Podcasts about asco guidelines podcast

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

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

Dr. Jyoti Patel is back on the podcast to discuss the updates to the living guideline on therapy for stage IV NSCLC with driver alterations. She shares updated recommendations in the first- and second-line settings for patients with stage IV NSCLC and classical EGFR mutations, and the impact of these updates for clinicians and patients. We also look to the future to discuss ongoing developments in the field. Read the full living guideline update “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2024.3” at www.asco.org/living-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/living-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-24-02785     Brittany Harvey: Welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows including this one at asco.org/podcasts.   My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Jyoti Patel from Northwestern University, co-chair on “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2024.3.” It's great to have you back on the show today, Dr. Patel. Dr. Jyoti Patel: Thanks so much. Happy to be here. Brittany Harvey: And then before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Patel, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline and in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then, to dive into the content of this update, Dr. Patel, this clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non small cell lung cancer with driver alterations is living, meaning that it's continuously reviewed and updated. So what data prompted this latest change to the recommendations? Dr. Jyoti Patel: Thanks so much. So it's really been an exciting time in the treatment of EGFR lung cancer, particularly this past year has required us to rethink approaches to front- and second-line therapy. In this particular update, we examined what patients in the front-line setting may be offered by their clinicians. And so we're talking about the population of classical EGFR mutations, so exon 19 and exon 21 L858R substitution. And so certainly for this population, osimertinib has a high level of evidence and should be offered to all patients at the time of diagnosis when they present with advanced disease. Our last update included a recommendation that patients could also get platinum doublet chemotherapy with osimertinib or osimertinib alone. This current recommendation also introduces another alternative therapy and that's the combination of amivantamab plus lazertinib. And so now, clinicians are faced with three really good options for their patients with EGFR exon19 deletion or L858R. Brittany Harvey: It's great to hear that there's this advance in the space, particularly for patients with these classical EGFR mutations that you mentioned. So what should clinicians know as they implement these new first-line recommendations? Dr. Jyoti Patel:  I think it's become more complex than ever. Certainly, we know again that patients should get osimertinib in the frontline setting. But we've been kind of stuck at progression-free survival that's between a year and a half and two years. And so we've really been looking at opportunities to intensify therapy. So one could certainly be with chemotherapy or switching over to amivantamab, the bispecific antibody that targets EGFR and MET plus lazertinib, an oral TKI that's very similar in structure to osimertinib. And when you're talking to a patient, it's really a conversation about balancing efficacy with toxicity. Unfortunately, as we know, there aren't that many free lunches. And so if we think about what a patient is hoping for in their therapy and how we can further personalize treatment options, really is important to look at some of the analyses for this study. So in the study of amivantamab plus lazertinib, we know that there were increased toxicities with a combination of both therapies. In fact, up to 75% of patients had over grade 3 toxicities, versus about 43% of patients with osimertinib monotherapy. And we know if we look back at FLAURA2, almost two thirds of patients with osimertinib and chemotherapy had grade 3 toxicities, compared to 27% of patients with osimertinib alone. So we certainly see an increase in toxicities. Then we have to ask ourselves, are those paper toxicities or ones that really impact patients? And we know that amivantamab, for example, causes significant cutaneous toxicities. With both of these therapies, whether it's chemotherapy or adding amivantamab, there's the burden of infusional visits and increased time in the doctor's office. Certainly with chemotherapy, there can be an increased incidence of myelosuppression. And so when we're thinking about advising our patients, certainly we need to talk about the toxicities. But one thing that we've been able to do is to look at the patients that were included in this trial. And what we really find is that in higher risk cohorts, particularly those that we know historically have done less well with standard osimertinib, so patients, for example, with CNS metastasis, for those patients with co-mutations, it may be that that additive benefit is significant. And so one example I think would be from the MARIPOSA study, again, the study of amivantamab and lazertinib versus chemotherapy. What we can say is that patients who had co-mutations, so patients with EGFR mutations as well as TP53, lazertinib and amivantamab led to a hazard ratio of 0.65 compared to osimertinib alone. So that was 18.2 months versus 12.9 months. And so this may be really important to patients. And we also see conversely that patients with wild type TP53, so those patients who didn't have the mutation, probably had equivalent survival regardless of therapy. So certainly, we need to prospectively study some of these high-risk cohorts. We've only seen progression-free survival in these studies. And so at this juncture, we can advise our patients about toxicity, the improvements in certain categories of progression-free survival, but we really still don't know how this pans out in overall survival. In many of these studies, all patients do not necessarily cross over to the study arm and so they may have lost the benefit of subsequent therapy. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's very important to talk about that balance of benefits and risks and particularly those toxicities that you discussed. So I appreciate reviewing that recommendation and the considerations for clinicians for first-line therapy. This update also included a second-line treatment update. What is that update for patients with EGFR alterations? Dr. Jyoti Patel: So this is where it gets super tricky because we have a frontline option with amivantamab and now we've had an update in the second line option. So what we said is that for patients who have progressed on an EGFR TKI, and in the United States, certainly that's predominantly osimertinib, or those in other parts of the world that may have gotten an earlier generation TKI, but do not have evidence of T790M or other targetable mutations, we can offer patients chemotherapy with or without amivantamab. And so certainly we have seen that this again leads to improved survival. There have also been a number of studies looking at incorporation of PD-L1 and anti-VEGF therapies. And what we can say, I think pretty clearly is that multiple phase 3 trials have really shown no benefit of the addition of PD-1 to platinum chemotherapy. But there are some emerging bispecific antibodies that may target PD-1 as well as VEGF, or combinations of antibodies that target both of those pathways that may improve outcome. At this juncture, I think we feel that the evidence surrounding chemotherapy plus amivantamab is strongest, but there is certainly work in this space that will be of interest. Now, what happens if your patient received amivantamab and lazertinib in the frontline setting and then has progression? And so we're trying to understand resistance mechanisms and opportunities for treatment. What the panel decided to recommend, based on the available evidence, was that certainly those patients should get platinum-based chemotherapy, but there may also be a role for antivascular endothelial growth factor targeting therapy such as bevacizumab in patients in whom it would be safe. Brittany Harvey: Great. I appreciate you detailing those recommendations when it gets complicated in the second-line setting. So what should clinicians know as they implement these second-line recommendations too? Dr. Jyoti Patel: So certainly the frontline setting matters significantly. So if a patient gets osimertinib in the frontline setting, we generally suggest that patients undergo repeat testing to see if they have another targetable mutation. If they don't, then I think preferred therapy would be chemotherapy with or without amivantamab. And amivantamab leads to a significant improvement in progression-free survival and response rate at the cost of increased risk of toxicity. For patients who get FLAURA2 in the frontline setting, chemotherapy plus osimertinib, it's a little bit of an unclear space. Those patients most likely would get docetaxel with or without ramucirumab. But there are other agents that we hope to have available to our patients in the near future. For patients who receive amivantamab and osimertinib, we recommend that those patients get chemotherapy probably with anti-VEGF as demonstrated by multiple trials that have shown the improved progression-free survival with introduction of an anti-VEGF agent. And we've seen evidence of amivantamab in the third line setting, so it is likely that this question about sequencing really takes center stage in our next set of trials. When you're talking to a patient, I think again, it's absolutely important to discuss: What are their goals? How symptomatic or how fast is their progression? Are there ways in which patients may benefit from spot treatment oligoprogression such as radiation? When is the right time for introduction of amivantamab and when do we think patients need chemotherapy? Is it up front or predominantly in the second-line setting? Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And then you've just touched on the goals of treatment for individual patients. So in your view, what does this update mean for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer and an EGFR alteration? Dr. Jyoti Patel: For patients, this is a time in which shared decision making really needs to take center stage. So our best patients are those patients that are best informed not only about their disease but also have a good understanding about what is important to them and their families in terms of care. And so bringing that shared understanding to the table again helps us think about this particular cancer as more of a journey rather than just a one off treatment. Therapy will hopefully be prolonged, and so it's absolutely important that we address toxicities, make therapies more tolerable, again, with the shared goal of living long and living well. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Those are key points to making sure that patients are living both longer and have a good quality of life during that time as well. So then, before you mentioned the possibility of future sequencing trials and other ongoing developments. What additional studies or future directions is the panel examining for future updates to this living guideline? Dr. Jyoti Patel: So certainly we're thinking about trials that look at, for example, cfDNA clearance. So are there patients that do well and can we detect that early on without having to intensify therapy on day 1 so it may be that we add chemotherapy a little bit later. I think really exciting are some of the new bispecific. The HARMONi-A trial was a trial in China of a novel bispecific, ivonescimab. And this drug targets both PD-1 and VEGF and it was combined with chemotherapy. And this trial found almost a doubling of progression-free survival with this drug in combination chemotherapy in an EGFR patient population. That study is being planned and being run in the United States to see if we have similar outcomes with a more diverse population. So certainly that's exciting. There are a number of antibody drug conjugates that are being studied in the post-chemotherapy setting as well. And I think we'll likely soon see a better understanding of what co-mutations and burden of disease really mean when we're thinking about assigning treatment. So which patients, again, need intensification of therapy and which patients may do really well on just an oral agent that they're taking at home with more tolerable toxicity than dual treatment. Brittany Harvey: Yes, we'll look forward to continued developments in these fields and seeing some of those studies come to fruition. So with that, I want to thank you for your work to rapidly and continuously update this guideline, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Patel. Dr. Jyoti Patel: Thanks so much, Brittany. It's really an exciting time for lung cancer and we hope that these updates really help physicians decide the best treatments for their patients. Again, it's a rapidly evolving landscape which is fantastic, but it does become more cumbersome to stay ahead of the literature. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And so we appreciate your time and the panel's time spent reviewing this literature and providing this much needed information to clinicians everywhere. So finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/living-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in the  Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova joins us again to share the newest changes to the living guideline on therapy for stage IV NSCLC without driver alterations. She discusses new evidence reviewed by the panel and changes to second-line recommendations for patients with good performance status and HER2 overexpression, and what these updates mean in practice. We discuss ongoing evidence generation as we await further updates to these living guidelines. Read the full living guideline update “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2024.3” at www.asco.org/living-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/living-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-24-02786     Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova from University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center, co-chair on “Therapy for Stage IV Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2024.3.” It's great to have you back on the show today, Dr. Bazhenova. Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: It's my pleasure to be here as always. Brittany Harvey: Great. Then before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the entire guideline panel, including Dr. Bazhenova, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guide in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then to dive into the content here, first, this living clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer without driver alterations has frequent updates to the recommendations. What prompted this latest update? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: Living ASCO guidelines are created to keep up with rapidly changing evidence which affect treatment of our patients with lung cancer. As a committee, we review published literature on a specific topic at the regular intervals and determine if it alters any recommendations. This time, upon our literature review, we felt that there are new data that requires an update in the guidelines and therefore the guidelines were updated. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for that updated information. So then it looks like the panel updated recommendations for second line and subsequent treatment options for patients with good performance status and HER2 overexpression. What is that updated recommendation from the panel? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: Yes, this is correct. We now added an extra recommendation for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer who have overexpression of the protein called HER2. HER2 overexpression with 2+/3+ level via immunohistochemistry is seen in approximately 8% to 20% of patients with lung cancer. And the data behind our recommendation comes from the DESTINY-Lung01 trial where patients with HER2 overexpression were treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan. And we saw that if patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer had a HER2 IHC score of 3+, overall response rate was seen at 53% and median duration of response was 6.9 months and, therefore, that in our opinion qualified for updated recommendation. We are still waiting for additional results that will be released later on another clinical trial where we see preliminary data presented at the World Conference of Lung Cancer in 2024. They looked at 36 patients also with HER2 overexpression and saw the overall response rate of almost 45%. It is important to highlight in this smaller study that a majority of the patients in the study were actually having EGFR mutation and the response rate in those patients who had an EGFR mutation was higher than the response rate in patients without EGFR mutations who just had a HER2 overexpression. So for now this is updated in the guidelines, but we will wait for additional data or formal publication of a World Lung Conference presentation and see if those recommendations need to be changed. Brittany Harvey: Understood, and I appreciate you providing the context of some of those ongoing developments as well. So then what should clinicians know as they implement this updated recommendation? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: Number one, we should all start from remembering to test for HER2 via immunohistochemistry. There is a slight difference in what considers HER2 positive in lung versus breast. In lung, we use what's called the gastric scoring and the difference is the circumferential versus non circumferential staining of the membrane. And number two, immunohistochemistry is not always included in next generation sequencing panels. So when you order your next generation sequencing, I think it's important to know if your company that you're using is testing for HER2 via immunohistochemistry. And if it's not, make sure that you find a company that does or work with your local pathology department to make sure that this testing is offered. It is also important to know the difference between HER2 overexpression and HER2 exon 20 insertion mutation even though the treatment for those two abnormalities is the same, which is trastuzumab deruxtecan. But the benefit that you can cite your patients and the rigor of the literature supporting the usage of trastuzumab deruxtecan in mutation versus overexpression is different. Brittany Harvey: Yes. And as you mentioned, it's essential that, in the first place, patients are actually receiving the testing so that we know if they're eligible for these treatment options. So what additionally does this change mean for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer and HER2 overexpression? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: So for patients, it adds another treatment modality which is now FDA approved. So if there are patients listening to me, make sure that your physician has tested your tumor for HER2 overexpression. So I think proactive asking of your physician would be very appropriate in this situation. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And then earlier you mentioned an ongoing trial that the panel was looking to for the future. But what other additional trials did the panel review during this guideline update and what is the panel examining for future updates to this living guideline? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: So at this point we reviewed three additional studies. The results of those studies did not make it into a change in guidelines. So we reviewed the HARMONi-2 trial.  HARMONi-2 trial so far does not have an official publication and, as per our strategy on how we come up with ASCO guidelines, we need to wait for an official publication. So this is one thing we're going to be expecting in the future. Once this is published, we will review it and decide if we need to make an additional change in recommendations. For those of you who are not aware, HARMONi-2 trial used bispecific monoclonal antibody against VEGF and PD-1 and was a phase III randomized trial comparing their investigational product which is called ivonescimab over pembrolizumab for patients with PD-L1 more than 50. And again, we are waiting for the final publication to make our recommendation. The second trial we reviewed was a LUNAR trial and the LUNAR trial looked at addition of tumor treating fields to chemotherapy or immunotherapy in patients whose cancer progressed with platinum doublet. The key point about this study is that immunotherapy was not required to be administered in a first line setting which is a current standard of care in the United States. And even though the study met their primary endpoint of overall survival, there were more benefits in patients who were immunotherapy naive in the second line. And we felt that given the potential lifestyle implication of wearing a device for 18 hours per day, and the lack of evidence in immunotherapy-pretreated population, and the absence of data in the first-line setting where we currently using immunotherapy in the United States, we felt that there is insufficient data to definitely recommend addition of tumor treating fields to systemic chemotherapy for most patients. And we are waiting for additional trials that are ongoing in this setting to formalize or change our recommendations. And we also reviewed- the final study that we reviewed was TROPION-Lung01. TROPION-Lung01 study was a phase III study in post platinum doublet setting which compared efficacy of Dato-DXd and docetaxel and trials showed improvement in progression free survival but not in overall survival. And progression free survival benefit was more pronounced in non-squamous carcinoma histology subgroup and we felt that the results do appear promising, but the strength of evidence which was based on unplanned subgroup analysis was not sufficient enough to make a change in treatment recommendation at this time. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate your transparency on why some of that data did not prompt a change to recommendations at this time. And additionally, we'll look forward to those future published results and potential incorporation of new data into future versions of this living guideline. So, I want to thank you so much for your work to rapidly and continuously update this guideline and for your time today, Dr. Bazhenova. Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: It is my pleasure. Thank you so much. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/living-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in the  Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard and Dr. Bill Tew share updates to the evidence-based guideline on neoadjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer. They highlight recommendations across ten clinical questions, addressing initial assessment, primary cytoreductive surgery, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), tests and/or procedures that should be completed before NACT, preferred chemotherapy regimens, timing of interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS), hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), post ICS-chemotherapy, maintenance therapy, and options for those without a clinical response to NACT. They highlight the evidence supporting these recommendations and emphasize the importance of this guideline for clinicians and patients. Read the full guideline update, “Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed, Advanced Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update” at www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines." TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. 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. Stéphanie Gaillard from Johns Hopkins University and Dr. Bill Tew from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, co-chairs on “Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed, Advanced Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.” Thank you for being here today, Dr. Gaillard and Dr. Tew. Dr. Bill Tew: Thank you for having us. Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard: Yeah, thank you. It's great to be here. Brittany Harvey: Great. Then, before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Gaillard and Dr. Tew, 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 the content here, first, Dr. Tew, could you describe what prompted this update to the neoadjuvant chemotherapy for ovarian cancer guideline? And what is the scope of this update? Dr. Bill Tew: Yeah. It's been almost a decade since ASCO first published its neoadjuvant chemotherapy guidelines for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, and over that 10-year period, there's really been a major shift in how oncologists treat patients in the U.S. If you look at the National Cancer Database, between 2010 and 2021, the proportion of patients with advanced ovarian cancer who underwent primary surgery fell from about 70% to about 37%. And there's been a doubling in the amount of neoadjuvant chemotherapy used. So we wanted to take a look at that and really both highlight the appropriate patient populations for primary surgery versus new adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as review any studies that have been published since then. There's been, I think, about 61 trials published, nine randomized trials alone in the last 10 years. And the scope of the guideline was really not only the neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical questions, but also to touch upon some new treatments that have come to the forefront in newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, including heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy or HIPEC, as well as the integration of maintenance therapy, particularly bevacizumab and PARP inhibitors. Brittany Harvey: Understood. That's a large amount of new evidence to review in this Update. Then, next, Dr. Gaillard, I'd like to review the key recommendations across the 10 clinical questions that the guideline addressed. So, starting with: What is recommended regarding initial assessment for patients with newly diagnosed pelvic masses and/or upper abdominal or peritoneal disease? Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard: Sure. So in talking about the first guidelines, the first one that we addressed was how to do the initial assessment for these patients. And first, and probably most critically, it's important to recognize that these patients really should be evaluated by a gynecologic oncologist prior to initiation of any therapy, whether that means a primary cytoreductive surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, because really, they are the best ones to determine the pathway that the patient should take. The initial assessment should involve a CA-125, a CT of the abdomen and pelvis with oral and IV contrast, if not contraindicated, and then also chest imaging, in which a CT is really the preferred modality. And that helps to evaluate the extent of disease and the feasibility of the surgical resection. Now, there may be some other tools that could be helpful to also refine this assessment. So, for example, a laparoscopy can really help to determine the feasibility of surgical resection as well as the extent of disease. Further imaging, such as diffusion-weighted MRI or FDG-PET scans can be helpful, as well as ultrasounds. And then also an endometrial biopsy. And that was newly added because there really has been a divergence of treatment for endometrial cancer versus ovarian cancer. And so it's really important to determine upfront where the source of the disease is coming from. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you describing those recommendations surrounding initial assessment. So following this assessment, Dr. Tew, which patients with newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer should be recommended primary cytoreductive surgery? Dr. Bill Tew: The key thing here is if the GYN oncology surgeon feels that they have a high likelihood of achieving a complete cytoreduction with acceptable morbidity, the panel overwhelmingly agrees that primary cytoreduction surgery should be recommended over chemotherapy. And we know that surgery is really the cornerstone to achieving clinical remission. And our concern is that neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be overused in this fit population. Sometimes it is challenging to determine truly if a patient has a high likelihood of complete cytoreduction or what is acceptable morbidity. But an evaluation with performance status, fitness, looking at age or frailty, nutritional status, as well as a review of imaging studies to plan and determine for who is the right patient for primary surgery is key. Brittany Harvey: And then the title of this guideline, Dr. Gaillard, for which patients is neoadjuvant chemotherapy recommended? Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard: Yeah. So there's really two patient populations that we think are best suited to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Those may be patients who are fit for a primary cytoreductive surgery, but they're unlikely to have a complete cytoreduction if they were to go to surgery directly. And so that's where neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be very helpful in terms of increasing the ability to obtain a complete cytoreduction. The second population is those who are newly diagnosed who have a high perioperative risk, and so they're not fit to go to surgery directly. And so it may be better to start with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and then do an interval cytoreductive surgery. Again, I just want to emphasize the importance of including a gynecologic oncologist when making these determinations for patients. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. So then the next clinical question. Dr. Tew, for those patients with newly diagnosed stage 3 to 4 epithelial ovarian cancer, what tests and or procedures are recommended before neoadjuvant chemotherapy is delivered? Dr. Bill Tew: The key test is to confirm the proper diagnosis, and that requires histological confirmation with a core biopsy. And this was a point the panel strongly emphasized, which is a core biopsy is a much better diagnostic tool compared to cytology alone. But there will be cases, exceptional cases, where a core biopsy cannot be performed. And in those settings, cytology combined with serum CA-125 and CEA is acceptable to exclude a non-gynecologic cancer. The other reason why cord biopsy is strongly preferred is because we already need to start thinking about germline and somatic testing for BRCA1 and 2. This information is important as we start to think about maintenance strategies for our patients. And so having that information early can help tailor the first-line chemotherapy regimen. Brittany Harvey: So then you've described who should be receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, but Dr. Gaillard, for those who are receiving neoadjuvant chemo, what is the preferred chemotherapy regimen? And then what does the expert panel recommend regarding timing of interval cytoreductive surgery? Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard: Sure. So for neoadjuvant chemotherapy, we generally recommend a platinum taxane doublet. This is especially important for patients with high grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancers, and that's really because this is what the studies had used in the neoadjuvant trials. We recognize, however, that sometimes there are individual patient factors, such as advanced age or frailty, or certain disease factors such as the stage or rare histology that may shift what is used in terms of chemotherapy, but the recommendation is to try to stick as much as possible to the platinum taxane doublet. And then in terms of the timing of interval cytoreductive surgery, this was something that the panel discussed quite a bit and really felt that it should be performed after four or fewer cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, especially in patients who've had a response to chemotherapy or stable disease. Sometimes alternative timing of surgery can be considered based on some patient centered factors, but those really haven't been prospectively evaluated. The studies that looked at neoadjuvant chemotherapy usually did the interval cytoreductive surgery after three or four cycles of chemotherapy. Brittany Harvey: For those patients who are receiving interval cytoreductive surgery, Dr. Tew, earlier in the podcast episode, you mentioned a new therapy. What is recommended regarding hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy? Dr. Bill Tew: Yeah, or simply HIPEC as everyone refers to it. You know, HIPEC isn't really a new therapy. HIPEC is a one-time perfusion of cisplatin, which is a chemotherapy that has been a standard treatment for ovarian cancer for decades. But the chemotherapy is heated and used as a wash during the interval cytoreductive surgery. And since our last guideline, there has been a publication of a randomized trial that looked at the use of HIPEC in this setting. And in that study there was improved disease-free and overall survival among the patients that underwent HIPEC versus those that did not. So we wanted to at least emphasize this data. But we also wanted to recognize that HIPEC may not be available at all sites. It's resource-intensive. It requires a patient to be medically fit for it, particularly renal function and performance status. And so it's something that could be discussed with the patient as an option in the interval cytoreductive surgery. One other point, the use of HIPEC during primary surgery or later lines of therapy still is unknown. And the other point is this HIPEC trial came prior to the introduction of maintenance PARP inhibitors. So there's still a lot of unknowns, but it is a reasonable option to discuss with appropriate patients. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you reviewing that data and what that updated recommendation is from the panel. So then, Dr. Gaillard, after patients have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery, what is the post ICS chemotherapy recommended? Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard: The panel recommends some post ICS chemotherapy, as you mentioned. This is typically to continue the same chemotherapy that was done as neoadjuvant chemotherapy and so preferably platinum and taxane. And typically we recommend a total of six cycles of treatment, although the exact number of cycles that is given post-surgery can be adjusted based on different patient factors and their response to treatment. Importantly, also, timing is a factor, and we recommend that postoperative chemotherapy begin within four to six weeks after surgery, if at all feasible. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Those timing recommendations are key as well. So then, Dr. Tew, you mentioned this briefly earlier, but what is the role of maintenance therapy? Dr. Bill Tew: Maintenance therapy could be a full podcast plus of discussion, and it's complicated, but we did want to include it in this guideline in part because the determination of whether to continue treatment after completion of surgery and platinum based therapy is key as one is delivering care in the upfront setting. So first off, when we say maintenance therapy, we are typically referring to PARP inhibitors or bevacizumab. And I would refer listeners to the “ASCO PARP Inhibitor Guideline” that was updated about two years ago, as well as look at the FDA-approved label indications. But in general, PARP inhibitors, whether it's olaparib or niraparib, single agent or olaparib with bevacizumab, are standard treatments as maintenance, particularly in those patients with a germline or somatic BRCA mutation or those with an HRD score positive. And so it's really important that we emphasize germline and somatic BRCA testing for all patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer so that one can prepare for the use of maintenance therapy or not. And the other point is, as far as bevacizumab, bevacizumab is typically initiated during the chemotherapy section of first-line treatment. And in the guidelines we gave specific recommendations as far as when to start bevacizumab and in what patient population. Brittany Harvey: Great. Yes. And the PARP inhibitors guideline you mentioned is available on the ASCO guidelines website and we can provide a link in the show notes for our listeners. So then, the last clinical question, Dr. Gaillard, what treatment options are available for patients without a clinical response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard: Yeah, this is a tough situation. And so it's important to remember that ovarian cancer typically does respond to chemotherapy initially. And so it's unusual to have progressive disease to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. So it's really important that if someone has progressive disease that we question whether we really have the right diagnosis. And so it's important to, I think at that point, obtain another biopsy and make sure that we know what we're really dealing with. In addition, this is where Dr. Tew mentioned getting the molecular profiling and genetic testing early in the course of disease. If that hasn't been done at this point in time, it's worth doing that in this setting so that that can also potentially help guide options for patients. And patients who are in those situations, really, the options are other chemotherapy regimens, clinical trials may be an option, or in some situations, if they have really rapidly progressing disease that isn't amenable to further therapy, then initiation of end-of-life care would be appropriate. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you both for reviewing all of these recommendations and options for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. So then to wrap us up, in your view, what is both the importance of this guideline update and how will it impact clinicians and patients with advanced ovarian cancer? Dr. Bill Tew: Well, first off, I'm very proud of this guideline and the panel that I work with and Dr. Gaillard, my co-chair. The guideline really pulls together nicely all the evidence in a simple format for oncologists to generate a plan and determine what's the best step for patients. The treatment of ovarian cancer, newly diagnosed, is really a team approach - surgeons, medical oncologists, and sometimes even general gynecologists - and understanding the data is key, as well as the advances in maintenance therapy and HIPEC. Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard: For my part, I'd say we hope that the update really provides physicians with best practice recommendations as they navigate neoadjuvant chemotherapy decisions for their patients who are newly diagnosed with ovarian cancer. There is a lot of data out there and so we hope that we've synthesized it in a way that makes it easier to digest. And along that regard, I really wanted to give a special shout out to Christina Lacchetti, who just put in a tremendous effort in putting these guidelines together and in helping to coordinate the panel. And so we really owe a lot to her in this effort. Dr. Bill Tew: Indeed. And ASCO, as always, helps guide and build a great resource for the oncology community. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Yes, we hope this is a useful tool for clinicians. And I want to thank you both for the large amount of work you put in to update this evidence-based guideline. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Gaillard and Dr. Tew. Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard: Thank you. Dr. Bill Tew: Thank you for having us. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Dr. Sepideh Gholami and Dr. Aaron Scott join us to discuss the latest evidence-based guideline from ASCO on the management of locally advanced rectal cancer. They review the recommendation highlights on topics including assessment, total neoadjuvant therapy, timing of chemotherapy, nonoperative management, and immunotherapy. Additionally, we discuss the importance of this guideline for both clinicians and patients, and the outstanding research questions in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer. Read the full guideline, “Management of Locally Advanced Rectail Cancer: ASCO Guideline” 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.24.01160    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. Aaron Scott from the University of Arizona Cancer Center and Dr. Sepideh Gholami from Northwell Health, co-chairs on, “Management of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: ASCO Guideline.” Thank you for being here, Dr. Scott and Dr. Gholami. Dr. Sepideh Gholami: Thank you for having us. Brittany Harvey: Then, before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Scott and Dr. Gholami, who have joined us here today, are available online with a publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then, to kick us off on the content of this episode, Dr. Gholami, first, what is the purpose and scope of this guideline on locally advanced rectal cancer? Dr. Sepideh Gholami: Well, I think, historically, this is the group of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer for which we've used multiple therapies to address their management. And with the advent of the total neoadjuvant approach, we really have seen tremendous changes. So the purpose really of these guidelines was to consolidate the various approaches that we've had in several clinical trials and to provide the oncology community a general management recommendation guideline to really optimize the outcomes for these patients. And I would further notice that with the specifics to like which patients are included for these, so we define patients with locally advanced rectal cancer as any of those patients with T3 or T4 tumors and/or lymph node positive disease. Brittany Harvey: Great. I appreciate you providing that background and context of this guideline. So then, next, I'd like to review the key recommendations of this guideline. So, Dr. Scott, starting with the first section of the guideline, what are the recommendations for assessment of locally advanced rectal cancer? Dr. Aaron Scott: Yeah, thank you. So really, we were charged with trying to answer, I think, several very important questions as it comes to the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer. And the first step in doing so is to define the patient group. So, as far as the first section goes in the assessment, we were really charged with defining what locally advanced rectal cancer means. We think that this is best done with a high resolution pelvic MRI, dedicated rectal sequence prior to any treatment for risk assessment and proper staging, and the use of standardized synaptic MRI is recommended that includes relation of the primary tumor to the anal verge, sphincter complex, pelvic lymph nodes, the mesorectal fascia, otherwise known as the MRF, and includes assessment of the EMVI tumor deposits and lymph nodes. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you reviewing those highlights for assessment of locally advanced rectal cancer. So following that, Dr. Gholami, what does the panel recommend regarding total neoadjuvant therapy and standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with proficient mismatch repair or microsatellite stable tumors? Dr. Sepideh Gholami: Yeah, thanks so much for that question, Brittany. I would say that the guidelines really provide a lot more details, but in general, the consensus was that TNT should be offered as really initial treatment for patients with low rectal locally advanced rectal cancers or those who have higher risk for local and distant metastases. Those risk factors included anyone with either T4 disease, extramural vascular invasion and/or tumor deposits identified on the MRI for any threatening of the mesorectal fascia or the intersphincteric plane. Brittany Harvey: Excellent. So then, Dr. Gholami just discussed who should be offered TNT. But Dr. Scott, what are the recommendations regarding timing of TNT? Dr. Aaron Scott: So the way I take this question, think about this question, is a lot of the work that we put toward defining whether chemoradiation plus consolidation versus induction chemotherapy is the right choice, and there are a lot of implications to consider in this situation. The panel recognizes that the decision to proceed with chemoradiation followed by chemo versus chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation often depends on logistics regarding the time to treatment start, concern for distant metastases, and desire for local control that may impact surgical decision making. When we look at the subgroup analysis for overall survival of patients treated with TNT, it doesn't seem to matter which approach you take. Either induction or consolidation doesn't seem to have an impact on overall survival. However, there are other outcomes that may be of importance. Based on the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 randomized phase II trial, both pathologic complete response rates and sphincter sparing surgery were numerically higher with consolidation chemo. That said, there was no difference in disease free survival. So if you have a patient that really wants to consider some sort of sphincter sparing surgery, or a patient has a highly symptomatic disease burden, etc., these are patients that we would recommend starting with chemoradiation followed by consolidation chemotherapy. Brittany Harvey: Understood. And so you have both mentioned radiation included in treatment regimens. So Dr. Gholami, what is recommended in the neoadjuvant setting? Short course radiation or long course chemoradiation? Dr. Sepideh Gholami: Yeah, we actually had a really long discussion about this, but I think in general the consensus was that if radiation is included in any patient's treatment plan, neoadjuvant long course chemoradiation is preferred over short course RT for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. And really the recommendation was based on the long term results that we've seen from the RAPIDO phase 3 clinical trial, which showed a significant higher rate of five year local regional failure with a total neoadjuvant approach with short course of 10% compared to the standard chemo RT with only 6% of the local recurrence rate. So that's why they opted for the long course, if the patients can actually tolerate it. Brittany Harvey: Excellent. I appreciate reviewing the recommendation and the supporting evidence that the panel reviewed to come to those recommendations. Then following that, Dr. Scott, for those patients who have a complete clinical response after initial therapy, what is recommended regarding nonoperative management? Dr. Aaron Scott: First, I would like to just say that this is really an area that still remains somewhat controversial and needs more investigation to best select patients for this approach. This topic was not systematically reviewed for the ASCO guideline. However, the expert panel was surveyed and most agreed with the time interval used in the OPRA phase 2 trial, which assessed patients for clinical complete response within eight weeks plus or minus four weeks after completion of TNT. Expert panel members and reviewers noted that if the radiation therapy component of TNT is delivered first, then an eight week interval following subsequent chemotherapy may result in a prolonged period of no treatment and therefore a first assessment of this response in this scenario would occur on the earlier side of the recommended interval. If a near clinical complete response is noted, then reevaluation within eight weeks is recommended to assess for developing a clinical complete response. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. That information is helpful to understand what is recommended regarding nonoperative management and clinical complete responses. Then the final clinical question, Dr. Gholami, for patients with tumors that are microsatellite instability high or mismatch repair deficient, which treatment strategy is recommended? Dr. Sepideh Gholami: Yeah, I think we really came up to summarize that in general, when there is no contraindication to immunotherapy, then patients with MSI high tumors should be really offered immunotherapy. The evidence for this recommendation was relatively low, though, just due to the small sample size of the data that's currently available. But we did want to highlight that the data is very promising, but a definitive recommendation by the committee should be validated in future larger clinical trials. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Well, thank you both for reviewing the highlights of these recommendations for each clinical question. Moving on, Dr. Scott, in your view, what is the importance of this guideline and how will it impact both clinicians and patients with locally advanced rectal cancer? Dr. Aaron Scott: This would be the first guideline through ASCO to spell out management options for locally advanced rectal cancer. This has largely been needed due to the increased number of phase II and III trials investigating the specific patient population that have investigated a variety of different TNT approaches and treatment combinations utilizing systemic therapy, radiation, and surgical treatment. So, in this guideline, we really set out to define what locally advanced rectal cancer is, have organized and analyzed impactful large randomized studies to address multimodality therapy, and have consolidated this information into what we consider a concise and generalizable approach to help clinicians and patients individualize their management based on specific clinical pathologic features of their cancer. Brittany Harvey: Yes, this has been a mountain of work to review all the evidence, consolidate it into a concise review of that evidence, and develop recommendations for best clinical practice for management of locally advanced rectal cancer. So then, finally, to wrap us up, Dr. Gholami, what are the outstanding questions regarding management of locally advanced rectal cancer? Dr. Sepideh Gholami: Yeah, I think I just want to reiterate, Brittany, what you mentioned, this was a tremendous amount of body work, and we really would like to thank the committee and everyone from ASCO to help us with creating these general guidelines. I think one of the outstanding questions really still remains is the use of circulating tumor DNA as a management tool for patients with rectal, locally advanced rectal cancer. And also, I think outside of what we can think of the straightforward populations to deduce from PROSPECT, be really interested to see what other patient populations, for example, could also potentially maybe avoid radiation therapy. And lastly, I think we really wanted to highlight that this guideline really focuses on the locally advanced, and it would be great to see future guidelines for early stage rectal cancer which will be forthcoming. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. We'll look forward to answering those outstanding questions and for upcoming guidelines on earlier stage rectal cancer. So, I want to thank you both so much for, as you said, the tremendous amount of work that went into these guidelines and thank you for taking the time to speak with me today, Dr. Scott and Dr. Gholami. Dr. Aaron Scott: Thank you. Dr. Sepideh Gholami: Thank you so much for having us. Appreciate it. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please read 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.  

Ms. Charité Ricker, MS, CGC and Dr. Nadine Tung, MD, FASCO share updates from the new ASCO guideline on selection of germline genetic testing panels in patients with cancer. They discuss highlights on family history collection, when and how multigene panel germline genetic testing should be used, which genes are generally recommended for testing, and how germline genetic testing interfaces with somatic genetic testing. Ms. Ricker and Dr. Tung also note the importance of the guideline and the impact of these new recommendations on clinicians and patients with cancer. Read the full guideline, “Selection of Germline Genetic Testing Panels in Patients with Cancer: ASCO Guideline” at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT GDL 24E13 This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.24.00662  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. Nadine Tung, a medical oncologist from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and Ms. Charité Ricker, a cancer genetic counselor with the Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Southern California and Los Angeles General Medical Center, co-chairs on, “Selection of Germline Genetic Testing Panels in Patients with Cancer: ASCO Guideline.” Thank you for being here, Ms. Ricker and Dr. Tung. Dr. Nadine Tung: Pleasure.  Ms. Charité Ricker: Thank you. Brittany Harvey: Then, before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Tung and Ms. Ricker, 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 start us off first, Dr. Tung, could you provide us a broad overview of both the purpose and scope of this guideline? Dr. Nadine Tung: Sure. A main impetus for creating the guideline is that oncologists are increasingly being tasked with ordering genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk for their cancer patients. More and more now, they may find themselves sending the test and then seeking guidance from genetic experts to interpret the result. And these panels range from focused tests with just a few genes to comprehensive ones that include over 100 genes. So it can be very overwhelming for an oncologist to be able to understand ordering these tests and explaining them to their patients. So, we believe that it was important to offer some guidance and direction on the use of these multigene panels. Brittany Harvey: Thank you for setting the stage for this guideline and the recommendations that come from it.   So then, Ms. Ricker, this guideline addresses four overarching clinical questions. I'd like to review the recommendations based on each of those questions for our listeners. So starting with that first question, what is the importance of family history collection in the setting of germline multigene panel testing and which elements of family history are the most important? Ms. Charité Ricker: Thanks. As a genetic counselor, this is probably one of my favorite questions. I love the opportunity we have to sit with families and really dig into family history. But family history collection can be overwhelming and a big lift sometimes in busy clinics where genetics is not the focus. So, what we tried to do was to break down the key elements of what components of family history are most relevant to informing which test to do, and also the interpretation of those test results. And I like to think about the key pieces of family history as being the who, what, and when of somebody's family cancer history. Who was diagnosed with cancer within their close relatives? And usually we're most focused on first and second degree relatives. So parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles. But sometimes relevant history might go into third degree relatives like cousins or more distant. So the who being who has cancer on both sides of the family? And then the what: what kind of cancer was it? Or where did that cancer begin? And the when: how old was that individual at the time they were diagnosed? Often we ask patients maybe not to fixate on the exact age, but to give us a sense. So was this somebody who was diagnosed young, in their 20s or 30s or older, in their 60s or 70s? Because that at least gives us a ballpark around what might be relevant for understanding the genes that should be included on somebody's test.  When we are thinking about the purpose of this history, as Dr. Tung said, often the range of multigene panels might be from a few very focused genes to a very broad panel. Family history can help us understand if we need to step beyond the very focused genes that might be relevant for the patient's history of cancer and include other genes that might be indicated based on that family history. So I think about the role that family history has at the time of identifying which test to do and then its role when interpreting what those results mean for the patient and their family. Again, Dr. Tung touched on the fact that we are often testing very large panels. However, we still don't know everything. And so a negative genetic test result does not mean that somebody does not have additional cancer risk. And family history becomes our kind of guiding star for understanding if there is still a need to change the cancer screening and prevention management for that individual and their family members. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Those are key points to understanding the important role of family history for each individual patient.  So then moving to the next clinical question, Dr. Tung, what does the panel recommend regarding when and how multigene panel germline testing should be used, when germline genetic testing is indicated? Dr. Nadine Tung: Well, anytime multiple genes need to be tested, as Ms. Ricker said, because of the patient's own personal cancer history, or their family history of cancer and close relatives, it's appropriate to consider a multi-gene panel. And in truth, we rarely ever just order one gene these days. Perhaps we do if there's a known gene like a BRCA gene in the family, and a relative just wants to know if they have that. But it's not all that common. And to be clear, as Ms. Ricker is going to cover a bit later, we are recommending that the appropriate minimal panel at least include the genes relevant to the patient's own cancer and the cancers in their relatives.  But it's worth thinking about what are some of the pros and cons of ordering genes beyond that, beyond the patient's own cancer or their relatives? Well, for pros, since a patient's awareness of their family history may be incomplete, testing for a larger number of cancer risk genes does ensure that significant pathogenic variants won't be overlooked. And sometimes, even if the family history is well known, pathogenic variants in important cancer risk genes can be found even when the family history would not have prompted testing for them. But it is important for clinicians to appreciate that bigger isn't necessarily better. Some larger panels may include genes for which management of pathogenic variants is not entirely clear and that can create anxiety or unnecessary screening. And if the clinician receiving the information is not well informed about the significance of the finding, that can lead to unnecessary treatment and sometimes even unnecessary surgeries.   And I'd add one final point that clinicians must have a system for communicating reclassification of these variants, the ones with uncertain significance that we call VUS. Because as the number of genes tested increases, so does the likelihood of encountering these VUS. So I would say those are some of the main points about when to use the panel and when to think about larger or smaller panels. Brittany Harvey: Yes, I appreciate you reviewing both the pros and cons of expanding the genes included in multi-gene panel testing and the importance of variants of uncertain significance.   So then Dr. Tung just touched on this, but speaking of minimal panels and which genes should be included, Ms. Ricker, what are the recommendations on which genes are generally recommended for germline genetic testing? Ms. Charité Ricker: I think this is one of the harder questions that our group took on as we were working on this guideline. I don't think there is a one size fits all and one easy answer to this question. However, we chose to approach it by selecting the more common solid tumors that oncologists see in their clinics and the ones where the role of genetic testing is most well defined, as well as some very rare tumors where they're kind of easy. So we know that all individuals with certain types of cancers, even though they are rare, should merit genetic testing regardless of age of diagnosis, family history.  And so as we approached it, and I really appreciate ASCO's support in helping us develop some tools and tables that hopefully will be important aids for clinicians who are trying to make these decisions, we took the approach of, as Dr. Tung mentioned, selecting kind of a minimal set of recommended genes where most individuals who are informed in this area would agree that if nothing else was done, these genes should be done, but then also acknowledged that there is an expanding understanding about the impact of certain genes on cancer risk, and so then also provided a kind of a next level if somebody wanted to be more expansive, what we would recommend less strongly, but would be reasonable to consider. Then I think the other last piece that the committee felt was important to acknowledge is that given how common, in comparison to some of these genetic conditions that we work with, pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 can be, and also the important clinical impact of those genes along with the genes associated with Lynch syndrome, we felt that those were important to think about in the setting of all cancer patients. So if you're approaching a panel and thinking about what genes to include, looking at that kind of minimally recommended based on the patient's personal and family history, maybe the next level, which might include some additional genes that we have included in kind of the less strongly recommended category for those tumor types. And then consideration of the BRCA1 and 2 genes and genes associated with lynch syndrome, if they weren't already encapsulated by your other personal and family history considerations. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. This was a big lift for the panel to tackle, and the tools and tables that you mentioned are all available online with the publication in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. So listeners who are looking for more specifics on that can definitely refer to those tools and tables there.  Dr. Tung, the last clinical question: which patient should be offered germline genetic testing, who will have or who have previously had somatic genetic testing? Dr. Nadine Tung: Identifying which genes identified through the tumor testing should trigger germline testing is really important for assessing our patients' future risk of cancer and their relatives. So during the development of our guidelines, the ASCO expert panel became aware that the ESMO Precision Medicine Working group had updated their recommendations for this topic, namely germline testing in response to tumor test findings. And these recommendations were based on the Memorial Sloan Kettering IMPACT registry, which consists of nearly 50,000 tumors and paired germline testing. Given the sheer volume of that data and the methods that ESMO used, our group decided to use that as a framework to develop our recommendations. The ASCO guideline provides a list of genes that, if found in the tumor, a pathogenic variant in those genes may prompt germline testing.  And we offered or proposed two different approaches. The first approach, which is broad and perhaps simplest, involves doing germline testing if a pathogenic variant is found in any of the genes listed. But then we offer a conservative approach to test the germline for all highly actionable genes, like BRCA1 and 2, or lynch genes that are found in a tumor, but for less actionable genes, testing the germline only if the pathogenic variant is found in a tumor relevant to that gene. So, for example, ATM, if found in breast cancer or pancreatic cancer, would trigger germline testing with this approach, but not if found in lung cancer, whereas with the permissive first approach, you would simply test the germline if any pathogenic variant is found in any of the genes on the list. This latter, more conservative approach, while less sensitive for identifying every germline pathogenic variant, increases the likelihood that a pathogenic variant found in the tumor will actually be germline. That approach considers the limited resources available, such as genetic counselors, and respects trying not to overwhelm a system already stressed. Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing both of those approaches and to you both for discussing all of the recommendations included in this guideline.   Finally, to wrap us up, in your view, Ms. Ricker, what is the importance of this guideline and how will it impact both clinicians and patients with cancer? Ms. Charité Ricker: I hope that this guideline can open the door for more expansive and appropriate utilization of germline genetic testing. For me, I think about, from both the clinical and patient side, for example, all ovarian cancer patients have had a recommendation for germline genetic testing for many years. Nonetheless, data from multiple research studies has shown us that ovarian cancer patients still are not being tested universally, and this has important implications for their treatment plans and for their family members. And so even in the setting where genetic testing, if I can use the phrase, has been simple in that it didn't require family history, it didn't require even a specific age criteria, it was just broad, testing is not utilized as much as it should be, and then you step into the world of more complex decision making around genetic testing for other tumor types. And so we hope that this provides a framework to simplify that decision making process for providers to increase appropriate utilization.   And then from the patient perspective, I also think about the lack of access of genetic testing in underrepresented communities and minoritized patient populations where there's many barriers that patients face in accessing genetic services. And so if we can help reduce the barriers for this piece of the genetic testing process, my hope is that that opens up better avenues for access to testing, not just for patients with certain tumor types, but for all patients from all communities and backgrounds. Brittany Harvey: Yes, those are key points. We hope that this guideline helps all patients access the appropriate testing to better inform their cancer prevention and treatment.  So I want to thank you both so much for your work on this comprehensive guideline on germline genetic testing and all of the work that you put into it. And thank you for your time today. Ms. Ricker and Dr. Tung,  Dr. Nadine Tung: Thank you. Ms. Charité Ricker: It was a pleasure to be here. Thank you. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.    The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Dr. Bradley Hunter, MD, MPH and Ms. Amy Evers, BSN, RN, OCN, MBA join us on the latest episode of the ASCO Guidelines Podcast to share key points and insights on the updated ASCO-ONS antineoplastic therapy administration safety standards for adult and pediatric oncology standards. They highlight key updates across the four standards domains: (1) creating a safe environment, (2) patient consent and patient education, (3) ordering, preparing, dispensing, and administering oral and parenteral antineoplastic therapies in a health care facility, organization, or in the home, and (4) monitoring during and after antineoplastic therapy is administered, including adherence, toxicity, and complications. They also comment on the importance of these standards to provide a framework for optimal safe and effective care for all patients. Read the standards, “Antineoplastic Therapy Administration Safety Standards for Adult and Pediatric Oncology: ASCO-ONS Standards” at www.asco.org/standards. TRANSCRIPT These standards, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/standards. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the JCO Oncology Practice, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/OP.24.00216 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. Bradley Hunter from Intermountain Health and Amy Evers from the University of Pennsylvania, authors on “Antineoplastic Therapy Administration Safety Standards for Adult and Pediatric Oncology: American Society of Clinical Oncology – Oncology Nursing Society Standards.” Thank you both for being here. Dr. Bradley Hunter: Yeah, thanks. Good to be with you. Amy Evers: Thank you. Brittany Harvey: Now, before we discuss these standards, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidance products and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for all standards. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the expert panel are available online with the publication of the standards in the JCO Oncology Practice, which is linked in the show notes.  So then to start us off, Dr. Hunter, what prompted an update to the ASCO-ONS standards? And what is the scope of this update? Dr. Bradley Hunter: The last guidelines were published in 2016. And just thinking about in the world of oncology, so much has changed since that time. There are a lot of therapies that have become commonplace now that were really not used too much before, including oral genomically determined targeted therapies, immunomodulatory agents, CAR T cell therapy, bispecific antibodies, etc. So there's really been a need to just talk about how do we navigate those therapies and how do we create systems of care in which they are delivered safely. Additionally, the sites of care have changed. I think all of us, eight years ago, wouldn't have imagined a global pandemic, and how that would have changed the way that we needed to deliver oncology care. So there's been a huge influx of telehealth, including tele-oncology centers, where the oncologist and the patient may never even meet face to face, but just by video. And so it relies on a team approach for that sort of an outreach setting. Intermountain Health spans seven states, there are so many sites like this that we have and I know that we are not unique. This is an issue and a global thing now. Additionally, patients are even getting chemo in their own homes, so that has changed and we need to figure out how to address that so that everyone could be able to have that site of care so they can get there and they can get their therapy in a safe manner.  So, these varied care settings present a challenge to us as oncology providers to ensure that a standard of quality of care is maintained, and that the therapies can be given to patients no matter where they live and that we maximize benefit while minimizing risk to the patient. So I mean, just thinking where we are now, I can't imagine where we're going to be eight years from now or the next time these guidelines are updated. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Thank you for setting the stage and the impetus for this update. It sounds like a lot has changed in the last few years to impact these standards.  So then I'd like to review the key points of the standards and the key updates for our listeners. There are four domains of standards. Starting with domain one, Amy, what are the key points of the standards for creating a safe environment for all routes of antineoplastic therapy? Amy Evers: So domain one is all about who can write chemotherapy orders, who can prepare chemotherapy and then who can administer that chemotherapy and then what their competencies are both initial and then ongoing. So looking at the existing standards, we did end up making a few updates mainly on how providers discuss and document pregnancy status and fertility preservation with patients. And I think this is really timely given that we're seeing a big uptick in younger patients that are being diagnosed with cancers that were typically considered “old person diseases”. And I think we can and we should do better in ensuring that patients who want to preserve their ability to have a family one day can do so before they start treatment.  The update also included the addition of an assessment for social determinants of health, calling out financial and logistical constraints that patients may face as part of their cancer journey, which I think is extremely important making sure that we have equitable access to care regardless of a patient's background, their financial status, everybody's receiving the highest quality of care they can in their community.  And the last change that we made was to highlight an accurate measurement of height and weight using metric units, which is important when we're calculating the doses of drugs for some of these very high risk medications.  Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Thank you for reviewing those important points for our listeners.  So following those standards, for domain two, Dr. Hunter, what are the key standards for patient consent and patient education? Dr. Bradley Hunter: In domain two, we're really seeking to figure out what policies around treatment planning, patient consent and patient's education are shown to result in fewer medical errors and reduce preventable harm? But one of the big things we've found is having a really detailed understanding of exactly what a patient is taking in terms of medications, including over the counters and supplements and herbal remedies, really helps reduce medical errors. You know, some of the research and literature we came across suggest that upwards of 80% of the time when you see a patient's medication there are discrepancies between what's on that list and what patients are actually taking. So being able to sit down as part of a consent discussion and ongoing care and talk about everything that a patient's taking is really important.  My background, I am a bone marrow transplant, stem cell transplant and cellular therapist. Just this last weekend I was on the inpatient service and a patient had brought in food from home which we completely are supportive of. The patient brought in a bunch of superfood shakes that she had bought at Costco and then some CBD tea and she asked us if it was okay if she could take those. And as we reviewed them and what was in all of those shakes and then what was in the CBD tea, there were major interactions between those supplements or those herbal remedies, and then what was in the medications we were giving in the hospital, so it was important. And she told us - it wasn't like I sat down and and was the shining example here, but it was helpful that we were able to take her global picture of what she was taking from a medication standpoint and be able to make sure that we were treating her in a safe manner and making sure that we weren't inadvertently causing harm.  So, those are some of the things that we talked about. So, at every patient visit, and especially the first time you meet a patient you're going to start therapy to be able to go over all of the different substances that patients are taking to make sure that they're safe.  Brittany Harvey: Thank you so much for reviewing those key standards and key updates and that example of how important it is to review all of medications and herbal supplements that patients are taking to ensure safe care for our patients.  So then following that, Amy, for domain three, what are the key points regarding ordering, preparing, dispensing and administering oral and parenteral antineoplastic therapy in a healthcare facility organization or in the home? Amy Evers: So, domain three, actually, it was the domain that had probably the biggest discussion and fruitful debate between the panel members, but I think that we had some really great discussions and I think we had brought some really good changes and updates to the standards here. So domain three is where all of the verification standards live. So this is for practices who would either have been through the QOPI certification process or have been QOPI certified. This is where the surveyor actually will observe in real time how the clinical orders are reviewed by staff, how the drugs are prepared by pharmacy, and then how the drugs are checked one final time at the chair side or bedside immediately prior to administration.  So as I mentioned earlier, antineoplastic therapies are being given more frequently in the home or in settings where there may not be two clinical staff members present. In this post-COVID world, we're finding patients can be treated safely in the home, but the standards didn't really reflect kind of these changes in where patients are receiving treatment. And often, more and more practices are relying on technology to supplement the verification process both either in the pharmacy setting where there may be a centralized pharmacist verifying the drug mixing process for multiple sites, or in the actual home setting where a nurse can connect virtually with another clinician to verify a drug immediately or administration. So the standards were updated to include these workflows. And I think it's becoming more and more commonplace, but how do we do this in a safe and effective way where we're ensuring that all of these same safe handling processes are completed, regardless of where the patient may be seeking treatment?  So previous versions of the standards had three verifications. The first was before the actual preparation of the drug that someone other than the provider who wrote the order is verifying the order for all of the correct elements. The second verification is what usually happens in the pharmacy, upon preparation, what's being checked by the pharmacist or pharmacy technician who's preparing the drug. And then a third verification is done at, generally, the chair side where they're doing one final check of the orders to the drug to the patient.  So with this update, we actually broke out that third verification into a fourth verification. So the third verification is that check with the drug in the order by the administering and then a second verifier. And then the fourth verification is actually the one where the patient's involved in the verification. So there are two clinicians making that final double check with the patient immediately upon preparation, which I think is important and is reflective of this change that we're seeing more drugs being administered in the home setting. The chair side or bedside final verification was also expanded to include a visual inspection of the administration tubing, this is sometimes referred to as tracing the lines, which ensures that the drug is being accurately infused, that there aren't any loose connections, that the clamps are open etc. And I think this is something that most nurses do in their normal clinical practice, but I think adding this as an actual check in the verification process, is really important. And I know personally, I was really happy to see this added in as a formal check. Dr. Bradley Hunter: Yes, thanks, Amy. One other new standard within domain three is regarding immunomodulatory or immune effector cell therapies that have the risk of cytokine release syndrome and how we build a framework to try to mitigate those toxicities. We really wanted to try to make a set of standards that would apply whether or not you're at a coronary care center, like Penn or whether you were at a center, like within Intermountain Health, it's a small rural outreach center that you're trying to be able to get patients to care. So really, the main thing within dealing with therapies that have the risk of cytokine release syndrome is really just building a framework that there's a management policy that's present from the institution, and that it's up to date, it's following what we know will work for these therapies in order to mitigate their toxicity, and then also making sure that adequate antidote therapy, whether for example, for cytokine release syndrome, it could be tocilizumab or anakinra or other therapies, and that order sets are present to be able to follow along with the policy guidelines to guide clinicians wherever they are practicing to help mitigate cytokine release syndrome, neurologic toxicity, ICANS, or other sorts of therapies that are associated with these novel agents.  Brittany Harvey: So for or the last domain, domain four, what are the key points for monitoring during and after antineoplastic therapy is administered, including adherence, toxicity, and complications? Amy Evers: So domain four is pretty straightforward. It discusses the importance of assessing adherence and toxicities related to antineoplastic treatments. There wasn't a whole lot of updates here. We did include having emerging treatment plans or equipment in the home and the healthcare setting. But what I really think is important and we need to underscore both with patients and clinicians, particularly as we've seen this rise in oral chemotherapy agents, is that a lot of times patients forget that this is the same chemotherapy that they're getting in the infusion suite. They're just taking it in a pill form. And I think patients forget that their adherence is just as important in taking that pill regularly and as prescribed. Financial toxicity is a real problem for most of our patients. Some of these drugs cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars for one treatment plan. As clinicians we've all heard stories of these patients who try to extend their prescription so they'll take a pill every other day instead of daily as prescribed, which really doesn't let the drug do what it's supposed to do. So I think when we talk about adherence, it's not just asking a patient whether they've taken their drug, it's about whether or not oral therapy is even appropriate for that particular patient. Do they have memory problems? Do they have metastatic disease to the brain where they may not be able to follow a complicated oral regimen? Do they have arthritis where opening a pill container is difficult? So having these conversations before a drug is even prescribed and making sure that it's the right route of administration for a patient is just as important as ensuring that they're maintaining their adherence to that drug.  And oftentimes, the toxicities of these oral drugs are worse than what's actually being administered in some of the infusion clinics, and so making sure that we're checking in on these patients regularly to ensure that they're not having any toxicities that aren't being managed appropriately. Or if there may be toxicities that would require a dose reduction, or perhaps switching to a different drug entirely. So, even though it's a pretty simple and straightforward domain, I think it's really important that we're educating our clinicians and our patients about the importance of adherence.  Dr. Bradley Hunter: I completely agree with what Amy said. She said it so well. I just want to echo back a couple of things that she said. Historically, we use the word non-compliant, which I think kind of sounds terrible to describe the patient's adherence to medication. I think part of this domain is recognizing that there is an entire environment that has to do with the patient that influences the way they're able to take their medication whether that's financial toxicity; we were talking to two people in our clinic who are professional financial toxicologists, and their entire job description is to help people get drugs for less so that they can actually take the side effects. If a patient feels terrible at that time, they're not going to take it. So, understanding these barriers and really understanding the patient's entire picture, when you're figuring out how is the treatment plan going to match up with their reality, I think is super important.  When it comes to site of care, we just want to make sure also that whether you're getting chemo at home or you're getting chemo in the clinic down the street, or in a coronary care center, that there is a policy in place to respond to an emergency, but also the equipment available in all of those sites of care that you can respond. And that's another aspect that we wanted to make sure we hit in the domain as there's been so many changes in how patients get care in the last eight years. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Recognizing the barriers and factors that impact the ability of an individual to receive the right therapy is crucial. And I want to thank you both for reviewing all of the standards and updates through all four domains.  So then following that, in your view, how will these updated standards impact clinicians? Dr. Bradley Hunter: It's our hope that these standards will guide the development of treatment infrastructure and help clinicians avoid error prone environments. We hope they're going to guide training efforts and that they will help clinicians ensure that they have relevant and accurate information about their patients and are able to respond appropriately when emergencies or even urgencies arise. Because of COVID, there's been such high staff turnover. And in the midst of all of this change, it's difficult to maintain a culture of safety when you've lost a lot of institutional knowledge of how to deal with that. And so, really trying to help bring people together again to have an infrastructure in place that makes training as seamless as possible and deal with the historical high staff turnover we've had.  So we're again, hopeful that we're helping to create a framework that cancer centers, treatment centers can use, whether they are a coronary care center in a large academic space, or whether they're in a rural tele-oncology space to be able to use the standards to create a space and a place and experience for cancer patients in which they're kept safe and we're maximizing the benefit of their chemotherapy, their antineoplastic agents, and also minimizing the risk just to optimize benefits for the patient.  Brittany Harvey: Definitely. Those are key points to provide a framework for clinicians.  So then along those same lines, finally, what does this update mean for patients receiving antineoplastic therapy?  Amy Evers: So while these standards are not necessarily patient facing, what I hope that this update will do, or actually not do, is that a patient shouldn't recognize any change in how they are cared for, regardless of what setting that they're receiving treatment. So whether it's at home, whether it's an ambulatory infusion center or in the hospital, they're still going to receive that same level of high quality care while they're receiving treatment. And I think that that's the most important thing that they should take away from this. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely.  So I want to thank you both so much for all of your work on these standards to ensure patients receive optimal safe and effective care. And I want to thank you both so much for your time today.  Amy Evers: Thank you so much.   Dr. Bradley Hunter: Yeah, thank you. It's really great to talk about this stuff.  Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the complete standards go to www.asco.org/standards. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.      

