organization's Program Trains Non-Oncology Nurses to Deliver Antineoplastic Agents Safely ONS books: Access Device Guidelines: Recommendations for Nursing Practice and Education (fourth edition) Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy Guidelines and Recommendations for Practice (second edition) Clinical Guide to Antineoplastic Therapy: A Chemotherapy Handbook (fourth edition) ONS courses: Complications of Vascular Access Devices (VAD) and IV Therapy ONS Fundamentals of Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy Administration™ ONS Oncology Treatment Modalities Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing articles: Chemotherapy Extravasation: Incidence of and Factors Associated With Events in a Community Cancer Center Standardized Venous Access Assessment and Safe Chemotherapy Administration to Reduce Adverse Venous Events Oncology Nursing Forum article: Management of Extravasation of Antineoplastic Agents in Patients Undergoing Treatment for Cancer: A Systematic Review ONS huddle cards: Antineoplastic Administration Chemotherapy Immunotherapy Implanted Venous Port ONS position statements: Administration (Infusion and Injection) of Antineoplastic Therapies in the Home Education of the Nurse Who Administers and Cares for the Individual Receiving Antineoplastic Therapies ONS Guidelines™ for Extravasation Management ONS Oncologic Emergencies Learning Library ONS/ASCO Algorithm on the Management of Antineoplastic Extravasation of Vesicant or Irritant With Vesicant Properties in Adults American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Podcast: Management of Antineoplastic Extravasation: ONS-ASCO Guideline To discuss the information in this episode with other oncology nurses, visit the ONS Communities.  To find resources for creating an ONS Podcast club in your chapter or nursing community, visit the ONS Podcast Library. To provide feedback or otherwise reach ONS about the podcast, email pubONSVoice@ons.org. Highlights From This Episode "The focus of this guideline was specifically on intravenous antineoplastic extravasation or when a vesicant or an irritant with vesicant properties leaks out of the vascular space. This can cause an injury to the patient that's influenced by several factors including the specific drug that was involved in the extravasation, whether it was DNA binding, how much extravasated, the affected area, and individual patient characteristics." TS 1:48 "The panel identified and ranked outcomes that mattered most with extravasation. Not surprising, one of the first was tissue necrosis. Like, 'How are we going to prevent tissue necrosis and preserve tissue?' The next were pain, quality of life, delays in cancer treatment: How is an extravasation going to delay cancer treatment that's vital to the patient? Is an extravasation also going to result in hospitalization or additional surgical interventions that would be burdensome to the patient? ... We had a systematic review team that then went in and summarized the data, and the panel applied the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) criteria, grading quality of evidence and weighing factors like patient preferences, cost, and feasibility of an intervention. From there, they developed their recommendations." TS 7:35 "The panel, from the onset, wanted to make sure we had something visual for our readers to reference. They combined evidence from the systematic review, other scholarly sources, and their real-world clinical experience to make this one-page supplementary algorithm. They wanted it to be comprehensive and easy to follow, and they included not only those acute management steps but also guidance on 'How do I document this and what are the objective and subjective assessment factors to look at? What am I going to tell the patient?' In practice, for use of that, I would compare it to your current processes and identify any gaps to inform policies in your individual organizations." TS 16:34 "The guidelines don't take place of clinician expertise; they're not intended to cover every situation, but a situation that keeps coming up that we should talk about as a limitation, is we're seeing these case reports of tissue injury with antibody–drug conjugate extravasation. There's still not enough evidence to inform care around the use of antidotes with those agents, so this still needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. We still need publication of those case studies, what was done, and outcomes to help inform direction." TS 19:24 "Beyond the acute management is to ensure thorough documentation regarding extravasation. Whether you're on electronic documentation or on paper, are the prompts there for the nurse to capture all of the factors that should be captured regarding that extravasation? The size, the measurement, the patient's complaints. Is there redness? Things like that. And then within the teams, everyone should know where to find that initial extravasation assessment so that later on, if they're in a different clinic, they have something to go by to see how the extravasation is healing or progressing. ... I think there's an importance here, too, to our novice oncology nurses and their preceptors. This could be anxiety-provoking for the whole team and the patient, so we want to increase confidence in management. So, I think using these resources for onboarding novice oncology nurses is important." TS 22:34