Dr. Lisa Law and Dr. Randy Taplitz share the latest evidence-based recommendations from ASCO on vaccines in adults with cancer. They discuss recommended routine preventative vaccinations, additional vaccinations and revaccinations for adults undergoing HSCT, CD19 CAR-T treatment, or B cell-depleting therapy, guidance for adults with cancer traveling outside the U.S., and recommendations for vaccination of household and close contacts of adults with cancer. Dr. Law and Dr. Taplitz also share their insights on the guideline, including the importance of this guideline for adults with cancer and their clinicians, future advances in research, and current unmet needs. Read the full guideline, “Vaccination of Adults with Cancer: ASCO Guideline” at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.24.00032       The ASCO Specialty Societies Advancing Adult Immunization (SSAAI) Project is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of a financial assistance award to the Council of Medical Specialty Societies (CMSS) (with 100 percent funded by CDC/HHS). The contents are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of nor endorsement, by CDC/HHS or the U.S. Government. 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 Law from Kaiser Permanente and Dr. Randy Taplitz from City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, authors on “Vaccination of Adults with Cancer: ASCO Guideline.” Thank you for being here, Dr. Law and Dr. Taplitz. Dr. Lisa Law: Thank you. Dr. Taplitz: Thank you, Brittany. Brittany Harvey: Before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to take 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. Taplitz and Dr. Law, 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 the content, here first, Dr. Taplitz, can you provide a general overview of both the scope and purpose of this guideline on vaccination of adults with cancer? Dr. Randy Taplitz: Yes, so people with cancer often experience a compromised immune system due to a variety of factors. This includes chronic inflammation, impaired or decreased function of the hematopoietic system, and treatments that compromise their immune function. Because of this, people with cancer are at a higher risk for infection, including with vaccine-preventable diseases. Also, response to vaccines in patients with cancer may well be affected by this underlying immune status, and their anticancer therapy, as well as the severity of the underlying malignancy. The purpose of vaccination in this group of patients is to prevent infection or to attenuate the severity of the disease when infection cannot be fully prevented.   This ASCO review builds on a 2013 guideline by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, or IDSA, and uses what's called a systematic literature review of 102 publications between 2013 and 2023. This includes 24 systematic reviews, 14 randomized clinical trials, and 64 non-randomized studies. The largest body of evidence in these studies, not surprisingly, addresses COVID vaccines on the efficacy and safety of vaccines used by adults with cancer or their household contacts. ASCO convened an expert panel to review this evidence and formulate recommendations for vaccinations in this population. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate that context, Dr. Taplitz. So then, next, Dr. Law, I'd like to review the key recommendations of this guideline. The guideline addresses four overarching clinical questions. So starting with the first question, what are the recommended routine preventative vaccinations for adults with cancer? Dr. Lisa Law: Thank you, Brittany. Before I start, I just want to wholeheartedly thank the first author of this paper, Dr. Mini Kamboj, Dr. Elise Kohn from the NCI, as well as the ASCO staff in putting this publication and guideline together. It is a very, very important guideline, and I echo everything Dr. Taplitz just said.  So going back to your question, what are the recommended routine preventative vaccines for adults with cancer? As per this guideline, there are about 7 to 8 based on patient age and risk. Namely, they are: seasonal flu, RSV for those aged 60 or above, COVID-19, Tdap, Hepatitis B, Shingrix, Pneumococcal vaccine, and the HPV vaccine. These vaccines should ideally be given two to four weeks before therapy. However, non-live vaccines can be given anytime during or after chemo, immunotherapy, hormonal treatment, radiation, or surgery. Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Thank you for reviewing those vaccinations and the timing of them as well. So then, following those recommendations, Dr. Taplitz, what additional vaccinations and revaccinations are recommended for adults undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, CD19 CAR-T treatment, or B-cell depleting therapy?  Dr. Randy Taplitz: Many studies have shown that stem cell transplant recipients essentially lose immunity from childhood immunizations, and we know that these individuals are very vulnerable to infection, particularly in the first year after transplant. Revaccination is critical to help restore their immunity. The optimal timing of vaccination is based on our understanding of adequate immune reconstitution with B and T-cell recovery so that the individual can mount a response to the vaccine. We know that a lot of factors influence this immune reconstitution, including the age of the stem cell transplant recipient, the source of the donor, the time from transplant, graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis, the treatment and severity of graft-versus-host disease, and the vaccine type and antigens used.   There are a number of bodies throughout the world, IDSA as I mentioned, CDC, American Society for Transplant and Cellular Therapy, European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplant, and European Conference for Infections and Leukemia. All of these bodies have guidelines that approach vaccination in stem cell transplants. However, variation does exist in the use of a variety of things including whether to use immune predictors to help guide vaccination, and there is really not consensus on whether this immune predictor guided vaccination is more likely to produce a protective immune response versus a standardized schedule. In addition, the duration of protection is incompletely understood.  The bottom line in these guidelines is that they recommend complete revaccination starting for most vaccines at 6 to 12 months after stem cell transplant, in order to restore vaccine-induced immunity. And I just want to go through a few of the particulars. For COVID-19, which is a three-dose series in the primary series, influenza - generally high-dose influenza - and pneumococcal vaccine, PCV20 in general, ultimately four doses, can be administered, starting as early as three months after transplant. Although there is really not much data to guide the use of the recombinant zoster vaccine in allogeneic stem cell transplant, the vaccine can be administered after the end of antiviral prophylaxis, which in general is 12 to 18 months after allogeneic and 3 to 12 months after autologous stem cell transplant. Some of the other vaccines, such as hepatitis B, Tdap, meningococcal vaccines, and HPV revaccination in those less than 45 are also recommended.   I want to also spend the moment talking about the two recently licensed RSV vaccines, which were essentially studied in less compromised hosts and really without any immunogenicity data in stem cell transplant, and thus, there is no recommendation in this guideline for the use of these vaccines after transplant. Live vaccines, such as MMR and varicella – varicella would be in varicella-seronegative patients without a prior history of varicella – should be delayed for at least two years and only given in the absence of active graft-versus-host disease or immunosuppression.  Moving briefly to CAR T, which is an immunotherapy that involves adoptive cell therapy, given the available data and after a review by the group, it was recommended that adults with hematopoietic malignancies receiving CAR T therapy directed against B-cell antigens should receive influenza and COVID-19 vaccines either two weeks before lymphodepletion or no sooner than three months after the completion of therapy. Administration of non-live vaccines preferably should occur before CAR T treatment or at least 6 to 12 months after, following the same timing as what we recommend for stem cell transplant. There is really little data to guide the safety and timing of administration of live vaccines after CAR T therapy.   In terms of adults receiving B-cell depleting therapy, they are generally unable for time to mount an effective humoral response but may have at least partially intact cellular immune responses. They are encouraged to be revaccinated for COVID-19 no sooner than six months after completion of B-cell depleting therapy, and they should receive influenza vaccine approximately four weeks from the most recent treatment dose for patients on chronic therapy. For other non-seasonal immunizations, vaccines ideally should be given two to four weeks before commencing anti-CD20 therapy or delayed until 6 to 12 months after completion, except for the recombinant zoster vaccine, which can be given one month after the most recent dose of B-cell depleting therapy. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you reviewing each of those vaccinations and when they should be given, and reviewing the available data – albeit, limited data – in these situations.  So beyond these routine preventative vaccinations and revaccinations that you've both just described, Dr. Law, what additional vaccinations does the expert panel recommend for adults with cancer traveling outside the United States? Dr. Lisa Law: Good question. As per these ASCO guidelines, adults with solid or blood cancer traveling outside of the United States should follow the CDC standard recommendations for their destination. For the 2024 CDC Yellow Book, travel vaccines, in general, should be delayed until three months from the last chemotherapy or, and for those with solid tumors, ideally when the disease is in remission. Of note, hepatitis A, typhoid, inactivated polio, Hep B, rabies, meningococcal vaccine, and Japanese encephalitis vaccines are considered to be safe. In all cases of travel, patients should be counseled by their healthcare provider about the travel timing, with the additional attention to the regional seasonality of infections, for instance, influenza is more common in late summer in Australia, and also with attention to any outbreaks that may be occurring globally at the time of travel. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Those are key points for clinicians to discuss with their patients as they consider upcoming travel.  So then, the final clinical question that the panel addressed, Dr. Taplitz, what vaccinations does the panel recommend for household and close contacts of adults with cancer?  Dr. Randy Taplitz: Thank you. Yes, it is recommended that all household members and close contacts, when possible, be up to date on their vaccinations. And the only further thing I would say is that there are some special considerations for the use of live vaccines in household contacts, particularly in stem cell transplant recipients. Contacts of people who receive stem cell transplants should preferably receive inactivated influenza vaccines. As was mentioned, MMR and varicella vaccines are both safe to administer to close contacts. Vaccine strain transmission to immunocompromised hosts has not been associated with MMR use in family members.   Eleven cases of the varicella vaccine strain transmission are described in the published literature, but none occurred in compromised hosts. Because the vaccine strain can cause severe and fatal varicella in profoundly immunocompromised people, precautions are advised to avoid close contact with a person with a vaccine-induced rash. For household contact travelers, MMR and yellow fever vaccines are considered safe. Oral cholera should be avoided. For smallpox vaccines, the second-generation ACAM2000 has rarely been associated with vaccinia transmission and should be avoided because of this. But the live replication-deficient MVA-based JYNNEOS vaccine is felt to be safe for household contacts of immunocompromised individuals. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you reviewing the importance of vaccination for household and close contacts, and some of those precautions that individuals should take. I appreciate you both for reviewing all of these recommendations.  So then in your view, Dr. Law, what is the importance of this guideline, and how will it impact both clinicians and adults with cancer? Dr. Lisa Law: In my opinion, this is a very important guideline that is long overdue in the oncology community and will have a huge impact on both clinicians and adults with cancer. Over the years, I have often been asked by my colleagues and patients, “Can I have the flu vaccine, and if so, when?” So this guideline really is going to be helpful. More importantly, our cancer patients are living much longer. They may have years of quality of life even with third or fourth line of treatment, especially, for instance, like CAR T for myeloma and lymphoma. However, we know that with additional treatment, that carries a substantial risk of infection complication among these immunocompromised patients. So it is of paramount importance to inform our patients and colleagues to be proactive in advocating preventive therapy ahead of time, meaning trying to get the patients appropriately vaccinated as early as possible to generate immunity.  Another case in point is the Shingrix vaccine. I used to see lots of shingles, but ever since we have the recombinant Shingrix, I have fewer encounters. And this is huge because post-herpetic neuralgia robs a patient's quality of life. So, again, it is very important to recommend appropriate vaccines for our cancer patients.  Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It is key to ensure patients receive these preventative vaccines, and we hope that this guideline puts an emphasis on that for clinicians and patients.  So finally, to wrap us up, Dr. Taplitz, what are the current gaps in knowledge regarding the vaccination of people with cancer? Dr. Randy Taplitz: There are a number of really important gaps in knowledge and really critical unmet needs that require research and other dedicated efforts. Among these are, and I think paramount, are really the participation of people with cancer with varied types of immunocompromise in vaccine trials. Where vaccine trials are only for cancer patients, obviously is ideal, testing vaccines in the appropriate population. But when that's not feasible, pre-existing cancer should not preclude eligibility, and inclusion of cohorts of people receiving anticancer treatment should be incorporated prospectively. So that's really critical because the quality of our guidelines is based upon the data. We use the data for developing guidelines and gathering more data in the particular patient population is really, really critical.  Secondly, work for creating more immunogenic vaccines and research to understand the immune response to vaccines after immuno-depleting therapies, particularly with newer therapies such as CAR T and newer B cell therapies, bispecific antibodies, etc. is really critical. We need to really understand the immune response and have the most potent vaccines available to these people who may have impaired immune responses.  Switching gears a little bit, we really need mechanisms to promote institutional commitment to integrate and sustain immunization best practices for people with cancer. This will largely be through multidisciplinary, team-based approaches, protocol-based vaccination standing orders, and leveraging data sharing so that we can all be on the same page with giving vaccines to these individuals. We also need education and evidence-based decision-making tools, emphasizing preventive care through immunization, the availability of educational resources to clinicians and patients to address commonly asked questions and also misconceptions about vaccination, that's absolutely critical.  And finally, I think we need to develop strategies for addressing unique challenges and factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy during cancer therapy. We need to focus on patient and clinician communication, and very importantly, we need to consider health equity considerations in the development and approach to vaccines in these compromised patients. Brittany Harvey: Definitely, we'll look forward to research and advances in these areas that you've just described to support these guidelines and increase vaccine uptake.  So I want to thank you both so much for your work on this important guideline, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Law and Dr. Taplitz. Dr. Lisa Law: Thank you.  Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.      

Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian and Dr. Mark Robson discuss the new guideline from ASCO and SSO on germline testing in patients with breast cancer. They discuss the framework for which patients should be offered BRCA1/2 testing, and what additional moderate- and high-penetrance genes may be considered for inclusion in germline testing. They highlight key aspects of personal and family history, recommendations surrounding counseling for genetic testing, and the impact for patients and their families. They close the conversation with a discussion of gaps in the research. Read the full guideline, Germline Testing in Patients with Breast Cancer: ASCO-SSO Guideline TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest disclosures in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.23.02225 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. Isabelle Bedrosian from the University of Texas MD Anderson and Dr. Mark Robson from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, co-chairs on “Germline Testing in Patients with Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology – Society of Surgical Oncology Guideline.”  Thank you for being here, Dr. Bedrosian and Dr. Robson. Dr. Mark Robson: My pleasure. Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian: Thank you, Brittany. Brittany Harvey: Then, before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Bedrosian and Dr. Robson, who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes.  So then, to jump into the content of this particular guideline, Dr. Bedrosian, could you give us a general overview of both the scope and the purpose of this guideline? Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian: Yeah, sure. So, in the last decade or so, the whole area of clinical cancer genetics has become incredibly complicated, driven, I think, predominantly by the development of extended gene testing. And in the midst of this complexity, our goal here was to try to give providers a framework through which they can think about the application of germline testing within their patient population. And really, this framework was to help them think through how testing can best be applied to patients that were both newly diagnosed with breast cancer or had a history of breast cancer, and also to help them think through the scope of that testing as well, be it BRCA testing or testing in a more extended fashion that may help inform longer-term decisions such as risk management. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. We appreciate your efforts to provide recommendations in this framework in this complicated space.  So then, I'd like to review the key recommendations of this guideline developed by the expert panel. So first, Dr. Robson, who should be offered BRCA1/2 testing? Dr. Mark Robson: Thank you. I think this is perhaps one of the most important things that comes out of the guideline is that we, and the group, are now recommending that anyone who is either newly diagnosed with breast cancer at or before the age of 65, or if they're over 65 and have suggestive personal or family history criteria, or alternatively, if they are eligible for PARP inhibitor therapy, that they all be offered BRCA1 or BRCA2 testing. And the same would hold for women who had a personal history of breast cancer but were not currently under active treatment if their diagnosis had been made at or before 65 or older than that, with certain criteria then they should be offered testing. This is a much simpler way to look at things than the rather complicated existing criteria, which are perhaps a bit both difficult to remember and unfortunately inadequately sensitive in a setting where there is such critical, both therapeutic and risk management implications to the identification of a BRCA mutation. Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian: Yeah, I would just also add there's one other, albeit a much smaller group of women for whom BRCA testing could be considered, and those are women who develop a second primary breast cancer. That's another group that I think we can think about offering BRCA1/2 testing to. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you both reviewing those recommendations for BRCA1/2 testing.  So, Dr. Bedrosian, which additional genes does the panel recommend including in germline testing? Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian: Yeah. So, in this area, outside of BRCA genes, Brittany, I think the panel didn't make any definitive recommendations or any specific genes that should be tested for. I think the panel felt that the decision to test for additional high penetrance genes and also for some moderate penetrance genes should be guided by the specifics of the individual case, whether the identification of germline mutations makes sense in the context of the patient's personal history and family history. So, in other words, is there a worrisome pattern in the family that might warrant more in-depth testing beyond BRCA, and also considerations around the implications of those test results. Would it change the management for the patient themselves? Either in the treatment of the index malignancy, which, in the case of most of these non-BRCA genes, there really is not changes to the management of the breast cancer that would be offered based on the finding of non-BRCA germline mutations. But potentially, the finding of a non-BRCA germline mutation in a breast cancer patient might help better understand risks of second malignancies that would then be addressed. And certainly for families as well of the patients, identifying those that are carriers could offer opportunities for risk assessment, risk mitigation. Dr. Mark Robson: I totally agree with Dr. Bedrosian. One thing I think it's important to understand is that most commercial testing done in the United States now does involve panels of genes. And the group certainly did not intend to suggest that that practice not continue. So, I think if somebody has a history of breast cancer, I think the panel felt that it would at least be reasonable to test for breast cancer susceptibility genes. However, this issue of do you test for all of the high penetrance genes when the family history doesn't suggest it, was certainly something we left open and we did not want to imply that it was obligatory to test for a large number or large panel of genes that weren't related to the patient's personal and family history. So, in other words, didn't want to imply that it was obligatory to do an extremely large panel just as a target of opportunity, if you will. Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian: I think really a key part of these guidelines was that we wanted to afford the oncologist flexibility. It's very difficult beyond BRCA to be prescriptive. There are so many considerations about testing, and those considerations will be applied differently in every patient context. So, we really wanted to let providers know that while they have to think about these other genes, and oftentimes there'll be good reason to do these other genes as part of the overall germline testing, again, that it's not obligatory to do so. It's not a fixed set that needs to be tested for. And really, the understanding of the patient's personal history, family history, therapeutic goals, and risk assessment goals should be used to determine kind of the ultimate scope of the testing. Brittany Harvey: It sounds like these decisions will be individualized, based on patient characteristics and with working between both patients and their clinicians. So that leads into my next question. But, Dr. Robson, how should patients with breast cancer considering genetic testing be counseled? Dr. Mark Robson: With this recognition and emphasis on the therapeutic implications for patients with breast cancer, both surgical and potentially systemic using PARP inhibitors, the approach has gradually moved away from the concept of testing for personal utility, in other words, just wanting to know, and more towards the idea of this being a clinically useful test that's to some extent necessary for the appropriate management of a fair number of patients. And so the counseling is usually- the pre-test counseling is perhaps more educational than we have used in the past, rather than this extensive discussion of whether or not somebody wants to know. Obviously, it's always the patient's ultimate decision whether or not to be tested, and we have to give them the same elements of education that we would have given back in the day. But it can be delivered in a more didactic type of context rather than necessarily the back and forth that takes place with formal genetic counseling.  Now, for patients who have complicated or extensive family histories or who have histories that may suggest predispositions other than those for breast cancer, the type of thing that Dr. Bedrosian was talking about earlier, they could certainly benefit, again, from a more formal evaluation by a provider experienced in cancer genetics to help select what the scope of the testing should be, for instance, and also to help interpret those results. And certainly anybody who had a pathogenic variant or a likely pathogenic variant identified should be considered for meeting with somebody who's experienced in clinical cancer genetics both to interpret and also to help with family expansion when appropriate.  Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Thank you for reviewing those recommendations from the expert panel. So, Dr. Robson just touched on this a little bit, but Dr. Bedrosian, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients with breast cancer and their families? Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian: Yeah, so from a patient perspective, I think there are two ways that these recommendations can impact care. For those women that are identified as germline carriers, specifically with BRCA, it will open the door for receipt of PARP inhibitors, which are currently recommended for patients that are high-risk primary cancer or those with metastatic disease. The other ways that patients will be affected by a germline testing is really in this idea of second cancer risks. Some of these germline mutations are well established to carry risks of either second primary breast cancer or non-breast malignancies. And understanding those risks will allow the patients and their providers to create management strategies, be they surgical or with more intensified screening that will help them mitigate the effects of that germline-driven risk.  And I think similarly for the families of patients, the ones the proband has identified, I think that family now has a very real opportunity to better understand their cancer risks and again be able to more effectively manage those risks through either surgical or non-surgical means. And it would really underscore the family component of this. I think oftentimes oncologists are very much focused on the patient and admittedly so that is the person that has the most immediate needs. But I think there's a real opportunity to extend efforts at prevention and early detection by identifying the at-risk family members and allowing them the opportunity to access care that mitigates their cancer risks and hopefully will improve survival outcomes in so doing. So, I think the opportunities for families here to understand risks of germline testing is a really important one to underscore from these recommendations. Dr. Mark Robson: Just to expand a little bit on what Dr. Bedrosian was saying, I think this is a very important place for collaboration between the oncology community and the clinical cancer genetics providers because the oncologist is pretty occupied taking care of all of their cancer patients, and the approach to people who are unaffected is a little bit different. People who are unaffected perhaps do need a little bit more pretest counseling to understand the pros and cons of choosing to be tested for the familial mutation. And certainly that idea of family expansion is something that's well known to clinical cancer genetics providers and that's really very much something that they can help the primary oncologists do. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely, these recommendations have impacts beyond just the individual patient, but also for their families as well.  So then, finally, Dr. Robson, what are the outstanding questions regarding germline testing in breast cancer? Dr. Mark Robson: Oh, there are so many. Where should I start? I think over the years we've become, as a community, pretty comfortable managing individuals who have BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. There are certainly some questions left, but there's a lot of familiarity with that. I think the challenges expand into these what we call moderate penetrance genes and how to guide people with alterations in those genes. Because except for PALB2, which is relatively uncommon, many of the other genes don't really have the same implications for therapy because it's not clear that they confer PARP sensitivity. It's not at all clear that they have high risks of contralateral breast cancer. And even in the unaffected setting, we know that there's a wide distribution of risk for people who carry these alterations. And some individuals with these alterations probably are not at increased risk at all because they have protective factors. So the management of breast cancer susceptibility genes beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 is still very much in evolution. They can't be handled exactly the same way as a woman with a BRCA carrier.   And then, of course, this issue of how much should we test and what do we do with some of the alterations that we find, if you will, out of context, what are the implications for that and what's the most appropriate management? Those still remain very much open questions. So I think there's still plenty of work to do. Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian: Yeah, I agree. I think one of the enormous challenges has been the disconnect between how rapidly our technology has advanced and can sequence alterations, and our ability to really understand the biologic and clinical implications, which really is a time-dependent issue. We need to see over time how patients do for us to understand the implications of some of these germline findings. So that disconnect is a very difficult one to bridge, particularly, I think, for surgical oncologists because they are oftentimes referred patients who don't have a cancer history, necessarily, or have a distant history, and really the concern is “I'm at risk and I would like to reduce my risk.” And it becomes very difficult to counsel patients as to the benefits of risk reduction when we don't have such a great handle on the degree to which they are actually at risk. So that really is a significant gap, I think, for surgeons in particular to have to contend with. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. We'll look forward to answering some of those questions as we learn more and get more data to address those gaps.  So I want to thank you both so much for your work to develop this framework for genetic testing in breast cancer, and thank you so much for your time today, Dr. Robson and Dr. Bedrosian. Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian: Thank you, Brittany.  Dr. Mark Robson: Thank you for having us. Brittany Harvey: Thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Dr. Julia Rowland shares the newest evidence-based recommendations from SIO and ASCO on integrative therapies for managing anxiety and depression symptoms in adults with cancer. Listen in to hear recommended options, such as acupuncture, aromatherapy, hypnosis, mindfulness, music therapy, relaxation, reflexology, Tai Chi and/or Qigong, and yoga. Dr. Rowland also discusses therapies the panel investigated but found insufficient evidence to support a recommendation for use in treating anxiety and depression. We also review how this guideline complements the recent ASCO guideline on conventional therapies for managing anxiety and depression, and the impact for patients and clinicians. Read the full guideline, "Integrative Oncology Care of Symptoms of Anxiety and Depression in Adults with Cancer: SIO-ASCO Guideline" at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines. Read the full text of the update and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest disclosures in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.23.00857    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. Julia Rowland from the Smith Center for Healing in the Arts, Co-chair on “Integrative Oncology Care of Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms in Adult Patients with Cancer: Society for Integrative Oncology – American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline.”  Thank you for being here, Dr. Rowland.   Dr. Julia Rowland: Lovely to be here, Brittany. Thanks for this opportunity.  Brittany Harvey: We're glad to have you on.  Then before we discuss this guideline, I'd just 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 the guest on this episode, are available in line 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 jump into the content of this guideline. So Dr. Rowland, what is the purpose of this joint SIO and ASCO guideline?  Dr. Julia Rowland: The purpose of the joint guideline, Brittany, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology is to provide evidence-based recommendations to healthcare providers on integrative approaches to managing anxiety and depression symptoms in their adult cancer patients. By integrative approaches, we mean such interventions as yoga, relaxation, hypnosis, mindfulness, acupuncture, music therapy in treating anxiety and depression. Many of these therapies are already being used by people with cancer both during and after their treatment, with rates increasing over time. While use of integrative interventions can serve to improve quality of life, reduce stress, and provide individuals with a sense of control over their health, and they're often reported by patients as doing just that, it's important to note that for the purpose of this guideline, we examine specifically the ability of these interventions to significantly reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression. Brittany Harvey: Great. And then, as you just mentioned, this guideline covers both anxiety and depression. So then I'd like to review the recommendations made by the expert panel and we'll go in order of those. So starting with those recommendations for anxiety, what integrative therapies are recommended for managing symptoms of anxiety experienced after diagnosis or during active treatment?  Dr. Julia Rowland: The strongest recommendations in the guideline are for the use of mindfulness-based interventions, which include mindfulness-based stress reduction, meditation, and mindful movement. These interventions were recommended across the board to treat both anxiety and depression symptoms in patients in active treatment, and those post-treatment due to the strong evidence to show their benefits to patients. Yoga was also recommended for patients with breast cancer to treat both anxiety and depression symptoms, although the strength of the evidence was moderate. Data was less compelling for its use during or after treatment in other cancers, likely due to the lack of small numbers of non-breast cancer survivors included in study samples. There was also evidence for the use of relaxation, music therapy, and reflexology for treating anxiety symptoms during active treatment, and that the use of hypnosis and aromatherapy using inhalation were of modest to some benefit during diagnostic or treatment procedures. Brittany Harvey: Understood. Thank you for reviewing those recommendations. And you already mentioned a few items that are helpful and recommended for adults with cancer experiencing anxiety post-treatment, but which additional integrative therapies are recommended for this patient population?  Dr. Julia Rowland: In addition to mindfulness-based interventions and yoga, acupuncture, Tai Chi, and/or Qigong, and reflexology are recommended for treating anxiety symptoms post-treatment.  Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Thank you for that summary of recommendations. So then, moving into the recommendations on depression, what does the expert panel recommend for adults with cancer experiencing symptoms of depression?  Dr. Julia Rowland: For depression symptoms during treatment, the panel recommended mindfulness-based interventions, yoga, music therapy, relaxation, and reflexology, while post-treatment mindfulness-based interventions, yoga, and Tai Chi or Qigong were recommended.  Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Thank you for reviewing all the recommendations that the panel put forward. So this guideline reviewed a large breadth of integrative therapies. Are there any therapies that the panel reviewed but couldn't make a recommendation for, for this particular guideline?  Dr. Julia Rowland: Thank you for asking that question because as people listen to this podcast, they may realize that there are some therapies that may be widely used by their population or in their center or clinic, including such things as natural products and supplements, melatonin, healing touch, massage, light therapy, to name a few. Where the panel found in its review of the literature of over 110 studies or systematic reviews, there was insufficient evidence for the vast majority of these to make any conclusive recommendation. It just means we have a lot more work to do in assessing the efficacy of these, especially in treating anxiety and depression.  One intervention stands out in particular that's widely used and that's expressive writing. While this may be very helpful for improving quality of life or making sense of the cancer experience and providing an outlet for self-expression, the data does not support its use for treating anxiety and depression. It may be because it's too brief an intervention for conditions that have more depth and permanence. It doesn't mean you can't use it for other purposes, but the panel did not recommend its use for treating anxiety and depression. Brittany Harvey: Understood. That makes sense that there are some integrative therapies that work across different parts of the treatment spectrum and that there are some areas in which we just don't have the evidence yet. So, thank you for reviewing all of those recommendations.  So then, how does this guideline complement the recently published ASCO Guideline on the Management of Anxiety and Depression in Adult Survivors of Cancer?  Dr. Julia Rowland: That's a terrific question. The recently published ASCO Guideline on Management of Anxiety and Depression in Adult Cancer Survivors represents an update of our original 2014 guideline. The ASCO guideline provided recommendations regarding the use of conventional therapies, psychological, behavioral, and psychopharmacologic interventions for managing anxiety and depression. The current SIO and ASCO guidelines sought to expand upon and essentially complement these recommendations by identifying those integrative therapies that might also be effective in the management of anxiety and depression in adults treated for cancer. Further, the SIO and ASCO guidelines attempted to determine when, in the course of care, during diagnosis and active treatment and/or post-treatment, these interventions worked best. Both sets of recommendations strongly endorse the benefits of mind-body interventions in addressing both anxiety and depression, specifically mindfulness-based interventions in this SIO and ASCO guideline and cognitive, behavioral, behavioral activation, and mindfulness-based stress management programs in the ASCO guideline. Brittany Harvey: It's great to have these complementary guidelines available at the same time for a complete approach to managing anxiety and depression during treatment and post-treatment. So then, in your view, Dr. Rowland, what is the importance of this guideline and how will it impact clinicians and patients with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression? Dr. Julia Rowland: Brittany, cancer takes a significant psychological toll on affected individuals. Research has shown that cancer survivors have a significantly elevated risk of developing mental health disorders compared with the general population. Despite this, their psychological symptoms are often under-recognized and undertreated. As the number of cancer survivors continues to grow, so does the challenge to healthcare providers of meeting their mental health needs. Anxiety and depression symptoms have long been associated with lower quality of life and higher mortality in people with cancer. Treating symptoms of anxiety and depression using evidence-based, integrative therapies has the potential to not only improve patients' quality of life and help them better manage their care but may also improve length of life.  With the publication of this guideline, we now know which therapies could have the biggest impact. An added benefit of incorporating, or at least considering, integrative therapies to manage anxiety and depression are that they have few, if any, side effects, can be readily modified to accommodate individuals with multiple comorbidities, are well received by the majority of patients, and can be received in a variety of settings, including at home and online. Brittany Harvey: Those are key points that you just made. These recommendations are key for improving quality of life for patients, and it's great to have options for patients, including, as you mentioned, at home.   So then finally, what are the outstanding questions for the use of integrative approaches in managing anxiety and depression in patients with cancer? Dr. Julia Rowland: As I look at these new guidelines, both the SIO and ASCO, as well as the renewed ASCO guidelines, perhaps the biggest question raised is how to increase the use of recommended care. And I think there are three parts to this challenge. One critical first part is raising awareness about these guidelines, which it's hoped this podcast will help us achieve. A second, equally critical step, however, is identifying available treatment resources. While most treatment clinics and centers have access to mental health resources in a number of settings, this may be quite limited. Further, it's not clear how many such programs include integrative programs and services.  In addition to the questions about availability, lack of familiarity with some of these therapeutic modalities may leave clinicians reluctant to refer their patients for such care and raise questions for them about how to assess the training and qualifications of integrative care providers and the rigor of the therapy they provide. An important recommendation made by both ASCO and the SIO and ASCO Anxiety and Depression Management Guideline panels is that oncology clinicians should conduct a landscape analysis of who is and what types of programs are available to provide the recommended therapies to their patients. Arguably, not knowing where to refer a patient suffering from anxiety and depression is the most significant area to that patient's receipt of optimal care. The landscape review should include in-house or affiliated mental health providers, integrative program leads if present, local professionals, and organizations offering this care, as well as access to community-wide and national groups providing integrative care remotely via online and telephone. Asking patients themselves who they have seen and found helpful in improving their emotional well-being can also broaden resource lists generated.   A third challenge is how best to identify and refer those patients most in need. Recommendations regarding screening and assessment of anxiety and depression were not within the scope of the SIO and ASCO guidelines. However, in the two published ASCO Guidelines on use of conventional interventions for managing anxiety and depression, both the 2014 original and the updated 2023 revised, the expert panels emphasize the critical need to routinely screen for both anxiety and depression using standardized measures such as the GAD-7 and the PHQ-9.  ASCO's QOPI or Quality Oncology Practice Initiative already includes screening for emotional distress early in the course of care as a key practice standard. Other appropriate times for screening include changes in disease or treatment status, transition to palliative and end-of-life care, and when clinically indicated. Screening is the critical and necessary first step to identification and referral for appropriate and timely care of cancer patients and survivors suffering from anxiety and depression. Figuring out how to do this well and systematically should be a priority for reducing the burden of cancer nationally. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. As you mentioned, screening is critical for identifying patients experiencing anxiety and depression, and I appreciate you reviewing those implementation barriers and how clinicians and practices can work to reduce these barriers and increase the uptake of these recommendations. We'll have some of those resources linked in the guideline also on the ASCO website and in the show notes of this episode.  So I want to thank you so much for your insights on this guideline and for your time today, Dr. Rowland. Dr. Julia Rowland: My pleasure, Brittany. I hope the word gets out and we'll see more uptake of these affected therapies and in broader use. Thank you.  Brittany Harvey: Definitely. That's the goal of all of these guidelines.  I also want to thank all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.  You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the newly redesigned ASCO Guidelines app available for free 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 medical 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. Antonio Wolff and Dr. Kim Allison discuss the latest ASCO-CAP guideline update on HER2 testing in breast cancer. This guideline update affirms previous recommendations, and provides commentary based on data from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial. Dr. Wolff and Dr. Allison review the questions from the oncology and pathology community raised by these results, and provide commentary on patients with HER2 IHC 1+ and 2+ and ISH-negative metastatic breast cancer. Read the guideline update, "Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer: ASCO-CAP Guideline Update" at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest disclosures in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.22.02864   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. Antonio Wolff from Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center and Dr. Kim Allison from Stanford University School of Medicine, co-chairs on ‘Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer: ASCO-CAP Guideline Update'. Thank you for being here, Dr. Wolff and Dr. Allison. Dr. Antonio Wolff: Thank you. Dr. Kim Allison: Thanks for having us.  Brittany Harvey: Then, before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in developing 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 full guideline panel, including our guests on this episode today, are available online with the publication of the guideline and the Journal of Clinical Oncology, linked in the show notes.  So now jumping into the content, to start us off, Dr. Wolff, what prompted the update expert panel to revisit the 2018 ASCO-CAP recommendations on HER2 testing and breast cancer, and what is the scope of this update? Dr. Antonio Wolff: Thank you, Brittany. We appreciate the opportunity of being with you today, and it's great to be here with my colleague, Dr. Kim Allison, as well.   What triggered this informatory update was the release from data in trial DESTINY-Breast04, which tested the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients who in the past would have been considered to have HER2-negative disease. This ADC, trastuzumab deruxtecan, has a topoisomerase inhibitor payload that is linked to the antibody trastuzumab. And in the past, from all the previous data we had, trastuzumab alone, or in combination with chemotherapy, or as part of another antibody-drug conjugate T-DM1 was essentially active in patients with HER2-positive disease, which is traditionally defined as having overexpression of the HER2 protein, which almost by default is a result of gene amplification of the HER2 gene.  And what data from initial studies appear to suggest is that patients who would not be traditionally considered HER2-overexpressed or HER2-amplified were potentially benefiting or having evidence of clinical activity against this disease in the study of metastatic disease. And this was a randomized clinical trial for patients with metastatic breast cancer whose tumors were centrally determined to have IHC 1+ or IHC 2+ expression and would not have been called HER2-positive, would not have been called HER2-overexpressed. And for the tumors that were HER2 2+, they also had to have absence of gene amplification by an in-situ hybridization assay.  And what was very interesting is that there was a meaningful, clinically significant improvement in survival for that patient population. And that has some clinicians to begin asking whether there is a different subset of patients who would have in the past been called as having HER2-negative disease that now could potentially be a candidate for this drug. And is there a difference between these patients and patients who, in the past, would have been called as HER2-negative on the basis of IHC 0? And so what complicated things for us a little bit is that patients with IHC 0 were not eligible for this trial. And what is left unanswered by this clinical trial is whether all patients who don't have HER2 protein overexpression or HER2 gene amplification would potentially have benefited from this drug. Kim? Dr. Kim Allison: Yeah, agree. I think the main impetus for the update was the exciting results from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial and the questions then that the pathology community and the oncology community had about whether this should change HER2 testing guidelines. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate that background on what prompted the panel to revisit this guideline. So then, Dr. Allison, how did the panel come to the conclusion that the previous recommendations are current and valid? Dr. Kim Allison: Right. So, as Antonio mentioned, the whole reason HER2 testing was first initiated was HER2-targeted therapies that showed response in the overexpressed or amplified tested population. And so guidelines have really been fine-tuned and crafted around distinguishing the HER2-positive for over-expression and amplification from negative. And this trial really questioned that in that maybe we can target lower levels of the HER2 protein, but this assay really wasn't designed for that. So we looked at the data from the trial and some of the limited other data that's out there and really came to the conclusion that, look, everyone in DESTINY-Breast04 benefited. The whole population benefited, whether you were 1+ or 2+. And because 0s were excluded from the trial, we don't know if they benefited.  So we thought it was premature to create a new category, a new result category, and change our current reporting to a HER2-low category, mainly because we don't know that there's a new predictive threshold for response to treatment. So essentially, what we've got is a trial that showed great benefit but didn't create a new biomarker that is predictive or prognostic. Instead, it repurposed this older test as a trial entry criteria. And so now we're kind of stuck with 1+ or 2+ ISH negative as their trial entry criteria that gives you eligibility for trastuzumab deruxtecan. So essentially, we reaffirmed our prior recommendations with acknowledgment that what these categories: positive, equivocal, and negative, refer to is for protein overexpression or gene amplification and that we should continue to use the same scoring criteria, 1+, 2+, 0, and interpretation as were used in DESTINY-Breast04 for their clinical trial criteria. But awareness is important.  Dr. Antonio Wolff: Yeah, the other thing that I would add, Brittany, I think we need to go back to what was the purpose of HER2 testing back in 1998 when we identified the survival benefit from trastuzumab in metastatic disease. And then, in 2005, when we had evidence of adjuvant benefit in improving disease-free and then overall survival for patients with early-stage disease. And the immunochemistry assays at that time were developed to differentiate between patients who had HER2 overexpressing disease or HER2 gene amplified disease versus not. At that moment, it was clearly identified that patients were considered as having HER2-positive disease that defined a biological entity, a tumor subtype, a group of patients who had worse prognoses in the absence of therapy. But then when they were treated with, for instance, chemotherapy with anthracyclines at that time, but then with HER2 targeted therapies with antibodies, these patients that otherwise would have a poor prognosis now were having an improved outcome.  HER2 was a marker of poor prognosis but also a marker of a good chance of deriving clinical benefit, so there was a predictive benefit. And everything else, IHC 0, 1 or 2+, ISH-negative, there has been no evidence that targeting the HER2 pathway was clinically important. Or even more meaningful, there was no evidence that these patients have– within the subset of patients that don't have HER2 positive or overexpressing disease - there has been no evidence that those patients have a different outcome based on low levels of expression of HER2. A couple of years ago, in terms of trastuzumab, the NSABP reported findings in the data from NSABP B-47 where the antibody trastuzumab was added to chemotherapy to patients who were considered to have low levels of IHC expression, and in that case, was IHC 1+ or IHC 2+ gene non-amplified. And that settled the issue for sure, that there was absolutely no benefit in the adjuvant setting from the addition of trastuzumab. So we know that there's something different going on here. We know that if you now combine trastuzumab with a specific payload, in this case, the drug deruxtecan, which is a topoisomerase inhibitor, we are potentially targeting the HER2 protein. But these are tumors that are not considered HER2 addicted. These are not tumors whose biology is dependent on the HER2 pathway, so this is simply a better drug delivery.  And in this sense, data and evidence from Michael Press, a pathologist at USC that has done some seminal work with HER2 and HER2 testing, he once proposed that the vast majority of breast cancers have some level of HER2 present. And a lot of what is considered IHC 0 is an artifact related to suppression of the detection of the HER2 protein. So there's a chance that the tumors that are truly HER2 negative or HER2 0 are going to be a very small proportion. And IHC assays were never optimized to measure very low levels of HER2. They just don't have the dynamic range for that. And then, from a clinical standpoint, there is no evidence that different levels of HER2 when, in the absence of overexpression, identify groups of patients that have disease that have a different biologic behavior.  And I think, as Dr. Allison just mentioned, we don't have any evidence from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial that there is a differential benefit between IHC 1+ versus IHC 2+, ISH-negative. Those patients appear to equally benefit from therapy. Brittany Harvey: Understood. That context is helpful in understanding this updated guideline. So then you've both mentioned the category of patients who are HER2 IHC 1+ and 2+, and ISH-negative. So, Dr. Allison, this article includes a special commentary on those patients, those with HER2 IHC 1+ or 2+, and ISH-negative metastatic breast cancer. What are the essential points of this commentary?  Dr. Kim Allison: Yeah. So some of them we've brought up already that this test for HER2 IHC wasn't really designed to detect the low levels of protein expression that may be present in some breast cancers, including the all-important issue that the IHC 0s may not be truly null for HER2, that we may just not be sensitive enough to detect it, or there may be fixation and ischemia, time issues that are very subtle and create a false negative result, essentially by IHC that, and that in addition to not being necessarily predictive or prognostic, the 0 versus 1+ threshold, which really is a threshold that hasn't been tested yet.  But since eligibility for trastuzumab deruxtecan essentially now hinges around that 0 versus 1+ threshold, since these were clinical trial entry criteria, what can pathologists do to make best practice efforts to distinguish 0 from 1+? Because we felt like we should make some helpful recommendations, at least since this does appear to be a current status point that pathologists are going to be struggling with in practice. So the points we come up with in that commentary are to follow best practices, like making sure you're using the standardized ASCO-CAP Guidelines criteria. Making sure you pay attention to pre-analytic conditions of the tissue sample and that you're using controls with a range of protein expression, including 1+, to help ensure you've got an assay that's really looking at the right limit of detection since that has shifted somewhat in this instance.  And then for interpretation side, for pathologists to be sure to look on high power, so discriminating at 40x when you're trying to score a 0 versus 1+ stain since that's now relevant, you're going to need to go on high power and really distinguish from those two. And then, consider a second pathologist review in borderline or challenging cases or perhaps using additional tools. There's some additional tools online. There are learning sets that are out there to help with that distinction. Dr. Antonio Wolff: What I would add to that is that I think, and Kim, I'm thinking of the pathologist now getting phone calls from oncologists saying, “Hey, Doctor Pathologist, you report this cancer as being IHC 0, and are you sure that this is truly IHC 0?” And I think we need to be careful not to put pathologists in an unfair situation. And I think we also need to be careful based on our behavior as oncologists that we could almost cause the extinction of the diagnosis of IHC 0 if pathologists feel somehow compelled to “try to help the oncologists” and potentially call a tumor that they would otherwise have called IHC 0, that they call that tumor IHC 1+.  And I think the reason for being cautious, as Kim mentioned, is these assays were not optimized for the ability to truly distinguish between IHC 0 and 1+. And we do not know if tumors that are IHC 0 clinically behave differently from tumors IHC 1+. Right now, that does not appear to be the case. And I think to a degree, we are being forced, based on the decision by the study sponsors to launch a study that excluded patients of IHC 0. We are left, I often say, twisting ourselves into pretzels, trying to come up with a way to discriminate between IHC 0 and 1+ simply because of the eligibility of the clinical trial and now the resulting FDA label for the study.  Because it is plausible that what if patients who had tumors that were IHC 0 had been included in this clinical trial? And what if we had determined that those patients also benefited from this new exciting antibody-drug conjugate? In that case, we would not be talking about creating new categories of HER2 low versus HER2 “ultra-low” and HER2 0, HER2 null. Because essentially, we would have identified a new clinical use for this exciting antibody-drug conjugate for patients who have tumors that are HER2 not overexpressed and HER2 not amplified. So, in fact, it is entirely plausible that the population of patients that could benefit from this antibody may go well above the original intent of DESTINY-Breast04. We just don't have the evidence at this point to say that those patients who would be called IHC 0 don't benefit. It's just that they were not included in the clinical trial. Brittany Harvey: Well, your points there from both of you lead nicely into my next question, in that you've talked a little bit about how this impacts both oncologists and pathologists. So, Dr. Wolff, what does this guideline and commentary mean for both clinicians and patients with breast cancer? Dr. Antonio Wolff: So I think what I would try to reassure oncologists, pathologists, and also patients and their caregivers and loved ones, over the last 20 years, I think we have seen a meaningful improvement in the quality of HER2 testing. And I think pathologists and oncologists recognize that breast cancer biomarkers, in general, in the past, were used purely for prognostic reasons or to complement anatomic pathology from a diagnostic standpoint. But now, many of these assays, especially ER and HER2, are used as the sole determinant of therapy selection in a binary fashion. If you are positive for ER, you can be a candidate for ER-targeted therapy. If you're positive for HER2, you may be a candidate for HER2-targeted therapy. And I think even though the current generation of IHCs were not equipped to make a differentiation between very low levels of HER2 expression from potentially no levels of HER2 expression, with all the limitations we just said, I think pathologists are today doing a very good job. They understand the importance of the work they do in helping us clinicians take care of patients in the clinic. As I often joke, pathologists are wearing the stethoscope with us. So I think we need to be kind to pathologists and not put them under the microscope, if you will, pun intended, or putting a lot of pressure on them. And I think I tend to trust the quality of the work they do.  I think there are two things that I would like to see happening. Number one, I would love to see the study sponsor allowing investigators to use a new generation of assays that are more quantitative to be able to back on DESTINY-Breast04 and test specimens of the patients that were triggered on the trial and see if there is a differential benefit in the observed outcomes of patients treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan according to levels of HER2, but that can be measured using a truly quantitative assay. And there are a lot of new assays out there. And I think the sponsors, they do have an obligation to all the patients who are participating in the trial to allow those things to happen. And the second piece is obviously to develop assays that are more quantitative than a traditional IHC. And Kim, along these lines, a question that often comes up is what to do with patients who may have had a previous test that was IHC 0. And what should we, I guess, recommend to clinicians that they do with this situation? Dr. Kim Allison: Yeah, I think this is a common question, and because of the unreliability of a 0 versus 1+ result, and we do see them change when you look at metastatic, or core versus primary surgical excision, 0 versus 1+ results shift around much more so than you'd expect if this was a true biologic difference. So I would look at a spectrum of samples across the metastatic progression. So if any of them are not 0, I think that's a result worth looking at. And considering that either there's heterogeneity there potentially or the 0s were false negatives and not consistent over time, so I would test the metastatic sample again. If you have a new sample, if that's 0, I would still consider treating based on a prior 1+ result or a different sample that's metastatic.  Dr. Antonio Wolff: Yeah, the one thing that I haven't done yet is actually for patients who have had– Let's say, that I have a primary term that was IHC 0, and then, they had, unfortunately, metastatic disease, and the diagnostic tissue that confirmed that they had metastatic disease also tested IHC 0. And now they are– unfortunately, disease has progressed after first or second-line therapy, be it anti-estrogen if they had ER-positive disease or chemotherapy if they had ER-negative disease. What I have not done is to request a new biopsy exclusively for the purpose of doing another HER2 test because in case the tumor had changed expression from 0 to 1+. Because what we don't know because of the variability, etc., Dr. Allison was just describing whether that change is real or not.  Again, it's really unfortunate that patients who were IHC 0 were not allowed for this study. There are other studies taking place right now looking at tumors that are more than IHC 0 and less than IHC 1+; that's DESTINY-Breast06. And those patients are being called by the study sponsor as “ultra-low”. Although I am not a pathologist, but I have no idea how a pathologist can truly try using immunohistochemistry today; really reliably differentiate between it's not 0, it's not 1+, it's in between. I am just concerned that I think we may be asking or putting pathologists in a hard spot, asking them to do something with an assay that was not designed to perform that way.  Dr. Kim Allison: Even if we could get the interpretation perfect, to have digital tools to help us with interpretation, I think at that low level, IHC is just really sensitive to pre-analytics and analytic factors that are subtle. Even having a slide that's been sitting unstained for a week or so might change a 1+ to a 0 result. So it really is sensitive, maybe too sensitive, to those kinds of factors.  Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Well, thank you both for those insights on what's facing clinicians and patients and the commonly asked questions today.  So then we've spent a lot of time talking about what's happened recently in this field. But, Dr. Allison, what are the ongoing developments and outstanding questions you're all facing regarding HER2 testing and breast cancer? Dr. Kim Allison: Yeah. I mean, I think we've covered some of those. Is IHC 0 truly 0? Would it be responsive to T-DXd or other antibody-drug conjugates targeting HER2? And so if that is relevant, then there's a lot of work looking at maybe more sensitive or quantitative assays that are really designed to detect those lower levels of expression, unlike the current assays. And then digital image analysis to standardize interpretation if they are leading to differences. And then new standards to help us calibrate.  Brittany Harvey: Great. Well, I want to thank you both so much for all of your work to review and update this guideline on HER2 testing in breast cancer. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Wolff and Dr. Allison.  Dr. Kim Allison: Thanks for having us. Dr. Antonio Wolff: Our pleasure. It's fun. Thank you.  Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline update, go to www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe, so you never miss an episode.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Dr. Angie DeMichele and Dr. Lynn Henry present the latest rapid recommendation impacting two ASCO guidelines. This update focuses on testing for ESR1 mutations in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, and presents treatment recommendations for patients with a detectable ESR1 mutation. Dr. DeMichele and Dr. Henry review the recent data from the EMERALD trial, discuss it's implications for practice, and ongoing developments they're monitoring for more effective therapeutic options. Read the latest update, "Testing for ESR1 Mutations to Guide Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the update and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest disclosures in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2300638  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. Angie DeMichele from University of Pennsylvania, and Dr. Lynn Henry from the University of Michigan, authors on ‘Testing for ESR1 Mutations to Guide Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update'.  Thank you for being here, Dr. DeMichele and Dr. Henry. Dr. Angie DeMichele: It's a pleasure.  Dr. Lynn Henry: Thank you.  Brittany Harvey: Then, before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including our guests on this podcast episode today, are available online with a publication of the rapid recommendation update in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes.  So then, getting into the content of this rapid recommendation first, Dr. Henry, what prompted this rapid update, which provides updated recommendations for two ASCO guidelines? First, the ‘Biomarkers for Systemic Therapy and Metastatic Breast Cancer Guideline', last published in 2022, and the ‘Endocrine Treatment and Targeted Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Guideline', which was last updated in 2021. Dr. Lynn Henry: Thank you, Brittany. There's been a lot of exciting news for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer in the last few years. This particular update reflects the results of the phase III EMERALD trial. This trial compared the new oral selective estrogen receptor degrader, elacestrant, to standard-of-care endocrine therapy with either fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer that had previously progressed during treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor in combination with endocrine therapy. Compared to standard-of-care, in this trial, they showed improved progression-free survival in both the overall study population as well as specifically in the patients who had a detectable ESR1 mutation in their circulating tumor DNA. These findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2022, and the drug was subsequently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in January 2023. Therefore, we felt that it was important to update the guidelines to reflect the results of this trial and the new drug approval.  Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Thank you for describing the results of that trial and the new approval.  So then, based on this data, Dr. DeMichele, what is the updated recommendation from the guideline expert panel for testing for ESR1 mutations?  Dr. Angie DeMichele: So, the guideline panel has now recommended that ESR1 mutation testing occur for any patient who develops a recurrence or progression on endocrine therapy. And this is specifically in reference to the development of ESR1 mutations that can occur after a patient has been exposed to aromatase inhibitors. The guideline itself recommends that this testing be done on either tumor or blood, but blood is preferable because there is increased sensitivity using ctDNA testing over tumor testing. So this was an important component of the change in the recommendation because it's linked to the approval of elacestrant as a therapy. Patients are only eligible to receive elacestrant if they harbor an ESR1 mutation. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate that explanation.   So then, Dr. Henry, following that recommendation for testing, what is the new recommendation for treatment for patients with a detectable ESR1 mutation? Dr. Lynn Henry: Yes. So patients who have a detectable ESR1 mutation and who have previously received treatment with endocrine therapy in combination with the CDK4/6 inhibitor for advanced breast cancer now have multiple treatment options. The newest option is this new drug, elacestrant, which is given 345 milligrams orally daily. There are still the other options that we already knew about, which include a different endocrine therapy alone, such as fulvestrant or an aromatase inhibitor, or possibly an endocrine therapy in combination with a targeted agent, such as alpelisib or everolimus. And those decisions really need to be based on what other mutations are present in the patient's cancer.  Importantly, at this time, there are no safety or efficacy data to support using elacestrant in combination with targeted agents. Therefore, to date, it has only been approved to be used as monotherapy. But really, this is an exciting new potential option for treatment for patients whose tumors have a detectable ESR1 mutation. Brittany Harvey: Yes, this is an exciting option, and I appreciate you describing how this fits in with the existing treatment paradigm for these patients.   So then, Dr. DeMichele, as these new recommendations are implemented, what should clinicians know? Dr. Angie DeMichele: I think this is a really important new step in breast cancer in testing for ESR1 mutations. We've not previously had a medication that required the existence of an ESR1 mutation for patients to be eligible for therapy. So obtaining ESR1 mutation testing may be new for some clinicians. As I stated earlier, this can be done either on a tumor biopsy or on blood testing using the Guardant360 ctDNA test, which is the test that was used in the clinical trial. And it was stated that the ctDNA test is more sensitive than the tumor test. But what's really important here is that the testing occur at the time that the clinician is considering switching therapies, because it's important to find that ESR1 mutation prior to starting the next therapy. ESR1 mutations don't typically exist in a tumor at the time it's diagnosed. They only emerge over time after patients have been exposed to different endocrine therapies, particularly aromatase inhibitors. It's also possible that at the time of a recurrence after aromatase inhibitor therapy or progression on an aromatase inhibitor, there will not be any detectable ESR1 mutation. However, with subsequent therapy, an ESR1 mutation can occur. So a patient may need serial testing over time to determine whether an ESR1 mutation has developed.  Brittany Harvey: Understood. Those are important clinical implications.  So then, Dr. Henry, Dr. DeMichele just described some of the testing implications for patients. But in your view, how does this rapid update impact patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer? Dr. Lynn Henry: So as Dr. DeMichele mentioned, this update specifically highlights approval of a new drug, oral SERD elacestrant. This is an exciting new option for treatment of patients whose tumors have an ESR1 mutation. So previous data have demonstrated that cancers with ESR1 mutations do not respond as well to previously available standard-of-care treatments such as aromatase inhibitors. It's nice to have a drug that may be a better option than some of the previously existing treatments for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. That's great to hear.  So then, finally, Dr. DeMichele, are there ongoing research developments that the panel is monitoring for future updates to these guidelines? Dr. Angie DeMichele: We certainly are monitoring additional research developments, Brittany. Specifically, there are numerous other selective estrogen receptor degraders that are being tested, and these also may ultimately require ESR1 mutation testing and detection for therapies. So we'll be monitoring the results of those clinical trials. We'll also be watching for additional trials that help us understand how to best utilize elacestrant and whether it can be combined with other therapies. And then, finally, I think we have to think about how to place this in the context of other types of molecular changes that we may detect in metastatic breast cancer, such as PIK3CA mutations and others. And as we move forward, I anticipate that we will have additional therapies that are specifically targeted to molecular changes in the tumor. And I think this is a really exciting development because this is a major step forward toward precision medicine, where we're really tailoring the therapy to the specific biology of the patient's tumor and actually responding to the ways in which the tumor is evolving over time and in response to treatment. So as tumors become increasingly resistant to therapies, we can actually take advantage of those resistance mechanisms to develop therapies that will be more effective. Brittany Harvey: Yes, we'll look forward to those new therapies and research developments and then updated guidelines in the future.  So I want to thank you both so much for your work on this rapid recommendation update and for your time today, Dr. DeMichele and Dr. Henry.  Dr. Angie DeMichele: Thank you.  Dr. Lynn Henry: Thank you very much.  Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast. To read the full guidelines, go to www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the newly redesigned ASCO Guidelines app, available for free in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.  The purpose of this Podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Dr. Barbara Andersen delves into the newly updated guideline for management of anxiety and depression in adult survivors of cancer in this ASCO Guidelines podcast episode. This guideline affirms prior guidance regarding screening and assessment of anxiety and depression, and updates evidence-based recommendations for management of both anxiety and depression. Dr. Andersen reviews the principles of the recommended stepped-care model, along with recommended treatments, including options such as cognitive behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, behavioral activation, structured physical activity and exercise, and mindfulness-based stress reduction. Challenges regarding managing anxiety and depression in adult survivors of cancer are also discussed. Read the full guideline update, “Management of Anxiety and Depression in Adult Survivors of Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update” at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest disclosures in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.23.00293. 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. Barbara Andersen from the Ohio State University, lead author on “Management of Anxiety and Depression in Adult Survivors of Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.”  Thank you for being here, Dr. Andersen.  Dr. Barbara Andersen: Thank you. Thank you for the invitation. 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. Andersen on this episode, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes.  So then, to jump into the content of this guideline, Dr. Andersen, what prompted an update to this guideline, and what is the scope of this updated version of the guideline?  Dr. Barbara Andersen: Well, as your listeners probably know, guidelines are routinely updated, primarily due to new accumulated evidence that suggests a change in diagnostic or treatment procedures. The first guideline from ASCO was in 2014. They made this important first step, which alone made that an important advance. The prior scope was on assessment, that is, which measures at what time points were important for assessing patients' depressive or anxiety symptoms. We then provided treatment pathways thereafter, noting currently available evidence for treatment. But a systematic review of the literature wasn't done at that time. So what this guide does is first affirm the prior recommendations regarding the measures to use for assessment, the PHQ-9 and the GAD-7. But the departure for these guidelines is based on a systematic review of the intervention and treatment literature, and from that review, we recommend particular treatments. Brittany Harvey: Understood. So, focusing on that intervention and treatment aspect of this updated guideline, I'd like to review the key recommendations starting with, what are the key general management principles for people with cancer and anxiety and/or depression?  Dr. Barbara Andersen: Well, one key principle is that of education. Your listeners probably are familiar with the fact that many hospitals or centers provide patient-tailored cancer treatment-related information, treatment information on surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and other topics. But we recommend that general first-level materials on coping with stress, anxiety about treatment, and depression be routinely provided as well. What that does is for individuals with elevated symptoms, it validates what they're experiencing and normalizes the patient experience. So we hope that all patients with cancer and any patient-identified caregiver, family member should be offered the information. We have so many ways we can give information to patients these days. Verbally, material, whatever mode is easy for you and the patient, but please choose one to give information to patients.  Another characteristic of the guideline is our recommendation that treatment follow the principle of stepped care. So what this means is you match the assessment of the severity, level of depression or anxiety, and you match that data to the selection of treatment contexts. This is most clearly seen in the recommendation that group treatment formats be used for those with moderate severity of symptoms versus individual or face-to-face therapy for those with severe symptoms. And this is the case for both anxiety and depressive disorders. This is a principle that's cost-effective and tailors the treatment recommendations. Another principle that we offer is when making a referral of a patient for further evaluation or psychological care; we plead with you to make every effort to reduce the barriers and facilitate patient follow-through. We say it's essential because low motivation, for example, is a symptom of depression. And that low motivation and low mood can conspire to reduce the likelihood that patients will pursue treatment. So just keep that in mind when referring patients.  Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Those are key points for general management across anxiety and depression symptoms. So, moving beyond those principles, what are the recommendations from the expert panel for treatment and care options for patients with depressive symptoms?  Dr. Barbara Andersen: For depressive symptoms, we recommend cognitive behavior therapy or cognitive therapy, behavioral activation, psychosocial interventions using empirically supported components, and moderate structured physical activity and exercise. All of those are efficacious, empirically supported treatments for moderate depressive symptoms. And it might be easiest to offer group therapy for individuals with these problems.  Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for reviewing those recommendations for patients with depressive symptoms.  So, in addition, what does the expert panel recommend for treatment and care options for patients with anxiety symptoms?  Dr. Barbara Andersen: Many of the same treatments are used. Cognitive therapy, cognitive behavior therapy are the most efficacious treatments out there for cancer patients or individuals without cancer coping with anxiety symptoms or depressive symptoms. Again, behavioral activation would be useful. Mindfulness-based stress reduction has garnered significant support in the recent years, as well as interpersonal therapy.  Brittany Harvey: Understood. So thank you so much for going through each of those recommendations.  But in your view, Dr. Andersen, what is the importance of this guideline, and how will it impact both clinicians and patients with cancer and symptoms of anxiety and/or depression?  Dr. Barbara Andersen: An important element to this guideline is it names the specific empirically supported standard therapies for treatment of anxiety and depression. There's a departure, though, from our prior guideline, and in this one, pharmacotherapy is not recommended as a first-line treatment, neither alone nor in combination. It's simply not supported by the evidence. However, clinicians might consider pharmacotherapy when there's low or no availability of mental health resources. Perhaps a patient might have responded well to pharmacotherapy in the past, and patients with severe neurovegetative, or agitated symptoms of depression, those patients, as well as patients with psychotic or catatonic features, would be ones for which pharmacotherapy might be appropriate.  Brittany Harvey: Understood. And then you've just mentioned that sometimes there is no or low availability of mental health resources, so that leads to my next question. But what are the both outstanding research questions and challenges regarding managing anxiety and depression in adult survivors of cancer?  Dr. Barbara Andersen: The largest challenge is that we're in the midst of a mental healthcare crisis, and COVID has made that abundantly clear. There are problems with access to psychological care due in part to workforce problems, maybe organizational ones, but there is a shortage of mental health professionals, and that, in turn, limits referral networks from managing depression and anxiety. So that's one significant issue that is in place right now.  Since the 2014 guideline, screening is a care aim that has been disseminated, but the principles and procedures remain to be fully implemented. I was just looking at a 2022 article in the Journal of Oncology Practice. It was a study examining screening for lung and ovarian cancer patients, two very important groups because the frequency of depressive and anxiety symptoms is perhaps highest of any other groups. So they looked at more than 20 CoC-accredited facilities that studied the electronic records to see if there was screening for the patients. And the troubling finding, from my perspective, was that there was no screening for 45% of the patients in this study. So we know that there are disparities in the use of screening and its management. Those disparities exist across race, ethnicity, cancer type, stage, and facilities. And so, that remains a challenge for many sites, including CoC hospitals, to achieve a rigorous screening program. Having said that, I want to say what some might disagree with, but from my standpoint, it's a myth that screening takes a long time. The measures that we recommend probably would take a patient maybe five, maybe ten minutes to complete. But what's time-consuming or what's troublesome in many places is the infrastructure is not in place to do the screening and interpret it in an efficient manner. The other perspective on screening is that it is the effort thereafter, which is, in fact, time and resource intense - that is, finding referral sources, making referrals. But that's the most important step because when that's not done, when patients continue with symptoms, it really incurs the greatest cost for the patients. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Screening and then further management of anxiety and depressive symptoms is key for maintaining quality of life.  So I want to thank you so much, Dr. Andersen, for coming on today and sharing your insights and also for all your work you did to update this guideline.  Dr. Barbara Andersen: Thank you so much. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast.  To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the newly redesigned ASCO Guidelines app, available for free in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe, so you never miss an episode.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.      

Dr. Dwight Owen is back on the ASCO Guidelines podcast, discussing the latest updates to the ASCO living guidelines for stage IV NSCLC. In Part 1, Dr. Owen presents the update for stage IV NSCLC without driver alterations. He reviews new evidence from EMPOWER-Lung3 and POSEIDON and discusses new recommended options for patients with squamous cell carcinoma and non-squamous cell carcinoma, and PD-L1 tumor proportion score 0-49%. Read the update, “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2023.1” and view all recommendations at www.asco.org/living-guidelines. Listen to Part 2 for recommendations for patients with stage IV NSCLC with driver alterations. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/living-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest disclosures in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.23.00282  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 I'd like to welcome back Dr. Dwight Owen from Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, co-chair on ‘Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline Version 2023.1'.   Thank you for being here, Dr. Owen. Dr. Dwight Owen: Thanks for having me, Brittany. Brittany Harvey: Then, before we discuss this update, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Owen on this episode, are available online, with a publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology linked in the show notes.   So then, diving into this update, this living clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer without driver alterations is being updated on a regular basis. What was the new evidence identified by the expert panel through routine literature searches to prompt an update to the recommendations? Dr. Dwight Owen: Yeah. Thanks, Brittany. I think it's really important to point out that these living guidelines are evidence-based. And so, we are constantly reviewing the literature to find new data to support recommendations for treatment options for clinicians to choose for their patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Clinicians these days, and physicians and oncologists are faced with so much information coming from abstracts to press releases to publications of new clinical trial results that it can be sometimes overwhelming to keep track of all the latest breakthroughs and nuances in the literature for non-small cell lung cancer.  So for this specific update, the panel and the committee reviewed two papers, including the EMPOWER Lung-3 Study and the POSEIDON Study. The EMPOWER Lung-3 study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study investigating cemiplimab plus platinum doublet chemotherapy as the first treatment for patients with either locally advanced stage III or stage IV non-small cell lung cancer without either an EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 alteration. And this is a mode of treatment that we've seen before, which is a PD-1 plus chemotherapy or PD-L1 plus chemotherapy compared to a chemotherapy control. And indeed, we did see an improvement in median overall survival in this study with the addition of cemiplimab to chemotherapy of almost 22 months versus 13 months with the placebo. This was accompanied by a higher rate of grade 3 or higher toxicities. But overall, these data were consistent with what we have seen with other studies of checkpoint inhibitor therapy plus chemotherapy in the first-line setting, which is now the current standard of care.  The second study we reviewed was the POSEIDON Study, and this was an open-label phase III study of combination checkpoint inhibitors. So this was PD-L1 plus CTLA-4, durvalumab + tremelimumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, and these patients were metastatic non-small cell lung cancer without EGFR or ALK alterations. The interesting thing about this study is there was a cohort of patients treated with durvalumab plus chemotherapy alone. But it was really the cohort of patients treated with tremelimumab, durvalumab, and chemotherapy who had a significant improvement in median survival of 14 months versus 11.7 months with chemotherapy alone, with a hazard ratio of 0.77. In this study, the tremelimumab was only given for a total of five cycles, so it was not continued during the maintenance phase with durvalumab, which is a slight difference from other combination checkpoint inhibitor therapies, which are approved based on CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA, which is nivolumab + ipilimumab.  So, overall, neither of these two studies present a new paradigm of treatment. But they present new treatment options for patients as a first-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer in the form of either PD1/L1 plus chemotherapy or combined checkpoint inhibitor with a PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 plus chemotherapy, again showing improved survival compared to chemotherapy alone. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you reviewing the details of those two trials. So then, based off this new data from the trials that you mentioned, EMPOWER Lung-3 and POSEIDON, what are the updated recommendations from the expert panel? Dr. Dwight Owen: So we felt it was important to update our prior recommendations for patients, especially with low to intermediate PD-L1 expression from 0% to 49%, that patients may offer cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as an additional treatment option in addition to the recommendations that have already been in place, regardless of histology. And then, based on the POSEIDON data, we felt that this was also a treatment option for those similar patients, especially with PD-L1 negative or up to 49%.  We do feel that the patients with PD-L1 TPS scores of 50% or higher still seem to benefit the most from checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy and multiple studies that have been done there. And so we did not make any changes to the recommendations for those patients with PD-L1 high non-small cell lung cancer.  Brittany Harvey: Understood. And then you just mentioned that neither of these therapies represent a paradigm change for treatment options. So what should clinicians know as they consider these new options in addition to previously recommended therapies? Dr. Dwight Owen: Yes. So I think when clinicians are looking at these studies, things to keep in mind are the size of the study, the cohorts included, the endpoints. The comparison arm, for now, remains chemotherapy alone, which again is no longer the standard of care. So we are sort of looking backwards at a historical standard of care that we no longer really confront other than for patients who have some contraindication to immunotherapy.   The other thing to keep in mind is, of course, when you add more treatments together, you expect more toxicities. And that is certainly the case when we see the dual combined checkpoint inhibitor therapies plus chemotherapy. Regardless of whether it's nivolumab + ipilimumab and chemotherapy or whether it's durvalumab + tremelimumab plus chemotherapy, we do expect a higher rate of toxicities when we do add the CTLA-4 to the PD1/L1 backbone.   And so this is a conversation that's really important to have with your patients. We don't have a head-to-head trial, so we are inferring differences in terms of response and benefit using the same comparison of chemotherapy but from different studies and also different populations. So that is probably one of the more important lessons to take from all of these studies is that we know that the toxicity rate does change depending on how you add therapies for these patients. And we also know that there are patients who may not need that additional therapy. So patient selection is key.   And I think one of the most unmet needs right now is for patients with PD-L1 negative tumors who don't seem to benefit from checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy or even in long term data when checkpoint inhibitor therapy is given just combined with chemotherapy, these patients seem to be the ones who don't benefit as much. And so I think that would be the patient population that really warrants that extra discussion where you may consider a more aggressive treatment depending on a patient's preference in terms of susceptibility, in terms of toxicity. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Considerations of the toxicity profiles of these agents is key for patient quality of life. That leads nicely into my next question, but what do these new recommended therapies mean for patients with stage IV non small cell lung cancer without driver alterations?  Dr. Dwight Owen: Well, I think, of course, it is beneficial to have more treatment options, but when we have more treatment options, the decision can actually become more challenging because how do you select from any of the treatment options that we have? And in the absence of direct head-to-head trials for now, we really need to look at the toxicity data, look at the outcome data, and see how the patient in front of you fits into the studies that have been done in order to make an inference and to have that informed discussion with the patient about what to expect from a specific treatment.   And I think the higher rates of immune toxicities that we see when we use combination checkpoint therapy needs to be a discussion with patients, and also the type of chemotherapy backbone and how long that chemotherapy will be continued. Whether it's two cycles like Checkmate 9LA, whether it's four cycles like POSEIDON, whether we have a non-chemotherapy option to offer patients, these are all nuances that right now lead to a really robust conversation with our patients up front. And really trying to guide patients through these discussions because the information can be so overwhelming when it's given at one time. So, really trying to have that meaningful conversation in a way that the patient can help advocate for themselves in the clinical decision-making.  Brittany Harvey: Definitely, those nuances are important for those individual discussions. So then, finally, you've mentioned that the panel is reviewing literature on an ongoing basis. So, what ongoing developments is this panel monitoring for future updates?  Dr. Dwight Owen: So, I think all of us are very excited about the announcements that we have been hearing, both in terms of press releases, in terms of abstracts at the upcoming ACR meeting, and of course, ASCO later this year, where we expect to have a wealth of new data for patients with non-small cell lung cancer, both in the metastatic setting but also in the early stage setting. And I think one of the challenges for us in this committee and for practicing oncologists every day is the speed at which this information is coming out and making sure that we have time to really review each study and give each study the time needed to understand how it can impact our treatment selection based on what's already an accepted practice and what maybe is something that we should reconsider.  And so I think it's very rewarding work to work with the committee members and the panel and ASCO. But it is also something that we take very seriously, just because data can come out so quickly at varying levels of detail. And we really want to make sure that when we make a guideline recommendation, that we are very clear that it is evidence-based and what that evidence is. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely, we appreciate the panel's evidence-based approach to developing these recommendations.  So, I want to thank you for your time working on this update and for coming on the podcast to speak with me today, Dr. Owen. Dr. Dwight Owen: Thanks very much, Brittany.  Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into ASCO Guidelines podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/living-guidelines.  There's a companion living guideline update on therapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer with driver alterations available there and in the JCO. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the newly redesigned ASCO Guidelines app, available for free 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, experiences, 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. Dwight Owen is back on the ASCO Guidelines podcast, discussing the latest updates to the ASCO living guidelines for stage IV NSCLC. In Part 2, Dr. Owen presents the update for stage IV NSCLC with driver alterations. He reviews new evidence from KRYSTAL-1, and reviews a new recommended option for patients with stage IV NSCLC with a KRAS G12C mutation, adagrasib. Read the update, “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2023.1” and view all recommendations at www.asco.org/living-guidelines. Listen to Part 1 for recommendations for patients with stage IV NSCLC without driver alterations. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/living-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest disclosures in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.23.00281  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 in our last episode, we addressed the living guideline updates for therapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without driver alterations. Dr. Dwight Owen from Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, has joined us again to discuss the updates for therapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer with driver alterations, as a co-chair on ‘Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2023.1'.  Thank you for joining us again, Dr. Owen. Dr. Dwight Owen: Thanks for having me, Brittany. Brittany Harvey: Then, before we discuss this update, I'd just 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. Owen, who's joined us on this episode, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology linked in the show notes.   So then, jumping into the content here, this living clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer with driver alterations is being routinely updated. What new studies were reviewed by the panel to prompt an update to the recommendations?  Dr. Dwight Owen: Yeah. Thank you, Brittany. For this update, the panel and committee felt that it was important to review the KRYSTAL-1 trial. This was a phase I/II open-label study of adagrasib in patients with KRAS G12C mutation-positive solid tumors, which included multiple expansion cohorts, including a cohort of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Importantly, the data that was presented in this recent publication included only patients treated at the phase II dose of 600 milligrams twice daily. The study included 160 patients with a primary endpoint of a response rate, which was evaluated in 112 of those patients. The confirmed response rate was 43%, including one complete response, with the remaining being partial responses. The median progression-free survival was six and a half months, and the median overall survival for this pretreated patient population was approaching one year.  One thing of note is we saw similar toxicities as we have seen with other KRAS G12C inhibitors, which included predominantly GI side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, but also hepatic side effects including transaminitis, some renal dysfunction as well. Dose interruption was common in over 60% of patients, and dose reduction was required in over half of patients. Overall, given the efficacy seen in this cohort, again, even though it was a phase I/II trial, it was a substantial number of patients, and we felt that it met the criteria for us to be able to include this as an additional recommendation in our guidelines. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you reviewing that data. So then, based off this data from KRYSTAL-1, you just mentioned that there's a new recommendation from the panel. So what is this new recommendation for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer with a KRAS G12C mutation? Dr. Dwight Owen: For patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer with KRAS G12C who have received prior treatment with a chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy with a PD-1 therapy, we have added that clinicians and oncologists may consider treatment with adagrasib to our current recommendations for these patients. Brittany Harvey: Great. And then you just mentioned this is an addition onto current recommendations. So what should clinicians know as they implement this updated recommendation, and how does it fit in with those previous recommendations for patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer with a KRAS mutation? Dr. Dwight Owen: That's a really important point, is this is now our second option for these patients, including sotorasib, which many of us have been familiar with so far. Of course, we don't have a head-to-head trial comparing these two, but looking at the efficacy and toxicity data, they do seem quite similar. We have some more data for sotorasib from the CodeBreaK 200 study, which we'll be reviewing in a future update. However, at this point, looking at the monotherapy studies that have been done, the toxicity profiles seem fairly similar, the efficacy profiles seem fairly similar, so we don't yet have a clear differentiator that we can see, again, in the absence of a head study.  The other thing I would note is that the inclusion criteria for these studies, for the most part, excluded patients with active brain metastases, which, unfortunately, is something that we see quite commonly in patients with lung cancer. And although we have seen some case reports and some anecdotal data for CNS activity with these compounds, we're still waiting for defined cohorts, which there were defined cohorts in these studies that included patients with asymptomatic but untreated brain metastases. And I think that will be something that we are actively looking for and looking forward to. Because I think having a better understanding of potential CNS activity of either or both of these compounds would really alleviate a lot of concerns that we have that those patients who really are the patients that we see in clinic were just not represented in the studies that we reviewed to date.  Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate that additional context around these recommendations.  So what does this new therapeutic option mean for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer with a KRAS G12C mutation?  Dr. Dwight Owen: The end result is that we have more treatment options for patients. Again, both of these compounds seem active. There are clearly patients who benefit and, in some cases, for a substantial period of time because of these options, which were not available as of just recently and until the very recent past, KRAS was, of course, considered an undruggable target. So it's really incredible that we have these treatment options and that they're coming to clinic so quickly. I think there are some areas that we still don't understand yet in terms of the sequencing of treatment. Right now, these treatments are only approved as a subsequent treatment. In most of the studies, the vast majority of patients had received both chemotherapy and immunotherapy. We don't really know how that sequence might affect the tolerability or efficacy of the KRAS inhibitors. We do know that toxicity is an issue, and with both agents, dose reductions are frequently utilized to try to assist with tolerability. There is a slight difference in terms of how these are administered, whether it's daily with a higher pill burden versus twice daily.  And so there are some nuances that clinicians can discuss with patients. But again, absent a head-to-head study, it's really important to have a discussion with your patient about what the toxicity profiles of these agents are and what the likelihood of benefit is. And we look forward to seeing more data as these get combined with other therapies and potentially have more insight into the optimal sequence of therapies for patients with KRAS G12C non-small cell lung cancer. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's great to have additional treatment options for patients, and those are key points for discussions about personalized therapeutic regimens. So then, finally, are there emerging therapies or targets that the panel is considering for future living guideline updates?  Dr. Dwight Owen: As I mentioned in the last podcast, the data coming out is happening so quickly that we are working to make sure that the guidelines are as up-to-date as possible based on the most recent published literature where we can actually take time to delve into the data and be transparent about the evidence based from our recommendations. We are very interested in the subsequent studies in the KRAS G12C pathway. I mentioned the CodeBreaK 200 study that we'd be including in a future publication, as well as in some of the emerging data in KRAS non G12C non-small cell lung cancer.  As of now, it's very important to keep in mind that the only inhibitors we have are dependent on the G12C on the cysteine, and therefore those are the only patients that are currently able to benefit from these treatments. But in the future, we hope that that patient cohort becomes expanded, and we continue looking for new therapies for patients with other alterations, including subsequent therapies for EGFR non-small cell lung cancer and, of course, other actionable alterations as well. Brittany Harvey: That's great to hear. We'll look forward to that future research and the review of that evidence by the panel and future guideline updates.  So thank you so much for your work on these updates and thank you for your time today, Dr. Owen.  Dr. Dwight Owen: Thanks very much, Brittany. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/living-guidelines. There's a companion living guideline update on therapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without driver alterations available there and in the JCO. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the newly redesigned ASCO Guidelines app, available for free in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store.  If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and be sure to subscribe, so you never miss an episode.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Dr. Katherine Virgo discusses the latest evidence-based guideline recommendation updates regarding initial management of metastatic prostate cancer based on the new clinical trial results comparing triplet therapies (the addition of darolutamide, abiraterone, or enzalutamide to docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy) to standard of care. Dr. Virgo also discusses cost of treatment options and ongoing research questions in this field. Read the full guideline, “‘Initial Management of Noncastrate Advanced, Recurrent, or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update” 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 disclosures in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.23.00155.  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. Katherine Virgo from Emory University, lead author on the ‘Initial Management of Noncastrate Advanced, Recurrent, or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update'.   Thank you for being here, Dr. Virgo.  Dr. Katherine Virgo: Thank you.  Brittany Harvey: Before we discuss this guideline, I'd just 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. Virgo, are available online with the publication of the guideline update in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes.    So then, getting into the content of this update first, Dr. Virgo, what prompted this update to the initial management of noncastrate advanced, recurrent or metastatic prostate cancer guideline?  Dr. Katherine Virgo: The update is primarily driven by new clinical trial results comparing triplet therapies to standard of care. Triplet therapy here refers to the addition of darolutamide, abiraterone, or enzalutamide to docetaxel plus androgen deprivation therapy for patients with de novo metastatic noncastrate prostate cancer.  Brittany Harvey: Great. And then, based on this, what are the new and updated recommendations from the guideline panel?   Dr. Katherine Virgo: The first updated recommendation adds darolutamide to the list of treatment options as follows: docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide or darolutamide, each when administered with androgen deprivation therapy, represent five separate standards of care for noncastrate metastatic prostate cancer, with the exception of the triplet therapies of docetaxel plus abiraterone plus ADT and docetaxel plus darolutamide plus ADT. The use of any of these agents in any other particular combination or in any particular series cannot yet be recommended.   The second updated recommendation states: for patients with metastatic noncastrate prostate cancer with high volume disease as defined per CHAARTED, who are candidates for treatment with chemotherapy but are unwilling or unable to receive triplet therapy, for example, due to insurance constraints, docetaxel plus ADT should be offered. We add some practical information here. Patients should be made aware that doublet therapy, docetaxel plus ADT, has inferior overall survival compared to triplet therapy, such as abiraterone and prednisone plus docetaxel plus ADT.   Then, I have a few recommendations here with respect to triplet therapy, and these are new. For patients with de novo metastatic noncastrate prostate cancer with high volume disease as defined per CHAARTED who are being offered ADT plus docetaxel chemotherapy, triplet therapy, abiraterone and prednisone plus ADT and docetaxel should be offered per the PEACE-1 trial. Abiraterone and prednisone plus ADT and docetaxel demonstrated significant overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival benefits compared to ADT and docetaxel alone for patients with high volume disease.   Again, we add some practical information. Overall survival data for patients with low volume de novo metastatic noncastrate prostate cancer from the PEACE-1 trial are still too immature to justify recommending abiraterone-based triplet therapy, in other words, abiraterone and prednisone plus ADT and docetaxel, for patients with low volume de novo metastatic noncastrate disease.   A second new recommendation, as opposed to a revised recommendation with respect to triplet therapy, is: for patients with de novo metastatic noncastrate prostate cancer who are being offered ADT plus docetaxel chemotherapy, triplet therapy, darolutamide plus ADT and docetaxel should be offered per the ARASENS trial. Compared to placebo plus ADT and docetaxel, darolutamide plus ADT and docetaxel demonstrated significant overall survival benefits, in addition to significantly longer times to castration-resistant prostate cancer, pain progression, first skeletal event, and initiation of subsequent systemic antineoplastic therapy.   The practical information offered here is that discussion with patients should include the cost of darolutamide treatment compared with other options, such as abiraterone. There was no change to the 2021 recommendation for enzalutamide other than to report long term results from the ENZAMET and ARCHES trials that was not available in 2021. We added similar practical information here with respect to discussing costs of enzalutamide treatment. Discussion with patients should include the cost of enzalutamide treatment compared with other options, such as abiraterone.  Brittany Harvey: Excellent. I appreciate you reviewing those new and updated recommendations from the expert panel along with that practical information.   So then, Dr. Virgo, what should clinicians know as they implement these updated recommendations? And also, in your view, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients with noncastrate metastatic prostate cancer?   Dr. Katherine Virgo: That's a good question. Clearly, cost is a factor for patients, and we felt it was important to emphasize this in the guideline update. In the data supplement to the guideline update, we included a table listing all the agents discussed in the update, as well as the associated pivotal trials, main outcomes, the control group, the cost per cycle of treatment, and the cost for the full treatment course. This should be particularly helpful to clinicians as they discuss treatment options with patients. We also thought it would be helpful to have a visual guide to treatment options that reflects the clinician's decision-making process more directly. So figure one is the result of a group effort to achieve that aim.  Brittany Harvey: Excellent. And there have been a lot of changes in this field that prompted this update, but what are the outstanding questions regarding triplet therapy in the treatment of patients with metastatic noncastrate prostate cancer?   Dr. Katherine Virgo: Well, the burning question is whether docetaxel is really still necessary in the treatment of patients with metastatic noncastrate prostate cancer. No phase III clinical trials have yet compared, for example, androgen deprivation therapy plus darolutamide or androgen deprivation therapy plus abiraterone versus androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel. Also improved overall survival for patients undergoing triplet therapy is largely confined at present to those with high volume disease. So for patients with low-volume disease, clinical trials as yet show no significant benefit of triplet therapy.  Brittany Harvey: Great. Well, then I guess we'll look forward to future trials to determine if that's still appropriate and look for future updates of this guideline.   So I want to thank you so much for your time developing and updating this guideline. And thank you for joining me today, Dr. Virgo.  Dr. Katherine Virgo: Thank you. I appreciate it.   Brittany Harvey:  And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the newly redesigned ASCO Guidelines app, available for free in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe, so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.     

Dr. Scott Tagawa and Dr. Oscar Brouwer come on the ASCO Guidelines podcast to discuss the new EAU-ASCO Collaborative Guidelines on Penile Cancer. These comprehensive guidelines cover pathological assessment of tumour specimens, diagnosis and staging, local treatment of penile carcinoma, radical inguinal lymph node dissection, prophylactic pelvic lymph node dissection, surgical management, neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, systemic and palliative therapies for advanced penile cancer, follow-up, and quality of life. They highlight key recommendations, and describe the importance of a patient-focused and multidisciplinary approach to management of penile cancer. Find more information about the guidelines at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines The full text of the guideline is available at https://uroweb.org/guidelines/penile-cancer    Conflict of interest disclosures: Guideline Working Group  Dr. Scott Tagawa  Dr. Oscar Brouwer TRANSCRIPT 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. Oscar Brouwer from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, and Dr. Scott Tagawa from Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, co-chairs on the ‘ASCO-EAU Collaborative Guidelines on Penile Cancer'.  Thank you for being here, Dr. Brouwer and Dr. Tagawa. Dr. Scott Tagawa: Thanks very much. Dr. Oscar Brouwer: Yeah, thanks for having us. Brittany Harvey: Before we discuss this guideline, I'd just like to note that the guideline was led by the European Association of Urology, and the conflict of interest disclosures of the Guideline Working Group are publicly accessible through the European Association of Urology website linked in the show notes. Additionally, Dr. Brouwer's and Dr. Tagawa's individual disclosures are provided in the show notes of this episode.  So, to jump into the content of this guideline, first, Dr. Tagawa, could you give us a general overview of the purpose and the scope of this collaborative EAU-ASCO Guideline? Dr. Scott Tagawa: So, I think the key word there is collaborative. This was truly a collaborative effort, and I say that in a number of ways. So, the two key organizations, the EAU and ASCO, came together with a Memorandum of Understanding and got together from the very beginning in terms of developing the scope and then throughout the methodology for the guidelines. And then, on a practical basis, I'd say even more importantly, a collaboration between multiple physicians of different disciplines from across the world. Whether we're talking about surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, pathologists, we had panel members from all over the world as well as patient representatives from all over the world. And patient representatives really played a key role in the development of this guideline.  By way of background, penile cancer in most places is considered a rare disease. For example, in the United States, we expect around 2000 cases per year. In the genitourinary world, the next rare cancer is going to be testis cancer, which is going to be four or five times higher than that per year and nowhere near prostate cancer, for instance. So, just kind of put that into perspective. But, importantly, a disease that is a worldwide issue in a number of different ways. That includes the kind of general stigma of being diagnosed with that, the physical and emotional consequences of the diagnosis, as well as treatment. And then, because in part of its rarity, the lack of prospective randomized trials to really guide clinicians and that, I would say, that total package underscores the importance of coming together with a guideline. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for providing that background and perspective.  So then, next, Dr. Brouwer, I'd like to review the key recommendations of this comprehensive guideline. Starting with what are the key recommendations regarding diagnosis and staging of penile cancer? Dr. Oscar Brouwer: First of all, I guess just to underline what my colleague, Dr. Tagawa, just said, it's a worldwide guideline, international, multi-continental. I think that's quite a special thing. But it also poses a few challenges, of course, because cultural differences and treatments may differ, opinions as well, distances that patients have to travel, lots of factors there, and also economy, et cetera, et cetera. So, to find a consensus there has been one of the challenges. I think we did a good job there to really make it accessible to all patients and physicians, of course, in the world.  When talking about diagnosis, I think comparing our new guidelines to old guidelines really emphasizes the new 2022 WHO classification in which distinction between HPV-positive and HPV-negative disease is highlighted. We increasingly have some knowledge on the difference between the HPV-related and the non-HPV-related penile cancers. I'd say it's about 50-50, the distinction. So, 50% is HPV-related, and 50% not HPV-related. But what we know from other cancers, for instance, that HPV-positive disease is associated with better prognosis than HPV-negative. This distinction is not so clear in penile cancer yet. And one of the reasons is just the lack of data, a lack of perspective for large studies, so to say. So, what we're really highlighting and underlining in the new guideline is the importance of doing HPV testing in all patients that have penile cancer, and that tissue is taken from. We chose to go for the cheapest and easiest but reliable methods to do so. So, immunohistochemistry of p16, to be exact. This is one of the important, I think, recommendations, or maybe even more than a recommendation; obligations we set to all physicians treating penile cancer.  So, just in terms of diagnosis and in terms of staging, we all know that lymph node status is the most important factor determining survival. So, finding those lymph nodes, if they are involved with cancer, yes or no. So, if they are metastatic, yes or no, is of crucial importance. This has always been the case, but I think it cannot be emphasized enough. And in this new guideline, we again emphasize the importance of doing surgical lymph node staging in high-risk patients. And what's a little bit new is that we are more or less going to the direction of preferring central node biopsy as the best method to do so. You could also, of course, remove all the lymph nodes, what we call radical lymph node dissection. It's still possible inside our new recommendations, depending on availability of all the techniques or availability of expert centers in proximity. But I think we can all see that in terms of complication rates, central node biopsy is probably superior. So this is also one of the new things in terms of staging.  Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Thank you for those highlights of diagnosis and staging in the guideline.  So, following those recommendations, Dr. Tagawa, and I know this is a large section, but what does the expert panel recommend for disease management of penile cancer? Dr. Scott Tagawa: A single-sentence summary would say a multi-disciplinary approach in an expert center when possible. Re-emphasizing one of the statements that Dr. Brouwer made about sentinel lymph nodes; it appears to be better, but clearly is not available everywhere. And if I just make this US-centric for a minute, just within this country, where there are centers that are able to do it and have that expertise, there are centers that are not so far away that may not be able to do that. So regional differences within a single country that's what happens. So, anyway, multi-disciplinary input, I think, is important for many diseases, including penile cancer. A little bit of a segue, but one part of this guideline of which most of us are proud is that, front and center really, the introductory paragraph of the guidelines, where it really states that we need to really have this disease and the management patient-focused and that includes addressing some of the emotional aspects of the disease. Those are included in the management. But to kind of go through very quickly on a very high level, in the early stages management is mostly in the hands of the urologist. But sometimes there's dermatologists and others, so when there is superficial disease, we talk about superficial therapy and I'm just going to leave it at that, many of them don't have level 1 evidence, but there is, for instance, topical chemotherapy that can be helpful.  And then, as the disease becomes more invasive, so does the treatment. So there's sections on organ or penile sparing that is a reasonable option that needs to be done in a good multi-disciplinary system. That is a good and sometimes a preferred option when there is adequate staging for earlier stage disease. And then the more invasive the disease becomes is when the management needs to become more multi-disciplinary both in terms of workup as well as treatment. Where there is a consideration for, in certain situations, particularly in very locally advanced where it becomes unresectable at least in some eyes, where we say, “Okay, we're actually going to recommend starting off with chemotherapy,” the intent is for surgery with an alternative of chemotherapy and radiation. And currently, there are no head-to-head trials, but those are both reasonable approaches for the most locally advanced disease setting.  Taking a step back, if someone starts off with a little bit less locally advanced, so we'd say the alias, gross resectable, we would at least discuss in a multi-disciplinary setting what are the risk benefits of then post-operative therapy, whether that is radiation or chemotherapy, or both. I think all patients at least deserve the opportunity to have that discussion, and then that would be on an individual basis whether we decide to do that or not. Coming from the medical oncology-centric viewpoint where we really deal with systemic therapy, we don't really have any randomized trials to say that one approach is preferred to another, so they're kind of generic. But it does look like platinum chemotherapy, taxane chemotherapy are the most active current drugs. So when we're looking at multi-agent therapy when the setting is a goal of cure, we're generally saying platinum plus taxane combinations without being specific about doublets or triplets. Triplets when they can handle them, but not everyone can handle them.  And then for metastatic disease whether it's current or at presentation metastatic disease, the old guidelines actually said ‘don't even bother', but now that we have some effective drugs, we would say that for palliative purposes to come in with systemic chemotherapy, the same drugs that we talked about before. And then, there may be additional therapeutic agents. So we're now in the genomic era where there has been at least an initial look at what are the genomics of HPV related, non-HPV related, and there may be some targets, we just are a little bit too early to say that there are absolutely some targets, but there definitely are recommendations for participating in clinical trials. There are some trials that are specific to penile cancer. There are other ones that are non-specific or basket trials. Let's say any disease that has EGFR positivity, a patient with penile cancer may be able to get into that clinical trial or maybe meet a therapy-based trial, so considerations for the trials, I think, are important.  Brittany Harvey: It sounds like multidisciplinary care is a key tenet of this guideline. You mentioned patient-focused care is also key in this guideline. So that leads nicely into my next question. But Dr. Brouwer, what are the key recommendations both for follow-up and quality of life?  Dr. Oscar Brouwer Yeah so we have, like Dr. Tagawa already said, we have quite an elaborate section, not only in the introduction of the guideline but also a separate chapter at the end, really, to acknowledge the psychosocial, sexual impact this disease can have on patients. And again, I think it's more or less a plea for a form of centralized care for such a rare disease. We have a set of recommendations that we give in terms of follow-up and quality of life, and mainly several points that should really be discussed with patients, and support should be offered. So things like psychological sexual help, but also lymphedema therapist, physiotherapy in terms of complication management. And this mainly goes for patients that undergo lymph node surgery or treatment. And in our experience, if you don't see the disease often enough, you don't have all these things in place in your hospital to offer dedicated people that can do this. So I think that's something to consider in the future for healthcare in general when treating rare diseases such as these. But, yeah, like Dr. Tagawa said, our patient representatives have had a big role in this, and we're happy with that. So I recommend everyone to read it. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. You've both mentioned that this is a rare disease. So, in your view, Dr. Tagawa, what is the importance of this guideline, and how will it impact clinicians? Dr. Scott Tagawa: There are certain centers that have high volume and certain countries that will have a high volume. For instance, areas in Brazil have a high volume. Whether there's a high volume or a low volume, like an average center in the United States, there haven't been any recent guidelines out there from any organization. So, the EAU has had an old guideline that was really out of date - updating that, number one. And number two, having the backing of two major organizations in the EAU and ASCO, I think is quite important to get this out there on a true international basis. Because not just in this disease, but in most diseases, when there is standardization of care, there's overall better outcomes, whether it's at the center that sees a lot or the centers that rarely see any. I think this document provides guidance, and, actually, take a step back for those that are interested, on the EAU website will be the entire very comprehensive guideline. So, someone that wants to get a lot of details, it's there, very comprehensive and honestly long, but it's, I think, an excellent reference document. And then, published in European Urology will be the summary guideline that has all the key points of the guidelines and summary in the text that will refer to the overall guideline for someone that wants to get through it on a quicker basis. That will also be published on the ASCO website just to kind of get that out there. A little bit of the side in terms of answering your question is that this is a rare tumor. We want everyone to have access to the best care possible, and if nothing else, it provides guidance in a setting where most clinicians don't have a lot of expertise. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And thank you for highlighting both the summary and full text of the comprehensive guideline. We'll provide those links in the show notes, too, for easy access for any listeners.  And then, finally, you've both mentioned the impact this has for patients. But Dr. Brouwer, in your view, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients with penile cancer?  Dr. Oscar Brouwer: Well, of course, it's our hope that it will be very beneficial for patients around the world. I think it cannot be emphasized enough that this initiative, in which ASCO, in this case United States group, has collaborated with the European one to make an international multi continental guideline, is quite rare, in urological cancers is the first one. I'm not even sure if there are many others like these. I do really believe it makes sense for rare diseases to not have several guidelines. It's confusing which guideline to choose, especially if there are contradictions. So I guess this initiative is the first step towards having more comprehensive, literal guidelines for such a rare disease. And I really do hope that it will help clinicians, especially when they don't have experience treating this disease, to really look at this guideline first. And in turn, of course, I hope that will benefit patients because they'll have, hopefully, access to better quality care that way. And especially, like we already touched upon, also the importance of early access to support and to palliative care throughout the whole disease process. I really hope that is something that will be offered to patients worldwide more frequently now because it is not only about treating the disease itself but also about the consequences, of course. And I really do think that people will benefit from that in terms of quality of life. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I want to thank you both so much for your work on this comprehensive EAU-ASCO Guideline and for talking with me today and sharing your insights, Dr. Brouwer and Dr. Tagawa. Dr. Scott Tagawa:  Thank you very much. It was a pleasure. Dr. Oscar Brouwer: You're welcome. I would just like to add also a short opportunity, maybe just to thank all the panel members because it has been a huge effort. Not only an update, it has been actually rewritten from the ground up. So a lot of panel members, not only from the United States and Europe but also Canada, South America, patient representatives, all the associates that have helped. So it has been a big effort, and I congratulate and thank everyone. And thank you, Brittany, for the interview. Brittany Harvey: Definitely, it was a large group and multidisciplinary effort. So thank you to them as well. And also, thank you to all our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines. I also encourage you to check out the companion episode on this guideline from EAU podcasts, which you can find on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify. You can also find additional ASCO guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe, so you never miss an episode.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    

Dr. Beverly Moy is back on the ASCO Guidelines Podcast to discuss the latest guideline rapid recommendation update regarding sacituzumab govitecan for patients with hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer based on recent evidence published in TROPiCS-02. Dr. Moy reviews how this update intersects with the previous rapid recommendation update on trastuzumab deruxtecan and future areas of research that may impact further updates to this evidence-based guideline. Read the latest update, "Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Endocrine-Pretreated or Hormone Receptor–Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update" at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT 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. Beverly Moy from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, lead author on ‘Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Endocrine-Pretreated or Hormone Receptor–Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update'. Thank you for being here, Dr. Moy. Dr. Beverly Moy: Thank you for having me, Brittany. I'm glad to be here. Brittany Harvey: Then first, 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 full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available in line with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Moy, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic? Dr. Beverly Moy: I do not have any relevant disclosures. Brittany Harvey: It's great to have you back on the podcast. Last we spoke, we were discussing the July 2022 rapid update of this guideline regarding the use of trastuzumab deruxtecan. What prompted the second rapid update to the guideline? Dr. Beverly Moy: Thank you very much for that question, Brittany. The guidelines committee decided to issue another rapid guideline update because of the second interim analysis results of the TROPiCS-02 trial. This trial showed that sacituzumab govitecan had a significant improvement of over three months in overall survival compared to chemotherapy of physician's choice in patients with pretreated metastatic hormone receptor positive and HER2/neu-negative breast cancer. So we felt that the strength of this data compelled the ASCO guideline ommittee to issue yet another update. Brittany Harvey: Understood. So then, based off this strong data that you just mentioned from TROPiCS-02, what is the updated recommendation from the guideline expert panel? Dr. Beverly Moy: So the guidelines expert panel really wanted to get this information out because we felt compelled that clinicians should be aware that sacituzumab govitecan is another treatment option for patients with endocrine-resistant metastatic hormone receptor- positive and HER2-negative breast cancer. So we felt that clinicians may use this drug in patients who have received at least two prior treatments in a metastatic setting. Brittany Harvey: Okay, you just mentioned this is one of several treatment options. So as this new recommendation is implemented, what should clinicians know? Dr. Beverly Moy: So, I think that clinicians really need to be aware that sacituzumab govitecan, which is a newer drug, as an antibody drug conjugate, it really does have a role in patients with metastatic hormone receptor positive, HER2/neu-negative endocrine-refractory breast cancer. I think clinicians have been used to this drug in the setting of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, but the results of theTROPiCS-02 trial would show us that it actually has a lot of efficacy and even an overall survival benefit in patients with metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. So clinicians should be made aware that this is a treatment option that does give an overall survival benefit. Brittany Harvey: Great. It's great to hear that there's an overall survival benefit with this drug. So, in addition to that, how does this rapid update impact patients with hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer? Dr. Beverly Moy: So I think that it's important for clinicians to remember that patients with metastatic hormone receptor-positive HER2/neu-negative breast cancer, the first-line therapies are endocrine therapy and targeted therapies. But when their disease becomes endocrine refractory, we have several treatment options, and usually the standard is sequential single-agent chemotherapy. What this guideline update is telling us is that sacituzumab govitecan, when compared to other treatments of physician's choice, really does improve overall survival and progression-free survival. So it really should be considered. Brittany Harvey:  Excellent. And then finally, are there ongoing research developments that the panel is keeping an eye on for any future updates to this guideline? I know this guideline was last published in 2021 and there's already been two rapid updates to it. Dr. Beverly Moy: Yes, that's a really great question, Brittany, because this is a very active field, and I think that it's important actually to take this guideline update with sacituzumab govitecan in the context of our last guideline update, which, as you said earlier, was with the other antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. That was our last guideline update in patients who had what we call metastatic HER2 low disease, where trastuzumab deruxtecan had a significant overall survival advantage as well. So what these two guideline updates are really pointing out is that there's this new class of drugs, these antibody drug conjugates, that have so much promise and so much activity in metastatic breast cancer, whether it's hormone receptor-positive or hormone receptor-negative. So future research really has to help us clarify how do we sequence these drugs most appropriately now that we have these two very active treatment options that have a significant overall survival advantage. And then research also has to really guide us into the resistance mechanisms that may be in common or not in common with these two antibody drug conjugates. So I think that we're really looking at results of future trials to see how best to sequence them, if they should be used earlier in treatment in the metastatic setting, and we await the results of those trials. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. We'll look forward to those future research developments and work with you and the panel to continuously update these guidelines. So I want to thank you so much for your work leading these guideline rapid recommendation updates, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Moy. Dr. Beverly Moy: Thank you, Brittany, for having me. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Dr. Judith Paice and Dr. Eduardo Bruera discuss the latest evidence-based recommendations from ASCO on the use of opioids in managing cancer-related pain. They review the safe and effective use of opioids, including when clinicians should offer opioids, which opioids should be offered, how opioids should be initiated and titrated, management of opioid-related adverse events, modifying opioid use for patients with specific comorbidities, management of breakthrough pain, and how opioids should be switched. Additionally, they address barriers to care, considerations of health disparities, cost, and patient-clinician communication in achieving optimal pain management. Read the full guideline, “Use of Opioids for Adults with Pain from Cancer or Cancer Treatment: ASCO Guideline” at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT Brittany Harvey: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content, and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today, I'm interviewing Dr. Judith Paice from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois and Dr. Eduardo Bruera from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, co-chairs on “Use of Opioids for Adults with Pain from Cancer or Cancer Treatment: ASCO Guideline.” Thank you for being here, Dr. Paice and Dr. Bruera. Dr. Judith Paice: Thank you. Dr. Eduardo Bruera: Thank you for having us. Brittany Harvey:  First, 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 full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Paice, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic? Dr. Judith Paice: I have no relevant disclosures. Brittany Harvey:  Thank you. And then Dr. Bruera, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic? Dr. Eduardo Bruera: Regrettably, I don't. Brittany Harvey: Great. Then getting into the content of this guideline, to start us off, Dr. Paice, can you provide an overview of the purpose and the scope of this guideline? Dr. Judith Paice: The use of opioids has become so complicated, so controversial, and just so associated with so much stigma that we wanted to provide oncology clinicians some guidance about safe and effective use of opioids. We wanted to help people be aware of the current literature, and so we conducted a systematic review and identified randomized controlled clinical trials and other systematic reviews. And we found that there were 31 systematic reviews in 16 RCTs. We carefully reviewed all of these literature and all of these studies, and our expert panel met via the web and via numerous conference calls and emails, and we came to consensus regarding these recommendations related to the use of opioids for people with cancer. Brittany Harvey: Great. Sounds like there was a lot of effort that went into developing this and to tackle an important topic. So, then Dr. Bruera, I'd like to review the key recommendations of this guideline for our listeners. This guideline addresses seven different clinical questions. So, let's review these questions starting with; in what circumstances should opioids be offered? Dr. Eduardo Bruera: That's a very important point because the reality is that although opioids have been around for more than 300 years in different modalities, they continue to be the mainstay of care of patients with severe pain. So, it's very important to try to figure out in the clinical practice why the patient has a pain syndrome. But in the great majority of patients who have pain that is due to the presence of the primary cancer or metastatic disease. And also, in the vast majority of patients who develop severe complications from treatment such as mucositis from radiation and chemotherapy, an opioid will be needed. And the oncologist and the oncology clinician is in perfect conditions to safely prescribe that opioid so the patient can achieve fast relief of their pain. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for that explanation. So, then the next clinical question that the panel addressed, Dr. Paice, which opioids does the panel recommend clinicians should offer? Dr. Judith Paice:  Yeah, thank you. This is a really important question, one that gets asked all of the time, and yet, the data are insufficient to really suggest that there is one preferred opioid over another. So, a patient with moderate to severe cancer-related pain is a candidate for any of the approved medications either approved by the FDA or because our audience also includes international experts, other regulatory agencies for pain treatment. We did call out a couple agents for which there is some concern or for issues where they are less than desirable in some settings. So, one of those drugs is tramadol. And our rationale for identifying tramadol as a potential agent of concern is that it's a prodrug. It has a threshold, a ceiling unlike most of the other opioids, and that threshold is pretty low for neurotoxicity, which is of particular concern in the person with cancer. And it also, has a significant amount of drug-drug interactions. So, we were concerned about tramadol, even though it is an agent that many, many people are using, in part, because it is a lower schedule on the controlled substance scheduling system, and there's a perception that it is less potent, and it is less potent. The other drug that we call out is codeine. And our rationale for identifying it as an agent that may be of difficulty in certain populations of patients, is that it is also a prodrug and it is metabolized through the cytochrome P450 system, particularly through the isoenzyme CYP2D6. And that's what allows codeine to be metabolized to morphine, which allows it to be analgesic. The challenge is there are some individuals who are poor metabolizers, and so they will not receive an analgesic effect. And then there are others who are ultra-rapid metabolizers, and they may actually experience a greater prevalence of adverse effects. So, for those reasons, we call out tramadol and codeine. Now, we don't call out methadone as an agent that we're concerned about in terms of not being desirable. It is an agent that has a role in cancer pain management. However, we do caution clinicians that it is a complex drug to use. And so, as result, people should obtain some guidance either from their palliative care program, their supportive care program, pain experts, or pharmacists, whomever can assist them in the dosing associated with this really important, but somewhat complicated drug to use. Brittany Harvey: Understood. And I appreciate you reviewing where there's a lack of evidence and where there is evidence in identifying those potential agents of concern or where clinicians need to seek other expertise in this area. So, then following those recommendations, after identifying patients who should be offered opioids, Dr. Bruera, how should opioids be initiated and titrated? Dr. Eduardo Bruera: One possible way to do this is to give the patient an immediate release opioid. That could be a combination of hydrocodone with acetaminophen, a combination of other opioids or a straight strong opioid in a low concentration. And ideally, we suggest that you use it as needed for the first few days and see if the patient needs to take it frequently. And there is a magic number around 30 milligrams of morphine equivalent per day. Once the patient needs to take that opioid on a more frequent basis and gets through that threshold of needing about five, six tablets a day of immediate release opioid, then it might be necessary to start a regular opioid that is to stay on top of the pain. And the way we do that are two ways; if the patient can afford it and insurance covers it, an extended release opioid is a wonderful option, because then, the patient can take the opioid a couple of times a day or put a patch for three days and they're going to be comfortable. But if that is not an option, taking the immediate release opioid around the clock, not anymore as needed. But now, around the clock, will maintain that blood level and allow the patient to have less episodes of breakthrough pain. An important thing to remember is that whether we decide to go with the extended release opioid or immediate release, it's nice to tell the patient that there might be moments in which the pain might break through. And so, giving that extra prescription and advice might help if there are moments in which the patient might break through. Brittany Harvey: Understood. And then the next clinical question that the guideline panel addressed, Dr. Paice, how should opioid-related adverse events be prevented or managed? Dr. Judith Paice: So, Brittany, I'm glad you asked me that question because I am called the pain and the poop nurse in the clinic, and it is so important whenever we can to prevent the adverse effects of opioids, and constipation is one where we can implement some preventive measures, and then treat unfortunately if your measures have not been totally effective. But we wanted to address the gamut of potential adverse effects. So, we included not only constipation, but delirium, endocrinopathies, sedation, nausea, vomiting, itching, and urinary retention. And we've included a table with very specific suggestions about how to prevent in some cases, and how to manage these adverse effects. Again, we wanted to make this document of the most use for all oncology clinicians who might be prescribing opioids for people with cancer. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And that's key to maintaining quality of life for patients. So, then Dr. Bruera, what does the panel recommend regarding modifying opioid use in patients with either renal or hepatic impairment? Dr. Eduardo Bruera: That's a great question, Brittany, and I think we have some evidence that some opioids are particularly desirable when the patient has renal dysfunction. One of the ones that comes to mind is methadone because it has almost no major renal elimination, and therefore, that might be a wonderful option. One of the challenges is that changing from one opioid to another sometimes is a little bit more complex than maintaining the opioid that is being used. And so, in absence of a major and fast deterioration, one option is to carefully titrate the dose of the opioid we're using to reduce the risk of accumulation in a given patient. There are some opioids that have traditionally been associated with a little bit more accumulation in cases of renal failure and traditionally, morphine is included, but there are other opioid agonists that also produce metabolites that are massively eliminated by urine that might be a little bit less desirable in patients with renal failure. With regards to liver failure, it's very hard to find a complete consensus about the opioids that are less desirable or potentially more desirable. And we could say that careful titration is important. But the one that was so good for renal failure might be the one you might not want to use for liver failure, and that would be methadone, because a vast majority of its metabolism happens in liver. So, I think cautious individualized titration might be a nice recommendation to our patients. And perhaps, the most important thing is that there might be a little bit of renal failure or liver failure, but it's very, very important that we maintain the opioid therapy, that we don't give up on the opioids. Brittany Harvey: Yes, those are important clinical considerations for individualized patient care. So, then Dr. Paice, Dr. Bruera touched on this a little bit earlier, but what are the recommendations regarding management of breakthrough pain? Dr. Judith Paice: So, breakthrough pain is very common in the person with cancer. We see this when the individual has bony metastases and they place pressure on that limb or joint. And the patient who's normally well-controlled with either a regularly scheduled immediate release agent or a long-acting agent, now experiences what we call breakthrough. And that's probably the most common type of breakthrough pain. There are also other breakthrough pains where the short-acting agent that's given regularly doesn't provide the relief that lasts four hours or six hours. Or similarly, if a long-acting agent is given every 12 hours, we may see that the pain breaks through prior to the next dose. But for that patient who requires breakthrough medication, unfortunately, the literature does not reveal that one agent is superior to another. So, any immediate release opioid that's appropriate for that patient can be used for breakthrough-related pain. Now, a common clinical conundrum is - which dose? What's the correct dose for the breakthrough medication? And again, the literature has a wide range of appropriate doses, and our committee established a range of 5 to 20% of the daily regular oral morphine equivalent daily dose. And our rationale for that was that you really cannot come up with one figure. Every patient is different. So, on average it's somewhere around 10%, but the range is five to 20% of the daily regular morphine equivalency. And so, what you need to do as you're examining the patient and exploring their needs is to look at the patient's frailty, the patient's pain, of course, their function when these breakthrough episodes occur. What about the comorbid kinds of organ dysfunction that Eduardo just spoke about? So, all of those other factors need to be considered when selecting the appropriate opioid for the breakthrough as well as the appropriate starting dose. Brittany Harvey: Definitely, it's important to consider all of those factors that you just mentioned. So, then the last clinical question that the panel addressed, Dr. Bruera, when and how should opioids be switched or rotated? Dr. Eduardo Bruera: Thank you, Brittany. This is a hugely important issue because for many, many years, we believe that since opioids stimulated an opioid Mu receptor, and they all had a similar effect, there will be limited rationale for changing. The answer to increasing pain was what we call opioid dose escalation. Just give more of the same. And we realized that that had serious limitations. And one of them is the development of side effects. And a lot of those side effects are neurotoxic side effects. Patients get unduly sedated, get hyperalgesia, paradoxical increase in pain due to active metabolites and changes in their receptors, and they also get sometimes myoclonus, hallucinations, confusion. And so, there are moments in which the side effects require us to say, okay, this opioid has done a good job for a while, but now, we have to change. And so, changing can be done due to side effects. But also, sometimes, since we're all different and there's a lot of interpersonal variation in response — as some patients may just not be controlled, their pain syndrome might not be controlled well-enough with one type of opioid because we know there are multiple sub-Mu receptors, and they might really benefit from another. So, the two main reasons are the development of toxicity to the opioid that so far was working reasonably well. And the second is failure, inability to control the pain, and in that case, going cautiously respecting the fact that there is limited cross-tolerance so that the dose of one opioid is not always exactly equivalent to the dose of the other opioid that you find in the actual tables that are published around is necessary to understand that that's a general guideline. But the most important thing is to go progressively and monitor your patient frequently when you change from one opioid agonist to another opioid agonist. There is limited understanding in the literature about the exact equianalgesic dosing. And because of that, a new guideline is being produced that addresses opioid rotation and deals exactly with trying to find out consensus from all the different existing tables on how to change what is the dose that is most likely to be appropriate when you move from one opioid, for example, morphine to hydromorphone or to fentanyl, or to oxycodone or vice versa. We dealt with great trepidation to give all our oncology clinicians some kind of a fixed table, but the evidence is unfortunately not there at this point. It is sad because these medications are not that new, but the evidence unfortunately, is not there. And that's why I think what we can tell you is go through your guidelines, use in a very careful monitoring of your patient to see if the dose you're giving is clearly not enough or it's a little bit too much. And you will learn that very rapidly — in a couple of days, you'll learn if you're doing okay or if you're doing too much or not enough. And stay tuned because hopefully, very soon, ASCO, together with MASCC and a couple of other organizations will provide you with a little bit more evidence around this. Brittany Harvey: Definitely, we'll look forward to that future guideline on opioid conversion tables as it is a confusing and complicated area, but it sounds like a lot of these recommendations are about providing individualized care for your patients. So, I want to thank you both for reviewing all of those recommendations that the panel came up with. So, then Dr. Paice, what does this guideline mean for both clinicians and for patients with pain from cancer or their cancer treatment? Dr. Judith Paice: Well, speaking on behalf of the panel, our wish is that this will improve the management of cancer-related pain, that people will feel more comfortable in safe and effective use of these agents, and they'll be used more effectively. There are other barriers that we've addressed, in addition to all of these recommendations. We talk about the care of people who have multiple chronic conditions. We address the disparities that we see in cancer pain management, and we talk about cost as another consideration, as one is developing a treatment plan for patients. We also address the patient-clinician communication that is so essential. This is definitely a team effort, and we guide our clinicians and offer for patients the need to have clear communication, open dialogue throughout the development of a treatment plan, and then throughout the course of treatment while we reassess whether the plan has been effective. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And it's really key what you just said about the safe and effective use of opioids for patients. So, then finally, Dr. Bruera, you've both mentioned this throughout our conversation today, where the literature is either inconclusive or evidence is insufficient. So, what are the outstanding questions about the use of opioids for pain from cancer or cancer therapies? Dr. Eduardo Bruera: I think there are questions that relate to the relative lack of specificity of the opioids for the different receptor pathways, and there are very likely considerable differences because they're chemically quite different, but they're considerable differences. But we have not done an awful lot of the head on comparisons that would be so wonderful to do. And I think we need more studies comparing the different existing medications, and more importantly, we need a lot of translational work to get to specific areas. Wouldn't it be fantastic if we were able to stimulate the Mu receptor all along the nociceptive pathway to reduce nociceptive input, but avoid completely the limbic system and avoid those Mu receptors in the area where reward is going to happen, an anti-reward and the possibility of developing non-medical use and eventually, opioid use disorder. That would be, to me, the corollary, the ability to dissociate those receptors along the nociceptive pathway from those receptors in the areas where we would like our opioids to not go, but we cannot avoid it because they're a bit dummy drugs. And so, hopefully, getting smarter opioids would be wonderful. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Well, I want to thank you both so much for your work developing this guideline, addressing these important questions for optimal pain management in patients with cancer. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Paice and Dr. Bruera. Dr.  Judith Paice: Thank you. Dr. Eduardo Bruera:Thank you so much. Brittany Harvey:And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/supportive-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in iTunes 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. Voiceover: 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.  

An interview with Dr. Van Morris from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX and Dr. Cathy Eng from Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, TN, co-chairs on "Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Guideline." Dr. Morris and Dr. Eng review the evidence-based recommendations from the guideline, focusing on areas of uncertainty in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, and highlighting the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration and shared decision-making between patients and clinicians. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.   TRANSCRIPT Brittany Harvey: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network; a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at: asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Van Morris, from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, and Dr. Cathy Eng from Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tennessee - co-chairs on, 'Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer, ASCO Guideline.' Thank you for being here, Dr. Morris, and Dr. Eng. Dr. Cathy Eng: Thank you. Dr. Van Morris: Thank you. Brittany Harvey: First. 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 full Conflict of Interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Morris, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to the guideline topic? Dr. Van Morris: Not personally, but I do have research support to my institution from Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb who have products that I'll be discussing on this podcast. Brittany Harvey: Thank you, Dr. Morris. And Dr. Eng, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic? Dr. Cathy Eng: Also, not personally associated with any honorarium specific to this topic. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you both. So then, let's talk about the content of this guideline. So first, Dr. Morris, can you provide an overview of the scope of this guideline? Dr. Van Morris: Sure. So colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. And especially in the time of the recent COVID-19 pandemic with people less likely to go for screening colonoscopies, there's great concern that more and more patients will be presenting at the time of their initial diagnosis with later-stage, more advanced colorectal cancer. So with that said, research is moving very quickly for the benefit of patients with colorectal cancer, and we were interested in assembling a multidisciplinary team that consisted of medical oncologists, surgical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists as well, to help us make guidelines that really summarize the most relevant up-to-date practices, based on rigorous literature review for treatment recommendations for advanced metastatic colorectal cancer. Brittany Harvey: Great. And then as you just mentioned, this guideline provides recommendations, and a lot of those focus on areas of uncertainty in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. And I'd like to review those key recommendations that you mentioned for our listeners. So, Dr. Eng, starting with - for patients with previously untreated, initially unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer, who are candidates for chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, is doublet or triplet cytotoxic chemotherapy recommended? Dr. Cathy Eng: For treatment-naive patients, bevacizumab has been approved, and we do agree that it's a very reasonable treatment option with doublet or triplet therapy for our patient population. Obviously, these are guidelines, and it's extremely important to keep in mind that as a provider, you need to discuss the potential side effects with the patient. With bevacizumab, you know, standard concerns must be discussed with the patient, especially in regards to wound healing, if they've had recent surgery or any potential risk factors for a recent cardiac event from a recent thrombosis. So, those things obviously, would preclude the patient from initiating treatment with bevacizumab. But currently, doublet therapy or triplet therapy could be a potential option for patients. Brittany Harvey: Great. And yes, as you mentioned, shared decision-making is paramount to these decisions. So then following that recommendation, Dr. Morris, which patients should be offered pembrolizumab in the first-line setting? Dr. Van Morris: Yeah. So, I think that this represents really one of the exciting advances in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer over the past several years. We have great data now that suggests for patients with microsatellite instability-high metastatic colorectal cancer, especially who have not had any prior treatment, we would recommend use of immune checkpoint blockade therapies, really coming from the seminal KEYNOTE-177 trial. This was a phase III international trial that looked at patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. And patients were either randomized to pembrolizumab monotherapy, or cytotoxic chemotherapy with FOLFOX, with or without bevacizumab. And this trial did meet its primary endpoint and showed an improvement in progression-free survival, with use of pembrolizumab as a single agent relative to cytotoxic chemotherapy. And based on this trial and the clear benefit that we see in patients with pembrolizumab, the FDA has approved this as an option for patients with MSI-high untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. There are other trials which have looked at use of immunotherapy; the CheckMate 142 trial looked at combination PD-1 CTLA-4 therapy as a single-arm study. And, you know, there's another trial, the CheckMate 8HW, which is looking at one versus two immunotherapy agents in this setting as well. But really, as it stands for now, patients with MSI-high untreated metastatic colorectal cancer are the ones who benefit from the use of immunotherapy. One of the questions that we often get in talking with other clinical oncologists is the FDA approval for pembrolizumab in any cancer type for a TMB, tumor mutation burden, greater than 10. And, we talked about this with our panel in this context, and we don't see that patients with microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer, who have a tumor mutation burden over 10 benefit from use of immunotherapy. There is one exception to this for patients who harbor pathogenic POLE or POLD1 mutations, these patients oftentimes do experience sustained clinical benefit with immunotherapy. But in general, patients with microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer, who don't have POLE/POLD1 mutations, we don't favor use of immunotherapy in that context at this point in time. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for reviewing that recommendation and the data behind who benefits and who doesn't benefit from immunotherapy in this setting. So then following that, the next question that this guideline addressed is for treatment-naive RAS-wild type metastatic colorectal cancer. So, for these patients, Dr. Eng, is anti-EGFR therapy recommended for patients with right or left sided primary tumors? Dr. Cathy Eng: That is such an important question, and thank you for asking this. We know based upon pivotal data from CALGB/SWOG 80405, that right-sided tumors treatment-naive, even if they're RAS-wild type, these patients should not receive anti-EGFR therapy. But also, we've learned from 80405, FIRE-3, and PEAK, which was a phase two study, that there appeared to be some benefit versus anti-VEGF therapy for left-sided tumors based upon studies that have been conducted. So, at this year's ASCO, actually, the PARADIGM trial was specifically a phase III trial, more focused on left-sided tumors. It was amended twice before it decided to focus on the left-sided patient population. And it was a phase III study where patients were randomized to FOLFOX plus panitumumab versus FOLFOX and bevacizumab. And the primary endpoint was overall survival. And we added this data to our guidelines. This data just came out, hot off the presses in June, at this year's ASCO. And the primary endpoint was fulfilled. And basically, it prospectively demonstrated that the data from the other three trials, based upon a pooled analysis, suggested left-sided tumors fare better with anti-EGFR therapy. And in fact, the PARADIGM trial basically validated those findings. Obviously, the PARADIGM trial just recently presented, we have not seen the final publication, we do not know much about the maintenance setting, but specifically, when thinking about anti-EGFR therapy, it is very reasonable to consider it in a left-sided tumor, all RAS-wild type patient population. I would like to mention though, and we do highlight this also in the guidelines, which is critically important, is that there was another study, which is a phase III trial called, TRIPLETE, that was presented as well, looking at FOLFOXIRI plus panitumumab versus basically, standard treatment. And what it noted is that there is no additional benefit for FOLFOXIRI plus panitumumab in left-sided tumors in regards to response or progression-free survival, there was no additional benefit. So, FOLFOX plus panitumumab seems very reasonable, FOLFOXIRI plus panitumumab is not necessarily needed in left-sided tumors. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for that explanation, and also for the work of the panel to rapidly include this new information recently presented at ASCO. So then following those recommendations, Dr. Morris, what recommendation did the panel make for patients with previously-treated metastatic colorectal cancer with a BRAF V600E mutation? Dr. Van Morris: Yeah. So, this recommendation was made essentially based on one randomized phase III clinical trial, which reported out about three years ago now, the BEACON trial. This is looking at patients with BRAF V600E mutated metastatic colorectal cancer, which we know accounts for probably eight to 10% of all patients with advanced colorectal cancer, and when found, really harbors a poor prognosis relative to BRAF-wild type counterparts. So, the BEACON trial was a trial that looked at patients with previously-treated metastatic colorectal cancer, who have BRAF mutations, either kind of standard of care cytotoxic chemotherapy, or a BRAF/EGFR combination with encorafenib and cetuximab or alternatively, a BRAF/EGFR/MEK combination. That trial showed that improvement in survival outcomes with a BRAF/EGFR-targeted approach, as well as the BRAF/MEK/EGFR. However, because there was no difference in survival with the addition of the MEK inhibitor, the FDA subsequently approved encorafenib and cetuximab as the recommended treatment for patients with BRAF V600E previously-treated metastatic colorectal cancer. Because the MEK combination with binimetinib was not recommended by the FDA, you know, we did not include that analysis in our guidelines for ASCO. But as it stands right now, we do strongly encourage all clinicians to check for their BRAF V600E mutation status in their patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, with the goal of getting them to a targeted therapy approach over their treatment course. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for providing that information. So, following that, Dr. Eng, what are the recommendations for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases? Dr. Cathy Eng: The current recommendations for colorectal cancer with peritoneal disease, really, there's no strong evidence to support the role of heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy. We now know based upon the literature from one of the largest studies to date, the PRODIGE data, demonstrating that there may be some potential benefit from cytoreductive surgery for the patients in regards to overall survival. But these patients are at high risk for bowel obstruction, potentially for perforation, and obviously, quality of life is an issue. So, these patients should always be discussed in a multidisciplinary tumor board whenever possible, and hopefully, to meet with a surgeon that is more experienced, specifically, in treating peritoneal disease, because these patients do require a lot of multidisciplinary care and discussion. So currently, based upon the existing data, we don't recommend heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy, but there may be a role for cytoreductive surgery. Brittany Harvey: Thank you, Dr. Eng for going over those recommendations. So then following that, Dr. Morris, for patients with unresectable liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer, which liver-directed therapies are recommended? Dr. Van Morris: So, this is I think a really good question and one that just like the prior question with regards to peritoneal surgery, is one that we felt was a challenging one, but a common one that we wanted to address. And specifically, I think this is an example of where level of evidence comes into the strength of recommendation. So, for patients with unresectable liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer, we looked at the questions of, "What is the role of SBRT - stereotactic body radiotherapy, and what is the role of SIRT, which is selective internal radiotherapy?" And for both of these, we felt that the level of evidence was weak, and I think that it's very important to make note of that in assessing the recommendations. But to start with, for SBRT, we looked at one meta-analysis for patients with oligometastatic colorectal cancer, and also analyzed 18 non-randomized control trials in this setting. Most of the patients in these studies had one to five liver metastases, with the majority having one or two liver metastases. From the meta-analysis, we saw kind of a one-year local control rate of around 67%, a two-year control rate of 59%. So, based on those and recognizing the limitations of non-randomized trials and making recommendations, the panel did feel that it was reasonable to consider use of SBRT for oligometastatic colorectal cancer. The SABR-COMET trial is one that had looked at the role of radiotherapy for treatment of oligometastatic colorectal cancer, and I just want to make the point as well, that we did not include that in our analysis or recommendations at this point in time, because this really didn't include a lot of patients with colorectal cancer that we felt warranted inclusion. Now, with regards to SIRT, we looked at kind of one meta-analysis and three randomized control trials for patients with mostly liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer. All patients had liver disease, but there were about 40% of the patients we looked at in the meta-analysis, had extra hepatic disease as well. In the frontline setting, there really was no difference in progression-free survival or overall survival with the use of SIRT. And more recently, we've seen in a second-line trial, it was called the EPOCH trial, reported several years ago, this looked at patients with previously-treated metastatic colorectal cancer in the second-line setting. Patients were randomized to either chemotherapy with, or without transarterial radioembolization with Y90. While there was an improvement in overall response rate, there was no meaningful improvement in overall survival with the use of SIRT. But there were significant increases in grade 3 or grade 4 toxicities when SIRT was added to chemotherapy. So, kind of given this, we didn't feel at this point in time that SIRT should be recommended for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Although, again, I do want to highlight that really these discussions should be happening at high-volume centers, kind of with a multidisciplinary group of clinicians. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And thank you for highlighting that multidisciplinary collaboration. And the last section of recommendations, Dr. Eng, what is recommended for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, and potentially-curable oligometastatic liver metastases? Dr. Cathy Eng: So, another controversial topic. And once again, this is why we decided to include this as part of the guidelines, because this is a common scenario where patients are potentially curable, following liver resection for oligometastatic disease. We cannot highlight enough the importance of multidisciplinary discussion. Prior data has not been strong regarding specific guidelines following liver resection. We do recommend that based upon the existing data, there is no level one evidence to say, you should go one way or another following metastatic resection, and whether or not adjuvant therapy is warranted in that setting. But we do recommend multidisciplinary management and engagement and discussion. So, although it's not definitive, it basically suggests that there is a role for resection. It does provide improved five year survival relative to systemic chemotherapy, if the patient is potentially resectable, but does require multidisciplinary discussion. And it is a shared decision-making process. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you. And I appreciate you highlighting the importance of shared decision-making throughout this guideline. So then, Dr. Morris, what is the importance of this guideline in your opinion, and how will it impact clinical practice? Dr. Van Morris: Yeah. So, I think that we understand that management of metastatic colorectal cancer is extremely complex given the various molecular annotations and the multimodality therapies which are possible for our patients. So, we tried to limit the guidelines here to include what we feel are the most recent updates, but also kind of the most clinically-relevant multidisciplinary questions that get asked for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. We also recognize that things are changing quickly. And for example, we didn't decide to include at this point in time, management of HER2 neu amplified metastatic colorectal cancer, although we are seeing more and more data coming out, suggesting targeted therapies. So, I think it's important for clinicians to realize that these are guidelines which are ever-changing, given the updates with new therapies available for our patients. And the other thing I think that's very good about these guidelines is that, even though we may be making recommendations about controversial topics in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer - specifically, I think the use of HIPEC with cytoreductive surgery, locally-directed therapies to the liver, and the role of perioperative chemotherapy and metastasectomy - I think it's important for oncologists to realize that these recommendations come with varying strengths of level of evidence and that we as oncologists should be considering the level of evidence that's out there when making recommendations that affect our patients as well. So, we really wanted to support these guidelines and recommendations and empower clinicians to know and understand the quality of evidence that exists in the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Brittany Harvey: Excellent. And yes, those are key points on the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations throughout the guideline. And then finally, Dr. Eng, you've talked a bit about shared decision-making and the importance of this guideline for patients. So, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients with metastatic colorectal cancer? Dr. Cathy Eng: The reason that we created these guidelines is to help patients, their caregivers, and providers, learn of the most recent developments in colorectal cancer, and the best approach based upon the information that we have personally reviewed with our multidisciplinary team of faculty members that participated in this exercise. We really just want to make sure that patients do get optimal care. And we hope that these guidelines also will help provide a foundation for some of the clinical trials that may be under development, or for other clinical trials that are being considered. So, we really just want to provide the most up-to-date information to all individuals that are interested in colorectal cancer so we can help guide their care better. Brittany Harvey: So, I want to thank you both so much for your work on these guidelines, and all of the time it's spent developing these recommendations, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Morris, and Dr. Eng. Dr. Van Morris: Thank you. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. 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 available in iTunes 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.  

An interview with Dr. William Tew from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, NY, lead author on "Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors in the Management of Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update." Dr. Tew reviews changes to the recommendations for PARPi therapy for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer, and the outstanding questions in the field. For more information, visit www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT Brittany Harvey: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content, and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts.  My name is Brittany Harvey, and today, I'm interviewing Dr. William Tew from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York; lead author on “PARP Inhibitors in the Management of Ovarian Cancer, ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update.” Thank you for being here, Dr. Tew.  Dr. William Tew: Thank you, Brittany. Glad to be here.  Brittany Harvey: Great. Then first, 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 full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.  Dr. Tew, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic?  Dr. William Tew: I do not.  Brittany Harvey: Thank you. Then let's get into the content of this rapid update. So, what prompted this rapid update to the ASCO Guideline on PARP inhibitor therapy in the management of ovarian cancer, which was previously published in 2020?  Dr. William Tew: Yeah, there's been rapid change in the use of PARP inhibitors over the last five years. We have seen marked improvements and patient outcomes with the use of PARP inhibitors in the maintenance setting and treatment settings.  And new data has developed specifically in the last three months that we felt it was really important to help our patients and their providers, give them the best and safest treatments with PARP inhibitors.  Brittany Harvey: Understood. So, then based off this new data that you mentioned, what are the updated recommendations from the expert panel?  Dr. William Tew: Well, there's a few. First, at ASCO 2022 in June, there was the ATHENA-MONO phase III randomized control trial that was presented and published looking at rucaparib monotherapy in patients with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian cancer who were in complete or partial response to platinum-based therapy and in remission. And then studies showed a significant improvement in progression-free survival.  And that's what first prompted the update of the guideline. We felt it was an important note that now, there are three PARP inhibitors that are approved and showing significant benefit in patients in the first remission setting. And those are olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib.  And then as we were working on the guideline, there has been several updates provided primarily through Dear Doctor letters directed through the U.S. FDA, as well as different labeling changes that were made to different PARP inhibitors.  However, the changes that were made are in the settings outside of the first line setting. So, we are talking about patients who had recurrence of their ovarian cancer and where PARPs are being used either as treatment or as a maintenance strategy after completion of another round of platinum-based treatment.  Brittany Harvey: Understood. So, these sound like important updates to the recommendations. So, then what should clinicians know as they implement these updated recommendations?  Dr. William Tew: Well, I think first and foremost, PARP inhibitors are a really critical treatment strategy for our patients. And patients that benefit the most from PARP inhibitors are women with a germline or somatic mutation in the BRCA gene. These are the patients that are going to benefit the most.  And then I think where the confusion lies is how best to use PARP inhibitors in patients that don't have a BRCA mutation. These groups of patients kind of fall into different categories.  One, a group of patients that have what's called homologous repair deficiency, or those patients that don't have a BRCA gene or have a BRCA gene mutation, or have this HRD positive status.  The emerging data that has been presented is really focused on mostly these patients, this non-BRCA patient population. And again, I want to just be cautious here because this is all evolving data and I suspect further data is going to emerge over the coming months and years.  And we wanted to give some flexibility as far as how patients and their providers use PARP inhibitors, but we felt given that this new emerging data specifically with signals affecting survival, was important to outline to our community.  Brittany Harvey: Excellent. And then you've just touched on those who respond best to PARP inhibitor therapy, but how does this rapid update impact patients with epithelial ovarian cancer?  Dr. William Tew: Yeah, I think what we described and outlined in this updated guideline is that, one, as a general rule, PARP inhibitors are not particularly recommended in patients as a treatment.  That is, if patients have recurrence of their ovarian cancer, using PARP inhibitors as a treatment rather than a maintenance strategy does not offer significant benefit and may have some survival decrements. At least, this is the data that we are following.  And so, as a general recommendation, we're expressing caution in the use of PARP inhibitors in patients that have platinum sensitive recurrence as a treatment. And we are continuing to recommend (this was in the initial 2020 guideline) that PARP inhibitor monotherapy is not recommended for patients with platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer or BRCA wild-type.  The other broad category is PARP inhibitor maintenance, and where we've made some adjustments in the guideline is as far as the strength and the overall recommendations of the use of PARP inhibitors after completion of platinum-based therapy in the recurrent setting.  And specifically, we're expressing caution and the use of PARP inhibitors, particularly for those that have BRCA wild-type, meaning they don't have a germline or somatic BRCA mutation, and expressing some caution in patients that are just homologous repair deficient score positive.  Brittany Harvey: Well, I appreciate you reviewing the updated data that the panel reviewed and what those new recommendations that you all made.  So, you just mentioned that further data may emerge over the coming days and years. So, what are the outstanding questions regarding PARPi therapy in the management of ovarian cancer?  Dr. William Tew: Well, I think a few things. One, the way PARP inhibitors have been developed was first in the recurrent setting as a treatment, then in the recurrent setting as a maintenance, and most recently, in the frontline treatment as maintenance therapy.  And what we're seeing as this data evolves is that PARP inhibitor has remain a very important treatment strategy in the first line maintenance group. And patients with BRCA mutations continue to have significant improvements and outcomes.  But what I think the data that we're following closely, is what about those patients that have recurrent ovarian cancer and where PARPs now are being used as treatment and maintenance — we're seeing that as a treatment, there may be harm, although, again, cautioned because of the data that is used. There's faults with how we look at this data.  But really, these subgroups of patients, specifically those patients without a positive HRD score or those patients without a BRCA mutation, is the benefit going to still outweigh the risk in the PARP inhibitor maintenance setting, particularly in the recurrent setting.  Brittany Harvey: Yes, those are important questions and I'm sure the panel will keep their eye on those to update the guideline further as needed.  So, I want to thank you so much for your work on this rapid update, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Tew.  Dr. William Tew: You're welcome.  Brittany: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines.   You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in iTunes 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.  Voiceover: 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.     

An interview with Dr. Rohan Garje from Miami Cancer Institute in Miami, FL, lead author on "Systemic Therapy Update on 177Lutetium-PSMA-617 for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: ASCO Rapid Recommendation." Dr. Garje reviews the new evidence and the latest recommendation update for the use of 177Lu-PSMA-617, a radioligand therapy in patients with PSMA-positive mCRPC, along with it's implications for clinicians and patients. For more information, visit www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines.   TRANSCRIPT Brittany Harvey: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network; a collection of nine programs, covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one at: asco.org/podcast. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Rohan Garje from Miami Cancer Institute in Miami, Florida, lead author on, ‘Systemic Therapy Update on 177Lutetium-PSMA-617 for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: ASCO Rapid Recommendation'. Thank you for being here, Dr. Garje. Dr. Rohan Garje: Absolutely. Thank you so much for having me, Brittany. Brittany Harvey: Great. And first, 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 full Conflict of Interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Garje, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic? Dr. Rohan Garje: Yes. I have received institutional research funding from Pfizer, Amgen, Endocyte, and AAA, who have drugs for the treatment of prostate cancer. Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Thank you for those disclosures. Then getting into the content of this guideline update, what prompted this rapid update to the ‘ASCO Guideline on Systemic Therapy in Men with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer', which was previously published in 2014? Dr. Rohan Garje: Since 2014, there have been several new drugs that have been approved for prostate cancer management. And most recently in March 2022, FDA has approved 177Lutetium-PSMA-617 for patients with PSMA scan-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. This led to the team from ASCO to develop this new rapid recommendation update. Now, this approval actually has been based on the efficacy data published in Vision clinical trials. To give you a little background about Lutetium, it is a novel β-energy-emitting radioligand therapy. In this particular study, this agent was combined with best standard of care, and compared to best standard care alone, in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, who had a positive PSMA scan. Briefly, the study was both clinically and statistically positive, and has shown improvement in both overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival. The median overall survival was about 15.3 months with the combination therapy, compared to 11.3 months with the standard care arm. Brittany Harvey: Great. And then based off this new evidence and the new approval from the FDA for 177 Lutetium-PSMA-617, what are the updated recommendations from the guideline panel? Dr. Rohan Garje: The panel recommends the use of 177 Lutetium-PSMA-617 as a treatment option in patients with PSMA PET/CT positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, who have been previously treated with at least one line of androgen receptor pathway inhibitor, and at least one line of prior axon-based chemotherapy. Brittany Harvey: Great. And then, what should clinicians know as they implement the use of this drug and this new recommendation by the guideline panel? Dr. Rohan Garje: A very good question. It is important to select patients based on a positive PSMA scan. That is, all the metastatic lesions should be positive on the PSMA scan, and there should not be any large lymph nodes or visceral organ metastatic disease that are PSMA negative. Additionally, physicians can use Gallium 68 PSMA-11, or F-18 Piflufolastat as radio tracers for PSMA scan to determine eligibility. Additionally, there are several other factors that need to be considered, such as: the patient should have baseline good blood counts, as well as renal function to be eligible for this therapy, as this treatment has a potential to cause mild suppression and impairment of renal function. The most common side effects associated with this drug are fatigue, dry mouth, dry eyes, and nausea. The treatment in general is for four to six cycles. Each cycle is for every six weeks. The fifth and sixth cycles should be considered only if patients are responding well to the therapy and have no significant toxicities. It is also important for the physicians to note that there are several additional treatment options for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, who had prior anti-androgen docetaxel therapy. They include; Cabazitaxel, PARP inhibitors for patients who have mutations in DNA repair, gene mutations such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, and immunotherapy with Pembrolizumab for patients with MSI-high status, or tumor mutation burden greater than 10. Brittany Harvey: Thank you for describing that nuance behind the recommendations. So then, in addition, how does this update impact patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? Dr. Rohan Garje: 177 Lutetium-PSMA-617 is the first radioligand therapy approved for the treatment of prostate cancer. Previously, we had Radium-223 as a radiopharmaceutical, but this particular agent is unique in the sense, it is a radioligand therapy where it is chelated to PSMA. So, it is very targeted therapy which works for both bone and visceral organ metastasis. So, this is an exciting treatment option for patients, as it has been shown to have improvement in overall survival. This adds to the current treatment choices of anti-androgens, chemotherapy, as well as targeted therapies for prostate cancer patients. Brittany Harvey: Great. It's exciting to have a new treatment option for patients. So then finally, what are the outstanding questions regarding systemic therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? Dr. Rohan Garje: We are at an exciting stage in the management of prostate cancer. In the last decade, we have seen several new drugs; some are specific targeted agents, some are specific immunotherapy agents. Now, we are entering into this realm of radioligand therapy, which is very exciting. There are several other novel radioligand therapies such as; Actinium, Thorium, Lead, which are being evaluated in the treatment of prostate cancer. So, in the next several years, we will see several new drugs that have been developed. In addition, there are other agents called T-cell-engaging therapies, which are being evaluated to improve the outcomes. So, the last decade definitely has seen a lot of new improvements, but we are so excited that several new treatment choices are now available for patients, and several are in clinical evaluation. So, the future is bright for the patients with prostate cancer, where we have several new treatment choices to improve their outcomes. Brittany Harvey: It sounds like an exciting time for developments in prostate cancer. So, I want to thank you so much for your time today, Dr. Garje, and thank you for all of the work you did to update this guideline. Dr. Rohan Garje: Thank you so much. I really thank ASCO leadership and the team for giving me this opportunity, and thank you, Brittany, for hosting me on this podcast. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. 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 iTunes 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.    

An interview with Dr. Lynn Henry from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, MI, lead author on "Biomarkers for Systemic Therapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update." Dr. Henry reviews new biomarkers for the purposes of making treatment decisions for triple-negative breast cancer, and hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, as well as tumor agnostic tumor biomarkers. Specific biomarkers addressed in this conversation include PIK3CA, ESR1, BRCA 1/2, PALB2, HRD, PD-L1, dMMR/MSI-H, TMB, NTRK, ctDNA, and CTCs. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.   TRANSCRIPT Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs, covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows including this one at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Lynn Henry from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, lead author on 'Biomarkers for Systemic Therapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update'. Thank you for being here, Dr. Henry. Dr. Lynn Henry: Thank you very much for inviting me to participate. Brittany Harvey: First, 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 full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Henry, do you have any relevant disclosures that are related to this guideline topic? Dr. Lynn Henry: No, I do not. Brittany Harvey: Great! Thank you. Then let's talk about the scope of this guideline. So, what prompted this update to the guideline on the use of biomarkers to guide decisions on systemic therapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer, which was last updated in 2015? And what is the scope of this guideline update? Dr. Lynn Henry: Yes, so a lot has happened in the past six or seven years that influence how we treat metastatic breast cancer. And there are many new drugs that have been approved by the FDA during that time. When we reviewed the prior guideline and the new treatment landscape, we realized that while much of what was included in the old guideline was still relevant, there were quite a number of new biomarkers related to new drugs that needed to be included. The newly recommended biomarkers are primarily applicable to making decisions about treatment of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2-negative breast cancer, also called triple-negative breast cancer, as well as for treatment of hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer. And finally, there are now some tumor biomarkers that can be tested for that are tumor agnostic, and these were included as well. Brittany Harvey: Great! So, then let's discuss the updated guideline recommendations based off these new biomarkers for our listeners. The guideline reviews testing for several different biomarkers. So, I would like to review each of the biomarkers that the panel assessed. Let's start with what is the role of PIK3CA mutation testing? Dr. Lynn Henry: Yeah! So, PIK3CA activating mutations are commonly found in tumors that are hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative. Based on the results of the SOLAR-1 trial, patients whose tumors have an activating PIK3CA mutation had improved progression-free survival when treated with the PI3 kinase inhibitor alpelisib plus fulvestrant compared to fulvestrant alone. This improvement was not seen in patients whose cancers didn't have a mutation. So, therefore, this provided the evidence for the clinical utility of evaluating tumors for the somatic PIK3CA mutations. Testing of either a tumor specimen or plasma to look for PIK3CA mutations can be performed. However, it's important that if the plasma is tested, and no PIK3CA mutations are identified in the circulating tumor DNA, then our tumor specimen should really be tested if possible, because of the possibility of a false negative finding in the plasma. Also, since these mutations can be acquired over time, a more recent specimen should be tested if possible, as opposed to testing the primary tumor. Finally, in the SOLAR-1 trial, a patient's tumor had to have one of the 11 pre-specified PIK3CA mutations in exon 7, 9, or 20. And therefore, when mutations are identified using next-generation sequencing, it is important to confirm that the identified mutation is one of those 11 activating mutations and not a different one that may not convey benefit from treatment with a PI3 kinase inhibitor. Brittany Harvey: Great! I appreciate you're reviewing that recommendation, as well as the clinical utility of it and the evidence behind it. So, then following those recommendations, what is the role of testing for ESR1 mutations? Dr. Lynn Henry: At this time, there are insufficient data to support routine testing of metastatic hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative tumors for ESR1 mutations. However, the panel did note that there's a retrospective analysis of two different phases three trials that demonstrated that fulvestrant improved progression-free survival compared to the aromatase inhibitor exemestane in patients who had previously progressed on a non-steroidal AI and whose tumors had an ESR1 mutation. Importantly, there are ongoing clinical trials addressing this issue, including the PADA-1 trial, which is evaluating the effect of the switch of fulvestrant from aromatase inhibitor therapy, versus remaining on that therapy when ESR1 mutations are detected in the blood. However, although preliminary findings were presented at a recent large breast cancer meeting, and were suggestive of a possible progression-free survival benefit from switching therapy, data have not yet been published, and therefore they were not included in this guideline. Brittany Harvey: Great! So, we'll look forward to those updated data to potentially review that recommendation in the future. So, following those recommendations, what is the role of testing for germline BRCA 1 or 2 and PALB2 pathogenic mutations? Dr. Lynn Henry: So, the answer for germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is relatively straightforward. Patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer can be either hormone receptor-positive or negative, and who are candidates for treatment with a PARP inhibitor should undergo testing for germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic mutations to determine whether they should receive treatment with a PARP inhibitor. This recommendation is based on the results of two large randomized clinical trials comparing PARP inhibitor therapy to physician's choice chemotherapy, although notably, the chemotherapy options did not include taxanes, anthracyclines, or platinums. In contrast, there remains insufficient evidence to support a recommendation either for or against testing for germline PALB2 pathogenic variant for the purpose of determining eligibility for treatment with a PARP inhibitor. The panel did note, however, that there are small single-arm studies that show that there is high response rate to PARP inhibitors in patients with metastatic breast cancer and coding DNA repair defects, such as either germline PALB2 pathogenic variants or somatic BRCA1 or 2 mutations. It was also noted that it is likely that patients who harbored mutations in these genes will actually be identified through routine testing with panel testing for germline variants. Brittany Harvey: Okay, understood. So, then following those recommendations, what is the role of testing tumors for homologous recombination deficiency? Dr. Lynn Henry: So, although there are emerging data from other solid tumors to support the use of homologous recombination deficiency, or HRD testing to guide therapy, current data do not support the assessment of HRD in the management of metastatic breast cancer. Therefore, we did not recommend routine testing of tumors for HRD at this time. Brittany Harvey: It's important to note where we both have evidence and where we don't have evidence. So, then what is the role of testing for expression of PD-L1 in metastatic breast cancer? Dr. Lynn Henry: So, the panel recommends that patients who are candidates for treatment with immunotherapy, with either a PD1 or PD-L1 inhibitor, should undergo testing for expression of PD-L1 in the tumor and immune cells with an FDA-approved test. At present in the United States, pembrolizumab is the only approved immunotherapy for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, and it is given in combination with chemotherapy. The FDA-approved test for this drug is the 22C3 assay which evaluates PD-L1 staining in the tumor and surrounding stroma to calculate a combined positive score or CPS, with positive considered to be a score of 10 or greater. Of note, in other countries, there are different anti PD1 and PD-L1 antibodies that are approved for treatment, and each has been approved with its own companion diagnostic. So, it is important to make sure that you're using the right biomarker test, depending on which drug you are planning to use. Brittany Harvey: Great! I appreciate you reviewing the test in addition to the role of the biomarker. So, then, following those recommendations, what is the role of testing for deficient mismatch repair microsatellite instability-high? Dr. Lynn Henry: Similar to PD-L1 testing, it is recommended that patients with metastatic breast cancer who are candidates for a treatment regimen that includes an immune checkpoint inhibitor should undergo testing for deficient mismatch repair or microsatellite instability-high to determine eligibility for treatment with one of the drugs that is currently FDA approved, either dostarlimab or pembrolizumab. In contrast to the PD-L1 data, however, there are no randomized studies that have been conducted specifically in patients with breast cancer addressing this question. The testing recommendation was therefore included in these guidelines because of the tumor agnostic FDA approval of these drugs. In terms of which biomarker methodology to use, it was noted that, while the original studies assessed the deficient mismatch repair and MSI high using immunochemistry, and PCR respectively. The FDA has subsequently approved the next-generation sequencing platform to use in selecting candidates for these treatments. And so, therefore, there are a number of different tests that can be used. Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing those recommendations as well. So, then following, what is the role of testing for tumor mutational burden? Dr. Henry Lynn: So, tumor mutational burden describes the quantity of somatic mutations in the tumor. Similar to the biomarkers we were previously discussing, there are minimal data specifically in metastatic breast cancer to support the assessment of tumor mutational burden for making treatment decisions. However, the testing recommendation was again included in the guidelines because of the tumor agnostic FDA approval of the drug pembrolizumab in the setting of high TMB. And also there is one single arm phase two trial that looked at this specifically. Importantly, the panel noted that there are a variety of factors that influence assessment of TMB. These include sample type, pre-analytical factors so how the sample was handled, the size of the panel and mutations that are tested, depths of the sequencing, type of the mutations that are included on the panel, and cut point variables. So, in particular, assessment of TMB in cell-free DNA assays such as circulating tumor DNA is an area of evolving evidence. There are therefore very important caveats to be aware of when selecting a TMB assay and assessing the results, many of which are outlined in the guideline manuscript itself, and different assays can yield different results for the same tissue specimen. It is therefore very important to use the approved companion assay and the approved cut point when making decisions regarding a specific treatment. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I appreciate your reviewing those details. So, then what is the role of testing for neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase? Dr. Lynn Henry: So, I'm going to abbreviate that to NTRK. So, NTRK fusions are rare in metastatic breast cancer. One study said 0.39% of all breast cancers have NTRK fusions. So, as with the above biomarkers, the NTRK testing recommendation is based on the results of phase 1 and phase 2 studies that were identified by the panel evaluating the efficacy and safety of these inhibitors for the treatment of advanced solid tumors with NTRK gene fusions, noting that there are only minimal data available that are specific to metastatic breast cancer. Brittany Harvey: Understood. Some of these are very rare in metastatic breast cancer. So, then, following that recommendation, what is the role of using circulating tumor DNA? Dr. Lynn Henry: So, for circulating tumor DNA, although the ctDNA technology holds promise in metastatic disease, for its ability to potentially identify tumor-specific mutations that are shed into the blood and that may be targetable, to date, neither the measurement of changes in ctDNA as a marker of treatment responsiveness nor identification of specific mutations in the blood to direct therapy has actually been prospectively shown to improve patient outcomes compared to standard imaging-based detection of tumor progression. Therefore, at present, the guideline does not recommend routine assessment of ctDNA for monitoring response to therapy among patients with metastatic breast cancer, although many studies are underway evaluating this question. Brittany Harvey: Understood. Then the last biomarker that the panel assessed in this guideline update, what is the role of using circulating tumor cells? Dr. Lynn Henry: Similar to circulating tumor DNA, there are insufficient data to recommend routine use of circulating tumor cells to monitor response to therapy among patients with metastatic breast cancer. To date, studies that have examined the clinical utility of this marker to determine the optimal time for treatment change have not led to improvements in outcomes in metastatic breast cancer. Brittany Harvey: Great! Well, thank you for reviewing all of these recommendations. The panel certainly took on a lot of biomarkers and performed a critical review of all the evidence to make recommendations in this setting. So, in your view, Dr. Henry, what is the importance of this guideline update and what should clinicians know as they implement these updated recommendations? Dr. Lynn Henry: Yeah, that's an excellent question. So, this guideline addresses the key questions that we face, as we're making decisions about how best to treat patients with metastatic breast cancer. Importantly, the guideline highlights the current state of the science, with a focus on the available published data from randomized clinical trials. It also discusses the limitations of our current knowledge, as well as key considerations for different biomarkers. Of course, we recognize that there are new data emerging on a regular basis. And the panel therefore also highlighted where data are anticipated but not yet available, as well as key questions which we hope will be able to be addressed in the more distant future. Brittany Harvey: And then finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients with metastatic breast cancer? Dr. Lynn Henry: Yeah, so really, that is the bottom line, isn't it? So, ideally, this guideline will enable the dissemination of best practices in terms of biomarker selection and analysis to guide clinicians as they are making treatment decisions in conjunction with patients. Treatment of metastatic breast cancer has become more complex, with regimen selection affected by both inherited germline genetics and somatic changes in the cancer that can evolve over time. The assessment of relevant biomarkers should allow patients to receive the optimal therapies that are most likely to be effective based on the individual characteristics of their cancers. Brittany Harvey: Well, I want to thank you so much for reviewing this guideline with me today, and all of the recommendations and our gaps in evidence, for our listeners. Thank you for your work on this guideline update and thank you for your time today, Dr. Henry. Dr. Lynn Henry: Thank you so much! Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO guidelines app available on iTunes 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.  

An interview with Dr. Pauline Funchain from Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, OH, author on "Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update." Dr. Funchain reviews recent evidence and updated recommendations from the ASCO Expert Panel for the use of tebentafusp in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. For more information, visit www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.   TRANSCRIPT Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey and today I am interviewing Dr. Pauline Funchain from Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, author on Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update. Thank you for being here, Dr. Funchain. Dr. Pauline Funchain: It's great to be here with you, Brittany. Thank you! Brittany Harvey: First, 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 full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Funchain, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic? Dr. Pauline Funchain: I do not have relevant disclosures that relate to this guideline topic. Brittany Harvey: Great, thank you. Then getting into the rapid update, what prompted this rapid update to the Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline published in 2020? Dr. Pauline: So, earlier this year, on January 25th, the FDA approved tebentafusp for metastatic uveal melanoma. So, this is the first FDA approval for metastatic uveal melanoma. We felt it was really important to put out a rapid update to let both clinicians know about the therapy and also so that more patients can get access to it as quickly as possible. Brittany Harvey: Understood. So, then based on this new FDA approval, what are the updated recommendations for patients with uveal melanoma? Dr. Pauline Funchain: So, any patients who have a previously untreated metastatic uveal melanoma, and also who are HLA-A*02:01 positive, this group of patients should be offered tebentafusp as systemic therapy. This is the only systemic therapy that has been shown to prolong overall survival in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. And if you look at the kind of benefit that was seen, patients who were on tebentafusp had a median overall survival of 21.7 months versus 16 months in comparison to investigator's choice. In this case, that was either single agent pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, or dacarbazine. So, it is a pretty significant overall survival benefit. Brittany Harvey: Great! Thank you for reviewing those updated recommendations and the data behind them. So, what should clinicians know as they implement this updated recommendation? Dr. Pauline Funchain: So, they should know that there was a great overall survival benefit seen, but it doesn't correlate with the objective response rate that was seen in the trial. So, for patients who were treated with tebentafusp, the objective response rate was 9%. And for those patients who were treated with the investigator's choice, again, that was single agent pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, or dacarbazine, the response rate was 5%. So, that margin was not very different in terms of objective response rate when looking at RECIST-based criteria, so radiologic criteria for response, but the survival was clearly seen. And interestingly, even in those patients that had radiologic progression, there was an improved survival for those patients who were on tebentafusp versus investigator's choice. So, there is some kind of survival benefit that may not correlate with what is seen on imaging. So, clinicians should know that they may not see a dramatic response in terms of tumor size on imaging, but patients may still benefit from the therapy. Brittany Harvey: Understood. So, then you've just talked a little bit about responses in patients. So, how does this guideline update affect patients with melanoma? Dr. Pauline Funchain: So, despite a difference in response rate, long story short, there is an overall survival difference. So, really, this is the first overall survival difference that we have seen in metastatic uveal melanoma. It is really exciting. It is finally an approved drug for metastatic uveal melanoma, which did not have any approved or standard of care, systemic drugs. So, this is a really big win for a rare disease. I think, in terms of the general melanoma field and also the cancer field in general, this is really an exciting first-in-class drug on two different fronts. It is the first approved T-cell receptor therapy. It is also the first bispecific protein and it works differently than other immunotherapies we have seen. So, hopefully, this is something we see more of in other cancers. Brittany Harvey: Definitely, it's good to see that these patients finally have an option and we'll look forward to research in other cancers as well. So, then finally, Dr. Funchain, what are the outstanding questions regarding systemic therapy for melanoma? Dr. Pauline Funchain: Well, there are multiple questions that are outstanding. I think, for metastatic uveal melanoma, I think there are a lot of questions about the dissociation between the radiologic response and survival. I think there are questions about knowing when to stop tebentafusp if it's not working because we don't really have a good sense of what we should be using to know if this is not the right therapy for that patient. I think we would love to know what the biomarkers of response are, and we may need different ways of looking for how to judge if a patient is benefiting from tebentafusp and other systemic therapies. And I think that there's still a big question in uveal melanoma about whether we start with systemic therapy or local therapy. I don't think that's been answered. Now, in terms of the entire guideline, I think for melanoma in general, there are new data that are emerging and have been recently published and we will be looking forward to the next ASCO guideline in systemic therapy for melanoma because I think that there are a lot of emerging data that need to be addressed. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. We'll look forward to that new research in uveal melanoma and to reviewing the updated data with the guideline panel for the next edition of the systemic therapy for melanoma guideline. So, I want to thank you so much for your work to rapidly updating this guideline, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Funchain. Dr. Pauline Funchain: Thank you for having me. It is really meaningful to us to be able to offer education and get the word out about therapies that can help our patients. Brittany Harvey: Agreed. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full rapid recommendation update, go to www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available on iTunes 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.

An interview with Dr. Sharon Giordano from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX, and Dr. Nancy Davidson from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington in Seattle, WA, co-chairs on "Systemic Therapy for Advanced HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update." This guideline updates recommendations on systemic therapies for advanced HER2-positive breast cancer, focusing on second-line, third-line, and greater treatment. Read the full guideline.   TRANSCRIPT Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Sharon Giordano from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, and Dr. Nancy Davidson from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington, co-chairs on 'Systemic Therapy for Advanced Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Positive Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update'. Thank you for being here. Dr. Giordano and Dr. Davidson. Dr. Sharon Giordano: Thank you. Dr. Nancy Davidson: Thank you for having us. Brittany Harvey: First, 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 full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Giordano, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic? Dr. Sharon Giordano: No, I do not. Brittany Harvey: Thank you. And Dr. Davidson, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic? Dr. Nancy Davidson: No, I do not. Brittany Harvey: Thank you. Let's talk about the content of this guideline update. So first, Dr. Giordano, what prompted an update to this guideline on the systemic therapy for advanced HER2-positive breast cancer, and what is the focus of this update? Dr. Sharon Giordano: So, we were prompted to update the guidelines for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer because several new studies have been presented and published, which are really changing our standard of care approaches. We have new therapies and new combinations that have resulted in improvements in progression-free survival and in overall survival for this patient population. Given the clinical importance of these new studies, we felt that an update of the treatment guidelines was clearly needed. Overall, the focus of our update is really in the title, so, it's systemic therapies for advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. And specifically, what we're focusing on is updating the recommendation for second-line therapy, and then adding multiple new options for systemic therapies for third-line and greater treatment. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for that overview. So, then I'd like to review the updated recommendations of this guideline for our listeners. Starting with, Dr. Davidson, what is recommended for first-line therapy for patients with advanced HER2-positive breast cancer? Dr. Nancy Davidson: So, that was the part of this guideline that really did not change. In the previous iteration and in the current iteration, we felt that the evidence suggested that a combination of trastuzumab and a taxane should be the first-line treatment for individuals with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer unless they have some sort of contraindication to the taxanes. Now, the evidence supporting that is very strong. The trial that supported this continues to be updated and continues to show benefit. So, that's a very high level of evidence and our recommendation on this was extremely strong. Brittany Harvey: Great. And then following those first-line recommendations, Dr. Giordano, what is recommended for second-line treatment for these patients? Dr. Sharon Giordano: So, we did change our recommendation for second-line treatment for HER2-positive patients. The current new recommendation is, and I quote from our guideline, “If a patient's HER2-positive, advanced breast cancer has progressed during or after first-line HER2 targeted therapy, and the patient has not received trastuzumab deruxtecan, clinicians should recommend trastuzumab deruxtecan as a second-line treatment.” So, as I said before, this recommendation is a change from our prior second-line recommendation. Previously, we had recommended T-DM1. So, this change was really, I think, one of the most important changes to the guidelines with this update. We made the recommendation based on the initial presentation of the results of the Destiny-Breast03 trial, really given the magnitude of the benefit that was seen in the study. And the manuscript I would note was published this month in the New England Journal of Medicine. Overall, the study showed statistically significant and highly clinically meaningful reduction in progression-free survival. So, just to give you some of these numbers, to kind of give you a sense of how big the impact was, so 76% of patients who were treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan versus 34% of patients treated with trastuzumab emtansine were alive and without disease progression at a year, with a hazard ratio of 0.28. The response rates are also quite impressive with 80% versus 34% response rates. And the overall survival data are still immature but do favor treatment with trastuzumab deruxtecan and that hazard was 0.55. So, I will note though, that toxicity was a bit higher with the new drug, with trastuzumab deruxtecan. So, any grade adverse events were 98% versus 87%. And then if you look at grade three and four drug-related adverse events, it was 45% versus 40%. I think of note, rather than just kind of the overall numbers, though, one thing that clinicians need to be aware of is the risk of interstitial lung disease with this new drug. And this occurred in about 10% of treated patients in this study, although only 1%, or I think it was two patients, who had grade three or higher pulmonary toxicity. So, this is a toxicity that is specific to this drug that clinicians do need to be aware of. Dr. Nancy Davidson: I think the other thing on that, Sharon, is that the incidence was lower in the Destiny Breast03 trial than it had been in some of the really early studies of this agent, so, that should be reassuring to us. Although, of course, it doesn't mean that the side effect doesn't happen, you have to take note of it. Dr. Sharon Giordano: That's a great point. It definitely was lower than we'd seen before. So, a little bit of a relief, but still there. Brittany Harvey: Great, thank you both for reviewing that data. I appreciate the overview. So then, following those recommendations for second-line treatment, Dr. Davidson, what are the recommended options for third-line therapy for patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer that has progressed on second-line or greater HER2 targeted therapy? Dr. Nancy Davidson: Well, of course, this is the area where there has been considerable change as well. And that's because of the wealth of new anti-HER2 agents that Dr. Giordano talked about earlier. So, we had a variety of recommendations for clinicians and patients to make decisions about how to proceed. I think certainly one of them, is that if the patient did not receive trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in the second line, as we just talked about, our new recommendation would be that they would not, that they would receive trastuzumab deruxtecan, so you put off for T-DM1 in that [third-line] setting. And that's a new recommendation for us. And the strength of the recommendation is quite high. Another agent that's come along that's very exciting is tucatinib, one of the small molecule inhibitors. And we think that that is also an alternative, that tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine, again, nice activity and pretty strong recommendation based on analyzed critical trials. And then finally, if for some reason the patient didn't receive the trastuzumab deruxtecan in a second-line setting and you're now in the third-line setting, that would be a very reasonable agent for them as well. Those are all pretty strong recommendations. And I think the choice of which to proceed will depend a little bit on the decision making between the patient and the doctor about the mode of administration, your side effect profile, what seems the most appropriate, and it might be more one of the order of the recommendation. As opposed to saying, 'This one, but not that one', it might be, 'Pick this one next and know that you will be able to return to some of these in the future.' Now, there are a lot of other possibilities here. We already had available to us neratinib and capecitabine, that continues to be part of the portfolio. And we also had lapatinib and capecitabine, also part of the portfolio. Other combinations of chemotherapy, trastuzumab could be considered, a new agent called margetuximab with chemotherapy, which has also come on to the market. And of course, there's the possibility of thinking about the anti-HER2 agents in the context of endocrine therapy for those patients who have estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer as well. And new information suggesting that you might, in some cases, even think about one with CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the context of trastuzumab and fulvestrant. So, lots of possibilities here that patients and doctors can weigh, and again think about order of administration as opposed to selecting for or against the other. I do think that the leading contenders at the beginning are going to be T-DM1 or trastuzumab deruxtecan, if that hasn't been used, or tucatinib in combination, those would be my personal preferences. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for reviewing those options and describing where a patient might receive these during their treatment. Dr. Nancy Davidson: I'd like to hear Dr. Giordano's thoughts on that, how would you stack those up? Dr. Sharon Giordano: Yeah, well, as you said, I think it does depend on what the patient's been treated with previously. I mean, certainly, T-DM1 or trastuzumab deruxtecan, if they haven't had those agents. Otherwise, I think the data from the tucatinib trastuzumab capecitabine regimen is pretty impressive as it did show an overall survival benefit. And as you know, I think that regimen is also really interesting, because it does seem to have some efficacy for patients with brain metastases. That actually has a very nice advantage. Then the other ones, I think it just sort of depends on what they've seen previously, what side effects they may be experiencing, and kind of other quality of life issues. I don't see that there's a clear way to sequence the other ones since most of them haven't really been directly compared head-to-head against each other. Brittany Harvey: It seems like it may be an individual discussion between clinicians and patients at that level. So, then, Dr. Giordano following that, how will this guideline impact clinicians and what should they know as they implement these updated recommendations? Dr. Sharon Giordano: I think the bottom line is really the clinicians are now going to have more options for the treatment of HER2-positive advanced breast cancer which is fantastic news to have all these different choices and options for our patients. To me, I think probably the most important changes and recommendations, again, are the addition of trastuzumab deruxtecan in the second-line setting just given the very impressive clinical benefit that's seen with that drug, or, as Nancy mentioned in the third-line setting if patients, for some reason haven't received it previously. And then I also think, as we talked about, the tucatinib combination is really an exciting new combination that does seem to have significant clinical benefit. I think the clinicians will need to be aware that that might be an option for patients with CNS metastases that are progressing. And also, just to be aware, as we mentioned before, about the risk of the interstitial lung disease with trastuzumab deruxtecan but it's really encouraging to me to have such a long list of drugs and combinations that we can use to treat our patients. Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Those are great points. So, then finally, to wrap us up, Dr. Davidson, in your view, how will these guideline recommendations impact patients with advanced HER2-positive breast cancer? Dr. Nancy Davidson: Well, Brittany, I think one thing we hope, of course, is that those patients will cumulatively have a longer survival, and a better survival as a consequence of all of these new insights that we've been able to make. I can imagine it would be maybe a little confusing to patients that there are so many things that they might potentially be able to choose from, but this is one where I think that the larger the panel of agents that you have available to you, the happier it is. So, I hope that patients are going to look at this as an opportunity for partnership with their oncologists to try to figure out of all these possibilities, what's the best one for me now, and they're going to have the comfort of knowing that there'll be other things that they can fall back on in the future, and that, hopefully, these things will improve outcomes. And again, without excessive toxicity. This last thing I'm going to hope that clinicians and physicians will remember is that we've made a lot of headway here, but that our results are not perfect. And so, right now, we're able to change guidelines, these guidelines today because of clinical trials that have been put together in the last several years and successfully implemented. And I hope that we're going to continue to do that because until we get to a point where survival from HER2-positive breast cancer is 100%, we've got work to do. So, they're going to be other new clinical research strategies, and I hope that doctors and patients will take advantage of those whenever possible. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely, both hoping for longer survival and better quality of life and looking forward to more clinical trials to give clearer answers. I want to thank you both so much for your time today and for all of your work on updating these guideline recommendations, Dr. Davidson and Dr. Giordano. Dr. Nancy Davidson: Thanks, Brittany. Dr. Sharon Giordano: Thank you so much. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guideline Podcast Series. To read the full guideline go to www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. There's a companion guideline update on the management of advanced HER2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases also just published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology and on asco.org. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines App available in iTunes 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 expressed 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.

An interview with Dr. Naren Ramakrishna from Orlando Health Cancer Institute in Orlando, FL, and Dr. Carey Anders from Duke University in Durham, NC, co-chairs on "Management of Advanced Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Positive Breast Cancer and Brain Metastases: ASCO Guideline Update." This guideline reviews evidence in both the local therapy management and systemic therapy management for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and brain metastasis, and provides updated recommendations for these patients. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.   TRANSCRIPT Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows including this one at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Naren Ramakrishna from Orlando Health Cancer Institute in Orlando, Florida. And Dr. Carey Anders from Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, co-chairs on 'Management of Advanced Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Positive Breast Cancer and Brain Metastases: ASCO Guideline Update'. Thank you for being here. Dr. Ramakrishna and Dr. Anders. Dr. Carey Anders: Thank you. Dr. Naren Ramakrishna: Thank you. Brittany Harvey: First, 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 full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Ramakrishna, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic? Dr. Naren Ramakrishna: No. Brittany Harvey: And Dr. Anders, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic? Dr. Carey Anders: I do. I would just like to disclose that I receive research funding, compensated consulting roles, and royalties from several of our industry partners who are developing brain permeable compounds. Brittany Harvey: Thank you. Let's talk about the content of this guideline. So, Dr. Anders, what prompted an update to this guideline? And what is the scope of this guideline update? Dr. Carey Anders: Thank you for that question, Brittany. Our previous guideline in the management of HER2-positive breast cancer brain metastasis was published in 2018. And since that time, we've seen significant progress in both the local therapy management and systemic therapy management for our patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and brain metastasis. I think collectively, this body of work really prompted the panel to think through the changes that we could make to improve the care of our patients taking these updates into account. I'd love to hear Dr. Ramakrishna's take on the rationale for the update as he was also involved in the 2018 guideline. Dr. Naren Ramakrishna: Thank you, Carey. Well, it's really an exciting time right now for breast cancer brain metastasis treatment. And the recent data that Dr. Anders referred to has really opened up a whole new era in terms of therapeutic possibilities for breast cancer brain metastasis patients. In the past, we've relied on traditional methods of treatment like whole-brain radiotherapy, surgery, and stereotactic radiosurgery as mainstays of treatment. But this exciting data that Dr. Anders referred to, has resulted in the possibility of avoiding certain of the local therapy options in select patients, which has the potential to increase patient survival and quality of life, and is a major advancement. Brittany Harvey: Excellent. It's great to hear about those advancements. So, then next, I'd like to start by reviewing the guideline recommendations for our listeners. Dr. Ramakrishna, what are the key recommendations for local therapy for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and brain metastases? Dr. Naren Ramakrishna: Since the 2018 updated guidelines, we've continued with our stratification of patients by prognosis by the number of metastases, size of metastases, and also whether they are symptomatic or asymptomatic. Overall, the changes include the offering of systemic therapy for patients after multidisciplinary review for asymptomatic metastases, particularly those less than two centimeters in size. In select cases, one might also offer it for patients with metastases larger than that. The other major change that we see in this update is an increasing reliance on stereotactic radiosurgery rather than whole-brain treatment as a local therapy option, both in the post-operative setting and for single or multiple metastases, for which surgery is not recommended. Finally, we see a significant change in the application of whole brain radiation, where whole-brain radiation is recommended typically for extensive disease, either with multiple, very large metastases, or many, many small metastases. We recommend whole brain treatment to always be administered with a neuroprotectant, and where possible, with what's called hippocampal sparing, which is thought to reduce the neurocognitive negative effects of whole-brain radiation treatment. Brittany Harvey: Understood, I appreciate those recommendations for local therapy and that overview that you provided. So then Dr. Anders, in addition to those recommendations, what are the key recommendations for systemic therapy for these patients? Dr. Carey Andres: Sure, Brittany, happy to review. I think some of the general principles from the 2018 guidelines remain in place. So, for instance, our patients who have progressive disease in the brain, are eligible for local therapy and have controlled extracranial disease, we still recommend continuing the current HER2-directed therapy along with the same algorithm for the treatment of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. There are some interesting and exciting changes to the guidelines with the advent of several of the promising systemic therapies that Dr. Ramakrishna outlines such that we do have the option of leading with systemic therapy for our patients with small asymptomatic lesions in the brain predominantly based on the HER2CLIMB clinical trial which established tucatinib, capecitabine and trastuzumab in this setting. So, in concert with our local therapist, we have the consideration for moving to the HER2CLIMB regimen in the setting of active asymptomatic brain metastasis in concert with our local therapist. So, that's one key change from the 2018 guidelines. Another is the introduction of the compound trastuzumab deruxtecan, an antibody-drug conjugate, which has been shown in second line in the setting of metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer to be superior to our traditional T-DM1 therapy in this setting. In the study, the Destiny-Breast03 study that illustrated the superiority of trastuzumab deruxtecan patients with stable brain metastasis were included and illustrated in this compound, illustrated significant benefit for patients with stable brain metastasis. So, in addition to the HER2CLIMB regimen in the setting of stable brain metastasis, we also have the option of trastuzumab deruxtecan in this setting. And that was an update in our 2022 guidelines. So, we essentially have more systemic therapy tools in our toolkit to consider in concert with local therapy. And I just want to emphasize the importance of communication between the systemic therapy team and the local therapy teams, particularly when we're making the decision to move forward with the systemic therapy in the setting of progressive or stable brain metastasis. Brittany Harvey: Thank you. Yes, that multidisciplinary care is key, and I appreciate your reviewing those updates. So then, in addition to those what is recommended regarding screening for the development of brain metastases for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer? Dr. Carey Andres: So, this is a very active conversation. And in fact, I had this very conversation with two patients in the clinic just yesterday. So, should we be screening our patients with advanced HER2-positive breast cancer with brain MRIs in the absence of symptoms? I think the bottom line is we just don't have the data yet. I think we will have the data and in fact, there are ongoing prospective studies trying to determine whether or not screening brain MRIs in the absence of symptoms in this setting will improve our patient survival, and also improve our patients' quality of life. Until we have that data because we do have these new tools in the toolkit for systemic therapy treatment, the panel loosens the guidelines a bit to say that it's not that we no longer recommend screening in the asymptomatic state, but there's not enough data for or against. And I think this really will help the physician and patients as they're making decisions about their screening and restaging studies in a personalized manner. In addition to the lack of data, we also strongly recommend that clinicians and patients have a very low threshold to obtain a brain MRI in the presence of symptoms and this is really important with regards to communication about symptoms as subtle as they may be. I'd love to hear Dr. Ramakrishna's take on this challenging space where we clearly need more data. Dr. Naren Ramakrishna: Yes, Carey, I completely agree that it's quite challenging and the practice patterns are quite diverse throughout the country. It's also a source of a great deal of apprehension and anxiety for patients who automatically typically would assume that more frequent screening is better, especially when they do develop brain metastasis if that's to occur. So, we do look forward to better data for guidance. And it certainly is an area that should undergo multidisciplinary reviewing recommendations for any particular patient. Brittany Harvey: Understood, thank you both for reviewing the evidence as it states now and we'll look forward to that emerging data for perhaps a future guideline update. So then, Dr. Ramakrishna, what in your view is the importance of this guideline update and what does it mean for clinicians? Dr. Naren Ramakrishna: Well, this is a practice-changing update. I mean, I don't think that's an overstatement. Because for the first time, upfront therapy is going to include the possibility of systemic therapy. And this also means that there has to be multidisciplinary and multimodality discussions regarding local versus systemic therapy for a large proportion of HER2-positive breast cancer brain metastasis patients. So, practice patterns are going to shift as a result of the incorporation of systemic therapy into the treatment paradigm. And finally, the other very important, practice-changing local therapy change is that the use of whole-brain treatment will be reduced relative to stereotactic radiosurgery, but in some cases, also as a result of the use of systemic therapy, and when it is employed, it must be utilized with a neuroprotectant and/or hippocampal sparing. Brittany Harvey: Great and then finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and brain metastases? Dr. Carey Andres: So, I would just echo Dr. Ramakrishna's comments about the advances that we've seen and the importance of multidisciplinary care. I think from a systemic therapy perspective, we have the wonderful problem of having multiple agents to consider in this space. And as we've seen, really an explosion of HER2-directed therapies that are now approved and available to patients. One of our challenges has been how to sequence these therapies. And so, we were hopeful that these guidelines will help clinicians and patients determine when to pick individual regimens that best fit the patient's scenario, whether or not their brain metastases are stable at that decision tree, or whether or not they're progressive at that decision tree. I would also point the listeners to the updated guidelines in the management of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, as these guidelines will certainly complement the decision-making and systemic therapy, incorporating the presence or absence of brain metastasis. Brittany Harvey: Great, and yes, thank you for highlighting that companion guideline. Both are available at asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines and in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. So, I want to thank you both so much for your work on these guidelines and for taking the time to speak with me today, Dr. Anders and Dr. Ramakrishna. Dr. Naren Ramakrishna: Thank you very much, Brittany. Dr. Carey Andres: Thank you! Thanks for the opportunity. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline go to www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines App available in iTunes 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.

An interview with Dr. Bianca Santomasso from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, author on “Management of Immune-Related Adverse Events in Patients Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: ASCO Guideline Update.” She reviews neurologic toxicities in patients receiving ICPis, such as myasthenia gravis, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, peripheral neuropathy, aseptic meningitis & encephalitis in Part 9 of this 13-part series. For more information visit www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines   TRANSCRIPT [MUSIC PLAYING] SPEAKER: 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. BRITTANY HARVEY: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content, and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey. And today, we're continuing our series on the management of immune related adverse events. I am joined by Dr. Bianca Santomasso from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, author on Management of Immune Related Adverse Events in Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy ASCO Guideline Update and Management of Immune Related Adverse Events in patients Treated with Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy ASCO Guideline. And today, we're focusing on nervous system toxicities in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Thank you for being here, Dr. Santomasso. BIANCA SANTOMASSO: Thank you for having me. BRITTANY HARVEY: Then 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 full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guidelines in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Santomasso, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to these guidelines? BIANCA SANTOMASSO: Yes, I'd like to disclose that I've served as a paid consultant for Celgene, Janssen Pharmaceutical, and Legend Biotech for advising them on the topics of T cell therapy side effects. BRITTANY HARVEY: Thank you. Then getting into the content of this guideline, what are the immune related nervous system toxicities addressed in this guideline? And what are the overarching recommendations for evaluation of these neurologic immune related adverse events? BIANCA SANTOMASSO: So neurologic immune related adverse events actually encompass a very diverse spectrum of neurologic syndromes that can occur as a complication of treatment with checkpoint inhibitors. So the spectrum that is covered by this guideline includes myasthenia gravis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, polyneuropathy, aseptic meningitis, and encephalitis. And although these are rarer than many of the other immune related adverse event types affecting other organ systems, they're increasingly being encountered due to more patients being treated with novel combinations of immunotherapies. And they're important to recognize, because along with myocarditis, they have generally more morbidity and even more mortality than irAEs affecting other organ systems. So it's important for clinical care providers to have a high index of suspicion for these events. Studies have suggested that these tend to occur in about 3% to 12% of patients, probably between 1% and 2% of patients developing severe events. So they're rare. But again, the events are probably more commonly seen in patients treated with combination checkpoint blockade. And we're increasingly seeing more combinations. So we should be on the lookout for these. Neurologic immune related adverse events can be divided into syndromes that affect the peripheral nervous system, so meaning the peripheral nerves, the neuromuscular junction, and muscle. So that would be Guillain-Barre syndrome, myasthenia gravis, and myositis. And those that affect the central nervous system, such as the brain, spinal cord, or leptomeninges. So those would be aseptic meningitis and encephalitis. The peripheral nervous system irAE appear to be more common than those affecting the central nervous system. And patients can present with a number of different symptoms that kind of relate to these syndromes. That can be as diverse as a headache to numbness, tingling, or focal weakness, such as a foot drop or facial weakness. You may see patients with severe altered mental status or personality changes or gait difficulty, walking difficulty, which could actually mean any number of syndromes. It's generally important to be aware that the timing of onset is generally early, a median of four weeks after the start of treatment, but can range anywhere from one week after the start of treatment to greater than a year. And because we know that cancer can spread to many parts of the nervous system, neurologic toxicity should be considered a diagnosis of exclusion. So that means that as part of the workup for neurologic immune related adverse events, it's imperative to rule out nervous system metastasis, stroke, and infection, which we know can occur at higher rates in patients with cancer. So for most neurologic immune related adverse events, diagnostic workup is similar. It should include MRI brain and/or of the spine, with and without contrast, and often a lumbar puncture for cerebrospinal fluid analysis, including cytology to rule out leptomeningeal metastasis. BRITTANY HARVEY: Thank you for that overview. In addition to those points for evaluation for all nervous system toxicities, what are the key recommendations for identification, evaluation, and management of myasthenia gravis? BIANCA SANTOMASSO: So for myasthenia gravis, presenting symptoms usually include fatiguable or fluctuating muscle weakness. It's generally more proximal than distal. And there's frequently ocular and/or bulbar involvement. So that means either ptosis, like a droopy eyelid, diplopia, or double vision, difficulty swallowing, dysarthria, facial muscle weakness, and/or head drop or neck weakness. Again, for any patient with new neurologic symptoms, an MRI of the brain or spine should be performed depending upon the symptoms to rule out central nervous system involvement by disease or some alternative diagnosis. And similar to idiopathic myasthenia gravis, acetylcholine receptor antibodies can be positive. So these should be checked. This is a blood test. But it's important to note that while these antibodies may be confirmatory, their absence does not rule out the syndrome. The rate of acetylcholine receptor antibody positivity in immune related myasthenia gravis has not been definitively established. So depending on the presentation, one might also consider sending a paraneoplastic panel for Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome. The single most important point I'd like to make regarding suspected immune related myasthenia gravis is that orbital myositis and generalized myositis from immune checkpoint inhibitors can present similarly. For this reason, early neurology consultation and electrodiagnostic testing with repetitive stimulation or single fiber EMG becomes important and helpful to distinguish the two. And to make matters even more complicated, we've learned that there's an overlap syndrome, where patients may develop not only myasthenia gravis, but also myositis and/or myocarditis at the same time. So basically, the neuromuscular junction is affected. But the local muscle and myocardium, which is heart muscle that's kind of related, may be affected all at once. And this overlap of syndromes may increase disease severity and mortality. So they're important to recognize. So what this means is that when you encounter a patient with suspected myasthenia gravis, you should also be checking CPK, muscle enzymes, aldolase to evaluate for myositis, and troponin and electrocardiogram to evaluate for myocarditis. And this should be done even if there are no obvious symptoms. So onto the treatment of myasthenia gravis, this is similar to the management of the idiopathic form. Therefore, it's helpful to have the involvement of a neurologist. The immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy should be held. And patients with mild symptoms are often started on pyridostigmine and corticosteroids. And patients with more severe symptoms should initiate IVIG or plasmapheresis. And patients with more severe symptoms may need to be admitted to the hospital. So that their neurologic and pulmonary status can be monitored closely for improvement. Some patients may require ICU level of monitoring. And considering adding rituximab if symptoms are refractory, and often, as symptoms improve, the steroids can be de-escalated. BRITTANY HARVEY: Understood. Those are all very important points for clinicians to consider. So then following that, what are the key recommendations for identification, evaluation, and management of Guillain-Barre syndrome? BIANCA SANTOMASSO: So Guillain-Barre syndrome, like myasthenia gravis, also presents with weakness. Most often, patients present with a progressive ascending muscle weakness. The syndrome can start with sensory symptoms or neuropathic pain that can be localized to the lower back and thighs. In addition to the classic ascending weakness, there may be facial weakness, double vision, numbness or tingling in the hands or feet, loss of balance, and coordination. And shortness of breath may occur due to respiratory muscle weakness. The autonomic nerves can also be affected and can present as new severe constipation or nausea, urinary problems, or orthostatic hypotension. The reflexes are often reduced or absent, deep tendon reflexes. So again, as for all of the syndromes, early involvement by a neurologist is recommended, if possible. Usually, MRI imaging of the spine is important to rule out spinal cord compression. And it also may show cauda nerve thickening or enhancement, which can occur with this syndrome. And the second aspect is cerebrospinal fluid analysis is important for diagnosis. This is important really for ruling out leptomeningeal metastasis, since that could present similarly. And often, what can be seen in GBS is an elevated protein level in the cerebrospinal fluid. In addition, unlike idiopathic GBS, there can be an elevated white blood cell count in the cerebrospinal fluid. Electrode diagnostic testing can also be helpful for confirmation, and serum tests for antiganglioside antibodies, and a paraneoplastic antibody workup may also be considered. Bedside pulmonary function test and swallowing evaluation should be performed if there's a concern for respiratory or swallowing dysfunction. And some patients do need to have inpatient admission and monitoring if symptoms are severe or if they appear to be progressing from mild. For management, the checkpoint inhibitor therapy should be held. And patients are most often treated with IVIG or plasmapheresis. Corticosteroids can be added to the IVIG or plasmapheresis. These are not usually recommended for idiopathic Guillain-Barre syndrome. However, in immune checkpoint inhibitor related forms, a trial is reasonable. And steroids are usually given at a higher dose for five days and then tapered over several weeks. BRITTANY HARVEY: Understood. I appreciate that overview. So then what are the key recommendations for identification, evaluation, and management of peripheral neuropathy? BIANCA SANTOMASSO: So peripheral neuropathy, or polyneuropathy, is a rare but likely underreported complication of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. So in the large databases and meta-analyses, those have really focused on Guillain-Barre syndrome for reporting. But other types of neuropathies, such as painful length dependent sensory and motor axonal neuropathies, or polyradiculopathies or sensory neuropathies do occur after immune checkpoint inhibitors and are probably under-recognized. So evaluation of immune related neuropathy should include neurology consultation to guide the neurology phenotype determination and also the workup. The evaluation primarily relies on a combination of electrodiagnostic studies, serologic tests, and MRI neuroimaging. Because peripheral nervous syndromes can overlap, screening for neuromuscular junction dysfunction with electrodiagnostic testing and myopathy is recommended for any patient who presents with at least motor symptoms that are thought to be peripheral. Serum testing can be helpful for ruling out reversible causes of neuropathy. Spinal imaging is recommended to exclude metastatic disease. And for management, it usually involves holding the checkpoint inhibitor in mild cases, using neuropathic pain medication or steroids in more severe cases. And very severe cases that kind of resembled GBS would be managed as per the GBS algorithm with IVIG or plasmapheresis. BRITTANY HARVEY: Understood. And it's key to look out for those overlapping adverse events. So then following that, what are the key recommendations for aseptic meningitis? BIANCA SANTOMASSO: Right, so now we're getting into the central nervous system toxicity. So aseptic meningitis is an inflammation of the meninges. And it can present with headache, photophobia, neck stiffness. Patients can have nausea, and vomiting, and occasionally fever. The mental status is usually normal. And in patients presenting with headache, which in isolation, could suggest an aseptic meningitis, it's important to evaluate if they have any confusion or altered behavior, which might suggest an encephalitis. And this distinction is important, because suspected encephalitis triggers a different workup, which we'll be discussing later, and also even different management. So the workup for aseptic meningitis includes neuroimaging, usually an MRI of the brain. And on that imaging, we sometimes see abnormal leptomeningeal enhancement. It's important not to assume that this is cancer and to do a lumbar puncture to evaluate cerebrospinal fluid both for inflammation and to exclude other causes of meningeal disease, particularly neoplastic and infectious causes. So cytology, Gram stain, and culture, and other infectious studies should be negative. And it's recommended that empiric antibiotics or antiviral therapy be considered to cover for infectious meningitis until the cerebrospinal fluid results return negative. What's seen in the cerebrospinal fluid in aseptic meningitis is typically reactive lymphocytes, but also neutrophils or histiocytes may be prominent on the cytology. And while the symptoms can be severe, sometimes requiring hospitalization, the management of this entity, these are usually quite treatable. Aseptic meningitis generally responds very well to corticosteroids. So management involves holding the checkpoint inhibitor. And you can often get away with starting a fairly modest dose of corticosteroids, such as oral prednisone, 0.5 to 1 milligram per kilogram or the equivalent. And steroids can usually be tapered over two to four weeks. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great, thank you for reviewing those recommendations. So then you just mentioned the distinction of aseptic meningitis and encephalitis. So what are those key recommendations for identification, evaluation, and management of encephalitis? BIANCA SANTOMASSO: So in encephalitis, the mental status is not normal. It's characterized by, really, an acute or subacute confusion, altered mental status, altered behavior, memory deficits, including working memory and short-term memory. There can be, as associated symptoms, headaches, new onset seizures, psychiatric symptoms, which can include delusions or hallucinations. There could be weakness, sensory changes, imbalance, or gait instability, along with the mental status changes. And so similar to aseptic meningitis, the other central nervous system toxicity, it's important to distinguish encephalitis from other causes of altered mental status, such as CNS metastases, stroke, or infection. And as for the other syndromes, it's very helpful to have neurologic consultation early, if possible. An MRI of the brain is critical. And in addition, MRI of the spine may be obtained to evaluate for inflammatory demyelinating ischemic or metastatic lesions. In immune related encephalitis, MRI brain imaging may reveal T2 flare changes, typical of what can be seen in idiopathic autoimmune or limbic encephalitis. But most often, the MRI imaging is normal. So in this situation, a lumbar puncture for CSF studies to evaluate for evidence of inflammation can be very helpful. You can expect to see either a lymphocytic pleocytosis or an elevated protein, or CSF restricted oligoclonal bands. CSF analysis is also helpful for excluding other causes of encephalitis, particularly viral encephalitis. So HSV, Herpes Simplex Virus, or varicella zoster virus encephalitis should be ruled out and treated with antivirals while the tests are pending. So typically, these entities can be excluded by PCR testing for HSV and VZV. Electroencephalogram, or EEG, can also be helpful for revealing subclinical seizures or status epilepticus, which can occur as a complication of encephalitis or as a cause of persistently depressed sensorium. But these are not specific to encephalitis. Other testing that's done includes screening metabolic tests to look for alternative etiologies. And for this entity, serum and CSF autoimmune antibody evaluation should be sent to assess for malignancy associated neurologic syndromes. And your neurologist can help you with the workup and management, in particular which tests to send. There have been reported cases of antibody positive checkpoint inhibitor related encephalitis. For management, in contrast to aseptic meningitis, these are generally not as steroid sensitive. So you often have to treat with either higher steroid doses, even pulsed steroid doses, along with IVIG or plasmapheresis. If no improvement, escalation to rituximab and cyclophosphamide can be considered, with the assistance of neurology. This management guidance is taken from how to treat autoimmune encephalitities that are not related to checkpoint inhibitors. Unfortunately, these can be difficult to treat. The response may only be partial. So this is one area in need of better understanding of best therapeutics. BRITTANY HARVEY: OK, thank you for reviewing that and pointing out where there's future research needed as well. And I appreciate your reviewing the recommendations for each of these neurologic immune related adverse events. So then to wrap us up, in your view, how will these recommendations for the management of nervous system toxicities impact both clinicians and patients? BIANCA SANTOMASSO: Yeah, so I think this is a daunting list of toxicities. But I'll say that in most situations, the immune checkpoint inhibitor side effects are often manageable and reversible with proper supportive care. They can be serious, and they require close vigilance and prompt treatment and identification. But by knowing what to look for in early identification, that allows early intervention, which is really the key to reversibility and the best outcomes. So having these toxicities on your differential diagnosis is critical. And I think these guidelines really help inform both clinicians, and care providers, and patients on what the possible manifestations are. So we believe this guideline and its recommendations will help members of clinical teams with the recognition and the management of these unique toxicities. And again, it's timely recognition and early intervention that helps patients, really, by increasing their safety with early management. BRITTANY HARVEY: Great, well, thank you for your work on these guidelines and for taking the time to speak with me today, Dr. Santomasso. BIANCA SANTOMASSO: My pleasure. Thank you so much. BRITTANY HARVEY: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. Stay tuned for additional episodes on the management of immune related adverse events. 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 iTunes 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. [MUSIC PLAYING]

An interview with Dr. Jennifer Griggs from University of Michigan and Dr. Gary Lyman from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center & University of Washington, co-chairs on “Appropriate Systemic Therapy Dosing for Obese Adult Patients with Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.” This guideline updates recommendations on appropriate dosing of systemic antineoplastic agents – including cytotoxic chemotherapy, checkpoint inhibitors, and targeted therapies – for obese adults with cancer. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.   TRANSCRIPT [MUSIC PLAYING] SPEAKER: 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   BRITTANY HARVEY: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one at podcasts.asco.org. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Jennifer Griggs from the University of Michigan and Dr. Gary Lyman from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and University of Washington, co-chairs on appropriate systemic therapy dosing for obese adult patients with cancer ASCO guideline update. Thank you for being here, Dr. Griggs and Dr. Lyman.   DR. GARY LYMAN: Thank you, Brittany.   DR. JENNIFER GRIGGS: Thanks for having us.   BRITTANY HARVEY: First, 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 full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Griggs, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic?   DR. JENNIFER GRIGGS: No, I don't.   BRITTANY HARVEY: And Dr. Lyman, do you have any relevant disclosures related to this guideline?   DR. GARY LYMAN: I have no relevant disclosures to this guideline.   BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Thank you, both. Then let's get into the substance of this guideline update.   So Dr. Lyman, can you explain what prompted an update to this guideline on appropriate dosing for obese adult patients with cancer last published in 2012, and what is the scope of this update?   DR. GARY LYMAN: Thank you, Brittany. Yes, this is an update of a previous guideline, several years old, that was prompted by evidence that there was wide variation in how chemotherapies at that time were being dosed, particularly in the overweight and obese population. Some were capping the dose, some were giving the full weight-based dosing, and all sorts of permutations in between. So that guideline was greeted, I think quite favorably, and, in fact, led to changes in clinical practice in many institutions and I believe also in the cooperative group research networks.   Since that time, however, a whole array of new therapies have come along. These, we'll talk about briefly in this podcast, include the novel targeted therapies based on molecular targets, as well as the new checkpoint inhibitors, and other monoclonal antibody therapies, where the dosing issues, in general, are different for many of these agents. And specifically for patients who are overweight and obese, we thought it was important that we update this guideline, review the evidence in total appropriate to the dosing of these new agents in overweight and obese patients, and make updated recommendations that would be more relevant to that practice of oncology in 2021.   BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Thank you for explaining the previous version of the guideline and for explaining the expanded scope. So given that, I'd like to review those key recommendations made in this guideline. So Dr. Griggs, what are the recommendations regarding dosing of cytotoxic chemotherapy in obese adults with cancer?   DR. JENNIFER GRIGGS: With rare exception, we recommend, and the evidence supports, using actual body weight when we calculate doses. So whether it's just per kilogram, milligrams per kilogram for example, or per meter squared, using body surface area, we recommend that the actual body weight of the patient be used with no compromise or capping, no maximizing the dose as if it were calculated using 2 meter squared for example. There's no evidence that that's necessary to avoid side effects, and, in fact, there's increasing evidence that doing so, that limiting the doses in patients, is associated with decreased benefit of the treatment.   Since the original guideline came out, there's been no convincing evidence that has made us change our recommendation. So again, in brief, we recommend that actual body weight be used in calculating the target dose for cytotoxic chemotherapy.   BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Thank you. That's very clear for clinicians. So Dr. Lyman, you mentioned this in your introduction to the scope of this guideline, what are the recommendations for dosing of checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy in obese adults with cancer?   DR. GARY LYMAN: Well, Brittany, these are the new agents that I referred to in the introduction that have appeared in broad usage in oncology and other disciplines since our 2012 guideline recommendation. Many of these are monoclonal antibodies, and they just generally have a wider therapeutic index and distribute an extracellular fluid and plasma with less correlation with body size descriptors, such as weight or body surface area. They may be, in fact, in some cases are amenable to fixed dosing schedules.   So this has all led to a whole array of new agents approved by the FDA for cancer therapies that are being dosed on a wide variety of means, some based on dosing like we have done for classical chemotherapy that Dr. Griggs discussed using body surface area, in some cases body weight, and then some being dosed base on fixed dosing-- fixed size regardless of the body size that the patient represents. So it gets a little complicated, because currently the monoclonal antibodies and many of these therapies are dosed in different ways, versus fixed dosing is recommended for some of the immunotherapies, alemtuzumab, afatinib, as well as targeted therapies like pertuzumab, which are relatively recent.   And then weight-based dosing, milligram per kilogram, is used for other checkpoint inhibitors, like ipilumumab, as well as other monoclonals like bevacizumab and trastuzumab among others. And then again some were still dosing based on body surface area, such as rituximab and cetuximab. So the bottom line is these agents will be dosed and the approved dosing by the FDA will generally be based on the schedule and dosing that was used in the pivotal clinical trials. And different companies in different disease areas have chosen different ways of dosing these.   So for us, with this guideline, and this is true of overweight and obese patients in particular, we recommend dosing these agents based on the FDA approved dose and schedule for that agent. But be aware, as I indicated, that it will vary from agent to agent and category of agent from one to the other. Because of the convenience and perhaps some safety issues related to fixed dosing, additional data has been submitted to the FDA for some agents, nivolumab, for instance, and pembrolizumab, to suggest that a different dosing schema, fixed dose schema can be used, and that has led to a modification in those dosing recommendations.   So even if you think you know, if you're not using these agents day in and day out, you really should check and make sure you're using the currently recommended dosing. And final point is, in the overweight and obese patient, any dose modification because of adverse events or scheduling changes should be applied independent of the patient's obesity or overweight status. In other words, any dose modification that you would apply a healthy weight patient is the same type of dose modification you should apply in the overweight and obese patient and not modify solely based on the patient's weight or obesity status.   BRITTANY HARVEY: Definitely. Great. That was actually going to be my next question. So Dr. Griggs, do you have anything to add about for obese adult patients with cancer who experience high grade toxicity-- should clinicians modify dosing and schedules differently than they would for non obese patients?   DR. JENNIFER GRIGGS: Well, as Dr. Lyman says, the same with checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies, we don't recommend and the evidence doesn't support making changes in a different way. That is, there's no interaction between obesity status and the recommendation through dose modification. So in a patient who has severe toxicity related to chemotherapy as well as the targeted agents and checkpoint inhibitors, we recommend that standard dose modifications be made, and moreover that if the patient does better that one consider dose escalation again, if there were for example another concurrent illness that might have contributed in part to the toxicity. So if that other factor resolves, let the dose be increased again to try to maintain that relative intensity dose over time that we consider ideal.   BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Thank you for reviewing that for the cytotoxic agents in addition to the immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies. So then, Dr. Lyman, the last clinical question of this guideline-- how should body surface area be calculated?   DR. GARY LYMAN: Well, this is the issue alluding to when I mentioned that there could be safety concerns with these complex calculations. And we tried to make it simple in the guidelines. There are multiple BSA-- Body Surface Area-- calculators out there. You can search them on the web, you can go to textbooks, and there's a whole range of them.   And we actually looked at this. This goes back to the original guideline, and it holds true today, that if you compare that the dose calculated by these different calculators, it's very close to one another. So our bottom line recommendation-- if you're going to use body surface area for calculating the dose of conventional cytotoxic therapy or any of these other agents where that dosing approach is recommended, any of these calculators are going to give you a safe and hopefully effective dose of the therapy. And we don't prefer or recommend one over the other.   Again, there are many on the web. Many institutions have their preferred and may even have embedded the calculator within the EMR or computer order entry system. Many prefer the Mosteller, the Du Bois, the Boyd, there's a whole variety of these, but all of them will generally yield very similar calculations. We haven't mentioned, and just to point out, as most oncologist know certainly, is one drug group, a specific agent, carboplatin is dosed differently. And for carboplatin, we calculate the dose based on a target area under the curve and GFR, so that the Calvert formula calculates the dose differently for carboplatin. And that's for historical as well as pharmacologic reasons.   So again, as Dr. Griggs mentioned, for classical chemotherapy, body surface area is the most common one. But any of the approved calculators or available calculators will give you essentially the same dosing recommendation. And I would follow what's recommended by your institution.   BRITTANY HARVEY: OK. Well, thank you both for reviewing the key recommendations in this guideline update. So finally, Dr. Griggs, in your view, why is this guideline update important, and how will it impact both clinicians and patients with cancer?   DR. JENNIFER GRIGGS: Dr. Lyman and I have viewed this as a really important guideline and guideline update. Because, as we know, the prevalence of obesity is increasing and obesity is associated with an increase in the risk of cancer-- many cancers, not all. And moreover, people who are obese tend to have worse outcomes. And so to try to level out and keep people from systematically what we consider underdosing people who are obese with chemotherapy is very likely to improve outcomes for an important group of our patients.   In addition, the update, because it's been updated now since 2012, we have more evidence that what we're recommending, what the evidence has supported thus far historically and in trials, is actually safe. There's been no signals, in other words, that the original guideline needed to be altered for certain patients or drugs. And now, with this update, we're pretty confident, based on what we know from the FDA and clinical trials, that using actual body weight is not just appropriate, but it's also recommended. So it's an important issue for the population and for our patients, and it's important for clinicians to have the confidence to use actual body weight when calculating anticancer drug doses.   BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Thank you, both, for all the work you did to update this evidence-based guideline and thank you for taking the time today to speak with me on the podcast, Dr. Griggs and Dr. Lyman.   DR. GARY LYMAN: Thank you, Brittany.   DR. JENNIFER GRIGGS: Thanks, Brittany. We want to thank our co-authors on the guidelines, as well as the ASCO staff for their tremendous work.   DR. GARY LYMAN: Yes, we couldn't do it without all of them, and it's a tremendous team effort.   BRITTANY HARVEY: Definitely. We thank them all as well. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. 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 on iTunes 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.   [MUSIC PLAYING]

An interview with Jessica Geiger, MD, from Cleveland Clinic and Patrick Ha, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, co-chairs on “Management of Salivary Gland Malignancy: ASCO Guideline.” This guideline provides recommendations for preoperative evaluation, surgical procedures, radiotherapy techniques, the role of systemic therapy, and follow-up evaluations for patients with salivary gland malignancies. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines.   TRANSCRIPT SPEAKER: 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   BRITTANY HARVEY: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Jessica Geiger from Cleveland Clinic and Dr. Patrick Ha from the University of California San Francisco, co-chairs of management of salivary gland malignancy ASCO guideline. Thank you for being here, Dr. Geiger and Dr. Ha.   DR. PATRICK HA: Thank you, Brittany.   DR. JESSICA GEIGER: Thank you.   BRITTANY HARVEY: First, 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 full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Geiger, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline?   DR. JESSICA GEIGER: No, I don't.   BRITTANY HARVEY: And Dr. Ha, do you have any relevant disclosures that are related to this guideline?   DR. PATRICK HA: No, I do not.   BRITTANY HARVEY: Thank you both. Then let's talk about some of the content of this guideline. So first, Dr. Geiger, can you give us a general overview of the purpose and the scope of this evidence-based guideline on the management of salivary gland malignancy?   DR. JESSICA GEIGER: Sure. So salivary gland cancers-- they're relatively rare, and they encompass a wide variety of both histologies, but also biologic behaviors of cancers. This is a very multidisciplinary tumor, so surgeons, radiation oncologists, pathologists, medical oncologists-- they all play an integral role in treating these patients. And the purpose of this guideline was to bring all of these disciplines together and to develop an as strong as possible, evidence-based way of approaching the diagnosis of such cancers and then approaching it from all modalities of therapy-- surgical, radiotherapy, systemic therapy-- in a very evidence-based and organized fashion.   BRITTANY HARVEY: Great, then as you just mentioned, this is a multidisciplinary guideline, and it covers six different subtopics on the management of salivary gland malignancy-- preoperative evaluation, surgical management, radiotherapy, systemic therapy, follow up, and treatment options for recurrent and metastatic disease. I'd like to go through and review the key recommendations from each of those sections for our listeners.   So first, Dr. Ha, what is the guideline recommend regarding preoperative evaluation for patients with salivary gland malignancy?   DR. PATRICK HA: Great, so I'd first like to start off by saying that we were focusing on salivary gland malignancy. So again, these are tumors where we may not know the diagnosis, but we're suspicious of this being cancer as opposed to a benign tumor.   So along those lines, there are many different imaging recommendations-- first off, that some sort of imaging would be helpful if there's a suspicion of cancer, and then drilling down a little bit more specifically if there is concern about bone involvement. And then CT scan was recommended if it was more of a concern about the soft tissue or perineural invasion or skull-based invasion, then MRI was suggested. And we did spend some time focusing on the strength of and the importance of tissue biopsies, either with fine needle aspiration biopsy or core needle biopsy as a real helpful tool to help clinicians determine what sort of procedures and care this patient might need.   Additionally, with the onset of more understanding of the pathology in the markers, it was felt that using these biopsies-- these FNAs or core biopsies-- to perform either molecular or immunohistochemical studies could further help clarify what the diagnosis would be and thus lead to sort of more specific and defined treatment subsequently.   BRITTANY HARVEY: And then following those evaluation and imaging and biopsy recommendations, what are the key surgical recommendations?   DR. PATRICK HA: Yeah, so again this is probably known to most people-- that when it is considered resectable, the surgery is really the mainstay upfront management option for these patients. We spent some time looking at the different types of surgeries and felt that it was a bit up to the discretion of the surgeon, but it depends on the location as to what type of surgery exactly needs to be done. But the idea is obviously we would want a complete resection of it and margins where possible.   And then we address the nodes and the ability for these cancers to sometimes spread regionally. And basically, if these are high risk or high grade cancers, specifically if there are things like the grade of the tumor itself-- the type-- and then whether there were other concerning features about it, than a neck dissection electively would be offered.   If there were N positive disease, then the neck dissection definitely should be performed. And then there was discussion as well about the facial nerve and how to manage that, wherein the evidence mostly reported trying to preserve the facial nerve whenever possible.   And then we did talk a little bit about the possibility of palliative resection, which can occur sometimes in the presence of distant metastatic disease upon presentation. And it was felt again that there is a palliative component to surgery if the metastatic disease didn't seem to be rapidly progressive or imminently lethal. So these are all the difficult decisions that we discussed regarding surgery.   BRITTANY HARVEY: OK, thank you. Then Dr. Geiger, how does this guideline address radiotherapy for patients with salivary gland malignancy?   DR. JESSICA GEIGER: Well, as Dr. Ha mentioned, this is primarily a surgical disease. So most of the recommendations regarding radiotherapy involve the post-operative setting. But if you look at the guideline, we have actually laid out 10 recommendations regarding radiation, and they're dependent on various factors with each cancer, so the histology of the disease, other tumor pathologic factors, such as T-stage, vascular, lymphatic invasion, margin status, perineural invasion-- all of that goes into the recommendation here. There's also considerations for what nodal basins to cover, based on where the tumor is, and even the type of radiation, and, of course, the timing of radiation. All of that is important to be considered, and all of those specific features are mentioned within the recommendations.   BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. And then in addition to those radiotherapy recommendations, what's the role of systemic therapy for patients with salivary gland malignancy?   DR. JESSICA GEIGER: Well, unlike the radiation section, where I said we have 10 specific recommendations, we're limited with the evidence for the use of systemic therapy in the curative setting of these diseases. So one point that I will make is, again, we're very limited based on evidence, and this is what is driving such a guideline-- is evidence, evidence, evidence. And we just don't have it.   There are several large studies that are ongoing, but until those results flesh out, we were limited. And so our recommendations are based on the lack thereof, and often are considered low quality or moderate strength of recommendation at best, based on our expert panel.   Basically, outside of a clinical trial, we're not recommending the addition of radiosensitizing chemotherapy with post-op radiotherapy. Again, that can be contentious, especially in the clinical realm, where there's a wide variety of biologic behavior. So some of the more aggressive diseases, we know that oncologists are advocating for the use of chemotherapy. But again, the evidence is not there yet, and so we weren't able to make that informative within this guideline.   And then we also addressed tumors that are expressing different markers, like androgen receptor, HER2, and make a recommendation for the use of targeted therapy, again noting a lack of evidence for it outside of a clinical trial currently.   BRITTANY HARVEY: OK, thank you for explaining the reasoning and the evidence behind those particular recommendations. So then for patients who have then completed treatment for salivary gland malignancy, Dr. Ha, what are the timelines and recommendations for follow up for these patients?   DR. PATRICK HA: Well, so again, this is where the data are really not strong. And so you'll notice that pretty much all of these recommendations were informal in consensus. But similar to the NCCN guidelines for general cancer follow up was believed by the panel that early follow up more frequently and just sort of spaced out over time was important.   And then there was an emphasis on some form of imaging often, whether that be CT or MRI, it's sort of up to the practitioner. And then perhaps for a couple of years after treatment, that might be important.   It was also felt that, as everyone probably knows, that one of the areas where this may spread to distantly is in the lung. So getting some sort of chest imaging between years 2 and 5 would be important as well, just in case one can detect an asymptomatic yet potentially treatable metastasis.   So again, a lot of informal consensus. The idea is that we feel it's important to continue to follow these patients to look for signs of recurrence, whether that's with imaging or physical exam. We thought that either would be an option.   BRITTANY HARVEY: Definitely. And the last section of recommendations for this guideline is on recurrent or metastatic salivary gland malignancies. So what are those treatment options, Dr. Geiger?   DR. JESSICA GEIGER: Well like before, when we're talking about systemic therapy, again, informal consensus is sort of driving the majority of these recommendations, again highlighting lack of strong evidence. That said, there are several different clinical situations that we address within these recommendations.   So whether a patient presents with diffusely metastatic disease with a large tumor burden or oligometastatic disease, where maybe just one or two local or regional areas have recurred. And so in that latter case, you could discuss with the patient is it worthwhile to do some locally ablative therapy, such as SBRT, or possibly a resection versus, for more widely metastatic disease, starting systemic therapy.   Now, there's also a recommendation specifically for the histology adenoid cystic carcinoma. And that is based on studies that have been done with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. And so there's some evidence for that outside of cytotoxic chemotherapy.   And then we also make a mention, which is very important, again on checkpoint inhibitors, but also on some of the targeted therapies-- doing next generation sequencing, looking for molecular markers that drive the progression of these diseases, and then in subsequent targeted therapies for this.   So we really try to encompass any and all particular situations that an oncologist may encounter with these diseases and offer some guidelines and recommendations regarding the appropriate management.   BRITTANY HARVEY: Great. Thank you both for reviewing those key points of the recommendations. This guideline goes through a lot of content, and so it's interesting to hear more about what kind of those details are for each section. So Dr. Ha, in your view, what is the importance of this guideline, and how will it impact clinicians?   DR. PATRICK HA: Well, I think that we realized we had a lot to cover in just a short amount of time. And I think that we felt that while the data may not be as strong with-- full of randomized clinical trials as perhaps other disease subgroups, we felt it was important to organize what the current state of the data are, because these are rare cancers, and there are some nuances between some of the histologies even that it may be difficult to keep up to date all the time. So organizing it into one document where it we have clearly delineated what areas we feel are common practice amongst experts and what areas actually do have some studies and perhaps some deeper level of understanding and depth of studies would be important, so that clinicians understood where it was that they have to be a little more creative and areas where they felt like hey, we feel like this is important to do.   So I think that that would be useful for clinicians. And I think also it provides a framework for future studies, meaning that we hope that whenever these get updated and 5 or 10 years that there will be more studies. But it also does, I think, help for those of us who are in the field to organize where those gaps are so you can look at the guidelines and really understand OK, these are the areas that we need better understanding of how to treat patients.   BRITTANY HARVEY: Definitely. It's helpful to understand both where there is evidence and where there is no evidence and where informal consensus takes rule. So then finally, Dr. Geiger, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients?   DR. JESSICA GEIGER: Well, when it comes to cancer treatment, there is a lot of fear in the unknown. And I feel that patients are always asking am I doing the right things? Am I looking to make sure that I'm getting the best of care? And I think with any guideline-- this one included-- patients can rest assured that they don't have to make the trip and travel to a large academic center necessarily-- that they can feel comfortable knowing that their providers are following the data and following such guidelines that have been brought forth in one single document. Even though the patients aren't going to necessarily have this document at hand, they can have confidence within their oncology team.   And then I think they'll also benefit from, as Dr. Ha was saying, as medical professionals being able to identify gaps and bring forth clinical trials. That's the only way that we're going to be able to move this field forward, particularly in such a rare disease that many histologies as salivary gland malignancies. And so while being treated in a regional oncology office or a community oncology office, maybe their provider will then recommend clinical trials that are open and have that additional opportunity for patients, if they so desire. So knowing that they're getting great standard of care based on evidence, but then also the opportunity to create new evidence for us to better treat patients in the future.   BRITTANY HARVEY: Definitely. Well, I want to thank you both so much for your work on developing these evidence-based guidelines and for taking the time to speak with me today on the podcast, Dr. Geiger and Dr. Ha.   DR. JESSICA GEIGER: Thanks.   DR. PATRICK HA: Thank you.   BRITTANY HARVEY: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, available on iTunes 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.

An interview with Dr. William P. Tew from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center on “PARP Inhibitors in the Management of Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline.” This guideline provides recommendations on the use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) for management of epithelial ovarian, tubal, or primary peritoneal cancer. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines. Transcript 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello, and welcome to the ASCO guidelines podcast series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today, I'm interviewing Dr. William P. Tew from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, lead author on PARP inhibitors and the management of ovarian cancer. Thank you for being here, Dr. Tew. Thank you, Brittany, for having me. First, I'd like to note the 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 full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Tew, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic? No, I do not. OK, thank you. Then, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers? Sure. So my co-chair, Elise Kohn, and panel members, and ASCO staff put together a very comprehensive guideline on the use of PARP inhibitors in the management of women with ovarian cancer. And as many of your listeners may know, there has been a rapid speed of phase 3 practice changing trials that have been published and FDA approvals within the last year, and what we wanted to do was to put that all in one document and give guidance on how and when and which PARP inhibitor to use in your specific patient and at what point during the lifecycle of ovarian cancer of when to use it. So we broke up the guideline into five sections. One is the use of PARP inhibitors as maintenance therapy after first line platinum based treatment in women with stage 3 and 4 ovarian cancer. Second, we looked at maintenance therapy after a second or higher platinum based treatment. Three, the use of PARP inhibitors as treatment for patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. We then looked at different combinations of PARP inhibitors, whether it's with chemotherapy or biologics and the data that we have presently on those combinations. And then lastly, we looked at common side effects with PARP inhibitors and offering guidance on how to manage those toxicities. Great. Then you just mentioned that this covers several different sections, so I'd like to go through each of those sections and review those recommendations for our listeners. So first, what are the recommendations for PARP inhibitors for patients with newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer? So for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, there's been several studies that have been published in the last year and a half, and we broke this up into the different studies and the different patient populations. First and foremost, we wanted to stress that PARP inhibitors are not recommended for the use in the initial treatment of patients with early stage, meaning stage 1 or 2 ovarian cancer, because there really isn't sufficient evidence to support the use in this population. All of the trials looked at patients with stage 3 or 4 epithelial ovarian cancer and used primarily in the main setting, and what that basically means is that women that have had a complete or partial response to first line platinum based chemotherapy and have response by CT scan or CM 125, when do you use a PARP inhibitor? Which are the women that you would say PARP inhibitor is going to benefit you with long-term outcome? So our first recommendation is based on a trial-- looking at a drug called olaparib. Olaparib was the first PARP inhibitor published in this population, and in that study, they included women with both germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene. And so this is a group of women that you could offer olaparib for. And generally, that is given at a dosage of 300 milligrams once every 12 hours for up to two years. The second study looked at a drug called niraparib, and in this trial, they included population of all women, regardless of BRCA status. And they offered it to women with high-grade serous or endometrial ovarian cancer. And the FDA has given approval for the use of niraparib for all patients, and that is at a dosage of 200 to 300 milligrams oral daily for three years, with the lower dose given for patients who have a low platelet count or low body weight to prevent the common toxicity of thrombocytopenia. Then you could consider longer durations in select individuals, but generally, these drugs are given for a limited period of time and continued unless a patient has significant toxicity or progression. The other two studies in the newly diagnosed ovarian cancer population was a study that looked at olaparib with bevacizumab maintenance. This was a study that included patients with germline or somatic mutations and BRCA 1 or 2 and/or genomic instability or homologous repair deficiency, as determined by the myriad my choice test. And again, this population, a partial or complete response to chemotherapy and their first line therapy should have included bevacizumab. And so if one is on bevacizumab with their platinum based therapy, they should have a response to treatment, one could continue bevacizumab and add the addition of olaparib as a PARP inhibitor. And then the final study that we addressed was called switch therapy, and that we don't really have enough data to support its use, specifically that's with the drug called veliparib, and veliparib was given in addition to the chemotherapy and then continued as a maintenance therapy. We don't really have sufficient data to suggest this was superior, equal, or less toxic than the approaches discussed above, which is single agent PARP inhibitor or bevacizumab with PARP inhibitor. And it should be noted, also, veliparib is not yet an FDA approved drug and not commercially available. OK, then what are the recommendations for PARP inhibitors for patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer? Yeah, and this data has been around a little bit longer, and I think any oncologists that treat them with ovarian cancer are more comfortable with the evidence with these studies. So what we're talking about here is that patients who were in clinical remission and then their ovarian cancer recurs. And the first group of women that we look at is patients that are then retreated with platinum based therapy. Those women that have platinum sensitive disease, and then whether to offer PARP maintenance in the second line or more remission settings. And there is very good data to support the use of PARP monotherapy in second or greater maintenance. This has been shown with all three commercially available PARP inhibitors, olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib. We do know that women who have a germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in the BRCA 1 or 2 genes have the highest benefit of maintenance PARP inhibition, and those patients have the strongest evidence to receive those drug. So the only other point I wanted to make with current ovarian cancer is if a patient has received a PARP inhibitor in the past, there is no evidence to give a second exposure to PARP inhibitor. Those studies are being developed now, but PARP inhibitor use once in the life cycle is what's recommended. And then there's also evidence to use PARP inhibitor as an actual treatment. So not in the maintenance setting, and the drug most commonly used as one called niraparib or olaparib, and these are patients that have measurable disease or generally have platinum sensitive disease, and those women that have homologous repair deficiency, as determined by the Myriad myChoice test, and again, have platinum sensitive to disease do have benefit for treatment with PARP inhibitors. OK, then, so you just mentioned this, but is it correct that PARPi therapy for epithelial ovarian cancer should not be repeated over the course of treatment? Right now, that is what we recommend. All of the studies that looked at the use of PARP inhibitors disqualified women who have had prior PARP inhibitors. So as of now, we don't have any evidence to support the use of repeated PARP inhibition. And what does the guidelines say about using PARP inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy or other targeted agents? There are many studies going on currently looking at the use of PARP inhibitors in combination with immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and other targeted agents, but currently, at least in the recurrent setting, there is no data to support its use in combination with another anti-cancer treatment. Now, of course, in the context of a clinical trial, this would be very reasonable, and we encourage clinical trial participation. The only studies that looked at PARP in combination with other anti-cancer treatments are in the first line setting, as I discussed earlier, including PARP inhibitors with bevacizumab, as in the case with olaparib or PARP inhibitors with chemotherapy, as is often the case with veliparib. OK, thank you. And then how should clinicians manage the adverse effects associated with PARP inhibitors? I think the first and foremost thing is to be aware of the specific side effect profile of each PARP inhibitor, because they can vary slightly between parts. The most common side effects include fatigue, nausea, change in appetite, and effects on the blood counts, and we gave guidance on each of those specific side effects. As far as the effects on the blood counts, anemia, I'd say, is one of the more common side effects across all PARPi's, and the use of blood transfusions is generally recommended if patients are symptomatic and their hemoglobin is below 8 to 7. And then for neutropenia, usually, this requires hold of dosing, and we did not encourage the use of growth support, although it may be used in certain settings when the drugs on hold. And then the final cytopenia issue is the issue with platelets, and this is unfortunately very common side effect with niraparib. And we discussed earlier about starting at a lower dose, 200 milligrams of niraparib based on a weight and platelet count to help temper the degree of thrombocytopenia. But with thrombocytopenia, clearly, the drugs sometimes need to be held or discontinued if it's significant. And with cytopenias, we do recommend close observation of laboratory blood work, particularly in the first month of use of PARP inhibitors, and then always being mindful if patients are on PARP inhibitors for prolonged periods of time that there has been reports of treatment related myelodysplastic syndromes and leukemias and that should be further worked up if there is any evidence of dysplasia. So then, what is the importance of this guideline in your view, and how will its implementation affect clinical practice? Well, I think this is the most up-to-date and comprehensive guideline on PARP inhibitors and will help, both clinicians and patients, understand all the practice changing studies, the populations, and the settings they will use, and all these studies that were published over the last five years. I think this last year we've seen such a rapid growth of clinical trial results and FDA approvals that this manuscript, I think, successfully puts them all together in table form and brief recommendations to better treat and provide proper management to your patients with ovarian cancer. And then finally, how will these guideline recommendations impact patients with ovarian cancer? We were very fortunate to have two patient advocates as part of our panel, and what they told us was that these recommendations will help them understand the scientific trials, will put in context when to use PARP inhibitors, and also to prepare them for those conversations that they have with their clinicians in discussing if they're a good candidate for a PARP inhibitor now or in the future. So we're really proud of that, that we were able to get our patients perspective in developing these guidelines. Definitely. Well, thank you for your work on these important and timely guidelines and for taking the time to join me on the podcast today, Dr. Tew. My pleasure. Thank you so much, Brittany, for having me. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO guidelines app, available on iTunes 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.

An interview with Dr. Nasser Hanna from Indiana University Simon Cancer Center and Dr. Gregory Masters from Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute on "Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO and OH (CCO) Joint Guideline Update." This guideline provides recommendations on systemic therapy treatment options for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver alterations in epidermal growth factor receptor or ALK, based on histology, PD-L1 status, and/or the presence or absence of contraindications. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.  Transcript [MUSIC PLAYING] 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. [MUSIC PLAYING] Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows including this one at podcasts.asco.org. My name is Brittany Harvey. And today, I'm interviewing Dr. Nasser Hanna from Indiana University's Simon Cancer Center and Dr. Gregory Masters from Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute, co-chairs on therapy for stage IV, non-small cell lung cancer without driver alterations, ASCO and CCO Joint Guideline Update. Thank you for being here today Dr. Hanna and Dr. Masters. Thank you. Glad to be with you. My pleasure. Thanks. First, Dr. Hanna, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers? Sure. So the ASCO guidelines for the treatment of patients with stage IV, non-small cell lung cancer were last updated in 2017. And since that time, there has been a tremendous amount of change that has taken place. The 2017 guidelines included recommendations for basically three subgroups-- those patients with non-small cell lung cancer who have certain targetable DNA mutations and those who do not have those mutations but have a PD-L1 score of 50% or higher and then everyone else. But because of the rapid and vast changes that have taken place, we decided to make a separate guideline for those with targetable DNA mutations and to focus this current guideline on those without the targetable mutations. So within that context, this guideline categorizes patients by whether their tumors have a PD-L1 score of 0% to 49% or those who have a PD-L1 score or 50% or greater. And within those categories, recommendations are characterized based upon whether the patient has squamous cell histology or non-squamous cell histology. And we also consider whether patients are candidates for chemotherapy or perhaps even those that decline chemotherapy and whether they have any contraindications for immunotherapy. So what distinguishes these guidelines from other guidelines is our attempt to adhere to the strongest available evidence-based medicine. And while not every iteration of clinical management can be covered, these guidelines provide oncologists with a strong, evidence-based roadmap to treat the vast majority of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. So as a result of this collective effort by ASCO staff and the guideline writing committee, this report offers a substantial amount of change to the recommendations from the clinical practices guidelines provided in 2017. In 2017, the only recommendations for the use of immunotherapy were in the first line setting for patients who had a PD-L1 score of greater than 50% and in the second line setting of patients progressing after first line chemo. But these updated guidelines include the incorporation of immunotherapy in all subgroups of patients regardless of histology and PD-L1 score. So as a result, there are about three times the number of options to consider in the first line setting with these new guidelines compared to the 2017 guidelines. However, the 2020 guidelines provides a preferred treatment regimen for each situation to simplify the decision making process for most patients. And what are those key recommendations of this guideline update for patients without driver alterations? So the key changes for 2020 is the incorporation of immunotherapy into nearly all settings in the first line setting, regardless of tumor histology and regardless of PD-L1 score. For those patients who have a PD-L1 score of 50% or higher, single agent pembrolizumab remains the preferred treatment for most patients. But new evidence does provide a rationale for giving select patients chemotherapy, either carbo and pemetrexed if they have non-squamous, or carbo plus paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel for squamous plus the addition of pembrolizumab in this subgroup of patients. For those patients with PD-L1 scores of 0% to 49% who are eligible and willing to take chemotherapy, these new guidelines recommend chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab. For those who have a PD-L1 score of 1% to 49% are not appropriate for chemo or decline chemotherapy, these guidelines suggest single agent pembrolizumab as a reasonable option. The guidelines also provide the option of alternative chemo immunotherapy regimens to be used in patients with non-squamous, non small-cell that were not included in the prior guidelines. And while these are not necessarily preferred for most patients, select patients can be considered for these regimens, which include the immunotherapy drug, atezolizumab, and combination chemo with atezolizumab and bevacizumab. And the guidelines provide some commentary on potential scenarios in which these options should be considered. Dr. Masters, why is this guideline important, and how will it change practice? Well, the new ASCO CCO joint non-small cell lung cancer guideline update is important in that it clarifies recommendations for an international audience and is co-sponsored by the American Society for Clinical Oncology and Cancer Care Ontario. These guidelines were developed through a rigorous, evidence-based process with a broad range of experts, including a multidisciplinary team of clinicians, researchers, data specialists, and patient representatives. The new guideline update provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the current literature on the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. The current update also includes a data supplement with evidence tables, slide sets, and links to patient information through cancer.net, ASCO's patient information website. In an increasingly complicated environment for oncologists, managing patients with advanced cancer, we're learning how to incorporate molecular testing and other biomarkers. And this guideline will help change day-to-day practice for clinicians as they implement these recommendations. This guideline will help clarify the optimal treatment strategies for non-small cell lung cancer patients without driver gene mutations and allow individualization based on tumor histology and immunotherapy biomarkers, such as PD-L1 testing. At the same time, the update allows clinicians to use their individual judgment and experience to incorporate unique, intangible characteristics of patients. It also emphasizes the importance of patient preferences in deciding the optimal care for an individual affected by advanced non-small cell lung cancer. And finally, how will these guideline recommendations impact patients? The broad range of experts who've contributed to these guidelines includes a multidisciplinary team, including clinicians, researchers, data specialists, and patient representatives. This assures patients of a consensus opinion based on the available clinical research on treating advanced non-small cell lung cancer. It provides clinicians with the best up-to-date distillation of the many complicated trials of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in an area where patient-centered, precision medicine dictates the optimal treatment strategies. We incorporate molecular testing in these guidelines, although this particular guideline is directed at patients without driver gene mutations. We include recommendations on implementation of chemotherapy and immunotherapy based on the best available data on biomarker testing for PD-L1. We recognize, however, that new research continues into treatment strategies and molecular analysis to help guide incorporation of targeted therapy and immunotherapy. We recognize that new treatment options and combinations will become available, and new testing techniques will help guide the decision process in the future. We plan to continue to analyze the available research and update these guidelines as clinically indicated to provide the best options for our patients. Most of our patients will still be treated with palliative intent. But a growing number of patients have sustained control of their cancer with recent studies and updates suggesting that up to 25% of patients may have control of their disease for five years or longer. Now that more patients can maintain their quality of life with prolonged survival, with the current therapy, it is also critical that we continue to look to patient reported outcomes as an important way of defining the best options for our patients. Thank you both for your work on this ASCO CCO guideline update for therapy for stage IV, non-small cell lung cancer without driver alterations and for coming on the podcast today to provide an interview, Dr. Hanna and Dr. Masters. Thanks for having us on the program. And we have enjoyed being part of the process. Thank you. And thank you to all our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. 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 and iTunes or the Google Play Store. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. [MUSIC PLAYING]

An interview with Dr. Philip Saylor from Massachusetts General Hospital on "Bone Health and Bone-Targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer: ASCO Endorsement of a Cancer Care Ontario Guideline." This guideline includes recommendations for management of osteoporotic fracture risk in nonmetastatic disease and interventions for men with castration-resistant prostate cancer metastatic to bone. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines.  Transcript [MUSIC PLAYING] 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. [MUSIC PLAYING] Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one, at podcast.ASCO.org. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Philip Saylor from Massachusetts General Hospital, lead author on "Bone Health and Bone-Targeted Therapies for Prostate Cancer: ASCO Endorsement of a Cancer Care Ontario Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Saylor. Oh, it's my pleasure. First, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers and about the endorsement process? Yes. So the Cancer Care Ontario has a program in evidence-based medicine, and they periodically put out clinical practice guidelines for management of a whole variety of topics. And they relatively recently put out a publication on bone health and bone-targeted therapies in prostate cancer. And so that's a really big topic because bone health is such a big part of prostate cancer care across the entire range of scenarios that patients can face. And their guideline addresses topics all the way from osteoporosis and fragility fractures and that risk as it relates to GnRH agonist, androgen deprivation therapy that men can get for really any prostate cancer scenario, goes all the way from that to improving quality of life in patients who have bone metastases that have progressed despite systemic therapy. So it's really a very broad series of topics that they addressed. And so when they put out that guideline, ASCO identifies it as something that's very relevant to the ASCO community and goes through, then, a formal process of reviewing the methodology of those guidelines and then having an expert panel discuss the quality and evidence of the guidelines and really provide, if appropriate, an endorsement and some additional discussion of those topics. So what are the key recommendations of this guideline? They really have four sort of subtopics within this bone-themed guideline that are addressed and discussed in a fair amount of detail. And each one of those four topics deserves some of its own discussion. The first topic is osteoporosis and risk for just fragility fractures, like hip fracture and vertebral body compression fractures. That's one. The second is potential prevention of bone metastases in a patient that does not yet have bone metastases. The third one is management of castration-resistant prostate cancer metastatic to bone. And the fourth one is symptomatic management of men with CRPC metastatic to bone. So it is probably worth discussing each one of those, in some detail, one by one. So for the osteoporosis fracture risk question, Cancer Care Ontario, their recommendation really is that men with non-metastatic prostate cancer at high risk for fracture who are receiving ADT should be considered for the osteoporosis dosing of denosumab. And in situations or places where denosumab is not available, then patients can consider a bisphosphonate as an alternative. So we had a fair amount of discussion of that recommendation. We endorsed that recommendation. And I guess my personal emphasis would be that osteoporotic fracture risk is really the biggest challenge to that is not forgetting about it. So you can often have men who are in a good prostate cancer scenario, likely to be cured by their therapy. They're going to get some duration of ADT. And they look healthy as they sit there in clinic with you. They're likely to do well from a prostate cancer standpoint. And it just would be so easy not to adequately screen for osteoporotic fracture risk, and just not to remember that because so many of our discussions together in clinic are focused on the prostate cancer more than the broader health questions. And so, I mean, to me, I think not forgetting about this issue is really one of the most important things to emphasize in any discussion of osteoporosis. And so really, it's a fairly simple problem to screen for and manage. Most men should be, if they're going to be on any duration of ADT, should be tested with a bone density test, a DEXA scan. It's really a fairly inexpensive and easy test for getting a sense for where their bone health is as they begin. And I usually tell my patients in clinic that most men don't need any new prescription medicines to manage that risk, but we'll never figure out the ones who need it unless we go through the very disciplined systematic work of doing that screening. And then among those who really do deserve treatment, it's really denosumab at the osteoporosis dosing or a bisphosphonate. Really, any of those choices really works well for improving bone mineral density. One of the big ASCO discussion points is that denosumab is the only medicine that's been shown definitively to improve fracture risk in this setting. But that's really a product of denosumab being studied in a really large prospective randomized controlled trial. And so that's one where they required more than 1,000 patients in order to assess that fracture endpoint. So the reason, perhaps-- probably the most important reason that bisphosphonates have not been shown to improve fractures is that none of them have been studied in such a big study. The bone mineral density trials that have studied bisphosphonates are all on the order of maybe 30 to 100 patients rather than 1,000. So really, in many clinical settings, cost and convenience are important considerations. And when those are factored in, it's often very reasonable to use a bisphosphonate rather than denosumab, though either one really could be considered a gold standard. So that's point number one from the guidelines. Number two really discusses the issue of prevention of bone metastases. And so there are a couple of sub-recommendations from Cancer Care Ontario. But really, the most important point from that is that there is no bone-targeted drug that has been shown to prevent or delay the development of the first bone metastasis. So a number of different studies have tried to address this question in slightly different clinical scenarios. But the bottom line is, we don't use bone-targeted medicines to prevent the first bone metastasis. And so there's always been sort of an attractive potential effectiveness there because you think if your bone-targeted therapy changes the bone microenvironment, could the natural history of prostate cancer play out differently? But the answer is that we really don't have any convincing evidence of effectiveness on that front using any drug, in any situation. So that's a pretty easy one to summarize. For the third category of situation that's addressed in the guideline really relates to castration-resistant prostate cancer metastatic to bone. And so there are three sub-recommendations there. In that situation, either zoledronic acid or denosumab in monthly dosing at the skeletal event preventing dosing is a gold standard and reasonable to pursue. So that's one thing. In men with symptomatic disease, radium-223 can be considered, both to prevent skeletal events and to improve health-related quality of life. And then, finally, all radiopharmaceuticals can be considered in that situation for palliation of bone pain. And so we endorsed those recommendations as well. And we added a fair amount of discussion about how to optimally support men's health in those situations. For one thing, it's important to note that monthly zoledronic acid or monthly denosumab, whichever is pursued, is a fairly intensive osteoclast-targeted therapy. And so the studies that formally establish those as gold standards in that setting, they really only treated for about two years, plus or minus. So we don't know a lot about the safety of that intensity of therapy beyond two years. And so that's an important consideration, because there are many men who do well, thankfully, for a lot longer than two years in the castration-resistant setting with bone metastases. And so we really do, as clinicians, need to respect the possibility of toxicities, especially osteonecrosis of the jaw seems to be a much, much more common phenomenon with longer durations of treatment and with these more intensive regimens. So that's one thing that deserves a lot of attention by clinicians. The other thing is that dental evaluation and proactive dental care before and during any of these bone-targeted therapies is really an important issue not to miss. So the highest risk for having osteonecrosis of the jaw is in patients who are on one of these intensive regimens and then need to have invasive dental work when they're already been started on one of those regimens. Those are the jaws and mandibles that seem not to heal as well. And so ideally, every patient that is going to go on intensive osteoclast-targeted therapy really should be evaluated by a dentist with the question of whether there's any dental work that really needs to be done proactively before the start of one of those medicines. And so I always say I have to be humble as a medical oncologist to say I really know little to nothing about teeth. And so I have to reach out to my colleagues in the dental field to tell me which are the patients that need to do something ahead of time and heal before they start one of these medicines. So those are a couple of important points. And then the other thing that's really not a new piece of information but is important to emphasize is that it's really monthly therapy with denosumab or zoledronic acid should really be used only for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer metastatic to bone. So the patients who are responding to their systemic therapy really seem not to benefit from the bone-targeted therapy. And that's likely because any systemic therapy that's controlling the prostate cancer, in general, that's active against the cancer, in general, is going to prevent skeletal complications. We just have a lot fewer of those events, thankfully, when the disease is under control. And then, finally, the fourth category of recommendation addresses symptomatic castration-resistant prostate cancer metastatic to bone. And that's a situation where the radium-223 given in the typical once per month times six series of treatments is a gold standard, improves health-related quality of life and overall survival. I think one of the important discussion points on that front relates to recent clinical trial data that examines the use of other secondary systemic therapies in addition to the radium. So we have a prospective randomized study that looked at abiraterone with or without radium. And what it really showed was that the combination of abiraterone and prednisone with radium resulted at a very high rate of fractures and worsened overall survival. So that's really a combination that should absolutely not be pursued outside of a clinical trial. And so that's an important thing to know, but it's also sort of a cautionary tale that if we're tempted to combine other secondary medicines with our radium treatment, we really don't have a lot of evidence for the safety or efficacy of doing that. So that's the sort of thing that really should be reserved for clinical trials. And those are probably the most important-- those are the four main topics addressed by the guidelines. As you can tell, it really includes situations that are relevant to just about every man who receives systemic therapy for prostate cancer. Absolutely. And thank you for that comprehensive overview and those considerations of the guideline endorsement panel. Why if this guideline important? And how will it impact practice? So I think there's really sort of two main ways that it's important to the reader in 2020. I'd say, first of all, as a reminder and sort of educational promotion of awareness of the things that we already know but are easy to overlook. And I think the things that are really there are that it is easy to focus on the cancer therapy and easy to overlook the bone-targeted therapy. So as we have an increasing number of systemic therapies that are active against the cancer itself, and as we have sort of, in the best possible way, more options and more molecular considerations for our prostate cancer patients, we really can't forget to do the fundamentals, like doing monthly zoledronic acid or monthly denosumab in men with castration-resistant disease that's metastatic to bone. So I think that's the kind of thing that would be easy to forget, but that we shouldn't. And the second subtopic there would be screening for osteoporosis in any man who receives ADT. And again, that's something that-- osteoporosis or someone at high risk for fragility fracture, that's an asymptomatic situation until the fracture occurs. And then at that moment, you're really thinking back and saying, man, I wish I'd done something three years ago, or five years ago, or 10 years ago to improve bone health so that this wouldn't have happened in the first place. So it really is up to us as the clinicians caring for these prostate cancer patients to advocate for their general health in a way that includes their bone health. We just have to really not forget to screen for osteoporotic fracture risk. So I think those reminders of things that we already know but are really easy to miss, I think that's one aspect of this. And I think the other is just discussion of the data. It really adds some richness to the topics. And we do have these updates in an emerging field, particularly when it relates to radium-223. It seems like a drug really on, like, a drug strategy that could easily be paired with other drug strategies because it's reasonably well-tolerated. But we learned, really especially from that clinical trial experience of radium with abiraterone, we really learned that freewheeling combinations are not necessarily safe and not necessarily effective. And so we have to just be mindful of recently emerging data and have an ear to the ground about ongoing clinical trials, sort of how to best combine and sequence all the different medicines that are sort of in our back pocket. And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? Yeah. I mean, I think bone health is really just so important to every patient with prostate cancer. And it's almost, for clinicians, it's almost an educational issue where we have to help our patients understand how important bone health is. When we talk in clinic about a DEXA scan to look at bone density, a lot of men really look at me a little bit blankly. They think of osteoporosis more as this sort of issue that women deal with more so than men. But I always talk about, if you imagine having a hip fracture and needing hip surgery, or if you think about the pain and the postural changes that happen with vertebral body compression fractures, we really have to do something before any of those things occur. And most men agree with me if you put it in those practical terms. It's just the kind of thing that you have to take a couple of minutes out of your clinic visit to make sure that you address. And the other thing really is, in men who have more challenging prostate cancer metastatic to bone, even life-threatening prostate cancer, all the complications that can happen later in the course of disease, we really need to do the best possible job not only to keep men living longer, but also to make sure their quality of life is the best it can possibly be. And that's really-- and most of the time when prostate cancer starts to become a physical burden as it progresses, it's really a physical burden that's centered on bones and skeletal health. And that can have an effect on comfort. That can have an effect on mobility. And these things are hugely central to quality of life. So the impact on patients, all the way from osteoporosis to bone metastases, really, it's just such a central theme within the management of everybody who has to face prostate cancer. Thank you for your work on this important guideline, and thank you for your time today Dr. Saylor. Oh, it's my pleasure. We got to keep working to get the word out there and have the optimal management for all of our patients. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. 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 iTunes 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. [MUSIC PLAYING]  

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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today, I'm interviewing Dr. Manish Shah from New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, senior author on "Treatment of Patients with Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Shah. Thank you, it's a pleasure and honor to be here. So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers? Yes, absolutely. So the "Treatment of Patients with Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer" is a resource-stratified guideline. And it focuses on the management of patients with early-stage colon cancer. It's different than the surveillance and screening guideline that was written simultaneously for ASCO as another resource-stratified guideline. We felt that this was a big enough topic that we should keep it separate. So it really talks about the management of pre-malignant lesions, as well as early-stage colon cancers, as well as rectal cancers. And the other aspect of this is that we really focused on how the guideline may apply in settings where there-- they don't have maximal resources, so basic or limited settings as well. So I would like to talk a little bit about how the guideline was created, because I think that's an important aspect. And it distinguishes it from typical other ASCO Guidelines. So the management of colon cancer or colorectal cancer, there's a lot of literature on this. And there are several guidelines that have been produced by colorectal cancer societies, or surgical societies, or from other countries like the EORTC, or Japan, or Korea, or even the UK. So in fact, there were, I think, 30 to 40 different guidelines that we reviewed. And we felt that, instead of doing a new literature search to kind of rehash much of the same information, we reviewed all the guidelines for certain quality measures to then select a handful of guidelines that we would use as the reference for each of our key questions or key points. And this was done in a formal process, the first by ASCO and Sarah, who was the ASCO staff who wrote the guideline, along with the members of the guideline panel. And in this process, I think that we have a pretty comprehensive guideline that covers the questions with the best evidence available. So what are the key recommendations of this guideline? Yeah, so we addressed some several questions with regard to key recommendations. The first question, for example, was, what's the optimal treatment for patients with colon cancer that would be clinical stage 1 through 3c? And we distinguish that from a non-obstructing cancer to obstructing cancers as well, because the management would be very different. And what we really sort of focused on is that these patients should have resection following oncologic principles. Then ideally, they should have an en bloc resection by a surgical oncologist to give the patients the best chance of care. But I think what's unique to resource-stratified guidelines, and what we have to do is sort of highlight the care that would be achieved in settings that have less resources. So a non-obstructing colon cancer in a basic setting should still have surgery and should still undergo an en bloc resection following standard oncologic principles. So that was, for example, one of the key points that was uniform across all the settings. Other things were how to manage [INAUDIBLE] colon cancer. So in more enhanced and maximal settings, sometimes there might be opportunity to place a colonic stent, for example, by either a colorectal surgeon or by someone who has specialized training in the placement of these stents. And that would be a preferred approach in both the enhanced and maximal guidelines, whereas in a more basic setting, the recommendation was to perform a resection and possibly, if required, if a resection was not possible, a diversion to overcome the obstruction in that localized setting. There were other recommendations that were also important. So for example, in early-stage rectal cancer, so clinical stage 1, T1 and 0 rectal cancer, in a maximal setting, these are sort of low-risk cancers without adverse features like high-grade or involvement of lymphovascular structures. The surgical oncologist and/or colorectal surgeon might consider a local excision such as the TEM procedure, which is a transendomucoscal resection. And in basic or limited settings, we would still recommend surgery in that setting following TME principles to achieve clear margins and a good surgical outcome, because we felt that, in basic-limited settings, the skill and the equipment necessary to do a local excision may not be available. Another recommendation that might highlight the differences between basic and limited settings versus a more maximal setting is the optimal strategy for post-treatment surveillance. So this is after resection of the stage 1 to 3 colorectal cancer. What would be the best way to monitor and surveil patients? And this is the recognition that the purpose of surveillance is to identify recurrence early at a time point where the patient may still be amenable to having local regional resection or resection of the metastatic lesion to change the outcome. So the current ASCO guidelines are to perform a medical history, and physical examination, and a CEA every six months for three to five years, have an abdominal and chest CT scan, in high-risk patients, every 6 to 12 months for three years, and a colonoscopy one year after the surgery, and then every five years or so after that, as indicated, up to age of 75. And that's what we recommended in the maximal and enhanced settings. But in a more basic setting, the recommendation was similarly medical history and physical exam every six months for three years, a CEA every six months for three years, a chest X-ray and abdominal ultrasound twice in the first three years, and a colonoscopy once i the first two years. And then if a colonoscopy is not available, we recommended a double-contrast barium enema or, for left-side tumors, a sigmoidoscopy to try to surveil the local regional extent of the the disease. So I think what we're trying to highlight is that we think that we can help patients for the management of localized early-stage colon cancer, both for treatment as well as for surveillance, and that these recommendations may vary a little bit in more limited settings, but with these recommendations, we can provide the best care for patients overall. And so why is this guideline so important? And how will it change practice? I think that the guideline is really important, because we recognize that we're practicing medicine in the United States, or in Europe, or wherever you practice, but the levels of resources that are available to us are not uniform. And so we really are getting to the aspect that cancer care is a global proposition. And ASCO should reflect that. And so the intention of these resource-stratified guidelines is to try to provide guidance into the best management for the indication across the spectrum of resources that are available. Interestingly, we've also heard from many people who practice in more resource-limited settings that they can use these guidelines to sort of advocate for their own area, to say that, based on our availability, we fit in a criteria that's basic or limited, but we really want to be an enhanced setting, and lobby their governments or their local officials to say, these are areas that we can improve on to take us to the next level, literally. And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? Yeah, at the end of the day, I think it's very important that we remind ourselves that we're doing this to improve patient care overall. I think, in maximal and enhanced settings, the guidelines kind of reiterate the best practices across [INAUDIBLE] of guidelines that were reviewed. So I think that's a very important thing. And they unify the treatment plan across different practices. But I think most importantly, in basic and limited settings, it provides a benchmark for what should be done. I think, for me, one key thing was that, even in basic and limited settings, we don't want to compromise oncology principles for a surgical resection. You know, it's not appropriate to just resect the tumor but leave some tumor behind to relieve an obstruction. We still need to manage that appropriately. And that is the expectation in a basic setting, for example. So I think that, overall, wherever you are, this guideline provides recommendations to help manage the patient across the resources that are available to you. I think that's very important, because we live in a heterogeneous environment where resources are not uniform across the world. Great, thank you for your discussion of this important guideline. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Shah. Oh, it's my pleasure. Thanks for having me. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

An interview with Dr. Noam Yarom, Dr. Charles Shapiro, Dr. Deborah Saunders and Dr. Doug Peterson on "Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: MASCC/ISOO/ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline." This guideline addresses the prevention and management of MRONJ in patients with cancer. This guideline is intended for oncologists and other physicians, dentists, dental specialists, oncology nurses, clinical researchers, oncology pharmacists, advanced practitioners, and patients with cancer. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines Find all of the ASCO podcasts at podcast.asco.org  TRANSCRIPT 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today, I'm interviewing a panel of authors from "Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: MASCC/ISOO/ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline." So could I have you each introduce yourselves for the listeners today? Thank you, Shannon. I'm Dr. Deborah Saunders. I'm the president of the International Society of Oral Oncology and was the section head for the Systematic Review on "Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw," with MASCC and ISOO. I was a proud part of the steering committee and one of the authors. Thank you, Debbie. My name is Dr. Douglas Peterson. I am professor of oral medicine in the School of Dental Medicine at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington, Connecticut. I am also a faculty member in the Head and Neck Cancer Oral Oncology Program at the university's Neag Comprehensive Cancer Center. I'm a member of the steering committee for this clinical practice guideline and one of the co-authors as well. In addition, and as of June 2019, I have been serving as chair elect during this next year for ASCO's Clinical Practice Guidelines committee. Thank you, Doug. My name is Noam Yarom. I'm an all medicine specialist from the Sheba Medical Center in Tel Aviv University in Israel. I'm serving as a culture of this guideline, and it is a pleasure to be with you today. Thanks, Noam. I am Dr. Charles Shapiro, professor of medicine at the Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York. And I'm co-chair of the guideline "Medical-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw." And I'm happy to be here. Thank you all for being here today to discuss this guideline on the podcast. So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers. Sure. So you know, ASCO and MASCC, as well as ISOO decided that it would be great to provide a practical evidence-based approach in a multidisciplinary type setting to address this important topic that impacts all of our professions, that being medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw. It's terminology and its definition and the path that's varied and even part of this publication identifies the need for us to move forward with a concise definition and similar terminology, that being medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw. Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw is defined as the presence of an exposed or bone that is probable by a probe in a patient that has a history or is undergoing present use of a bone-modifying agent. This being in the absence of any patients having received any radiation to the head and neck and the absence of metastatic lesions to the jaw. The importance of us identifying this definition and agreeing on the terminology allows us to move forward in future publication to better compare outcome and provide better prevention and treatment for our patients moving forward. And what are the key recommendations of this guideline? There are six clinical questions associated with this clinical practice guideline as well as a series of recommendations built within each of the clinical questions. Clinical question one is directed to the preferred terminology and definition for osteonecrosis of the jaw, both of the maxilla and the mandible, as associated with pharmacologic therapies in oncology patients. The panel recommends that the term medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw, MROJ, be used when referring to bone necrosis associated with pharmacologic therapies. As Dr. Saunders has described, the definition contains three key elements-- current or previous treatment with a bone-modifying agent or angiogenic inhibitor, exposed bone, or bone that can be probed through an intra or extra-oral fistula in the maxillofacial region and that has persisted for longer than eight weeks. And third, no history of radiation therapy to the jaws and no history of metastatic disease to the jaws. Clinical question two is directed to specific steps that should be taken to reduce the risk of MRONJ. The recommendation begins with emphasizing the absolute importance of interprofessional communication of the oncology team with the dental team in advance of initiating the bone-modifying agent. For patients with cancer who are scheduled to receive a bone-modifying agent in a non-urgent setting, a comprehensive oral care assessment, including dental examination and periodontal examination and an oral radiographic exam when feasible to do so should be undertaken prior to initiating the BMA therapy. Once the dental care plan has been developed, it should be discussed with the dental team, the patient, and the rest of the oncology team and then implemented based on medically necessary dental procedures. These procedures should be performed prior to the initiation of the bone-modifying agent. Once the bone-modifying agent is implemented, there should be ongoing followup by the dentist on a routine schedule, for example, every six months following initiation of the BMA therapy. It's also important to realize that there are a series of modifiable risk factors which should be emphasized with the patient. For example, poor oral health, invasive dental procedures, ill-fitting dentures, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, and tobacco use are all factors that have been associated with development of a MRONJ. All of these modifiable risk factors should be addressed, where appropriate, with the patient in advance of the bone-modifying agent. As far as elective dental alveolar surgery, these procedures, if they are not medically necessary, for example, extractions or alveoloplasties or implants, they should not be performed during active therapy with a bone-modifying agent being given at an oncologic dose. Now, exceptions to this may be considered when a dental specialist with expertise in prevention and treatment of MROJ has reviewed the benefits and risks of the proposed invasive procedures with the patient and the oncology team. In general, however, elective dental alveolar surgical procedures should be deferred while the patient is undergoing active therapy with a bone-modifying agent. If the dental alveolar surgery is performed, the patient should be evaluated by a dental specialist on a systematic and frequently scheduled basis, for example, every six to eight weeks until there is full mucosal coverage of the surgical site. And once again, communication between the dental team and the rest of the oncology team is absolutely paramount in assuring ongoing comprehensive care of the patient. Interestingly, there are still questions in the literature relative to whether or not there should be temporary discontinuation of bone-modifying agents prior to dental alveolar surgery. Unfortunately, there remains insufficient evidence to support or refute the need for discontinuation of the bone-modifying agent prior to dental alveolar surgery. And so the administration of the bone-modifying agent may be deferred at the discretion of the treating physician, in conjunction with discussion with the patient and the oral health provider. So it really becomes an individual judgment call by the treating physician relative to whether or not to temporarily discontinue the bone-modifying agent prior to dental alveolar surgery. Clinical question three involves the staging of MROJ. There are a number of well-established staging systems in the literature addressing severity and extent of MROJ. For example, the 2014 American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons Staging System is one example. Another example is the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria For Adverse Events. And there is a 2017 International Task Force on O and J Staging System for MROJ that is available as well. So there are at least three well-established, widely utilized staging systems for MROJ. Having said this, it's important in the view of the panel that the same staging system should be used throughout an individual patient's MROJ course of care. And optimally, the staging should be performed by a clinician experienced with the management of MROJ. Clinical question four involves management of MROJ directly. Here, the recommendations talk in terms of initial treatment of MROJ, which is centered in conservative measures. Now, these conservative measures may include antimicrobial mouth rinses, antibiotics if clinically indicated, effective oral hygiene, and conservative surgical intervention such as a removal of a superficial bone spicule. In cases, however, of refractory MROJ, more advanced MROJ, aggressive surgical interventions, for example, mucosal flap elevations, bloc resections of necrotic bone may be used if MROJ is persisting and severely affects function despite conservative initial treatment. Clinical question five involves bone-modifying agents and whether they should be temporarily discontinued after a diagnosis of MROJ has been established. And once again, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the discontinuation of the bone-modifying agents after a diagnosis of MROJ has been established. The bone-modifying agent may be deferred at the discretion of the treating physician, again in discussion with the patient and the oral health care provider. And finally, clinical question six involves what outcome measures that should be utilized in clinical practice to describe the response of MROJ lesion to treatment. During the course of MROJ treatment, the dentist, dental specialist, should communicate with a medical oncologist in an ongoing way, both the objective and subjective status of the lesion. The guideline presents a scale that can be utilized to describe the trajectory of the MROJ-- resolved, improving, stable, or progressive. The clinical course of MROJ may impact both local and systemic treatment decisions relative to the cessation or the recommencement of bone-modifying agents. So once again, it becomes very, very important that the ongoing interprofessional communication relative to the clinical course of MROJ-- resolved, improving, stable, or progressive-- be discussed with the oncology team. Great. Thank you, Dr. Peterson. So on that last note, how can oncologists, dental specialists, and dentists all work together to manage medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw? Throughout these guidelines, we do emphasize the importance of collaboration among the cancer care team, dentist, and dental specialists in order to coordinate care and modify risk factors. It is very important that cancer care team and the dental care team speak the same language. Therefore, we spend time on clarifying the definitions, the diagnostic criteria, and staging of MROJ. As been said earlier, we have developed a new system to evaluate the response to treatment, which is based both on objective findings and symptoms. By using this scale, oncologists and dentists would be able to communicate more easily for the benefit of the patients. We emphasized the need for multidisciplinary discussion in a few critical points throughout the course of bone-modifying agent therapy. And it is most important in case of a planned oral surgery in a patient without MROJ or before aggressive surgical treatment of refractory MROJ. And how will these guideline recommendations affect patients, and what should they talk to their doctors about? There are a number of things that patients, providers, dental specialists, and medical oncologists can do to lessen the risk and prevent MROJ. Because the key to MROJ is prevention. Once MROJ is established, it's difficult to treat, impacting a patient's quality of life. So we want to prevent, reduce the risk of developing MROJ. Patients can do a number of things-- pursue good oral hygiene, stop smoking, or reduce smoking, and control their diabetes, for example. Those things lessen the risk of MROJ. Providers, dental providers, dental specialists, who are specialized in the area or providers, dentists otherwise in the community, when they encounter a patient that's contemplating bone-modifying agents, they can do what's called a complete dental screening exam, which involves a complete examination of the mouth, Panorex X-rays and X-rays as clinically indicated. We want to identify work in the mouth that needs to be repaired before initiating bone-modifying agents. That way, we don't have to deal with an emergent situation when it could be preventable prior to bone-modifying agents, because one of the single highest risk factors for MROJ is emergent dental work while you're on bisphosphonate or another anti-resorptive agent-- bone-modifying agents. So a dental screening exam is critical to prevent or reduce the risk of MROJ. And medical oncologists have a role too in communication with the dental specialists and really think hard about the indications for bone-modifying agents, whether it be for osteoporosis, whether it be for metastatic disease, and whether it be for anti-cancer effects. And finally, where can both patients and clinicians go to get more information on this topic or to find a dentist or a dental specialist? Now, as far as websites, ASCO, MASCC, and ISSO all have websites you can go to to find out more information about MROJ. Yeah, I think that's great advice. Our links for additional information are listed in the Clinical Practice Guideline as well. This is a really first step at a framework in trying to manage a side effect that affects our patients but is very multidisciplinary. And like Dr. Shapiro was saying, really the best way to prevent this is with proper communication between the dentist and the oncologist and making the patient aware of what is needed prior to commencement of these treatments. Well, it certainly sounds as though there are some important considerations for clinicians and patients. And I really hope that this guideline is widely read and makes a real impact on the management of osteonecrosis and the communication between oncologists, dental specialists, and dentists. So from me and all of our listeners, thank you all for coming on the podcast today to discuss "Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: MASCC/ISOO/ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline."   Thank you. Thank you for having us. Thank you very much for this opportunity to contribute to this important discussion. Thank you for allowing me to participate in this important podcast. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

An interview with Dr. Anna Falanga on "Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients with Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update." The guideline revises several previous recommendations. Most notably, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been added as options for VTE prophylaxis and treatment. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines Find all of ASCO's podcasts at podcast.asco.org  TRANSCRIPT Hi, my name is Clifford Hudis and I am the CEO of ASCO and the host of the ASCO in Action Podcast. About twice a month, I interview thought leaders in health care and experts in oncology, and we provide analysis and commentary on a wide range of cancer policy and practice issues.   You can find the ASCO in Action Podcast on Apple Podcasts or wherever you are listening to this show, and you can find all 9 of ASCO’s podcasts which cover a wide range of educational and scientific content and offer enriching insight into the world of cancer care at podcast.asco.org 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today I'm interviewing Dr. Anna Falanga from the hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII in Bergamo, Italy. Senior author on "Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients with Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guidelines Update." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Falanga. Yes, thank you. I am very happy to talk on the update of the ASCO VTE guidelines. So this guideline was first published in 2007 with an update in 2013 and a reaffirmation in 2015. So what prompted this 2019 update? Thanks for this first question. I think that an update was urgently needed at this time. You know, before, the ASCO guidelines were published in 2007. And then an update was made in 2013, and the second one in 2015. But in 2015 was basically a confirmation of the previous 2013 update. Now the update was urgently needed, because in the very recent years there has been even more evidence of the relevance and impact of a venous thromboembolism in the cancer patients. But in addition, and very importantly, new data from prospective randomized clinical trials with the new drugs for the management of VT in the oncological patients have become available. In particular, as you know, low molecular weight heparins were largely used in the setting of the treatment and trauma prophylaxis in the cancer patients. And actually, the low molecular weight tapering have been the standard of treatment for many years. However, recently the results of prospective randomized clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulant, particularly, the anti-Xa inhibitors, Edoxaban and Rivaroxaban, for cancer associated with [INAUDIBLE] treatment support the role of this new oral agent in the VT management in this setting. And this is related to new politics in the VT management in these patients. So what are the key recommendations for this guideline update? The main changes to the previous recommendations are first that Rivaroxaban and Edoxiban, the two anti-Xa inhibitors oral anticoagulants have been added as an option for routine treatment in cancer patients in this update. Also, now we may offer thrombo prophylaxis with Apixaban, Rivaroxaban, or low molecular weight tapering to selected high-risk outpatients with cancer. And about other changes of these new guidelines compared to the last one include that patients with brain metastases have been addressed in the VT type treatment sections, whereas before, only patients with the primary tumors were mentioned in the previous edition. And finally, the recommendation regarding long-term postoperative thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin expanded to patients undergoing a major open or laparoscopic abdominal or pelvic surgery. These are the main changes that all I think are very, very important. Why is this guideline so important? And how does it affect practice? Well, I think that the question how these changes affect our practice is a very important question, because I believe that these guidelines reflect the new evidence that we have from the new data. And this data clearly expand our possibility to choose now between the different treatment options in the single patient in the cancer population. For instance, the new data show that treatment with [INAUDIBLE] anticoagulants compared to low molecular weight heparin lower the risk of a recurrent thrombosis. But in some instances there's a higher risk of bleeding, particularly in the gastrointestinal and urinary tract cancer patients. So therefore it is evident that the patient selection and the individualization of a therapy based on the patient characteristics and the type of cancer-- all these become very important. And we have the possibility now to choose between different treatments, or in the same patients we can change from one treatment to the other according to the face of the disease or complications if the patient is in a phase that is assuming chemotherapy with many side effects like nausea and vomiting. Of course, in these cases a parenteral injection is preferable for the management of a venous thromboembolism. Whereas in other instances, a long-term and oral intake is surely more convenient. So it depends also from the level of risk. But now for the six months treatment we can offer different choice of the oral treatment and also for high-risk patients the primary prophylaxis with Apixaban Rivaroxoaban, and a low molecular weight tapering can be chosen. And what should patients be aware of when it comes to VTE risks and treatments? I think that patients should be educated about the risk of a cancer associated with VTE. You know, there is that evidence that they are educated about it. And they know a lot better about neutropenia, and the fever associated with this the neutropenic condition and the other side effect. But they know very little about the possibility that they can experience venous thromboembolism.  So I think they should be taught on how to recognize the symptoms and alert their physician. You know, sometimes the symptoms are indistinguishable It can be just a little pain in the calf. And patients must know that these are to be considered important. They must alert their physician to undergo some test-- objective test-- to see if there is a real thrombosis in the leg or not. This is extremely important, because one important consequence of venous thromboembolism of the extremities is a pulmonary embolism that can be also fatal. So they must know about that. Also, I think they should know about the risk of bleeding associated with the anticoagulant treatment, and also that this risk of bleeding can be different in the different type of tumors. Finally, I think that also they must be told about the once they have, for instance, and episode of venous thromboembolism they have to receive a treatment for that, and these are usually six months to the minimum, and then we'll decide. So they must know what these are the efficacy and the safety profiles of the different drugs. They must know the differences in the route of administration and the other characteristics of the drug. So I think that their shared decision with the patients of the type of treatment must be an integral part of the decision making and is certainly desirable. Great. It sounds as though there's some important considerations for patients and important conversations which may be prompted by this guideline. So thank you for taking your time to discuss this with me today, Dr. Falanga. I thank you very much for this interview and talk that our colleagues and also the patients will be happy with these new guidelines of ASCO. Thank you. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

An interview with Dr. Charles Shapiro from Mount Sinai Hospital in New York and Dr. Joan Neuner from Medical College of Wisconsin, co-chairs of "Management of Osteoporosis in Survivors of Adult Cancers with Nonmetastatic Disease: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline." This guideline includes recommendations on assessing risk factors and interventions, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic options. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines TRANSCRIPT Hi. My name is Clifford Hudis, and I am the CEO of the American Society of Clinical Oncology as well as the host of the ASCO in Action podcast. About twice a month, I interview thought leaders in healthcare care and experts in oncology, and we provide analysis and commentary on a wide range of cancer policy and practice issues. You can find the ASCO in Action podcast on Apple podcasts or wherever you are listening to this show, and you can find all nine of ASCO's podcasts, which cover a wide range of educational and scientific content, and offer enriching insight into the world of cancer care at podcast.asco.org. 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content, and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all of the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. My name is Shannon McKernin and today on the ASCO Guidelines Podcast, I'm interviewing Dr. Charles Shapiro from Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, and Dr. Joan Neuner from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, co-chairs of management of osteoporosis in survivors of adult cancers with non-metastatic disease ASCO clinical practice guideline. Thank you for being here, Dr. Shapiro and Dr. Neuner. Thanks a lot. Pleasure to be here. So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline does cover? This guideline covers very important topics, that of osteoporosis and that of cancer survivorship. It's the coalescence of these two common problems that is the impetus for this guideline. It covers risk factors and what you can do as a cancer survivor to mitigate your risk. It covers screening and identification of the best test to use to measure your bone density, and it covers how to treat or pull the trigger for anti-osteoporosis drugs based on the guidelines that are contained within the document. And what are the key recommendations for this guideline? So we developed this guideline with three key guideline questions in mind. And they really required a fairly extensive search of the literature to address them. And we did that by looking to some of the literature outside of cancer in osteoporosis screening in other patients as well. So I'll sort of talk about it in terms of the three key questions. So the first question we had was, which patients with non-metastatic cancer are at increased risk for developing osteoporotic fractures? So that first question was, which patients are we really addressing in this guideline? And how do we assess whether they're at potentially increased risk? So in response to that, we strongly recommend that oncologists teaming with other physicians, including primary care doctors like myself, evaluate their patients to determine whether they're high risk. And so we provide a lot of details in an extensive document. But in our bottom line, we have a summary of the most common and the most severe risk factors. And those include things like advanced age, current smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, and a history of prior fractures, so already showing that they're at high risk for fractures. So we recommend you look to that list. And then add in your own clinical judgment, particularly about patients who have added risks from their cancer treatments. And so we do also talk about those patients. And in particular, we call out patients with specific anticancer therapies, for example, aromatase inhibitors given to breast cancer patients, antiandrogens or GnRH agonists given to breast cancer and prostate cancer patients and call out how they're at particular risk. And finally, in response to this question, we also recommend that you consider using a risk assessment tool. And here, I mention that we had to look to the non-cancer literature. So here, the WHO actually developed something called the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool, or FRAX. And we do recommend that you use this tool or something like it to help you to assess whether your patient is at high risk. And those are readily available on the web. Search FRAX-- F-R-A-X-- to use it. And, of course, we have links in the guideline. So that addresses the first question, which again was, which patients are at increased risk? And we have a list of risk factors that you should be considering and some references, particularly FRAX, to help you with thinking about those risk factors and how important any specific risk factor is. Our second question really dovetailed right on that. And that was, how should patients who are at increased risk, you've identified as part of that first question, to be at increased risk for osteoporotic fractures be screened? And here again, we look to the standard recommendations for patients who don't have cancer as well. And there are two ways that you could move towards, should you screen your patient or not? One could be your patient had one of those risk factors that we talked about and are listed in the document. The other is you use that FRAX tool and patients are more than average risk. And then we recommend patients be screened using one of the standard screening tools. The most common one, is called dual X-ray absorptiometry. And I want to specifically mention central dual X-ray absorptiometry, which means that the test is done on the hip and the lumbar spine. Those are readily available. All major medical centers have them, and many clinics have them as well. And so we do recommend that for screening. And then we offer some specifics about how frequently you might screen, because that's another question that often comes up. And so then our final question is once you determine that your patient is at high risk because their bone density test and/or their FRAX test shows that patients are at high risk, we do encourage talking to them about treatment options. And the first thing I want to say is essentially everyone that our guideline addresses, which is all patients who currently have or who are survivors of non-metastatic cancer, that they should consume a diet with adequate calcium and vitamin D. And so that's generally considered to be 1,000 to 1,200 milligrams of calcium and at least 800 to 1,000 IUs, international units, of vitamin D. We also strongly recommend exercises and call out some specifics. That you want to work on balance, flexibility, and resistance, if possible. And that you quit smoking and limit alcohol consumption. All very good things for the body generally, but also very good for the bones. Obviously, the meat of this guideline is also about pharmacologic intervention specifically. And since Dr. Shapiro treats so many patients with this, I'm going to ask him if he wants to comment further on specifics about pharmacologic treatments, when you think patients should get them. So thanks, Joan. So pharmacologic interventions include RANK ligand inhibitors, like Denosumab or IV or oral bisphosphonates. So clearly, if your patients are at risk, that means a hip fracture predicted at 3% or more or a non-hip vertebral fracture at 20% or more-- and you get these numbers from the FRAX calculator and other calculators in common usage-- then you pull the trigger and use one of these agents. Now we couldn't distinguish between the agents in terms of what's one was preferred. It depends on patient preference, comfort with the doctor in terms of how comfortable the doctor is using the agent, and other factors that go into the decision about which biphosphonate to use. Generally, the IV Zoledronic Acid and sub-cu Denosumab are used in the cancer populations. But oral biphosphonates can be used as well. And why is this guideline so important? And how will it change practice? Well, this guideline is so important because we know from survey studies that osteoporosis and preventing osteoporosis and treating osteoporosis in the cancer survivor population is underutilized. And this is an important point, because many people, especially with breast and prostate cancer and colorectal cancer and bone marrow transplants, will be long-term survivors. And we don't want to cure a patient just to have them fracture 10 or 20 years later. So that's the importance of the guideline. So it's the recognition that osteoporosis is treated the same, whether you're a cancer survivor or not. But the cancer treatments we use in routine practice can cause osteoporosis and bone loss. And that's the importance of this recommendation, as well as the particulars of who's at risk, the risk factors, screening, and pulling the trigger for treatment. So that's basically in a nutshell, why this guideline is so important and how it will change practice, because we hope that the guideline stimulates us, as health practitioners, to screen our patients for osteoporosis, recognize risk factors, and how to pull the trigger on treatment to prevent or treat osteoporosis in this population. It doesn't matter who follows patient, but the patient has to know who's going to follow the bone density and treatment for osteoporosis, whether it's comfort that an oncologist has with the whole process of screening and risk factors and pulling the trigger for bisphosphonates or Denosumab or endocrinologists, the rheumatologist, the primary care physician. The patient's got to know who's going to be responsible for what aspects of care, survivorship care. And this is a big part of survivorship care. So the treatment summary, which is a document that the patients get and is given to the primary care provider, should specify who will take responsibility for what aspects of survivorship care. And this is a big aspect of survivorship care, osteoporosis screening and treatment, if necessary. So it doesn't matter who does it, as long as it gets done. I would jumped in if I could, Charlie. Yes, so please jump in. So I guess the only other point that I wanted to make about how it might change practice is osteoporosis guidelines have been out since the late '90s, early 2000s. And so many patients probably have thought about osteoporosis and their risk in the past. But I did want to note that there have been a number of studies in the last five years showing that in primary care-- so family medicine and general internal medicine, like I practice-- that we're actually ordering fewer bone densities than we did in the past. And all the reasons for that aren't clear. Perhaps it's because of some concerns about the rare side effects of some of these medicines. Perhaps it's because the guidelines aren't clear because the data is not clear about how often we should test people who don't seem to be at high risk once they've had a first test. But nonetheless, there seems to already be some effects of this that the hip fractures, which had been decreasing are starting to look like they're rising again. So it really is important then if we're not going to screen very frequently everybody, that we are screening the people who really need it. And so then this guideline it calls that out that these are patients who because either their cancer treatment and the debilitating nature of that in some cases or the specific medications puts them at particular risk. Those are the ones that we can't omit this. Great. Finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? You know, I think we're hoping that this will help in the care of cancer survivors and spark people to use things like survivorship care plans. Or if those don't work in your institution, other ways to make clear what the patients who are survivors are at risk for, both related to their cancer and outside their cancer, so that we can all work as teams of health care providers to make sure all of the things on those lists addressed. So we're hoping that with some very clear recommendations about how to address bone health that we can help those teams serve patients that they can. Obviously, it can also provide some really essential information for patients who are wondering what the things that need to be wondering about in this new phase of survivorship after cancer that they're dealing with. Dr. Shapiro, did you have anything to add to that question? Hopefully, we can prevent fractures in our cancer survivors by following these guidelines. It's really important that we prevent osteoporosis and hip fractures and vertebral fractures, because we don't want to cure the patient just that saddle them with osteoporosis and breaking a hip or breaking vertebral body 10 or 20 years down the line. So this will hopefully affect patients positively. And we intended the guideline to be for patients in terms of risk factors. And if you need a biphosphonate or anti-osteoporosis drug, then it's clear indications in the document who gets it and who doesn't. So I think that the effect we hope would be great on patients, that part of general health is osteoporosis screening. And just because you're a cancer patient doesn't absolve you from participating in all the health recommendations, including osteoporosis screening. As with all ASCO Survivorship Guidelines, we do hope that this one informs many conversations between patients, survivors, and providers. Thanks to your overview here today and your work on this guideline, more clinicians will be informed of the risk factors and possible interventions for osteoporosis and survivors of non-metastatic cancers. So I want to thank you both for coming on the podcast to discuss this guideline with me today. Thanks for having us. Yes, thank you. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines. 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.

Subscribe through iTunes and Google Play. In this interview, ASCO President Dr. Howard A. “Skip” Burris discusses why he became an oncologist, the importance of mentors in his career, the most significant changes he’s witnessed in cancer care during the past three decades, and his vision for the coming year as he serves in this top volunteer position. Dr. Burris stresses that we can’t “divide and conquer, to conquer cancer,” a message underscored by his ASCO presidential theme, “Unite and Conquer: Accelerating Progress Together.” Find all of ASCO's podcasts at podcast.asco.org   Shannon McKernin: Hi. My name is Shannon McKernin, and I'm the host of the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. When a new ASCO guideline publishes, we release a podcast episode featuring an interview with one or more expert panel members. Each episode highlights the key recommendations and the implications for patients and providers. You can find the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series on Apple Podcasts or wherever you're listening to this show, and you can find all nine of ASCO's podcasts, which cover a wide range of educational and scientific content and offer enriching insight into the world of cancer care at podcast.asco.org. 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Clifford Hudis: Welcome to this ASCO in Action podcast brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content offering enriching insights into the world of cancer care. You can find all of ASCO's podcasts including this one at podcast.asco.org. This ASCO in Action podcast is part of our series exploring policy and practice issues that impact oncologists, the entire cancer care delivery team, and the individuals who care for people with cancer. My name is Clifford Hudis, and I am the CEO of ASCO as well as a host of the ASCO in Action podcast series. For today's podcast, I am delighted to be joined by Dr. Howard, or "Skip", Burris. He's ASCO's president for the 2020 term, and if we're lucky today, we'll find out why he's called Skip. In the meantime, Dr. Burris is joining me to share his vision for his presidential year. That is what he hopes to accomplish by this top ASCO volunteer leadership position is an opportunity to leave a lasting mark on our organization and indeed the larger oncology community. Skip, welcome and thank you for joining me today. Howard “Skip” Burris: Thank you for having me. Looking forward to the conversation. Clifford Hudis: So, Skip, every one of us comes to oncology for individual reasons and personal motivations, and I know that's true for you as well. So before we get into the details of your current role at ASCO, I think our listeners will be interested in learning why you became a medical oncologist when there are so many places to go in medicine, so many exciting specialties, what was it that drove you to choose taking care of patients with cancer for your career? Howard “Skip” Burris: Interesting question and story. I was driven to medicine really thinking that I wanted to do something that was meaningful, something that helped others. And I was influenced by actually a number of friends whose fathers were physicians when I was in high school. And as I initially went into the medical field, I thought surgery was so exciting, and I actually spent many of my electives doing surgical sub-specialties and in particular thoracic surgery. And it was an exciting time in the '80s with heart transplantation and bypass surgeries. And yet I also was dissatisfied with the fact that it seemed transactional. While important, and certainly lifesaving for those patients, these were surgeries and then, quote unquote, were done taking care of that patient. And then I had a seminal moment after rounds one day when we were in the intensive care unit. And I was talking to a patient, and the team moved on. And my attending yelled at me, “hey, Burris, what are you doing?” I looked at him and he said, “Come on. He's fixed. Let's go.” And I half smiled and I thought, well, this guy's got such an interesting story and he was terribly appreciative of the care he'd receive, but he looked at that attending as somebody had truly had saved his life. And so fast forward to fumbling through internship and trying to figure out really what type of specialty I might want to go into. And two groups of folks that I ran into contact with shaped my career. One were the oncology patients. Rounding on the oncology patients, doing that elective early in my internship, they were grateful. They were so appreciative. It was a great program in San Antonio. It was folks participating in clinical trials. And these were patients who not only wanted to help themselves but understood that what they were doing might help others. But really every person was so unique and had such a powerful story. And then secondly, the attendings that were taking care of those patients, the oncologists truly seemed to love what they were doing. And it was really those two groups, I thought these are the kind of patients I'd like to take care of, and these are the types of physicians that I'd like to practice with. And I began shifting as many rotations as I could as a resident into oncology, and I've enjoyed being an oncologist now for almost 30 years. Clifford Hudis: And so it was the patients, and it was the physicians really that in the end drove you into this specialty it sounds like, right? Howard “Skip” Burris: Yes. I had been taught early on, and I tell some of our younger folks today, working with people that you like and working with people that you respect is such an important part of the job. And then the service that you're providing knowing that folks are appreciative and there's a teamwork in that both the doctors and the patients in the field of oncology are so special. Clifford Hudis: So you just touched on a big part of what I think motivates or at least supports so many of our members throughout their careers and that is collaboration, working with others. And I can't help but imagine that your experience in terms of your education at West Point and your service with distinction in the Army has a relationship to that camaraderie, that connection, and that collaboration. How do you see that experience as preparing you for medicine, or maybe you think it didn't? Howard “Skip” Burris: Actually it did, and I appreciate the question, the opportunity to comment on that. Going to the US Military Academy, going to West Point for undergrad was a decision made because I wanted to go to a great school. It was a great scholarship package, the way they handled it. And I knew I'd get a great education and was attracted, one of these kids in high school who gravitated toward leadership positions, and going to an institution that would teach leadership was attractive. And then you realize as soon as you get to West Point, you're part of this big team. Everything you do during your years there is all about your group of individuals, your team, your squad, your company, surviving together, thriving together, and being successful. And, in fact, the motto that they teach is strength is one. And it was clear that you were at school with a talented group of folks who all wanted to be leaders, and everybody had to learn how to fit in, pick their place to lead, pick their place to be humble, pick their place to take charge. And those sorts of teachings and the mentors and the colonels and generals that were my teachers on that led the program, they were simple things but they were things that stuck with me forever, and I think they've served me well as a physician. One was around the simple concept of you know if no one's following, you might not actually be leading. And you got to stop and take a look behind you and see if while you're heading in whatever direction you might be going, if no one's following, you got to check yourself. I think a second thing that has stuck with me is better to be decisive than to be sure you're right. Very rarely are you sure you're right, and I think that teams even in medicine and maybe particularly in medicine really like a decisive leader. And I think that's something that is a great characteristic for physicians, gathering the appropriate data and making the decision and moving forward. But looking around and trying to emulate some of those folks who became leaders of the country was inspirational and then also gave you the opportunity to take away some of those teachings and try to embed them in terms how you carry yourself. One thing about the army it's very hierarchical, but the generals, you know, know that those privates are what's going to make them successful. So the chain of command and that respect for each other, respect for the position, and respect for their role on the team is very similar to the role of doctor to nurse to the support staff and the like. So it actually ended up being a great foundation for my career. Clifford Hudis: So it's interesting throughout medicine and especially in the last few decades, we have increased our emphasis on the role of mentoring. And I have I guess two questions which would be, one: how did you find mentors in your post military career given the strength of the leadership that you saw displayed there? And the other question is how did you translate that into your own service as a mentor? Howard “Skip” Burris: Yeah, so I think important-- I think picking the right mentor-- maybe picking the mentor where you resonate with that person and think that somebody who you'd like to model and picking that mentor who can teach you something and really has your best interests at heart I think are key. Picking the wrong mentor is something that could really set somebody off on the wrong track if they're not careful. I was very lucky. As I went into internship and residency, my chief of medicine was a fabulous mentor. He was one of those individuals who kept the patient first, was kind but firm, and just the thing I learned from him was what now we talked to as emotional intelligence, this fact that he was optimistic. He was very self-aware, and he was in control of his emotions. And no matter what we'd done or not done and however the result went, he was the steady hand, and I always looked up and thought, I want to be that person. I want to be the person who's calm in the storm, and I want to be the person that people look to and say he's not panicking, and he's got the situation where we're going to get through this together. So that was a great mentor in my chief of medicine. And then my other mentor during my oncology fellowship was a famous oncologist, still in the field today, in Arizona, Dr. Dan Von Hoff. I mentioned Dr. Von Hoff's name, he's been a Karnofsky Award lecturer. And Dr. Von Hoff was the one who got me interested in drug development and phase 1 clinical trials. And I would say that Dr. Von was a great mentor for a few specific reasons. One is he always pushed us in front of him. He didn't need to take the credit. He pushed us to be presenters, pushed us to be first authors, pushed us to be the person that was in front of the clinical trial. And that was something that really was important for somebody early in their career. And then secondly he really taught that perspective that it was a great responsibility both for the patient on the clinical trial and for overseeing that clinical trial and that while your title might be principal investigator, you might be the leader of the program that you really were beholden to those researchers that brought the drug forward and to those patients who were volunteering to participate in the study. And Dr. Von Hoff has always been a great person in that regard, and his Karnofsky Lecture was actually a highlight to and a tribute to all those patients who had participated in phase one trials through the years. So those were two mentors that really stood out and have impacted me throughout my career. Clifford Hudis: Do you see yourself I guess echoing those styles of mentorship or expanding on them? Do you see anything in your own role as a mentor that hearkens back to what you saw in West Point and in those mentors in medicine for you personally? Howard “Skip” Burris: I do think I've had embodied in me the patient centric, patient first approach. I am one of those physicians who has always wanted to get to know his patients, have always taken the social history as an important part. It's funny, a number of my longtime patients are comfortable calling me Skip on occasion. I actually know their stories and know who their family is, and I know what they're wanting to fight for in terms of grandchildren and trips and the like. So that I'd be really being grateful on having a relationship with the patient I think is something that has carried forward. I will say to my chief of medicine mentor I still aspire to that. I wish I was always as calm as he was. I wish I was always as optimistic as he was and had that sort of strength, but it is still something that's front of mind for me and something that I at least strive to be as much as I can. Clifford Hudis: So, reflecting on your career just for a little bit, I have a couple of questions. One is a general one and one more specific. But thinking generally first, you've been in medicine a long time. I guess you're around 30 years if I'm not mistaken. From your point of view, what do you see as the most significant change in the field that -- can be good or bad or whatever -- but that we have to think about and maybe help our trainees and younger members adapt to? Howard “Skip” Burris: Well, the flow of information, the speed at which we're making discoveries and just the educational challenges there are immense. And so, I think that is something where the speed of drug development and approvals just to throw one statistic out, eight new drugs approved in 1998, 48 new drugs are indications approved in 2018, so what a change over the past 20 years. I think the most significant change, though, is we knew early on in our careers-- you and I always knew that no two patients were alike. They might be in ERP or positive breast cancer that they really were not the same patient. They might be a adenocarcinoma, but they were really different. And now with the advances in pathology -- advances in molecular profiling, understanding biomarkers, we do know that no patients are alike. And we know that everybody has to be approached individually. The tendency has always been to want to lump patients into groups to make broad treatment recommendations. And that is part of the challenge with the education and information flowing forward. It is as simple as continuing to look at some of the prognostic indices that we have for some tumors, the next generation sequencing for others, whatever that test might be to really determine what's the best therapy for that patient. So those advances have really helped us in terms of looking at tumor biology and knowing whether we're thinking about an immunological approach to a patient or chemotherapy approach to a patient or whether it might be one of the new oral biologics. But that has been such a significant change. And only a few years ago, it seems like we were giving immunotherapy in the form of drugs like interleukin 2, and now we have these fabulous new checkpoint inhibitors that are in front of us. Thinking back to really something like tamoxifen being truly a targeted therapy now thinking about the dozens of drugs that are out there now that are targeting other biomarkers on patients. That really has been an amazing advance. Clifford Hudis: Well, I mean, I have to agree that this is certainly an exhilarating and challenging time in oncology, so maybe we can pivot to think about that and talk about your presidential year. What do you think are specifically the biggest challenges facing us? And let's call those challenges promising opportunities. Where do you think we have to focus right now? Howard “Skip” Burris: I think one very top of mind is the oncology workforce. Physicians, leveraging up the physicians, having enough nurses and enough nurses interested in oncology, attracting young physician talent into wanting to be an oncologist, and then the other ancillary health care providers, nurse practitioners and the like, we need a bigger and more robust workforce to take advantage of the opportunity given to us with the survivors. It's incredible when we think about the advances and the number of cancer survivors in this country, individuals either under treatment or surviving with the disease where we're talking in numbers approaching 20 million over the next two years so really very amazing in that regard. I think education, it is tough. We still have a lot of physicians particularly in the United States that are seeing multiple different tumor types during the day, and with the advances in information, it's just important that we as ASCO do our part in trying to educate and provide the information. And then with all these new advances, it becomes the challenge of clinical trial accrual. While many of these therapies have made important differences in patients' lives, we're still not curing enough patients. And so, there is room and certainly the need for better therapies. And so, in this busy workforce and in the challenges of having everyone aware of the opportunities, how do we improve clinical trial accrual? And then lastly, I'll just mention, of course, cost of care. That goes a little bit with patients living longer or taking therapy for a longer period of time sometimes in a chronic setting and then the cost of some of these new therapies. So those were certainly factors we're going to have to deal with. So, some big challenges for the field of oncology. Clifford Hudis: Well, hearing you run to that list-- workforce, research, cost, patients, and survivorship, all of that-- it sounds like it builds right up to your presidential theme of unite and conquer, celebrating progress together. That sounds like a lofty and aspirational statement, but I also see immediately connections back to again all those points you just made. Do I have that right? Can you unpack the meaning of that for us at least, as you see it? Howard “Skip” Burris: Yes, it's an interesting theme, unite and conquer, celebrating progress together. I specifically resonated with that. I have long taught my young attendings and my colleagues at Sarah Cannon that the challenge is too big and the needs too great for us to actually go with the divide and conquer mentality. We've actually got to be together as a team to get this accomplished and have the best care provided. So I have talked about uniting and conquering for many years here at Sarah Cannon, and I think it fits nicely when we think about the oncology workforce and the members of ASCO. And then accelerating progress together, there is a great need to step things up a bit. I think that can come in a few different fashions. I am excited about the emerging opportunities and real world evidence. I do think some of the clinical trials are getting smaller and more narrow to fit specific groups of patients. And then I think we're beginning to leverage up some of our physicians with technology, with advanced practice providers, nurse practitioners, physicians assistants, all those pieces coming together. And then I'll admit also having conquer in the phrase was important to me. The Conquer Cancer Foundation, ASCO's foundation, I think is so important. When you come back to some of these topics we just talked about, it's really one of our best ways to invest in and inspire young investigators. Some of the awards provided by Conquer Cancer and the mission it provides I think are really going to be key to ASCO's success. Clifford Hudis: I think that's a great vision, and it's certainly one that does resonate, not just with you but I think with many in the audience. You touched in that description on that diverse expertise that we all believe we need to make faster progress. And for me, of course, this reminds us of our upcoming meeting in Bangkok, which is looking at speakers from some of the unconventional fields. How do you see that diversity coming together to drive innovation in cancer research and care? Howard “Skip” Burris: It's an interesting opportunity for us, and I'll digress for a brief minute and then go to the Nashville Analogies. So, Sarah Cannon, based here in Nashville, and some of the things we've talked about really revolves around what it takes to put on a musical performance. So only one person might have the microphone at the time, but you've got the band and you've got the engineers and you've got the people that have setup the stage, sold the tickets. Every aspect of that's key to having that concert pulled off. And I think Breakthrough is a meeting and when you think about the oncology ecosystem not too different. We need and have invested in information technology. I mean some of those IT individuals are so key to doing a variety of things, getting data to us, sorting and analyzing data, we were seeing telemedicine coming at us, artificial intelligence and natural language processing, all those pieces, which then moves quickly into where the engineers or participating. Engineers and medicine, I think, are going to help make some of the greatest advances. I think certainly engineers in terms of how we're looking at robotics and surgery, how we're thinking about different techniques for radiation therapy, and even engineers getting involved in some of the drug discovery process. And then bioinformatics and we've talked about big data and the excitement behind that. I commented on real world evidence, but this whole idea of being able to have decision support through bioinformatics and the understanding that those experts bring to the table. Those are some of the things that'll be highlighted at the Breakthrough Meeting. I think those are individuals who are going to need to be core pieces to the cancer solution and to cancer centers. And it's just an exciting time, and I think this meeting will be a great place to highlight how those groups can come together and have a conversation. Clifford Hudis: So, we are now a few months into your presidency year. I have to ask: has there been anything that has surprised you about the experience, something that you did not expect as you entered into this leadership role? Howard “Skip” Burris: I think the one surprise is how many individuals want you to lend an ear with email and text, that's a little bit easier. But folks that want to stop and grab you and give you a suggestion. I say surprised by that because I think these members, our colleagues, folks that are participating in the oncology care field really have ideas, thoughts, and passions. The individuals that speak to me really want you to take their ideas seriously, think about it, and bring it forward. And I'm appreciative of that. I'm surprised that they wouldn't see me taking this role in this title as being an opportunity for them to have that conversation and want to push their idea of forward. But that's been both a surprise and yet a pleasant experience, and I've enjoyed the conversations. I will also comment and throw some kudos out. I knew the ASCO staff was smart. I knew the ASCO staff was very hard working. But as you become ASCO President and you're seeing and signing and reading and participating in their communications that they put out in a variety of fashions, just this sheer legislative communication they have back and forth with congressional staff and answering various health care initiatives. One, it's a high volume, two, ASCO's voice and input on this is really needed and appreciated and respected, and, three, we really have a very talented ASCO staff sitting with our organization, and I think that's something that it would be great for all 40-plus 1,000 of our members to really appreciate. Clifford Hudis: Well, you know I agree. Now I have to ask, in addition to your long history of volunteer leadership within ASCO and your current role, especially as president, you also have a busy day job. You're currently chief medical officer and president of clinical operations as well as executive director of drug development all at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, which is a leading cancer center for clinical research in the country. You're also an associate of Tennessee oncology. Now I was once ASCO president myself, and I know how busy the role keeps you. How do you do it all, Skip? Howard “Skip” Burris: Well, you certainly did it, and I don't mind saying I looked at folks like yourself to understand how better manage my life. I do think I've become better at scheduling. Through the years, I've learned that if I don't schedule myself in, I don't schedule a family in, and schedule a little downtime, that can be hard. So, I have become more disciplined with that through the years. I think secondly, I've been blessed to have constant and consistent team. Same nurse practitioner for more than 15 years, same pharmacologist for more than 20 years, nurse, staff, et cetera, so that has helped and enabled me to delegate and empower them and others. And recruiting in great talent has been important. The work energizes me, and I have really enjoyed working with really smart people. And then lastly some credit to my wife, Karen. Surely after being elected president, Karen put me on a diet, and I think that's provided a little bit of extra energy for me as well. Clifford Hudis: And how's that working out? Howard “Skip” Burris: Yeah, it's going pretty well. She's been a great encourager for me, and we've been able to drop a few pounds. And we can button the jacket, and so that will help me out with the pictures and being onstage. Clifford Hudis: So that leads me to maybe a piece of low hanging fruit here, but at the end of this year when you look back on your year as ASCO president, what's the one thing you hope you've accomplished? And don't tell me it's dropping 20. Howard “Skip” Burris: No, I won't 'cause Karen would tell you dropping 30, but I'm open for dropping 20. I hope that when we look back on my presidential year that it will be seen as a year where we bridge some gaps and connected people to begin to have some conversations to really push some advances. I think this idea of connecting people and bridging the various stakeholders is important to me, that will come in a variety of ways. I think my educational chair Dr. Prowell, Tatiana, coming from the FDA and from Johns Hopkins and Dr. Melissa Johnson, the two of them bring a very unique perspective in. So how the committees are formed and who's engaged in planning the annual meetings and how we have various participants and speakers, I think we're hoping to engage more of the oncology workforce and care force in terms of participating in the meeting. I also hope that we'll begin to push this idea of why all should be a member of ASCO. I think there's nothing more important than being together as an association. There has been articles out of late touting why doctors should organize, so I'm also hoping during this year we see an increase in membership for years going forward. Maybe we can set some of that platform up. And then also really continue to energize and push the Conquer Cancer Foundation. I think it should be something that all of our members will be proud of to say that they've contributed to Conquer Cancer and that they'd invested in the future of oncology. So those are a few of the things I hope to get started. It's a fast year. I know it'll go by quickly, but I'm hoping some of those initiatives can get rolling and we can have that carry forward in years. And when we look back we'll think that I had a small part in getting some of those programs moving along. Clifford Hudis: Well, that's great. I want to thank you again, Skip, for joining me today. It's been a great conversation. I've appreciated especially hearing more about your vision and your hopes for the coming year as well as the impact you want to leave. I have to say at the opening I teased a little bit about how you came to be called skip, and you haven't shared that. So, this is your chance if you want to let the membership know why we call you Skip. That'd be great. Howard “Skip” Burris: Well thanks, Cliff. Howard A Burris, III and, of course, Howard, Sr lived down the street and Howard, Jr was in the same house with me. So, when I first came home from the hospital, my mom called me Skip. I have had that nickname since I was born. And I always talked about switching back to Howard when I went to college or after medical school or when I turned 40. And for whatever reason, personality, friends, I've always stayed a Skip. There is no middle name, Howard A Burris. A is just the initial. So, there's been no middle initial to fall back to. So, I think Skip's what it's going to be and that seems to be what's sticking with me through the years. So that's the story. Clifford Hudis: That's great. Well, I want to thank you again and want to remind our listeners until next time. We appreciate your taking the time to join us for this ASCO in Action podcast. If you enjoyed what you heard today, don't forget to give us a rating or a review on Apple podcast or wherever you listen. And while you're there, be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The ASCO in Action podcast, remember, is just one of ASCO's many podcasts. You can find all of the shows at podcast.asco.org.

An interview with Dr. Kala Visvanathan from Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health on the guideline update. This update adds anastrozole to the options of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction based on recent practice changing data. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.  TRANSCRIPT Hi. My name is Clifford Hudis, and I am the CEO of the American Society of Clinical Oncology as well as the host of the ASCO in Action podcast. About twice a month, I interview thought leaders in health care and experts in oncology. And we provide analysis and commentary on a wide range of cancer policy and practice issues. You can find the ASCO in Action podcast on Apple Podcasts or wherever you are listening to this show. And you can find all nine of ASCO's podcasts, which cover a wide range of educational and scientific content and offer enriching insight into the world of cancer care at podcast.asco.org. 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and today I'm interviewing Kala Visvanathan from the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, co-first author on "Use of Endocrine Therapy For Breast Cancer Risk Reduction: ASCO Clinical Practice Guidelines Update." Thank you for being here, Dr. Visvanathan. Thank you as well for having me. So can you tell us about the phase III randomized trial, which provided the signal for this update? Yes. This was the IBIS-II trial that was reported out by Cuzick, et al in 2014. It was a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial that assessed the safety and efficacy of Anastrozole, the aromatase inhibitor Anastrozole, at 1 milligram per day for five years. And the primary endpoint was the reduction of the incidence of breast cancer in postmenopausal women at increased risk of developing breast cancer. The trial itself was reported out with a median follow up of five years and the intention-to-treat analysis actually revealed that 85 women in the placebo group and 40 women in the Anastrozole group had developed both invasive and noninvasive breast cancer. What it showed was that there was a reduction in the incidence of breast cancer of 53% overall. It included both invasive and non-invasive breast cancer after a seven-year followup. And importantly, in subgroup analysis, similar to the other hormone endocrine therapy prevention trials, it also showed that the reduction in breast cancer risk among invasive cancers was limited to those individuals with ER-positive and PR-positive tumors. And the reduction in breast cancer incidence was among hormone-positive breast cancers. Another interesting point to mention here was that the five-year adherence was only slightly less in the Anastrozole arm compared to placebo. So it was well tolerated. And that was 68% in the Anastrozole group compared to 72% in the placebo group. And in all the subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference, except when they stratified by hormone replacement, women who had no prior hormone replacement, they saw a clear risk reduction. And this was not seen in women with prior hormone replacement therapy. And so what are the key recommendations for the update of this guideline? So based on these results, the update really adds Anastrozole as another option for endocrine prevention in women at increased risk. So specifically, we say that Anastrozole 1 milligram per day orally for five years should be discussed as an alternate to tamoxifen, raloxifene or exemestane in postmenopausal women for the reduction of breast cancer in women at increased risk. We also clarify further who are the women most likely to benefit from Anastrozole or the other endocrine prevention drugs. And these are women diagnosed with atypical hyperplasia, either ductal or lobular, or lobular carcinoma in situ or women with an estimated five-year risk of at least 3% based on the NCI Breast Cancer Risk Assessment tool or a 10-year risk of at least 5% based on the IBIS Tyrer-Cusick Risk Calculator. But we also give parameters for other risk models, and that is a relative risk of at least four times the population risk for women in the age group 40 to 45 and two times that of the population age group from 45 to 69. I think this is an important part of the recommendations, because up till now, the recommendations for women at increased risk have really followed the eligibility criteria for these trials, which were often a five-year risk, for example, of 1.7% in the NSABP trials. And here, we're trying to really highlight the importance of considering this women at higher risk where there is a clear benefit when you look at benefit-risk ratios. We also talk about the fact that Anastrozole should not be prescribed in women who are premenopausal and that it is really important that both patients and health care providers discuss the benefits and risks of Anastrozole along with the other risk-reduction agents when they are considering prescribing this. And then lastly, the importance of talking about specific adverse effects of Anastrozole, because here we're talking about a population of women at increased risk who are cancer free. And that includes baseline fracture risk, a measurement of bone mineral density as well as other adverse effects like joint stiffness, arthralgias, vasomotor symptoms, hypertension, dry eyes and vaginal dryness. So we think it's important that they have this discussion with women before the study. So what are some of the clinical considerations for the use of endocrine prevention pharmaceutical agents for breast cancer risk reduction? So in this guideline, we have introduced this section called Clinical Considerations to try to tackle some of the challenging questions that providers have when considering prescribing endocrine prevention. So I urge people to have a look at this section, because it's really a question-answer format. So one of the things we talk about first is what I just alluded to, how do you identify women at risk, where the benefit of endocrine prevention outweighs the risks? And we go through different risk calculations, and we give examples of clinical patients who fit into these risk categories. The second thing, which I think is an important thing, is we talk about a new study that came out while we were preparing this guideline update. And this was by De Censi, et al. And it's been published in the JCO on low-dose tamoxifen. This was a randomized trial in women with intra-epithelial neoplasia. So this includes women with atypical hyperplasia, lobular carcinoma, or ductal carcinoma in situ. So slightly different population. And the women were randomized to tamoxifen at 5 milligrams a day-- so this is 1/4 of the standard 20-milligram dose-- or placebo for three years. So remember-- or endocrine prevention trials were for five years. So this was a shorter duration. And then a median followup of five years, they reported out the results, and they saw half the number of neoplastic events, so DCIS or invasive cancer, compared to placebo. So the results were very comparable to the original NSABP-P1 trial and very promising. So the further I think, what has been a sometimes prevented uptake of these agents, has been the adverse effects of tamoxifen, for example, equal to uterine cancer. And in this study, they did not see an increase in the number of serious adverse effects, including deep venous thrombosis and endometrial cancer. They still saw an increase in hot flashes. So I think this is very promising data and could be an alternate option for some patients, where side effects are a problem or they're reticent to take prevention given the side effects. Another thing we tackle is the question of age when you start recommending hormone prevention. And here, this relates to we talk about at 70, not so much that you would stop it at 70, but at that age or 70 or above, you would actually make sure you're taking into consideration their life expectancy. So they should have a life expectancy of 10 years or greater. And you're also taking into consideration their breast cancer risk. So the question there was, is there an upper age limit for endocrine risk reduction therapy? And we think that, at least the panel thought that, in women 70 years of age or older, you should actually consider both the short-term risk. It should be at least in the range of 1% or more per year. So that would be women with atypical hyperplasia, a family history, or some with carcinoma in situ. We want to make sure they're active and that they have a life expectancy of 10 or more years. Another question we tackled here was, what is the duration of endocrine therapy in this setting for breast cancer risk reduction? And this comes in the context that now, in the treatment setting, a subset of women are given, for example, tamoxifen for more than five years. In terms of data, with the exception of raloxifene, where we do have longer-term data that is greater than five years, in women at increased risk of breast cancer from the osteoporosis prevention trial, where we see that even with women taking raloxifene for more than five years still have a benefit in terms of the breast cancer risk reduction. We don't really have data for any of the other agents in the preventive setting. So there is currently no data from randomized trials that any of these agents, except for raloxifene, should be given for longer than five years. And that is in the setting of women with osteoporosis. And then the last question that we tackle is to look at how you decide between taking an aromatase inhibitor endocrine prevention therapy or a SERM. And this is really only in postmenopausal women, because we still only have one option for premenopausal women, and that is tamoxifen. Here, we just go through step by step sort of the process of thinking about the side effects for each of these agents. And in the context of the woman who is considering endocrine therapy and tailoring it to their age, what symptoms they have, or other comorbidities. Finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect conversations between providers and women at increased risk for breast cancer? So I think, firstly, these guidelines, again, bring attention to breast cancer prevention and the need for us as a community, both providers and women, to move this field forward. And what do I mean by that is we need to be more systematic about identifying women who are truly at increased risk and then subsequently having these discussions with them about the options available. And so I think this guideline adds another agent to the list of agents we now have that can be used to reduce breast cancer risk or breast cancer incidence and also provide the opportunity to-- we look at this and think about how we might incorporate discussions on breast cancer risk reduction into clinical practice. We do also want to stress the importance of discussions on lifestyle factors or risk reduction in addition to these agents. So I think hopefully this guideline helps to, again, refocus attention on the issue and encourage both women to ask their providers about their breast cancer risk and then providers to re-look at this question about breast cancer prevention and how to identify those who are at risk and then discuss endocrine prevention in those at higher risk. I think this is particularly important as we think about our aging population and the increase we are expecting in breast cancer over the next 10 to 20 years. And then also, as we think about breast cancer is now the number-one cancer diagnosed, well, the prevention becomes even more important. Great. Thank you for your work on this guideline. It sounds like there may be many important conversations which happen between women and their providers based on the work and the research about breast cancer risk reduction. So thank you again for coming on the podcast to share with us today, Dr. Visvanathan. Thank you. I would like to thank ASCO for having these podcasts and also shining a light on breast cancer prevention and getting this information out to its listeners. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

Subscribe through iTunes and Google Play. Dr. Melissa Dillmon, the Chair of ASCO's Government Relations Committee, joins ASCO CEO Clifford A. Hudis to discuss improving access to clinical trials for patients with Medicaid. Medicaid covers 20% of Americans, however unlike Medicare or private insurers, Medicaid is not federally required to cover the routine care costs associated with clinical trials.  Find all of ASCO's podcasts at podcast.asco.org Transcription Shannon McKernin: Hi. My name is Shannon McKernin, and I am the host of the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. When a new ASCO guideline publishes, we release a podcast episode featuring an interview with one or more expert panel members. Each episode highlights the key recommendations and the implications for patients and providers. You can find the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series on Apple Podcasts or wherever you're listening to this show, and you can find all nine of ASCO's podcasts, which cover a wide range of educational and scientific content and offer enriching insight into the world of cancer care, at podcast.asco.org. 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Clifford Hudis: Welcome to this ASCO in Action podcast. This is ASCO's monthly podcast series where we explore policy and practice issues that impact oncologists, the entire cancer care delivery team, and most importantly, the individuals who care for-- people with cancer. My name is Clifford Hudis, and I'm the CEO of ASCO, as well as the host of this ASCO in Action podcast series. For today's podcast, I am really delighted to be joined by Dr. Melissa Dillmon-- Missy-- the chair of ASCO's Government Relations Committee, and a longtime dedicated ASCO volunteer. Now, regular ASCO in Action podcast listeners may remember that just a few months ago, I spoke with one of our colleagues, Dr. Beverly Moy, the issue of financial barriers to clinical trial participation, and we focused on ASCO's work to address those barriers to try to make it easier for patients to enroll in clinical research studies. Today, we're going to follow up on that. Dr. Dillmon is going to join me as we drill down deeper into one of the barriers that we've touched on previously-- in this case, the lack of coverage of routine care costs that are associated with clinical trials, but very specifically, the challenges that are faced by patients who have Medicaid. Dr. Dillmon, welcome, and thank you for joining us today. Melissa Dillmon: Thank you, Cliff, for having me and discussing what I think is a very timely and important issue. Clifford Hudis: Since it's something I know you care deeply about, maybe you could start off at a high level and give us a little bit of background. What is it exactly that we're talking about here, when we talk about clinical research and coverage for patients with Medicaid? Melissa Dillmon: So Cliff, you know that in many cases, clinical trials provide the best or sometimes the only treatment option for our patients with cancer. And we live in a time when there is an incredibly rapid pace of development, with new investigational treatments that are dramatically altering the course of cancer for the better. Patients with Medicaid have a unique barrier to accessing clinical trials because Medicaid is the only payer that is not federally required to cover the routine cost of clinical trial participation. So Medicare and major commercial payers are required to have coverage for routine costs of clinical trial participation. Medicare provided this coverage beginning in the year 2000 after the Medicare National Coverage Determination Act protected their beneficiaries. The Affordable Care Act also requires insurers to cover routine patient care costs for trials participation. But Medicaid was not specifically called out or included in this requirement. So today, commercial payers and Medicare are paying for the routine cost of clinical trial participation, but Medicaid is not required in any of the states by the federal government to cover these costs. And we know that these patients have financial barriers to accessing basic medical care and preventative services anyway. So this lack of mandated coverage makes it even harder for some Medicaid patients to participate in potentially life-saving treatment trials. Clifford Hudis: I remember from, obviously in my days of doing clinical studies, there was often a lot of discussion about what was a routine cost of clinical care and what was a research cost. Can you expand a little bit on which parts of this are covered, or are they all covered, by these requirements? Melissa Dillmon: So routine care costs are the regular doctor's appointment or E&M charge, radiology exams, drugs to manage side effects, supportive care medications, laboratory tests. It is not the cost of the drug or anything specifically related to that, it's just the routine care costs that go along with cancer treatment care, whether that patient was on a trial or on a regular, on-label drug. Clifford Hudis: And in an ideal world, when this is working efficiently, this dovetails neatly with the fact that the non-routine care costs-- those things that are being required only because the participants involved in a very specific research study-- those costs are generally borne by a sponsor, right? Melissa Dillmon: Correct. So perhaps if there is a genomic sequencing that was required, or a special laboratory test to assess a response in a marker that was not a routine care cost, that's usually covered by the sponsor of the clinical trial. Clifford Hudis: And so just to make sure every listener is following, the irony here is without this requirement, in a sense, a person with good commercial insurance historically could find themselves not covered for the exact same costs that normally would have been covered solely because they're getting some treatment that is part of a clinical trial. And that seems like a perverse incentive in the wrong direction for all of us across all of society, right? Melissa Dillmon: Exactly, especially at a time when it's challenging to get enough people on clinical trial, and we're trying to get more people on clinical trials. We're trying to remove those barriers. Clifford Hudis: Right, and I would go even a step further and say it's a little bit of a paradox because it doesn't actually cost the insurer any more money for a person to be on a clinical trial and be covered for routine care. It's not as if they're getting an increased charge back because the patient's on a clinical trial. The research study is typically covering the non-standard research components of care anyway, right? Melissa Dillmon: Correct. And then oftentimes, if there's an investigational drug, they're taking the cost of the drug out of the picture. So in some ways, you're actually saving the insurer that money. Clifford Hudis: So it's funny, as well, a little paradox that Medicaid is the only major payer not federally required to cover their costs. Yet at the state level, I think-- and I just heard about another one today, I'll tell you-- some states have taken half steps or full steps to require Medicaid to cover the costs of clinical trial participation for patients, right? Melissa Dillmon: That's correct. About a dozen states have taken action, through written statutes, or regulations, or policies, to require their Medicaid plan to cover these costs. But that's only a dozen states. That leaves about 42 million Medicaid patients who do not have guaranteed ability to participate in clinical trials. Clifford Hudis: You know, I think some listeners may be surprised that you get that big number-- 42 million. And of course, that raises some basic questions about the reach, and scale, and extent of Medicaid. I think we should talk about that for a moment. So who has Medicaid as their primary insurance? That is, who is covered by Medicaid-- what kinds of patient populations and so forth? Melissa Dillmon: So Medicaid covers about 20% of Americans. Patients on Medicaid are often lower income. It's usually children, older adults, patients with disabilities, and some patients in rural areas are more likely to have Medicaid. So depending on where those dozen states are that have those statutes, those may be states that don't have as large rural populations or lower income patients. So racial and ethnic minorities are also overrepresented in Medicaid. For example, African-Americans represent about 12% to 13% of Americans, but 21% of patients receiving Medicaid are African-American. Hispanics represent 18% of the American census population, but 25% of patients on Medicaid are Hispanic. Clifford Hudis: So this is the same old issue, where certain racial features, as it were, are surrogates for lower socioeconomic status, and that's what you're describing, unfortunately. Right? Melissa Dillmon: Correct. Clifford Hudis: OK. And so we take this group of patients that are, in general, a little bit disadvantaged-- lower socioeconomic status as an average, perhaps more rural, which itself represents a barrier to care-- and then you add on the limitation in terms of clinical trial participation coverage. So how does this translate into an increased burden for this special population, as opposed to everybody else? Melissa Dillmon: Well, we already know that cost is a major barrier to participation in clinical trials. Patients who have larger income are more likely to participate in clinical trials, or be offered a clinical trial, or live in an area where there is a clinical trial available for them. Patients who have a lower income-- less than $20,000 per year-- have a much lower participation rate in clinical trials, and we are therefore missing a lot of patients who could be benefiting from those clinical trials and who could be contributing to the science. And these patients don't have the financial resources to pay for their routine cost of care. They cannot afford to pay the E&M visit, or for a chest x-ray, or a CAT scan on their own. So that would pose a huge barrier for them to even consider participating in a clinical trial. And one of the things that frequently is stated is, of course, this means that if you can't participate in a clinical trial, that they might be missing out on life-extending or life-saving therapy. And we have to admit that that, of course, is uncommon, but not impossible. But there are also more subtle ways that clinical trial participation can benefit the individual. Clifford Hudis: They may enjoy a higher quality of life with some experimental therapies sometimes. And the other thing, of course, is that we all, as a society, benefit it clinical research studies are concluded more quickly. We get an answer faster and we can move on to the next big thing or build upon what we've learned. So it isn't as if the cost of this is limited solely to people with Medicaid. It's something, I guess, we all pay, right? Melissa Dillmon: As a society, I think we suffer when patients are not able to participate in these studies.

An interview with Dr. Anna Falanga on "Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients with Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update." The guideline revises several previous recommendations. Most notably, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been added as options for VTE prophylaxis and treatment. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines Find all of ASCO's podcasts at podcast.asco.org  TRANSCRIPT Hi, my name is Clifford Hudis and I am the CEO of ASCO and the host of the ASCO in Action Podcast. About twice a month, I interview thought leaders in health care and experts in oncology, and we provide analysis and commentary on a wide range of cancer policy and practice issues.   You can find the ASCO in Action Podcast on Apple Podcasts or wherever you are listening to this show, and you can find all 9 of ASCO’s podcasts which cover a wide range of educational and scientific content and offer enriching insight into the world of cancer care at podcast.asco.org 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today I'm interviewing Dr. Anna Falanga from the hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII in Bergamo, Italy. Senior author on "Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients with Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guidelines Update." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Falanga. Yes, thank you. I am very happy to talk on the update of the ASCO VTE guidelines. So this guideline was first published in 2007 with an update in 2013 and a reaffirmation in 2015. So what prompted this 2019 update? Thanks for this first question. I think that an update was urgently needed at this time. You know, before, the ASCO guidelines were published in 2007. And then an update was made in 2013, and the second one in 2015. But in 2015 was basically a confirmation of the previous 2013 update. Now the update was urgently needed, because in the very recent years there has been even more evidence of the relevance and impact of a venous thromboembolism in the cancer patients. But in addition, and very importantly, new data from prospective randomized clinical trials with the new drugs for the management of VT in the oncological patients have become available. In particular, as you know, low molecular weight heparins were largely used in the setting of the treatment and trauma prophylaxis in the cancer patients. And actually, the low molecular weight tapering have been the standard of treatment for many years. However, recently the results of prospective randomized clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulant, particularly, the anti-Xa inhibitors, Edoxaban and Rivaroxaban, for cancer associated with [INAUDIBLE] treatment support the role of this new oral agent in the VT management in this setting. And this is related to new politics in the VT management in these patients. So what are the key recommendations for this guideline update? The main changes to the previous recommendations are first that Rivaroxaban and Edoxiban, the two anti-Xa inhibitors oral anticoagulants have been added as an option for routine treatment in cancer patients in this update. Also, now we may offer thrombo prophylaxis with Apixaban, Rivaroxaban, or low molecular weight tapering to selected high-risk outpatients with cancer. And about other changes of these new guidelines compared to the last one include that patients with brain metastases have been addressed in the VT type treatment sections, whereas before, only patients with the primary tumors were mentioned in the previous edition. And finally, the recommendation regarding long-term postoperative thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin expanded to patients undergoing a major open or laparoscopic abdominal or pelvic surgery. These are the main changes that all I think are very, very important. Why is this guideline so important? And how does it affect practice? Well, I think that the question how these changes affect our practice is a very important question, because I believe that these guidelines reflect the new evidence that we have from the new data. And this data clearly expand our possibility to choose now between the different treatment options in the single patient in the cancer population. For instance, the new data show that treatment with [INAUDIBLE] anticoagulants compared to low molecular weight heparin lower the risk of a recurrent thrombosis. But in some instances there's a higher risk of bleeding, particularly in the gastrointestinal and urinary tract cancer patients. So therefore it is evident that the patient selection and the individualization of a therapy based on the patient characteristics and the type of cancer-- all these become very important. And we have the possibility now to choose between different treatments, or in the same patients we can change from one treatment to the other according to the face of the disease or complications if the patient is in a phase that is assuming chemotherapy with many side effects like nausea and vomiting. Of course, in these cases a parenteral injection is preferable for the management of a venous thromboembolism. Whereas in other instances, a long-term and oral intake is surely more convenient. So it depends also from the level of risk. But now for the six months treatment we can offer different choice of the oral treatment and also for high-risk patients the primary prophylaxis with Apixaban Rivaroxoaban, and a low molecular weight tapering can be chosen. And what should patients be aware of when it comes to VTE risks and treatments? I think that patients should be educated about the risk of a cancer associated with VTE. You know, there is that evidence that they are educated about it. And they know a lot better about neutropenia, and the fever associated with this the neutropenic condition and the other side effect. But they know very little about the possibility that they can experience venous thromboembolism. s So I think they should be taught on how to recognize the symptoms and alert their physician. You know, sometimes the symptoms are indistinguishable It can be just a little pain in the calf. And patients must know that these are to be considered important. They must alert their physician to undergo some test-- objective test-- to see if there is a real thrombosis in the leg or not. This is extremely important, because one important consequence of venous thromboembolism of the extremities is a pulmonary embolism that can be also fatal. So they must know about that. Also, I think they should know about the risk of bleeding associated with the anticoagulant treatment, and also that this risk of bleeding can be different in the different type of tumors. Finally, I think that also they must be told about the once they have, for instance, and episode of venous thromboembolism they have to receive a treatment for that, and these are usually six months to the minimum, and then we'll decide. So they must know what these are the efficacy and the safety profiles of the different drugs. They must know the differences in the route of administration and the other characteristics of the drug. So I think that their shared decision with the patients of the type of treatment must be an integral part of the decision making and is certainly desirable. Great. It sounds as though there's some important considerations for patients and important conversations which may be prompted by this guideline. So thank you for taking your time to discuss this with me today, Dr. Falanga. I thank you very much for this interview and talk that our colleagues and also the patients will be happy with these new guidelines of ASCO. Thank you. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

TRANSCRIPT An interview with Dr. David Adelstein of the Cleveland Clinic on the ASCO PCO which provides statements on the role of treatment deintensification in the management of p16+ oropharyngeal cancer. Read the full PCO at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today I'm interviewing Dr. David Adelstein from the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute. Lead author on "Role of Treatment Deintensification in the Management of p16 Positive Oropharyngeal Cancer: ASCO Provisional Clinical Opinion."  Thank you for being here today, Dr. Adelstein. Thank you, Shannon. Before we get started, I'd like to first note the contributions of my panel co-chair, Drew Ridge, and those of all of the other panel members. And I'd like to extend a special thank you to ASCO for their support in allowing us to put this together and specifically Nofisat Ismaila who did a tremendous amount of work in allowing us to complete this provisional clinical opinion. First, can you give us an overview of the clinical issue for this PCO? Sure. So this really came out of the implications of human papillomavirus mediated oropharynx cancer. I think as most of the listeners know, over the last several decades we've recognized the fact that oropharynx cancer has a second ideology, that not all of it is caused by tobacco use, but that the human papillomavirus is now the major ideologic factor in North American and northern Europe. The importance of this is that the human papillomavirus-induced oropharynx cancer is a different disease. It has a number of different characteristics from the kinds of head and neck cancer we've seen in the past. It's a disease that tends to occur in younger patients, patients who are otherwise generally more healthy. It is unassociated with smoking, although it can occur in smokers. But it's much more frequent in nonsmokers. And I think most importantly, it's a disease that has a dramatically better prognosis than the tobacco related disease. Now over the last several decades, our ability to treat advanced head and neck cancer has improved significantly, because we've begun to incorporate non-operative treatments-- chemotherapy and radiation-- and have been more aggressive in our utilization of chemotherapy and radiation with significantly greater success than we had in the past. The problem with this kind of treatment is that it is quite rigorous. And there's a good deal of acute and, more importantly, late toxicity that patients experience from these kinds of approaches. Now as we became more familiar with the importance of HPV associated oropharynx cancer, we realized that there are subgroups of these patients who have cure rates that are in excess of 90%. And the question arose whether the kinds of rigorous chemotherapy and radiation therapy treatments that we were utilizing were really necessary. Was it necessary to cause this much acute and late toxicity in patients who in vast majority of cases were going to be cured of the disease. And it's important, because these are younger patients. And the late toxicities are going to have a major impact on their quality of life for a number of years. What came about was the notion of treatment deintensification, the idea that perhaps it would be possible to deintensify the kinds of treatments we were giving in select patients. It's a very compelling hypothesis for medical oncologists and radiation oncologists. But there are a number of problems as we try to test this hypothesis. The first problem is how do we identify the good risk patients? There are patients with HPV-positive disease who do not do so well-- the heavy smokers and patients with very advanced tumors. And we need to be careful if we're going to be talking about giving less treatment that we don't give less treatment to the patients who have a worse prognosis. We pick the best prognosis patients. There have been a number of what we call risk stratification schemes that have been developed looking at trying to identify the very good prognosis patients-- those patients who are HPV positive who don't smoke and who have relatively limited disease extent. There's not universal agreement on how best to define these patients. All we know is that they do exist, that you can look at patients with these characteristics and see very good outcomes. One of the issues that has come up is how do we utilize the American Joint Committee staging system-- AJCC the 8th edition. One of the things that AJCC 8 did which is new is that it defined a separate staging system for patients with HPV-positive oropharynx cancer, a system which is entirely different than the staging system that we've used for head and neck cancers for many years. This was based on the recognition that the prognosis of patients with HPV-positive disease is so good so that many patients who we would previously have considered to have stage 4 disease are now classified as having stage 1 tumors, because their prognosis is so good. And that can be confusing, because the typical thought process for an oncologist is that a patient with stage 1 disease should be treated with single modality therapy. The reason that the HPV-positive patients have such a good prognosis, however, is that many of them have been treated with combined modality therapies. And to make the assumption that because now they're classified as stage 1 is incorrect. It is they shouldn't be treated with less intensive treatments and can be confusing. AJCC 8th edition is a prognostic robust staging system, but it really doesn't help us in defining treatment. First problem is how best to define patients who are appropriate for deintensification. Second problem is, what do you do to deintensify? What constitutes meaningful deintensification? Well, over the last 10 or 20 years there have been some significant advances in our standard treatments for all head and neck cancers that weren't developed the idea of deintensification. We now have tremendous experience using transoral surgical techniques, which are generally minimally morbid, much less morbid than the former open techniques that previously were used, which allows consideration of surgery for many of these patients where we wouldn't have considered it before. Similarly, intensity modulated radiation therapy has been widely adopted, and d clearly an approach using radiation, which is far less difficult, far less toxic than the former 2D or 3D radiation planning techniques that used to be used. But if we talk about intensification, what kinds of things can we do to deintensify our treatments? Well, one thought is to reduce the radiation dose. Then the question is, how much reduction is reasonable? And how much reduction is going to actually impact on this toxicity? And are our toxicity measuring tools adequate to even detect the difference in reduction of a radiation dose? Many of our toxicity tools are very crude. Perhaps we should be using some of the patient-reported outcome quality of life instruments that are available. Other thoughts are, perhaps one can reduce the size of the radiation therapy field. Can we reduce the dose of the chemotherapy? Can we eliminate chemotherapy? Can we even use less intensive chemotherapy? Generally, the other treatments for this disease have employed high doses of cisplatin, which is a toxic agent. And then there the question has been asked as to whether we can reincorporate minimally morbid transoral surgical techniques in an effort to better pathologically stage patients and define more appropriate adjuvant treatment. Perhaps not all patients need adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy and radiation. All of these approaches are interesting. They're exciting. They're being tested. But all of the experiences is preliminary. And that really brings us to the third and the biggest problem in any deintensification approach. And that's the need to be certain that if we deintensify our therapy, we're not going to compromise outcomes. It would not be acceptable to give less treatment or less intensive treatment if our survival were compromised. And we have to be certain that we don't do this. So what has evolved over the past decade is a whole number of treatment approaches that have some very enthusiastic early results. But these are generally single arm phase 2 reports where there is no comparison to conventional treatment. And they become difficult to interpret, because the results in general are very good. I think what really raised a red flag for us and that really caused us to take notice was the results of the RTOG 1016 trial that we reported last year. And at the same time, the European de-escalate trial, both of which had a similar design. These were studies that were designed in an effort to see if treatment deintensification would be possible by randomly comparing the standard treatment radiation and cisplatin with what was felt to be a less intensive approach-- radiation and concurrent cetuximab. And cetuximab is an accepted agent in the United States for treating head and neck cancer. The assumption here is that the survival would be equivalent when these two arms were compared, but that the toxicity would be improved by giving the less intensive systemic agent-- the cetuximab. The surprise when the study was analyzed was that that assumption was incorrect, that the radiation and cetuximab arm-- the deintensified arm-- actually proved inferior in terms of survival. And this was in both trials-- both the RTOG trial and the trial from Europe. And that was a big note of caution, because it was somewhat unexpected. I think we learned from that kind of a study, from a good randomized-- a large randomized trial-- that even though the outcomes may appear to be good, we need to be very careful about deintensifying our treatment until we're sure that the survival is equivalent. So although it's tempting for the clinician to see these very exciting reports about administering less treatment with the idea of producing less toxicity, the guideline advisory committee for ASCO really thought it was important that we get the message out that this kind of approach is not a treatment standard. This remains an investigational approach, and that the treatment standards for this disease really haven't changed. So what are the provisional clinical opinions that were made by the expert panel? They made several statements. The first was to acknowledge that the idea of treatment deintensification is a very compelling hypothesis, and it does require careful and appropriate testing. The second was that even though we are now better at identifying good prognosis patients, and we've seen some very promising early results, and even though we're now reclassifying patients with previously advanced stage HPV-positive disease as stage 1 or stage 2 tumors, the treatment recommendations for this disease have not changed. And they're based on the results achieved using AJCC 6 and 7. Standard of non-operated management to patients who are eligible to receive cisplatin remains high concurrent radiation and high dose cisplatin given every three weeks. If patients undergoing a surgical resection, then adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation with radiation and high dose cisplatin every three weeks is recommended in those patients with high risk factors of positive surgical margins or external tumor extension. And most importantly, deintensification, though it's a compelling hypothesis, is something that should only be undertaken on a clinical trial. Why is this guidance so important? And how will it affect practice? Well, I think the important thing about this guideline is that it shouldn't affect practice. The practice shouldn't change. The standards of care are not altered. And that for the clinician, this remains something that is exciting, something that should encourage enrollment on a clinical trial, but that we haven't changed treatment standards. And finally, how will this guidance affect patients? So from a patient's point of view, I think there is continued reason for optimism. A patient with the diagnosis of an HPV-positive oropharynx cancer is a patient with a very good prognosis. Patients are increasingly sophisticated. They read about the potential for treatment deintensification, and recognize that this is not something which is an accepted standard. But it should encourage their participation in clinical trials if [INAUDIBLE] is offered. I think ultimately it's a remarkable thing when oncologists can consider the possibility of reducing treatment intensity because the treatment results have been so good. Great. Thank you for your overview of this PCO. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Adelstein. And thank you, Shannon. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full PCO, go to www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

TRANSCRIPT 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today, I'm interviewing Dr. Nancy Baxter from St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto, senior author on "Duration of Oxaliplatin-Containing Adjuvant Therapy for Stage III Colon Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Baxter. Thanks very much, Shannon, for speaking with me. I'm happy to share our work developing this guideline. So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers and the studies which provide the evidence? Absolutely. So use of adjuvant therapy for patients with stage III colon cancer is common, and it's effective. We know that these patients are at substantial risk of recurrence of their disease and that adjuvant therapy can reduce that risk. But we also know that comes with a cost. The most effective adjuvant therapy is FOLFOX or oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy regimens. And we know that a really substantial number of people will end up with neurotoxicity, with peripheral sensory neurotoxicity, that can be long lasting and certainly affects their quality of life. So the whole question was whether the duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapeutic regimens could be shortened when they're used for adjuvant therapy, so if we could give three months instead of six months. Because we know that if we give three months of therapy, the risk of neurotoxicity is much lower. So if we had the same effectiveness with the shorter duration, then we could spare patients the negative consequences of the agent given for a longer period of time. So in developing these guidelines, we looked at the results of international group of trials, the six trials from the IDEA collaboration. So these were six randomized trials in various jurisdictions that tried to look at this question, so three months of an oxaliplatin-based chemotherapeutic regimen for adjuvant therapy for stage III cancer versus six months duration of therapy. And so there was a planned analysis to bring all of these data together to develop the evidence base to make this recommendation. So our guideline and our systematic review basically identified this is the key piece of literature to base our recommendations and guidelines on. That's essentially the main study, so the meta-analysis of these six randomized controlled trials that formed the basis of the IDEA collaboration. So the IDEA collaboration studies-- there were six individual randomized trials that formed part of the IDEA collaboration. And they were conducted in Italy, Greece, Japan, North America, through CALGB/SWOG, the UK, Denmark, Spain, Australia, Sweden, and New Zealand, as well as France. So data came from, really, around the world. The median age of people in the studies was 64 years of age. And these people had a really good performance status, so almost all of these patients had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. So they were healthy patients that were in the study. And so some patients received CAPOX, and some received FOLFOX. That wasn't part of the randomization scheme. Other than the CALGB/SWOG study, this was up to the discretion of the investigator or patient. In the SWOG/CALGB study, only FOLFOX was given. And the authors planned a prespecified subgroup analysis to look at differences between CAPOX and FOLFOX. There was also a prespecified analysis to look at differences based on stage. What they found when they looked at the results was that, overall, the difference between groups in terms of the three months versus six months was that the hazard ratio between these two was 1.07, meaning a small difference between the groups in terms of recurrence or death between three months and six months overall. But because the prespecified confidence interval, noninferiority interval, for the difference in outcome was 1.12, the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was above this. So it was 1.15, indicating that this prespecified noninferiority margin was exceeded. And so the study did not prove noninferiority of the three-month regimen. So we're left with an inconclusive result. So that's why our guidelines don't have a strong recommendation for the three months, because we can't rule out a small but potentially important difference between the two groups in terms of recurrence or death. Now, interestingly, when they looked at the prespecified subgroup analysis, which was looking at CAPOX versus FOLFOX, a difference was found. So they actually found that for FOLFOX chemotherapy, three months of therapy was inferior to six months of therapy, while for CAPOX, actually, three months and six months were the same. So it met the criteria of noninferiority. So these are kind of two different conclusions based on which type of chemotherapy was used. This was surprising to the investigators and was not expected. And certainly, it was not consistent with the randomized trials that we have comparing these regimens. So we therefore did not make any conclusions in our recommendations about CAPOX versus FOLFOX. But this is certainly something that requires further investigation in the future. In terms of stage, we did not find that there was an interaction between T stage or end stage when you looked at the differences between the three and the six month. And that was the prespecified analysis. But in non-prespecified analysis, which was the higher risk versus lower risk categories, you did find this difference where the patients with high-risk disease had inferior disease-free survival with three months versus six months of therapy, while those at low risk of disease, it seemed quite safe to give three months versus six months. So that's a long story. But essentially, because the high risk versus low risk analysis was not prespecified, there's a limitation to how strong our recommendations can be to have three months of therapy. However, given that the hazard ratio associated with three months versus six months of therapy for this lower risk group was only 1.01, indicating they were the same, and the risk of neuropathy was substantially higher with six months, this has led to us making recommendations that the three months of therapy is adequate for patients with low-risk disease after discussion with patients about the possible pros and cons. And what are the key recommendations of this guideline? Well, so the recommendations of this guideline do depend on the pathology, so how high risk the patient is. So based on the evidence from the IDEA collaboration, the researchers found that patients who had a high risk of recurrence-- so had T4 disease or heavily node-positive disease, N2 disease-- the six-month duration of therapy was better than the three-month duration of therapy. These studies and the meta-analysis were designed as noninferiority meta-analyses. But it was clear from the results that the three-month duration was inferior when compared to three months for these high-risk patients. So that seems clear, although we know that those patients will also be at more risk of neuropathy. And so that needs to be discussed with patients, as well. So for the second group, which are patients who are at lower risk of recurrence, what we found was there was less of a clear benefit of six months of therapy. The recommendation was that patients who are in this low-risk category-- so T1, T2, or T3 cancers that are N1, so not heavily node-positive-- clinicians can offer three months versus six months of therapy after having a discussion with their patients about the pros and cons of that. So the clinicians can go ahead and offer that to patients and still be within the common guidelines based on evidence for treatment of stage III colon cancer. So because there's some uncertainty after analysis of the IDEA collaboration, one of the really important recommendations that we make is about this shared decision-making approach. So the third recommendation that we make is that oncologists should discuss these factors with their patients who have stage III resected colon cancer and that the duration of therapy needs to take into account the tumor characteristics-- the surgical resection, the number of lymph nodes examined, the comorbidities, the patient functional status, all of these various things-- and there needs to be a discussion of the potential for benefit and the risk of harm based on the duration of therapy. And oncologists definitely discuss these things with their patients. And this just emphasizes how this is yet another component of the discussion that needs to be included, particularly when speaking with low-risk patients who are at substantial risk of harm from neuropathy and are unlikely to benefit greatly by extending chemotherapy to six months. So why is this guideline so important? And how will it change practice? Well, I think, until now, the standard recommendation has been six months of FOLFOX or six months of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. And again, there are many patients who have quality of life-affecting neuropathy because of this. So for a substantial proportion of patients who present to us with stage III cancer-- so those that are low risk-- I think this provides some options to them. So they can opt for a shorter duration of chemotherapy with a lower risk of toxicity. This saves time. This saves cost to the patient and to the system and potentially improves their quality of life without a great impact on outcome in terms of disease recurrence. So that's a substantial number, a substantial proportion of our patients, who can be treated in this way. So I think that this is a real benefit. Again, oncologists need to have a conversation with their patients about the pros and cons. But this is an option for their patients, whereas from an evidence-based perspective, it wasn't before the publication of the IDEA collaboration. Finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? So for patients who have heavily node-positive disease-- so high-risk patients with T4 or N2 disease-- it's not going to affect care. So the expectation would be those patients would be treated with six months of therapy, similar to previous recommendations. So this will be for people who are at lower risk of disease recurrence, so patients with T1 to 3 tumors that are N1 positive, so not heavily node positive. So these patients will have the opportunity to opt for a shorter duration of therapy. So that's a major benefit to patients. Again, it's important that there's a discussion and that patients understand the pros and cons. But this is now an option for them, which is excellent. Thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, please go to www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

An interview with Dr. Noam Yarom, Dr. Charles Shapiro, Dr. Deborah Saunders and Dr. Doug Peterson on "Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: MASCC/ISOO/ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline." This guideline addresses the prevention and management of MRONJ in patients with cancer. This guideline is intended for oncologists and other physicians, dentists, dental specialists, oncology nurses, clinical researchers, oncology pharmacists, advanced practitioners, and patients with cancer. Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines Find all of the ASCO podcasts at podcast.asco.org  TRANSCRIPT 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today, I'm interviewing a panel of authors from "Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: MASCC/ISOO/ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline." So could I have you each introduce yourselves for the listeners today? Thank you, Shannon. I'm Dr. Deborah Saunders. I'm the president of the International Society of Oral Oncology and was the section head for the Systematic Review on "Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw," with MASCC and ISOO. I was a proud part of the steering committee and one of the authors. Thank you, Debbie. My name is Dr. Douglas Peterson. I am professor of oral medicine in the School of Dental Medicine at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington, Connecticut. I am also a faculty member in the Head and Neck Cancer Oral Oncology Program at the university's Neag Comprehensive Cancer Center. I'm a member of the steering committee for this clinical practice guideline and one of the co-authors as well. In addition, and as of June 2019, I have been serving as chair elect during this next year for ASCO's Clinical Practice Guidelines committee. Thank you, Doug. My name is Noam Yarom. I'm an all medicine specialist from the Sheba Medical Center in Tel Aviv University in Israel. I'm serving as a culture of this guideline, and it is a pleasure to be with you today. Thanks, Noam. I am Dr. Charles Shapiro, professor of medicine at the Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York. And I'm co-chair of the guideline "Medical-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw." And I'm happy to be here. Thank you all for being here today to discuss this guideline on the podcast. So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers. Sure. So you know, ASCO and MASCC, as well as ISOO decided that it would be great to provide a practical evidence-based approach in a multidisciplinary type setting to address this important topic that impacts all of our professions, that being medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw. It's terminology and its definition and the path that's varied and even part of this publication identifies the need for us to move forward with a concise definition and similar terminology, that being medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw. Medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw is defined as the presence of an exposed or bone that is probable by a probe in a patient that has a history or is undergoing present use of a bone-modifying agent. This being in the absence of any patients having received any radiation to the head and neck and the absence of metastatic lesions to the jaw. The importance of us identifying this definition and agreeing on the terminology allows us to move forward in future publication to better compare outcome and provide better prevention and treatment for our patients moving forward. And what are the key recommendations of this guideline? There are six clinical questions associated with this clinical practice guideline as well as a series of recommendations built within each of the clinical questions. Clinical question one is directed to the preferred terminology and definition for osteonecrosis of the jaw, both of the maxilla and the mandible, as associated with pharmacologic therapies in oncology patients. The panel recommends that the term medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw, MROJ, be used when referring to bone necrosis associated with pharmacologic therapies. As Dr. Saunders has described, the definition contains three key elements-- current or previous treatment with a bone-modifying agent or angiogenic inhibitor, exposed bone, or bone that can be probed through an intra or extra-oral fistula in the maxillofacial region and that has persisted for longer than eight weeks. And third, no history of radiation therapy to the jaws and no history of metastatic disease to the jaws. Clinical question two is directed to specific steps that should be taken to reduce the risk of MRONJ. The recommendation begins with emphasizing the absolute importance of interprofessional communication of the oncology team with the dental team in advance of initiating the bone-modifying agent. For patients with cancer who are scheduled to receive a bone-modifying agent in a non-urgent setting, a comprehensive oral care assessment, including dental examination and periodontal examination and an oral radiographic exam when feasible to do so should be undertaken prior to initiating the BMA therapy. Once the dental care plan has been developed, it should be discussed with the dental team, the patient, and the rest of the oncology team and then implemented based on medically necessary dental procedures. These procedures should be performed prior to the initiation of the bone-modifying agent. Once the bone-modifying agent is implemented, there should be ongoing followup by the dentist on a routine schedule, for example, every six months following initiation of the BMA therapy. It's also important to realize that there are a series of modifiable risk factors which should be emphasized with the patient. For example, poor oral health, invasive dental procedures, ill-fitting dentures, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, and tobacco use are all factors that have been associated with development of a MRONJ. All of these modifiable risk factors should be addressed, where appropriate, with the patient in advance of the bone-modifying agent. As far as elective dental alveolar surgery, these procedures, if they are not medically necessary, for example, extractions or alveoloplasties or implants, they should not be performed during active therapy with a bone-modifying agent being given at an oncologic dose. Now, exceptions to this may be considered when a dental specialist with expertise in prevention and treatment of MROJ has reviewed the benefits and risks of the proposed invasive procedures with the patient and the oncology team. In general, however, elective dental alveolar surgical procedures should be deferred while the patient is undergoing active therapy with a bone-modifying agent. If the dental alveolar surgery is performed, the patient should be evaluated by a dental specialist on a systematic and frequently scheduled basis, for example, every six to eight weeks until there is full mucosal coverage of the surgical site. And once again, communication between the dental team and the rest of the oncology team is absolutely paramount in assuring ongoing comprehensive care of the patient. Interestingly, there are still questions in the literature relative to whether or not there should be temporary discontinuation of bone-modifying agents prior to dental alveolar surgery. Unfortunately, there remains insufficient evidence to support or refute the need for discontinuation of the bone-modifying agent prior to dental alveolar surgery. And so the administration of the bone-modifying agent may be deferred at the discretion of the treating physician, in conjunction with discussion with the patient and the oral health provider. So it really becomes an individual judgment call by the treating physician relative to whether or not to temporarily discontinue the bone-modifying agent prior to dental alveolar surgery. Clinical question three involves the staging of MROJ. There are a number of well-established staging systems in the literature addressing severity and extent of MROJ. For example, the 2014 American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons Staging System is one example. Another example is the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria For Adverse Events. And there is a 2017 International Task Force on O and J Staging System for MROJ that is available as well. So there are at least three well-established, widely utilized staging systems for MROJ. Having said this, it's important in the view of the panel that the same staging system should be used throughout an individual patient's MROJ course of care. And optimally, the staging should be performed by a clinician experienced with the management of MROJ. Clinical question four involves management of MROJ directly. Here, the recommendations talk in terms of initial treatment of MROJ, which is centered in conservative measures. Now, these conservative measures may include antimicrobial mouth rinses, antibiotics if clinically indicated, effective oral hygiene, and conservative surgical intervention such as a removal of a superficial bone spicule. In cases, however, of refractory MROJ, more advanced MROJ, aggressive surgical interventions, for example, mucosal flap elevations, bloc resections of necrotic bone may be used if MROJ is persisting and severely affects function despite conservative initial treatment. Clinical question five involves bone-modifying agents and whether they should be temporarily discontinued after a diagnosis of MROJ has been established. And once again, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the discontinuation of the bone-modifying agents after a diagnosis of MROJ has been established. The bone-modifying agent may be deferred at the discretion of the treating physician, again in discussion with the patient and the oral health care provider. And finally, clinical question six involves what outcome measures that should be utilized in clinical practice to describe the response of MROJ lesion to treatment. During the course of MROJ treatment, the dentist, dental specialist, should communicate with a medical oncologist in an ongoing way, both the objective and subjective status of the lesion. The guideline presents a scale that can be utilized to describe the trajectory of the MROJ-- resolved, improving, stable, or progressive. The clinical course of MROJ may impact both local and systemic treatment decisions relative to the cessation or the recommencement of bone-modifying agents. So once again, it becomes very, very important that the ongoing interprofessional communication relative to the clinical course of MROJ-- resolved, improving, stable, or progressive-- be discussed with the oncology team. Great. Thank you, Dr. Peterson. So on that last note, how can oncologists, dental specialists, and dentists all work together to manage medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw? Throughout these guidelines, we do emphasize the importance of collaboration among the cancer care team, dentist, and dental specialists in order to coordinate care and modify risk factors. It is very important that cancer care team and the dental care team speak the same language. Therefore, we spend time on clarifying the definitions, the diagnostic criteria, and staging of MROJ. As been said earlier, we have developed a new system to evaluate the response to treatment, which is based both on objective findings and symptoms. By using this scale, oncologists and dentists would be able to communicate more easily for the benefit of the patients. We emphasized the need for multidisciplinary discussion in a few critical points throughout the course of bone-modifying agent therapy. And it is most important in case of a planned oral surgery in a patient without MROJ or before aggressive surgical treatment of refractory MROJ. And how will these guideline recommendations affect patients, and what should they talk to their doctors about? There are a number of things that patients, providers, dental specialists, and medical oncologists can do to lessen the risk and prevent MROJ. Because the key to MROJ is prevention. Once MROJ is established, it's difficult to treat, impacting a patient's quality of life. So we want to prevent, reduce the risk of developing MROJ. Patients can do a number of things-- pursue good oral hygiene, stop smoking, or reduce smoking, and control their diabetes, for example. Those things lessen the risk of MROJ. Providers, dental providers, dental specialists, who are specialized in the area or providers, dentists otherwise in the community, when they encounter a patient that's contemplating bone-modifying agents, they can do what's called a complete dental screening exam, which involves a complete examination of the mouth, Panorex X-rays and X-rays as clinically indicated. We want to identify work in the mouth that needs to be repaired before initiating bone-modifying agents. That way, we don't have to deal with an emergent situation when it could be preventable prior to bone-modifying agents, because one of the single highest risk factors for MROJ is emergent dental work while you're on bisphosphonate or another anti-resorptive agent-- bone-modifying agents. So a dental screening exam is critical to prevent or reduce the risk of MROJ. And medical oncologists have a role too in communication with the dental specialists and really think hard about the indications for bone-modifying agents, whether it be for osteoporosis, whether it be for metastatic disease, and whether it be for anti-cancer effects. And finally, where can both patients and clinicians go to get more information on this topic or to find a dentist or a dental specialist? Now, as far as websites, ASCO, MASCC, and ISSO all have websites you can go to to find out more information about MROJ. Yeah, I think that's great advice. Our links for additional information are listed in the Clinical Practice Guideline as well. This is a really first step at a framework in trying to manage a side effect that affects our patients but is very multidisciplinary. And like Dr. Shapiro was saying, really the best way to prevent this is with proper communication between the dentist and the oncologist and making the patient aware of what is needed prior to commencement of these treatments. Well, it certainly sounds as though there are some important considerations for clinicians and patients. And I really hope that this guideline is widely read and makes a real impact on the management of osteonecrosis and the communication between oncologists, dental specialists, and dentists. So from me and all of our listeners, thank you all for coming on the podcast today to discuss "Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: MASCC/ISOO/ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline."   Thank you. Thank you for having us. Thank you very much for this opportunity to contribute to this important discussion. Thank you for allowing me to participate in this important podcast. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

An interview with Dr. AloK Khorana from Cleveland Clinic on "Potentially Curable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update." This guideline update adds another treatment regimen to the options for patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma who did not receive preoperative therapy.  Read the full guideline at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines  See all of ASCO's podcasts at www.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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Alok Khorana from The Cleveland Clinic, lead author on "Potentially Curable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Khorana. Thank you for having me. So this guideline was first published in 2016. And then we saw an update in 2017. And now we've just updated it again. So can you tell the listeners what has prompted these updates? In the world of pancreatic cancer, this has been an evolution in adjuvant treatment, which is sort of a surprise, because we've been treating pancreatic cancer in a very similar fashion over the past several decades. And between the 1990s and until just a few years ago, there hasn't really been much progress in terms of what to do with pancreatic cancer patients after they've had their cancer resected. It's pretty clear that these patients should not have just the surgery, that they should have additional treatment after the surgery. And for decades, the standard treatment after surgery was either 5-fluorouracil or gemcitabine, but most oncologists are opting for gemcitabine. The two recent updates of the ASCO Guidelines reflect two large randomized trials that have been published in this area. The first changed-- added a new standard of care, which was a doublet adjuvant therapy with gemcitabine and capecitabine. And the reason for this most recent update is the publication of a large randomized trial of adjuvant FOLFIRINOX for patients with pancreatic cancer that was published in December 2018 in "The New England." And we felt that the results were so compelling that we needed to update the guidelines so oncologists and practitioners would have the most current data to help them make decisions for patients. So for our listeners who may not now, can you tell us what changes have been made to the recommendations in this newest version of the guideline? So this is a guideline on a potentially curable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, which is we are saying these are resectable pancreatic cancer patients. And the guideline update changes primarily one recommendation, recommendation 4.1, which is a listing of additional adjuvant therapy options. As I mentioned earlier, the most common monotherapy option used to be the gemcitabine 5-fluorouracil. And that recently changed to doublet therapy. And we've kept those recommendations, but we've added the modified combination regimen of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan, which is known as the FOLFIRINOX regimen. And we are making this the preferred regimen for patients in the absence of concerns for toxicity or tolerance. We are still keeping the recommendations for the doublet therapy with gemcitabine capecitabine as well as monotherapy with gemcitabine alone or fluorouracil with cholanic acid. But those are not the preferred regimens, because the data for FOLFIRINOX is much better than prior regimens. Having said that, there are concerns about using such an aggressive regimen and in patients who have undergone a major surgery. So patients have not recovered from operation, then it's reasonable to consider one of the other regimens. But the update primarily focuses on adding adjuvant FOLFIRINOX as the preferred option in the adjuvant setting. And how has this guideline and its updates affected care for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma? I think since the results of this trial, the PRODIGY 24 trial came out of post-operative FOLFIRINOX. Almost every oncologist I know that focuses on treating patients with pancreatic cancer has suddenly added its use in patients that respected pancreatic cancer who are healthy enough to tolerate adjuvant FOLFIRINOX therapy. So it's definitely a practice-changing landmark paper. The results of the study were really quite impressive. The use of adjuvant therapy with FOLFIRINOX led to much longer survival than we've seen in any trial of adjuvant therapy of pancreatic cancer, almost 54 months-- or actually just over 54 months, almost 55 months-- in patients who are randomized to the modified FOLFIRINOX group and about 35 months in the gemcitabine alone group. The overall survival at three years was 63% in FOLFIRINOX and nearly 49% in the gemcitabine group. So that's a big difference at three-year survival as well. The one thing clinicians should be aware of is that this adjuvant therapy trial used a modified dose of FOLFIRINOX. They initially started off at the full those, which is 85 milligrams per meter squared of oxaliplatin, 400 mg per meter squared of leucovorin, and 180 milligrams per meter square of irinotecan. But the dose of iriniotecan was reduced part way through the study to 150 milligrams per meter squared, along with, of course, the conventional 2.4 grams or 5-fluorouracil over 46 hours. This modification of the irinotecan dose from 180 down to 150 is what many patients on the study received and was the more tolerable regimen and allowed the study to be completed. So the Guidelines Panel felt quite strongly that when using FOLFIRINOX in the adjuvant setting, we should stick with this modified dose, which is a lower dose of irinotecan at 150 milligrams per meter squared. And I think it's important that clinicians be aware of this distinction. And so taking this into account, many of us have made this recommendation to patients who are healthy enough to tolerate adjuvant FOLFIRINOX. And the hope is that this guideline will inform this ongoing practice as it changes in response to new data. And finally, what trials or new research are you keeping an eye on that may prompt an update for this guideline in the future? The results of another large adjuvant therapy trial are expected, hopefully at ASCO this year. This trial is the APAC trial that utilizes gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel or Abraxane. This doublet combination is quite widely used in patients with metastatic pancreas cancer, particularly those patients for whom we feel FOLFIRINOX may not be appropriate because of their performance status or functional status. And the hope was that the doublet combination would also have good success in the adjuvant therapy setting and perhaps be a better option than the gem-cape doublet. There has been a press release from the sponsor of that trial, and it looks like the trial was not successful, although the way the press release is worded is rather confusing. So we wait for the full results of that trial to be presented at ASCO before we have an understanding of whether that is an appropriate regimen to use or not in the adjuvant setting. So that's certainly one large trial that many of us have been looking forward to complete sort of the set of ongoing adjuvant therapy trials in this setting. Great. It sounds like there's some really exciting things happening in pancreatic cancer right now. And I look forward to seeing this guideline evolve with the research. So Dr. Khorana, thank you so much for coming on the podcast today and summarizing the Potentially Curable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update. Thank you, Shannon. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

An interview with Dr. David Adelstein of the Cleveland Clinic on the ASCO PCO which provides statements on the role of treatment deintensification in the management of p16+ oropharyngeal cancer. Read the full PCO at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today I'm interviewing Dr. David Adelstein from the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute. Lead author on "Role of Treatment Deintensification in the Management of p16 Positive Oropharyngeal Cancer: ASCO Provisional Clinical Opinion."  Thank you for being here today, Dr. Adelstein. Thank you, Shannon. Before we get started, I'd like to first note the contributions of my panel co-chair, Drew Ridge, and those of all of the other panel members. And I'd like to extend a special thank you to ASCO for their support in allowing us to put this together and specifically Nofisat Ismaila who did a tremendous amount of work in allowing us to complete this provisional clinical opinion. First, can you give us an overview of the clinical issue for this PCO? Sure. So this really came out of the implications of human papillomavirus mediated oropharynx cancer. I think as most of the listeners know, over the last several decades we've recognized the fact that oropharynx cancer has a second ideology, that not all of it is caused by tobacco use, but that the human papillomavirus is now the major ideologic factor in North American and northern Europe. The importance of this is that the human papillomavirus-induced oropharynx cancer is a different disease. It has a number of different characteristics from the kinds of head and neck cancer we've seen in the past. It's a disease that tends to occur in younger patients, patients who are otherwise generally more healthy. It is unassociated with smoking, although it can occur in smokers. But it's much more frequent in nonsmokers. And I think most importantly, it's a disease that has a dramatically better prognosis than the tobacco related disease. Now over the last several decades, our ability to treat advanced head and neck cancer has improved significantly, because we've begun to incorporate non-operative treatments-- chemotherapy and radiation-- and have been more aggressive in our utilization of chemotherapy and radiation with significantly greater success than we had in the past. The problem with this kind of treatment is that it is quite rigorous. And there's a good deal of acute and, more importantly, late toxicity that patients experience from these kinds of approaches. Now as we became more familiar with the importance of HPV associated oropharynx cancer, we realized that there are subgroups of these patients who have cure rates that are in excess of 90%. And the question arose whether the kinds of rigorous chemotherapy and radiation therapy treatments that we were utilizing were really necessary. Was it necessary to cause this much acute and late toxicity in patients who in vast majority of cases were going to be cured of the disease. And it's important, because these are younger patients. And the late toxicities are going to have a major impact on their quality of life for a number of years. What came about was the notion of treatment deintensification, the idea that perhaps it would be possible to deintensify the kinds of treatments we were giving in select patients. It's a very compelling hypothesis for medical oncologists and radiation oncologists. But there are a number of problems as we try to test this hypothesis. The first problem is how do we identify the good risk patients? There are patients with HPV-positive disease who do not do so well-- the heavy smokers and patients with very advanced tumors. And we need to be careful if we're going to be talking about giving less treatment that we don't give less treatment to the patients who have a worse prognosis. We pick the best prognosis patients. There have been a number of what we call risk stratification schemes that have been developed looking at trying to identify the very good prognosis patients-- those patients who are HPV positive who don't smoke and who have relatively limited disease extent. There's not universal agreement on how best to define these patients. All we know is that they do exist, that you can look at patients with these characteristics and see very good outcomes. One of the issues that has come up is how do we utilize the American Joint Committee staging system-- AJCC the 8th edition. One of the things that AJCC 8 did which is new is that it defined a separate staging system for patients with HPV-positive oropharynx cancer, a system which is entirely different than the staging system that we've used for head and neck cancers for many years. This was based on the recognition that the prognosis of patients with HPV-positive disease is so good so that many patients who we would previously have considered to have stage 4 disease are now classified as having stage 1 tumors, because their prognosis is so good. And that can be confusing, because the typical thought process for an oncologist is that a patient with stage 1 disease should be treated with single modality therapy. The reason that the HPV-positive patients have such a good prognosis, however, is that many of them have been treated with combined modality therapies. And to make the assumption that because now they're classified as stage 1 is incorrect. It is they shouldn't be treated with less intensive treatments and can be confusing. AJCC 8th edition is a prognostic robust staging system, but it really doesn't help us in defining treatment. First problem is how best to define patients who are appropriate for deintensification. Second problem is, what do you do to deintensify? What constitutes meaningful deintensification? Well, over the last 10 or 20 years there have been some significant advances in our standard treatments for all head and neck cancers that weren't developed the idea of deintensification. We now have tremendous experience using transoral surgical techniques, which are generally minimally morbid, much less morbid than the former open techniques that previously were used, which allows consideration of surgery for many of these patients where we wouldn't have considered it before. Similarly, intensity modulated radiation therapy has been widely adopted, and d clearly an approach using radiation, which is far less difficult, far less toxic than the former 2D or 3D radiation planning techniques that used to be used. But if we talk about intensification, what kinds of things can we do to deintensify our treatments? Well, one thought is to reduce the radiation dose. Then the question is, how much reduction is reasonable? And how much reduction is going to actually impact on this toxicity? And are our toxicity measuring tools adequate to even detect the difference in reduction of a radiation dose? Many of our toxicity tools are very crude. Perhaps we should be using some of the patient-reported outcome quality of life instruments that are available. Other thoughts are, perhaps one can reduce the size of the radiation therapy field. Can we reduce the dose of the chemotherapy? Can we eliminate chemotherapy? Can we even use less intensive chemotherapy? Generally, the other treatments for this disease have employed high doses of cisplatin, which is a toxic agent. And then there the question has been asked as to whether we can reincorporate minimally morbid transoral surgical techniques in an effort to better pathologically stage patients and define more appropriate adjuvant treatment. Perhaps not all patients need adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy and radiation. All of these approaches are interesting. They're exciting. They're being tested. But all of the experiences is preliminary. And that really brings us to the third and the biggest problem in any deintensification approach. And that's the need to be certain that if we deintensify our therapy, we're not going to compromise outcomes. It would not be acceptable to give less treatment or less intensive treatment if our survival were compromised. And we have to be certain that we don't do this. So what has evolved over the past decade is a whole number of treatment approaches that have some very enthusiastic early results. But these are generally single arm phase 2 reports where there is no comparison to conventional treatment. And they become difficult to interpret, because the results in general are very good. I think what really raised a red flag for us and that really caused us to take notice was the results of the RTOG 1016 trial that we reported last year. And at the same time, the European de-escalate trial, both of which had a similar design. These were studies that were designed in an effort to see if treatment deintensification would be possible by randomly comparing the standard treatment radiation and cisplatin with what was felt to be a less intensive approach-- radiation and concurrent cetuximab. And cetuximab is an accepted agent in the United States for treating head and neck cancer. The assumption here is that the survival would be equivalent when these two arms were compared, but that the toxicity would be improved by giving the less intensive systemic agent-- the cetuximab. The surprise when the study was analyzed was that that assumption was incorrect, that the radiation and cetuximab arm-- the deintensified arm-- actually proved inferior in terms of survival. And this was in both trials-- both the RTOG trial and the trial from Europe. And that was a big note of caution, because it was somewhat unexpected. I think we learned from that kind of a study, from a good randomized-- a large randomized trial-- that even though the outcomes may appear to be good, we need to be very careful about deintensifying our treatment until we're sure that the survival is equivalent. So although it's tempting for the clinician to see these very exciting reports about administering less treatment with the idea of producing less toxicity, the guideline advisory committee for ASCO really thought it was important that we get the message out that this kind of approach is not a treatment standard. This remains an investigational approach, and that the treatment standards for this disease really haven't changed. So what are the provisional clinical opinions that were made by the expert panel? They made several statements. The first was to acknowledge that the idea of treatment deintensification is a very compelling hypothesis, and it does require careful and appropriate testing. The second was that even though we are now better at identifying good prognosis patients, and we've seen some very promising early results, and even though we're now reclassifying patients with previously advanced stage HPV-positive disease as stage 1 or stage 2 tumors, the treatment recommendations for this disease have not changed. And they're based on the results achieved using AJCC 6 and 7. Standard of non-operated management to patients who are eligible to receive cisplatin remains high concurrent radiation and high dose cisplatin given every three weeks. If patients undergoing a surgical resection, then adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation with radiation and high dose cisplatin every three weeks is recommended in those patients with high risk factors of positive surgical margins or external tumor extension. And most importantly, deintensification, though it's a compelling hypothesis, is something that should only be undertaken on a clinical trial. Why is this guidance so important? And how will it affect practice? Well, I think the important thing about this guideline is that it shouldn't affect practice. The practice shouldn't change. The standards of care are not altered. And that for the clinician, this remains something that is exciting, something that should encourage enrollment on a clinical trial, but that we haven't changed treatment standards. And finally, how will this guidance affect patients? So from a patient's point of view, I think there is continued reason for optimism. A patient with the diagnosis of an HPV-positive oropharynx cancer is a patient with a very good prognosis. Patients are increasingly sophisticated. They read about the potential for treatment deintensification, and recognize that this is not something which is an accepted standard. But it should encourage their participation in clinical trials if [INAUDIBLE] is offered. I think ultimately it's a remarkable thing when oncologists can consider the possibility of reducing treatment intensity because the treatment results have been so good. Great. Thank you for your overview of this PCO. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Adelstein. And thank you, Shannon. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full PCO, go to www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today, I'm interviewing Dr. Nancy Baxter from St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto, senior author on "Duration of Oxaliplatin-Containing Adjuvant Therapy for Stage III Colon Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Baxter. Thanks very much, Shannon, for speaking with me. I'm happy to share our work developing this guideline. So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers and the studies which provide the evidence? Absolutely. So use of adjuvant therapy for patients with stage III colon cancer is common, and it's effective. We know that these patients are at substantial risk of recurrence of their disease and that adjuvant therapy can reduce that risk. But we also know that comes with a cost. The most effective adjuvant therapy is FOLFOX or oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy regimens. And we know that a really substantial number of people will end up with neurotoxicity, with peripheral sensory neurotoxicity, that can be long lasting and certainly affects their quality of life. So the whole question was whether the duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapeutic regimens could be shortened when they're used for adjuvant therapy, so if we could give three months instead of six months. Because we know that if we give three months of therapy, the risk of neurotoxicity is much lower. So if we had the same effectiveness with the shorter duration, then we could spare patients the negative consequences of the agent given for a longer period of time. So in developing these guidelines, we looked at the results of international group of trials, the six trials from the IDEA collaboration. So these were six randomized trials in various jurisdictions that tried to look at this question, so three months of an oxaliplatin-based chemotherapeutic regimen for adjuvant therapy for stage III cancer versus six months duration of therapy. And so there was a planned analysis to bring all of these data together to develop the evidence base to make this recommendation. So our guideline and our systematic review basically identified this is the key piece of literature to base our recommendations and guidelines on. That's essentially the main study, so the meta-analysis of these six randomized controlled trials that formed the basis of the IDEA collaboration. So the IDEA collaboration studies-- there were six individual randomized trials that formed part of the IDEA collaboration. And they were conducted in Italy, Greece, Japan, North America, through CALGB/SWOG, the UK, Denmark, Spain, Australia, Sweden, and New Zealand, as well as France. So data came from, really, around the world. The median age of people in the studies was 64 years of age. And these people had a really good performance status, so almost all of these patients had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. So they were healthy patients that were in the study. And so some patients received CAPOX, and some received FOLFOX. That wasn't part of the randomization scheme. Other than the CALGB/SWOG study, this was up to the discretion of the investigator or patient. In the SWOG/CALGB study, only FOLFOX was given. And the authors planned a prespecified subgroup analysis to look at differences between CAPOX and FOLFOX. There was also a prespecified analysis to look at differences based on stage. What they found when they looked at the results was that, overall, the difference between groups in terms of the three months versus six months was that the hazard ratio between these two was 1.07, meaning a small difference between the groups in terms of recurrence or death between three months and six months overall. But because the prespecified confidence interval, noninferiority interval, for the difference in outcome was 1.12, the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was above this. So it was 1.15, indicating that this prespecified noninferiority margin was exceeded. And so the study did not prove noninferiority of the three-month regimen. So we're left with an inconclusive result. So that's why our guidelines don't have a strong recommendation for the three months, because we can't rule out a small but potentially important difference between the two groups in terms of recurrence or death. Now, interestingly, when they looked at the prespecified subgroup analysis, which was looking at CAPOX versus FOLFOX, a difference was found. So they actually found that for FOLFOX chemotherapy, three months of therapy was inferior to six months of therapy, while for CAPOX, actually, three months and six months were the same. So it met the criteria of noninferiority. So these are kind of two different conclusions based on which type of chemotherapy was used. This was surprising to the investigators and was not expected. And certainly, it was not consistent with the randomized trials that we have comparing these regimens. So we therefore did not make any conclusions in our recommendations about CAPOX versus FOLFOX. But this is certainly something that requires further investigation in the future. In terms of stage, we did not find that there was an interaction between T stage or end stage when you looked at the differences between the three and the six month. And that was the prespecified analysis. But in non-prespecified analysis, which was the higher risk versus lower risk categories, you did find this difference where the patients with high-risk disease had inferior disease-free survival with three months versus six months of therapy, while those at low risk of disease, it seemed quite safe to give three months versus six months. So that's a long story. But essentially, because the high risk versus low risk analysis was not prespecified, there's a limitation to how strong our recommendations can be to have three months of therapy. However, given that the hazard ratio associated with three months versus six months of therapy for this lower risk group was only 1.01, indicating they were the same, and the risk of neuropathy was substantially higher with six months, this has led to us making recommendations that the three months of therapy is adequate for patients with low-risk disease after discussion with patients about the possible pros and cons. And what are the key recommendations of this guideline? Well, so the recommendations of this guideline do depend on the pathology, so how high risk the patient is. So based on the evidence from the IDEA collaboration, the researchers found that patients who had a high risk of recurrence-- so had T4 disease or heavily node-positive disease, N2 disease-- the six-month duration of therapy was better than the three-month duration of therapy. These studies and the meta-analysis were designed as noninferiority meta-analyses. But it was clear from the results that the three-month duration was inferior when compared to three months for these high-risk patients. So that seems clear, although we know that those patients will also be at more risk of neuropathy. And so that needs to be discussed with patients, as well. So for the second group, which are patients who are at lower risk of recurrence, what we found was there was less of a clear benefit of six months of therapy. The recommendation was that patients who are in this low-risk category-- so T1, T2, or T3 cancers that are N1, so not heavily node-positive-- clinicians can offer three months versus six months of therapy after having a discussion with their patients about the pros and cons of that. So the clinicians can go ahead and offer that to patients and still be within the common guidelines based on evidence for treatment of stage III colon cancer. So because there's some uncertainty after analysis of the IDEA collaboration, one of the really important recommendations that we make is about this shared decision-making approach. So the third recommendation that we make is that oncologists should discuss these factors with their patients who have stage III resected colon cancer and that the duration of therapy needs to take into account the tumor characteristics-- the surgical resection, the number of lymph nodes examined, the comorbidities, the patient functional status, all of these various things-- and there needs to be a discussion of the potential for benefit and the risk of harm based on the duration of therapy. And oncologists definitely discuss these things with their patients. And this just emphasizes how this is yet another component of the discussion that needs to be included, particularly when speaking with low-risk patients who are at substantial risk of harm from neuropathy and are unlikely to benefit greatly by extending chemotherapy to six months. So why is this guideline so important? And how will it change practice? Well, I think, until now, the standard recommendation has been six months of FOLFOX or six months of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. And again, there are many patients who have quality of life-affecting neuropathy because of this. So for a substantial proportion of patients who present to us with stage III cancer-- so those that are low risk-- I think this provides some options to them. So they can opt for a shorter duration of chemotherapy with a lower risk of toxicity. This saves time. This saves cost to the patient and to the system and potentially improves their quality of life without a great impact on outcome in terms of disease recurrence. So that's a substantial number, a substantial proportion of our patients, who can be treated in this way. So I think that this is a real benefit. Again, oncologists need to have a conversation with their patients about the pros and cons. But this is an option for their patients, whereas from an evidence-based perspective, it wasn't before the publication of the IDEA collaboration. Finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? So for patients who have heavily node-positive disease-- so high-risk patients with T4 or N2 disease-- it's not going to affect care. So the expectation would be those patients would be treated with six months of therapy, similar to previous recommendations. So this will be for people who are at lower risk of disease recurrence, so patients with T1 to 3 tumors that are N1 positive, so not heavily node positive. So these patients will have the opportunity to opt for a shorter duration of therapy. So that's a major benefit to patients. Again, it's important that there's a discussion and that patients understand the pros and cons. But this is now an option for them, which is excellent. Thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, please go to www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

TRANSCRIPT 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and I'm interviewing Dr. Joe Mikhael from the City of Hope Cancer Center and International Myeloma Foundation, lead author on "Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: ASCO and CCO Joint Clinical Practice Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Mikhael. It's a pleasure to be with you. So first, can you give us some context as to why this guideline was developed? Well, we had a lot of ideas when we put together this guideline, but most importantly, multiple myeloma continues to be a rare disease in the cancer world. It really only accounts for about 1% to 2% of cancers. So for the practicing oncologist, they spend perhaps 3-ish percent of their time doing multiple myeloma. And when you add to that there has been really a revolution in myeloma with new drugs approved, new treatments, new approaches, it really leaves the general oncologist with a complexity of how to treat this disease. And so we wanted to create a very practical guideline that would give very precise advice to walk through how one would care for a multiple myeloma patient, right from their diagnosis to indeed relapse disease. We felt this approach was so important now, more than ever, because of the fact that myeloma has really changed so much, and now, thankfully, we're seeing our patients live so much longer that the treatment options can become a little bit more complicated over time. Furthermore, we partnered with Cancer Care Ontario, because this was really felt to be not just an American phenomenon, but really a full North American phenomenon of how we could work together to really give practical advice as to how to treat this disease. So what are the key recommendations of this guideline? In this guideline, we focused really on the treatment of the disease itself. There have been other guidelines that have focused on supportive care and bone disease and multiple myeloma, but we really focused on the treatment of patients really from induction therapy through to relapse. So we spend time helping guide the decision around whether or not a patient is transplant eligible or ineligible, because that's really the first dividing marker in myeloma, because we know that transplant still has a role in myeloma, and eligible patients should have a transplant, or at least have access to a transplant. And historically, this was really done on the basis of age. But the guidelines helps the clinician see that it's really not just an age phenomena. It's really a decision based on comorbidities and really what's best for the patient. So we spend time helping making that decision, and then provide very practical advice as to how to treat a patient who's going to transplant versus a patient who's not going to transplant. We also, then, after the transplant, or in lieu of a transplant, we discuss the importance of continuous therapy, or sometimes called, maintenance therapy in myeloma. Again, we've seen maintenance therapy, now, have an impact on both progression free and overall survival. And so we felt it was really important to be very practical in giving advice as to what maintenance therapy agents to use and how to use them. And then lastly, the guideline provides a lot of practical advice as to a patient who has relapsed with multiple myeloma. We have so many choices now with three major classes of drugs of proteasome inhibitors, immuno-modulatory drugs, and now newer monoclonal antibodies, it can be difficult sometimes to know which combination to use. We know that triplet combinations tend to be preferred. So we walk through a number of those triplets and provide advice as how to explicitly use them. We do emphasize the importance of supportive care and of risk factor analysis throughout the guideline, so that we can understand the difference between high risk and low risk myeloma, so that we can understand how important a patient's comorbidities, especially in a disease that primarily affects older patients, can be managed. And so we try to do so in a comprehensive way, but one that really distills down to the critical pieces to allow the practicing clinician some real advice. So why is this guideline so important, and how will it change practice? There are several kinds of guidelines for multiple myeloma, but I really think this is a critical guideline because it is so clinical and practical in its essence. It's really designed to not just give the utopian view or the clinical trial view of a disease, but practically in the trenches, how do we use the drugs that we know are going to benefit our patients. Myeloma is one of the few cancers where we have seen a doubling, if not a tripling of survival in the last decade, because of so many of these new agents. And so making sure that our patients are treated optimally really is important. And we want to be able to ensure that they receive the best therapy possible, so they can live a longer life, but also live it with a greater quality of life. And so finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? Well, we really hope that this is going to help patients all across North America and the whole world, because it will give very concrete advice to the practicing clinician in how to approach the disease. And one of the things I think will directly impact patients, if you will, right away is one of the themes of these guidelines, which is that you don't treat a patient simply based on the biopsy or simply based on their age, but that it is really a complex network of comorbidities, risk factors from the disease itself, the potential side effects of certain drugs, and a patient's own very personal history. It really fits in with the ASCO modality that we have of ensuring that we bring personalized medicine to our patients. And so this will allow the person who's reading it and who's applying it to their patient to recognize the importance of general guidelines, but also of applying it to the specific patient they care for. Because as I like to say, we don't treat multiple myeloma, we treat people. And so hopefully, this will allow the clinician to have that precision to care for their patient in the best way possible. Great. Thank you for that overview of this guideline, and thank you for your time today Dr. Mikhael. It's been a real pleasure. Thank you very much. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/hematologic-malignancies-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and refer the show to a colleague.

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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and I'm interviewing Dr. Joe Mikhael from the City of Hope Cancer Center and International Myeloma Foundation, lead author on "Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: ASCO and CCO Joint Clinical Practice Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Mikhael. It's a pleasure to be with you. So first, can you give us some context as to why this guideline was developed? Well, we had a lot of ideas when we put together this guideline, but most importantly, multiple myeloma continues to be a rare disease in the cancer world. It really only accounts for about 1% to 2% of cancers. So for the practicing oncologist, they spend perhaps 3-ish percent of their time doing multiple myeloma. And when you add to that there has been really a revolution in myeloma with new drugs approved, new treatments, new approaches, it really leaves the general oncologist with a complexity of how to treat this disease. And so we wanted to create a very practical guideline that would give very precise advice to walk through how one would care for a multiple myeloma patient, right from their diagnosis to indeed relapse disease. We felt this approach was so important now, more than ever, because of the fact that myeloma has really changed so much, and now, thankfully, we're seeing our patients live so much longer that the treatment options can become a little bit more complicated over time. Furthermore, we partnered with Cancer Care Ontario, because this was really felt to be not just an American phenomenon, but really a full North American phenomenon of how we could work together to really give practical advice as to how to treat this disease. So what are the key recommendations of this guideline? In this guideline, we focused really on the treatment of the disease itself. There have been other guidelines that have focused on supportive care and bone disease and multiple myeloma, but we really focused on the treatment of patients really from induction therapy through to relapse. So we spend time helping guide the decision around whether or not a patient is transplant eligible or ineligible, because that's really the first dividing marker in myeloma, because we know that transplant still has a role in myeloma, and eligible patients should have a transplant, or at least have access to a transplant. And historically, this was really done on the basis of age. But the guidelines helps the clinician see that it's really not just an age phenomena. It's really a decision based on comorbidities and really what's best for the patient. So we spend time helping making that decision, and then provide very practical advice as to how to treat a patient who's going to transplant versus a patient who's not going to transplant. We also, then, after the transplant, or in lieu of a transplant, we discuss the importance of continuous therapy, or sometimes called, maintenance therapy in myeloma. Again, we've seen maintenance therapy, now, have an impact on both progression free and overall survival. And so we felt it was really important to be very practical in giving advice as to what maintenance therapy agents to use and how to use them. And then lastly, the guideline provides a lot of practical advice as to a patient who has relapsed with multiple myeloma. We have so many choices now with three major classes of drugs of proteasome inhibitors, immuno-modulatory drugs, and now newer monoclonal antibodies, it can be difficult sometimes to know which combination to use. We know that triplet combinations tend to be preferred. So we walk through a number of those triplets and provide advice as how to explicitly use them. We do emphasize the importance of supportive care and of risk factor analysis throughout the guideline, so that we can understand the difference between high risk and low risk myeloma, so that we can understand how important a patient's comorbidities, especially in a disease that primarily affects older patients, can be managed. And so we try to do so in a comprehensive way, but one that really distills down to the critical pieces to allow the practicing clinician some real advice. So why is this guideline so important, and how will it change practice? There are several kinds of guidelines for multiple myeloma, but I really think this is a critical guideline because it is so clinical and practical in its essence. It's really designed to not just give the utopian view or the clinical trial view of a disease, but practically in the trenches, how do we use the drugs that we know are going to benefit our patients. Myeloma is one of the few cancers where we have seen a doubling, if not a tripling of survival in the last decade, because of so many of these new agents. And so making sure that our patients are treated optimally really is important. And we want to be able to ensure that they receive the best therapy possible, so they can live a longer life, but also live it with a greater quality of life. And so finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? Well, we really hope that this is going to help patients all across North America and the whole world, because it will give very concrete advice to the practicing clinician in how to approach the disease. And one of the things I think will directly impact patients, if you will, right away is one of the themes of these guidelines, which is that you don't treat a patient simply based on the biopsy or simply based on their age, but that it is really a complex network of comorbidities, risk factors from the disease itself, the potential side effects of certain drugs, and a patient's own very personal history. It really fits in with the ASCO modality that we have of ensuring that we bring personalized medicine to our patients. And so this will allow the person who's reading it and who's applying it to their patient to recognize the importance of general guidelines, but also of applying it to the specific patient they care for. Because as I like to say, we don't treat multiple myeloma, we treat people. And so hopefully, this will allow the clinician to have that precision to care for their patient in the best way possible. Great. Thank you for that overview of this guideline, and thank you for your time today Dr. Mikhael. It's been a real pleasure. Thank you very much. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/hematologic-malignancies-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and refer the show to a colleague.

TRANSCRIPT 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Susan Chang from the University of California San Francisco, lead author on "Anticonvulsant Prophylaxis and Steroid Use in Adults with Metastatic Brain Tumors: ASCO and SNO Joint Endorsement of the CNS Guidelines." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Chang. Thank you so much for this opportunity. So first, can you give us the general overview of what this guideline covers and about the endorsement process? Absolutely. So one of the things we've noticed, of course, is that the incidence of newly diagnosed adult patients with brain metastases is now estimated to be in the range of about 20,000 to 40,000 per year. And this has really been increasing because of several factors. This includes improved imaging tools, the fact that there's an increase in the number of cancers that are prone to spread to the brain, and the improved survival of patients with cancer. And so the Congress of Neurological Surgeons have developed a series of guidelines on the treatment of adults with metastatic brain tumors. That includes systemic therapy, as well as supportive care. There are two guidelines that address the role of anti-convulsant abuse and steroids in the care of patients with brain tumors. Specifically, the guideline questions were do prophylactic anti-epileptic drugs decrease the risk of seizures in both non-surgical and post-surgical patients, who are otherwise seizure free? So these are patients who have never had a seizure, does it make any sense to use these drugs? The second is do steroids, which are commonly used in patients when there is increased mass effect and cerebral edema, could that help to improve neurological functioning or quality of life, compared to supportive care or other treatments? And if they are used, what sort of dose should be used? So the process of endorsing these guidelines included an initial assessment by content evaluators from ASCO and members of the Society of Neuro Oncology, or SNO guidelines committee. And subsequently, it was determined that a detailed review of the guidelines should be pursued. So in this joint effort of both ASCO and SNO, a multidisciplinary expert panel of medical and radiation oncologists and neurosurgeons, neurologists, and others providing care for adults with metastatic brain tumors reviewed the content to determine the appropriateness for endorsement by the two professional societies. So what are the key recommendations of this guideline? The key recommendations of this guidelines include the fact that routine use of prophylactic anti-epileptic drugs is not recommended for patients who are seizure free, either in the non-surgical and post-surgical settings, and that steroids could be used when patients had mild, moderate, or severe symptoms that were related to mass effect in the brain. This choice of steroids that was recommended was dexamethasone, and the doses was about 4 to 16 milligrams, depending on the severity of the symptoms. Now, what they found was that there was insufficient evidence to recommend steroid use in asymptomatic patients, when they didn't have any mass effect. And one of the additional aspects that the panel provided was that the minimal effective dose should be used, and that nighttime doses should be avoided. And this is because of the known side effect of insomnia that a lot of our patients experience when taking this medication right before they go to sleep. So why is this guideline so important, and how will it change practice? Well, these guidelines provide a basis for oncologists to avoid the over prescription of anti-epileptics and steroids in patients with brain metastases, particularly in those who are asymptomatic and those without signs of mass effect. It also highlights that if steroids are going to be administered, that clinicians should be very familiar with both the short and long term sequelae of steroid therapy, and they should have a plan to taper the steroids as fast as can be clinically tolerated. So finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? Well, both anti-epileptics and steroids have a wide range of toxicities that can adversely affect a patient's quality of life. And so the routine use of these drugs in patients with incidentally discovered or asymptomatic brain metastases is not supported by the available medical literature. For patients with symptoms related to mass effect, the best evidence supports the temporary use of steroids are the lowest effective dose with the intent to taper them off, and if tolerated, and after a definitive treatment of brain metastases has been initiated. And because of the well known side effects of insomnia and agitation, nighttime doses of steroids should be avoided. So the hope is that this will have a direct effect on how we care for our patients. Great. Thank you for your work on these important guidelines, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Chang. You're very welcome. It's such a pleasure to be able to provide this for patients and families. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, please go to www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

TRANSCRIPT 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Rachna Shroff from the University of Arizona Cancer Center, lead author on "Adjuvant Therapy for Resected Biliary Tract Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Shroff. Thank you so much for having me. So what does this guideline recommend? This is a guideline that is basically looking at the role of post-operative therapy in patients who undergo surgical resection for biliary tract cancers. Biliary tract cancers are a somewhat heterogeneous group of malignancies that include intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and gall bladder cancer. And so the question always in most cancers are, if you are able to undergo surgical and curative treatment, is there a role for post-operative chemotherapy or radiation therapy to help improve the chance of cure and decrease the risk of recurrence? So that is exactly what we investigated as an expert panel. So our recommendations are actually twofold. The first one is that we are clearly recommending that patients with resected biliary tract cancer should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine for a total of six months. Within that recommendation, we do acknowledge that this is based on the BILCAP phase III randomized controlled trial and that there was a specific dosing and treatment schedule that was done in that study, but that we are allowing for institutional and regional variances that we've noted in terms of dosing of capecitabine. And so as a result, we're recommending adjuvant capecitabine, and we're allowing practitioners to determine what the best and safest dosing would be, based on their experience. The second recommendation is more specifically for patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gallbladder cancer who undergo resection and have a microscopically positive surgical margin, which is an R1 resection. And in those patients, we are recommending that we could consider offering these patients chemoradiation therapy. Now, again, this is not as strong of a recommendation, because we do not have prospective randomized phase III data to support it. This was based more on a prospective single-arm study out of the Southwest Oncology Group, as well as some other retrospective studies. And so we do go on to qualify that that recommendation should really be made in a shared decision-making approach, with a multidisciplinary conversation to decide the risks and benefits of radiation in these patients-- and that we acknowledge that a prospective study would really help clarify that question a little bit more. So can you tell us about the research that informed these recommendations? There have been a number of studies that have looked at the role of adjuvant therapy in biliary cancers. And up until very recently, a lot of these studies were small retrospective series, single-institution or multi-institution, but everything in retrospect-- no prospective or randomized data. And so I think a lot of the reasons that we decided to have these guidelines come out now is that in the last two to three years we do finally have prospective randomized data that helps guide the recommendations. And the majority of the recommendations that we made are based on one randomized phase III, which is BILCAP study. This was a study that was done in the UK and was presented at ASCO in 2018 and is currently in press. And it is basically a randomized controlled trial that compares adjuvant capecitabine by itself versus surveillance alone in patients who undergo surgery for biliary tract cancers. And so our recommendations, which include that study as well as a couple others, is primarily hinged on that, since that is the largest prospective data we have so far. And based on that study, we did in fact recommend that there was a role for adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine after complete resection for biliary tract cancers. And based on that research that was done in that trial that was completed, we do believe that the role for capecitabine for six months is pretty strong and that the data supports that now. So why is this guideline so important, and how will it change practice? Well, I think it's going to be practice-changing because up until now there has not been a clear consensus on how we approach these patients. And I will say that even now, it's really just this one study that has helped guiding these recommendations. There were a number of other studies that we looked at as part of the expert panel. And these were all prospective studies as well that looked at things like gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in the adjuvant setting, or single-arm phase II studies that came out of the Southwest Oncology Group that also explored the role of radiation. But really, nothing was a positive study other than the BILCAP study. And so up until now, I would say it was a little bit all over the place in terms of how medical oncologists approached resected biliary cancers. I think the majority of us felt that there was probably a role for adjuvant chemotherapy or perhaps chemoradiation. But there was no rules that we could follow, and there was no clear study that we could turn to that would tell us what we should give, how long we should give it for, and whether it should be a combination of chemotherapy or chemoradiation. And so I think it will be practice-changing because now, as part of the expert panel, we are making a very clear recommendation that patients with resected biliary tract cancer should be offered adjuvant capecitabine chemotherapy for a total of six months, hopefully eliminating that kind of regional or specialist-based variation that has been happening up until this point. And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? Again, I think that the main way it's going to affect them is that there's going to be a little bit less gray area, in terms of medical oncologists having conversations with the patients and saying, well, you know, I think that there's probably a role for agent therapy here, but I can't show you the data that supports why I think that. And as a result, I would hope that patients will have a little bit more faith and confidence in knowing that there is a large study that has looked at and proven the benefit of adjuvant capecitabine and that that decreases the chance of recurrence and improves overall survival. The improvement in overall survival was dramatic in this study. And we had not seen a survival of 51 months, which is what we saw in this study, in a very long time. So for patients, not only does it make clear what they should be doing after surgery, but I would hope it also gives them additional hope that we have really changed the bar by doing this adjuvant capecitabine, and that the chance for cure is even higher when we can offer adjuvant chemotherapy. I think the only other thing that may still be a gray area, and that is kind of what we allude to in our second recommendation, and that is in patients who undergo resection and have a microscopically positive margin or an R1 resection. And that's typically patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gall bladder cancer. In those patients, we suggest that they could be offered chemoradiation therapy, but the evidence is not as strong there. Again, it's more retrospective studies that we looked at. There is no prospective study that answers the question of whether or not there's a role for radiation. And so as a result for patients, I think that is still the one area that's a little bit of a gray zone in terms of knowing whether chemoradiation would benefit them if they undergo surgery and have a microscopically positive resection. But I do think that there is a definitive benefit to giving adjuvant chemotherapy, and that, hopefully, will clarify things not only from the physician perspective but also from the patient perspective. Great. Thank you for your work on these important guidelines, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Shroff. Thank you. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer this show to a colleague.

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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Susan Chang from the University of California San Francisco, lead author on "Anticonvulsant Prophylaxis and Steroid Use in Adults with Metastatic Brain Tumors: ASCO and SNO Joint Endorsement of the CNS Guidelines." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Chang. Thank you so much for this opportunity. So first, can you give us the general overview of what this guideline covers and about the endorsement process? Absolutely. So one of the things we've noticed, of course, is that the incidence of newly diagnosed adult patients with brain metastases is now estimated to be in the range of about 20,000 to 40,000 per year. And this has really been increasing because of several factors. This includes improved imaging tools, the fact that there's an increase in the number of cancers that are prone to spread to the brain, and the improved survival of patients with cancer. And so the Congress of Neurological Surgeons have developed a series of guidelines on the treatment of adults with metastatic brain tumors. That includes systemic therapy, as well as supportive care. There are two guidelines that address the role of anti-convulsant abuse and steroids in the care of patients with brain tumors. Specifically, the guideline questions were do prophylactic anti-epileptic drugs decrease the risk of seizures in both non-surgical and post-surgical patients, who are otherwise seizure free? So these are patients who have never had a seizure, does it make any sense to use these drugs? The second is do steroids, which are commonly used in patients when there is increased mass effect and cerebral edema, could that help to improve neurological functioning or quality of life, compared to supportive care or other treatments? And if they are used, what sort of dose should be used? So the process of endorsing these guidelines included an initial assessment by content evaluators from ASCO and members of the Society of Neuro Oncology, or SNO guidelines committee. And subsequently, it was determined that a detailed review of the guidelines should be pursued. So in this joint effort of both ASCO and SNO, a multidisciplinary expert panel of medical and radiation oncologists and neurosurgeons, neurologists, and others providing care for adults with metastatic brain tumors reviewed the content to determine the appropriateness for endorsement by the two professional societies. So what are the key recommendations of this guideline? The key recommendations of this guidelines include the fact that routine use of prophylactic anti-epileptic drugs is not recommended for patients who are seizure free, either in the non-surgical and post-surgical settings, and that steroids could be used when patients had mild, moderate, or severe symptoms that were related to mass effect in the brain. This choice of steroids that was recommended was dexamethasone, and the doses was about 4 to 16 milligrams, depending on the severity of the symptoms. Now, what they found was that there was insufficient evidence to recommend steroid use in asymptomatic patients, when they didn't have any mass effect. And one of the additional aspects that the panel provided was that the minimal effective dose should be used, and that nighttime doses should be avoided. And this is because of the known side effect of insomnia that a lot of our patients experience when taking this medication right before they go to sleep. So why is this guideline so important, and how will it change practice? Well, these guidelines provide a basis for oncologists to avoid the over prescription of anti-epileptics and steroids in patients with brain metastases, particularly in those who are asymptomatic and those without signs of mass effect. It also highlights that if steroids are going to be administered, that clinicians should be very familiar with both the short and long term sequelae of steroid therapy, and they should have a plan to taper the steroids as fast as can be clinically tolerated. So finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? Well, both anti-epileptics and steroids have a wide range of toxicities that can adversely affect a patient's quality of life. And so the routine use of these drugs in patients with incidentally discovered or asymptomatic brain metastases is not supported by the available medical literature. For patients with symptoms related to mass effect, the best evidence supports the temporary use of steroids are the lowest effective dose with the intent to taper them off, and if tolerated, and after a definitive treatment of brain metastases has been initiated. And because of the well known side effects of insomnia and agitation, nighttime doses of steroids should be avoided. So the hope is that this will have a direct effect on how we care for our patients. Great. Thank you for your work on these important guidelines, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Chang. You're very welcome. It's such a pleasure to be able to provide this for patients and families. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, please go to www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Rachna Shroff from the University of Arizona Cancer Center, lead author on "Adjuvant Therapy for Resected Biliary Tract Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Shroff. Thank you so much for having me. So what does this guideline recommend? This is a guideline that is basically looking at the role of post-operative therapy in patients who undergo surgical resection for biliary tract cancers. Biliary tract cancers are a somewhat heterogeneous group of malignancies that include intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and gall bladder cancer. And so the question always in most cancers are, if you are able to undergo surgical and curative treatment, is there a role for post-operative chemotherapy or radiation therapy to help improve the chance of cure and decrease the risk of recurrence? So that is exactly what we investigated as an expert panel. So our recommendations are actually twofold. The first one is that we are clearly recommending that patients with resected biliary tract cancer should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine for a total of six months. Within that recommendation, we do acknowledge that this is based on the BILCAP phase III randomized controlled trial and that there was a specific dosing and treatment schedule that was done in that study, but that we are allowing for institutional and regional variances that we've noted in terms of dosing of capecitabine. And so as a result, we're recommending adjuvant capecitabine, and we're allowing practitioners to determine what the best and safest dosing would be, based on their experience. The second recommendation is more specifically for patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gallbladder cancer who undergo resection and have a microscopically positive surgical margin, which is an R1 resection. And in those patients, we are recommending that we could consider offering these patients chemoradiation therapy. Now, again, this is not as strong of a recommendation, because we do not have prospective randomized phase III data to support it. This was based more on a prospective single-arm study out of the Southwest Oncology Group, as well as some other retrospective studies. And so we do go on to qualify that that recommendation should really be made in a shared decision-making approach, with a multidisciplinary conversation to decide the risks and benefits of radiation in these patients-- and that we acknowledge that a prospective study would really help clarify that question a little bit more. So can you tell us about the research that informed these recommendations? There have been a number of studies that have looked at the role of adjuvant therapy in biliary cancers. And up until very recently, a lot of these studies were small retrospective series, single-institution or multi-institution, but everything in retrospect-- no prospective or randomized data. And so I think a lot of the reasons that we decided to have these guidelines come out now is that in the last two to three years we do finally have prospective randomized data that helps guide the recommendations. And the majority of the recommendations that we made are based on one randomized phase III, which is BILCAP study. This was a study that was done in the UK and was presented at ASCO in 2018 and is currently in press. And it is basically a randomized controlled trial that compares adjuvant capecitabine by itself versus surveillance alone in patients who undergo surgery for biliary tract cancers. And so our recommendations, which include that study as well as a couple others, is primarily hinged on that, since that is the largest prospective data we have so far. And based on that study, we did in fact recommend that there was a role for adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine after complete resection for biliary tract cancers. And based on that research that was done in that trial that was completed, we do believe that the role for capecitabine for six months is pretty strong and that the data supports that now. So why is this guideline so important, and how will it change practice? Well, I think it's going to be practice-changing because up until now there has not been a clear consensus on how we approach these patients. And I will say that even now, it's really just this one study that has helped guiding these recommendations. There were a number of other studies that we looked at as part of the expert panel. And these were all prospective studies as well that looked at things like gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in the adjuvant setting, or single-arm phase II studies that came out of the Southwest Oncology Group that also explored the role of radiation. But really, nothing was a positive study other than the BILCAP study. And so up until now, I would say it was a little bit all over the place in terms of how medical oncologists approached resected biliary cancers. I think the majority of us felt that there was probably a role for adjuvant chemotherapy or perhaps chemoradiation. But there was no rules that we could follow, and there was no clear study that we could turn to that would tell us what we should give, how long we should give it for, and whether it should be a combination of chemotherapy or chemoradiation. And so I think it will be practice-changing because now, as part of the expert panel, we are making a very clear recommendation that patients with resected biliary tract cancer should be offered adjuvant capecitabine chemotherapy for a total of six months, hopefully eliminating that kind of regional or specialist-based variation that has been happening up until this point. And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? Again, I think that the main way it's going to affect them is that there's going to be a little bit less gray area, in terms of medical oncologists having conversations with the patients and saying, well, you know, I think that there's probably a role for agent therapy here, but I can't show you the data that supports why I think that. And as a result, I would hope that patients will have a little bit more faith and confidence in knowing that there is a large study that has looked at and proven the benefit of adjuvant capecitabine and that that decreases the chance of recurrence and improves overall survival. The improvement in overall survival was dramatic in this study. And we had not seen a survival of 51 months, which is what we saw in this study, in a very long time. So for patients, not only does it make clear what they should be doing after surgery, but I would hope it also gives them additional hope that we have really changed the bar by doing this adjuvant capecitabine, and that the chance for cure is even higher when we can offer adjuvant chemotherapy. I think the only other thing that may still be a gray area, and that is kind of what we allude to in our second recommendation, and that is in patients who undergo resection and have a microscopically positive margin or an R1 resection. And that's typically patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gall bladder cancer. In those patients, we suggest that they could be offered chemoradiation therapy, but the evidence is not as strong there. Again, it's more retrospective studies that we looked at. There is no prospective study that answers the question of whether or not there's a role for radiation. And so as a result for patients, I think that is still the one area that's a little bit of a gray zone in terms of knowing whether chemoradiation would benefit them if they undergo surgery and have a microscopically positive resection. But I do think that there is a definitive benefit to giving adjuvant chemotherapy, and that, hopefully, will clarify things not only from the physician perspective but also from the patient perspective. Great. Thank you for your work on these important guidelines, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Shroff. Thank you. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. And if you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer this show to a colleague.

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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today, I'm interviewing Dr. Manish Shah from New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, senior author on "Treatment of Patients with Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Shah. Thank you, it's a pleasure and honor to be here. So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers? Yes, absolutely. So the "Treatment of Patients with Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer" is a resource-stratified guideline. And it focuses on the management of patients with early-stage colon cancer. It's different than the surveillance and screening guideline that was written simultaneously for ASCO as another resource-stratified guideline. We felt that this was a big enough topic that we should keep it separate. So it really talks about the management of pre-malignant lesions, as well as early-stage colon cancers, as well as rectal cancers. And the other aspect of this is that we really focused on how the guideline may apply in settings where there-- they don't have maximal resources, so basic or limited settings as well. So I would like to talk a little bit about how the guideline was created, because I think that's an important aspect. And it distinguishes it from typical other ASCO Guidelines. So the management of colon cancer or colorectal cancer, there's a lot of literature on this. And there are several guidelines that have been produced by colorectal cancer societies, or surgical societies, or from other countries like the EORTC, or Japan, or Korea, or even the UK. So in fact, there were, I think, 30 to 40 different guidelines that we reviewed. And we felt that, instead of doing a new literature search to kind of rehash much of the same information, we reviewed all the guidelines for certain quality measures to then select a handful of guidelines that we would use as the reference for each of our key questions or key points. And this was done in a formal process, the first by ASCO and Sarah, who was the ASCO staff who wrote the guideline, along with the members of the guideline panel. And in this process, I think that we have a pretty comprehensive guideline that covers the questions with the best evidence available. So what are the key recommendations of this guideline? Yeah, so we addressed some several questions with regard to key recommendations. The first question, for example, was, what's the optimal treatment for patients with colon cancer that would be clinical stage 1 through 3c? And we distinguish that from a non-obstructing cancer to obstructing cancers as well, because the management would be very different. And what we really sort of focused on is that these patients should have resection following oncologic principles. Then ideally, they should have an en bloc resection by a surgical oncologist to give the patients the best chance of care. But I think what's unique to resource-stratified guidelines, and what we have to do is sort of highlight the care that would be achieved in settings that have less resources. So a non-obstructing colon cancer in a basic setting should still have surgery and should still undergo an en bloc resection following standard oncologic principles. So that was, for example, one of the key points that was uniform across all the settings. Other things were how to manage [INAUDIBLE] colon cancer. So in more enhanced and maximal settings, sometimes there might be opportunity to place a colonic stent, for example, by either a colorectal surgeon or by someone who has specialized training in the placement of these stents. And that would be a preferred approach in both the enhanced and maximal guidelines, whereas in a more basic setting, the recommendation was to perform a resection and possibly, if required, if a resection was not possible, a diversion to overcome the obstruction in that localized setting. There were other recommendations that were also important. So for example, in early-stage rectal cancer, so clinical stage 1, T1 and 0 rectal cancer, in a maximal setting, these are sort of low-risk cancers without adverse features like high-grade or involvement of lymphovascular structures. The surgical oncologist and/or colorectal surgeon might consider a local excision such as the TEM procedure, which is a transendomucoscal resection. And in basic or limited settings, we would still recommend surgery in that setting following TME principles to achieve clear margins and a good surgical outcome, because we felt that, in basic-limited settings, the skill and the equipment necessary to do a local excision may not be available. Another recommendation that might highlight the differences between basic and limited settings versus a more maximal setting is the optimal strategy for post-treatment surveillance. So this is after resection of the stage 1 to 3 colorectal cancer. What would be the best way to monitor and surveil patients? And this is the recognition that the purpose of surveillance is to identify recurrence early at a time point where the patient may still be amenable to having local regional resection or resection of the metastatic lesion to change the outcome. So the current ASCO guidelines are to perform a medical history, and physical examination, and a CEA every six months for three to five years, have an abdominal and chest CT scan, in high-risk patients, every 6 to 12 months for three years, and a colonoscopy one year after the surgery, and then every five years or so after that, as indicated, up to age of 75. And that's what we recommended in the maximal and enhanced settings. But in a more basic setting, the recommendation was similarly medical history and physical exam every six months for three years, a CEA every six months for three years, a chest X-ray and abdominal ultrasound twice in the first three years, and a colonoscopy once i the first two years. And then if a colonoscopy is not available, we recommended a double-contrast barium enema or, for left-side tumors, a sigmoidoscopy to try to surveil the local regional extent of the the disease. So I think what we're trying to highlight is that we think that we can help patients for the management of localized early-stage colon cancer, both for treatment as well as for surveillance, and that these recommendations may vary a little bit in more limited settings, but with these recommendations, we can provide the best care for patients overall. And so why is this guideline so important? And how will it change practice? I think that the guideline is really important, because we recognize that we're practicing medicine in the United States, or in Europe, or wherever you practice, but the levels of resources that are available to us are not uniform. And so we really are getting to the aspect that cancer care is a global proposition. And ASCO should reflect that. And so the intention of these resource-stratified guidelines is to try to provide guidance into the best management for the indication across the spectrum of resources that are available. Interestingly, we've also heard from many people who practice in more resource-limited settings that they can use these guidelines to sort of advocate for their own area, to say that, based on our availability, we fit in a criteria that's basic or limited, but we really want to be an enhanced setting, and lobby their governments or their local officials to say, these are areas that we can improve on to take us to the next level, literally. And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? Yeah, at the end of the day, I think it's very important that we remind ourselves that we're doing this to improve patient care overall. I think, in maximal and enhanced settings, the guidelines kind of reiterate the best practices across [INAUDIBLE] of guidelines that were reviewed. So I think that's a very important thing. And they unify the treatment plan across different practices. But I think most importantly, in basic and limited settings, it provides a benchmark for what should be done. I think, for me, one key thing was that, even in basic and limited settings, we don't want to compromise oncology principles for a surgical resection. You know, it's not appropriate to just resect the tumor but leave some tumor behind to relieve an obstruction. We still need to manage that appropriately. And that is the expectation in a basic setting, for example. So I think that, overall, wherever you are, this guideline provides recommendations to help manage the patient across the resources that are available to you. I think that's very important, because we live in a heterogeneous environment where resources are not uniform across the world. Great, thank you for your discussion of this important guideline. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Shah. Oh, it's my pleasure. Thanks for having me. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin. And today, I'm interviewing Dr. Marcia Cruz-Correa from the University of Puerto Rico and MD Anderson Cancer Center, senior author on "Early Detection for Colorectal Cance: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Cruz-Correa. Well, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers? Absolutely, Shannon. Well, we are very excited to review the content of the guideline. And we put together a summary of the current guidelines out there for patients that are undergoing colorectal cancer screening. With these particular resource, a certified guideline takes, for the first time, into account the place where the colorectal cancer screening is being delivered, which is different from when you read any other colorectal cancer screening guidelines, where normally we assume that all available methodologies are equally distributed regardless of the country or the setting. So in our particular guideline, we really emphasize the fact that, depending on where our clinicians are, they might have differing technologies available. And that's why it's called resource-stratified-guidelines, to help our clinicians and our practicing physicians to understand what would be the best method to be able to implement screening in their own settings. So what are the key recommendations of this guideline? I think that the most important recommendation is that colorectal cancer is a prevalent disease, not only affecting very highly developed countries, but a disease that we're seeing more and more in low-to-middle-income countries. As ASCO is an organization that has members from around the world, being cognizant of the fact that colorectal cancer affects many individuals across different settings, and countries, and continents, for that matter, allows us to provide the most important information which is to consider colorectal cancer screening across the different settings, so not only in the industrialized well-developed first-world country, but also in the low-to-middle-income, or those that are becoming more and more industrialized. So our main recommendation-- it's number one-- that we need consider colorectal cancer screening even in settings where, for many years, the burden of disease was really focused in infectious-driven diseases. Nowadays, we're seeing more and more low-to-middle-income countries where the number one cause of death, it's not an infectious-driven disease, but rather a cancer. And colorectal cancer, it's one of the top cancers that we're seeing in many of the settings. So our number one recommendation is to be cognizant about that so that different countries and different settings, the practitioners consider screening. And our second and most important recommendation is that, the important thing is to consider what you have available in your setting, in your clinical practice. And depending on what you have available, then you can offer the method that could be given to your patient. So it's almost like thinking differently. It's not a one size fits all, but rather it's more or less of a personalized recommendation based on your setting, based on your clinical practice methods available to you. So why is this guideline so important? And how will it change practice? We believe that it's very important, because when you look at guidelines in any published article out there, we read it. And it looks as if everyone had every resource available. And when you're practicing in a low-to-middle-income country, or a place-- it could be a rural area where you have more basic settings or more limited settings-- you might not have that new machine or that new equipment. So then, as a practitioner, you feel that you're not equipped to be able to provide the best care to your patients. So this guideline, it's mirrored after a previous guideline that was put together by the ASCO Clinical Practice Group, where we stratify the type of practice for our-- where our practitioners are providing care. There are four main practice settings. The first one is what we call the basic setting, which is where you have the minimal necessary facilities to be able to evaluate patients and provide first primary care services. The second tier, it's called the limited setting, where you have more clinical facilities, but yet you don't have all the elements, like imaging, for instance, or the specialized surgeon, or the third- or fourth-level specialized technology. Then you have something, the next level would be the enhanced, where you, again, you see more methods and more availability of more clinical instrumentation and facilities. And then final one, which is the fourth level, will be the maximal setting. So in a maximal setting is when you go to a city, a cancer center, for instance, where you have all the specialists, all the imaging, all the endoscopy, and experts that are able to use those equipments and provide the best care. So using that four-level approach, from basic-- and think about, when you think about basic, it's in a rural community maybe in-a-low-to-middle income or developing country, places where you have a general surgeon. And you may have a primary physician. You may have nurse practitioners or nurses that actually provide that first care, first-level care. And then you keep going from there all the way to the maximal setting. So depending where you are, these resource-stratified guidelines will provide the physician and the clinical practitioner with methods that they can implement now. So to give you an example, when you think about colorectal cancer screening, you think about individuals that come to see you because they have no symptoms or they might have some symptoms. Most of the time, they would be asymptomatic individuals that come for a general screening, general visit. So this resource-stratified allows the physician that is practicing at a basic or a limited setting to provide, for the case of colorectal cancer, screening to provide fecal or cold-blood testing. This is a test that has been shown to be effective, that when used in the adequate setting for a patient that is 50 years of age or older, will provide enough sensitivity to diagnose an individual that might have either colorectal cancer or advanced colonic polyps so that that patient can then undergo a confirmatory test such as a barium enema, if you are in a basic setting. Very different, Shannon, when you are in a setting where you have all the instrumentation there-- you as a physician, you could either do a fecal immunological testing to look for, or cold blood. Or you could decide to refer a patient to a colonoscopy. And I think, when you practice in the US, I mean, large or industrialized places like Europe or Australia, you think that everyone has access to endoscopy. And believe it or not, one of the things that we realized when we were looking at all these data, is that in basic settings, setups for colonoscopy for removal of polyps with polypectomy during a colonoscopy are not available. So we took all those factors of clinical facilities, and availability of equipment, and expert physicians to be able to provide adequate care for the patients that are receiving care by our practitioners in the different settings, from basic all the way to enhanced and maximal settings. And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect the patients? You have asked the most important question. The reason that we put guidelines out there is to guide our physicians, our practitioners to provide the best care that they can regardless of where they are. By providing this information, the ultimate and most important beneficiary of these guidelines is the patients. Right now, in many settings, especially in low-to-middle-income or developing countries, they are not receiving screening or preventive testing. In fact, there are many countries that do not have standardized or institutionalized programs for colorectal cancer screening. So if you don't have a program in place, you can imagine that then a patient would not even be considered for preventive care. So the ultimate and most important beneficiary of this resource-stratified colorectal cancer screening guideline is the patients that we serve. So as countries continue to evolve, and even in a country that is industrialized but where you have limited resources, only access to a basic laboratory, there we can still provide screening. And then the guidelines are written in a way that you can identify the type of practice where you're at. And you can choose between the different methods. And then it guides you as to decide when to refer a patient to a higher level with regards to clinical facilities. So if you're in a basic setting and you get a positive screening test, what do you do with that patient? Are you able to refer to the second level, which will be the limited? Or do you have to refer it all the way to enhanced? So it's almost like it's a guideline, but it's very practical in nature. So our hope is that this will allow our practitioners to feel empowered, to understand that this is a disease that will be affecting their population, the patients that they are taking care of, but furthermore, that they feel empowered to provide the best care, because that's why we practice medicine. And that's the bottom line, the most important reason why this was put together. Great, thank you so much for your work on this important guideline. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Cruz-Correa. Thank you very much for the opportunity, Shannon. And you know, hopefully we'll get many comments from across the different members of the organization across the globe. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

If you enjoyed this podcast, make sure to subscribe for more weekly education content from ASCO University. We truly value your feedback and suggestions, so please take a minute to leave a review. If you are an oncology professional and interested in contributing to the ASCO University Weekly Podcast, email ascou@asco.org for more information. TRANSCRIPT 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. Is my name Shannon McKernin and today, I'm interviewing Dr. Elena Stoffel from the University of Michigan, lead author of "Evaluating Susceptibility to Pancreatic Cancer: ASCO Provisional Clinical Opinion.” Thank you for being here today, Dr. Stoffel. I'm delighted to join you. So first, can you tell us what a professional clinical opinion is and why this topic is so important to ASCO? Well, a provisional clinical opinion is a statement that ASCO puts out when we are seeing trends that are relevant to the care of our patients but that may not necessarily have the level of evidence needed to include in a true clinical guideline. This particular provisional clinical opinion that deals with the management of patients with pancreatic cancer and their families is based on some new data that has been published regarding the prevalence of inherited factors influencing pancreatic cancer risk. So what are the key statements of this Provisional Clinical Opinion or also known as a PCO? This particular provisional clinical opinion, which is about just the inherited susceptibility to pancreatic cancer, was prompted by several recent publications, which found that the prevalence of genetic predisposition among patients with pancreatic cancer was much higher than we had originally anticipated. And this is relevant because in talking about pancreatic cancer as one of the deadliest cancers in both in the United States and worldwide, we are very interested in finding ways to reduce the morbidity from this cancer to patients and their families. And this particular provisional clinical opinion addresses the role that genetic risk assessment should have in the care of pancreatic cancer patients and also the role for clinical genetic testing, as well as the risks and benefits of pancreatic cancer screening for at risk family members. What considerations are there for having these conversations with patients and their families? Well, many times when we see families affected with cancer, one of the questions they have is what is the likelihood that this will happen to other individuals in our family and what can we do to prevent cancers in other family members. And I think what's important here is that review of the data from multi-gene panel genetic testing in unselected individuals diagnosed with pancreatic cancer identified pathogenic germline variants in 1 out of every 10 individuals. And this is really important because when you think about it, if 1 out of every 10 patients with pancreatic cancer develop their cancer in the setting of a genetic predisposition syndrome, this has tremendous implications for management both for them as well as for their family members. One of the most common inherited cancer syndromes identified in families affected with pancreatic cancer is hereditary breast ovarian cancer associated with mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2. As you know, there are definite screening recommendations we make for individuals who carry these genetic alterations. And certainly if a family member is diagnosed with a genetic alteration, then that has an impact for cancer screening and management. Furthermore, there are emerging data about the utility of pancreatic cancer screening in high risk individuals. And while there's still some controversy about how to screen individuals at risk for pancreatic cancer, certainly there are some emerging data suggesting that this may have a role for early detection. And finally, the panel included a discussion section on the limitations of the research and future directions. So what are the key points of this section? I think that what we're learning is with genetic testing, and particularly with multi-gene panel testing, we are we often find unexpected results. Certainly variants of uncertain significance are not uncommon when multi-gene panel tests are used. And being able to interpret the clinical significance of some of these genetic test results can pose some challenges, especially for clinicians who don't have specific expertise in genetics. Certainly being able to deal with the volumes of patients who need genetic testing who are also battling pancreatic cancer, we want to make sure that we have the resources to be able to offer genetic testing to everyone who needs it. And finally, in talking about screening for pancreas cancer, while there are some studies that have demonstrated that screening with MRIs and/or endoscopic ultrasounds has led to early detection and down staging of cancers in some cases, larger studies are needed to be able to refine more specifically who and how to screen individuals at risk for pancreas cancer. Great. Thank you so much for taking your time today to discuss this PCO with us, Dr. Stoffel. Thank you very much for having me. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. If you've enjoyed what you heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

If you enjoyed this podcast, make sure to subscribe for more weekly education content from ASCO University. We truly value your feedback and suggestions, so please take a minute to leave a review. If you are an oncology professional and interested in contributing to the ASCO University Weekly Podcast, email ascou@asco.org for more information. TRANSCRIPT 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin and today I'm interviewing Dr. Scott Morgan from the Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, lead author on "Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: an ASTRO, ASCO, and AUA Evidence-Based Guideline.” Thank you so much for being here today, Dr. Morgan. It's my pleasure, Shannon. I'm happy to take part in the podcast and hopefully share the highlights of the guideline with your listeners. So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers? Yeah. So the guideline covers really hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy, which is a treatment for localized prostate cancer, and for the non-radiation oncology folks in your audience, I think it's important to begin by placing the guideline sort of in its context and going over some of the terminology that we use as radiation oncologists. So external beam radiotherapy, it's a standard treatment-- standard local treatment option for men with localized prostate cancer. It gives outcomes which are really equivalent to those of radical prostatectomy or brachytherapy, which are the other two standard local treatment options. And traditionally, it's given in small daily fractions over several weeks and the usual daily fraction size is 1.8 to 2 Gray per day. And this is called conventional fractionation. And that really translates into a course of about seven and a half to nine weeks of treatment. And so that total dose which is delivered in those daily treatments, five days a week, is about 76 to 80 Gray. And that's what we call conventional or standard fractionation. And there's a theoretical framework in radiation medicine and there's some evidence to accompany that that suggests that prostate cancer is quite sensitive to radiation fraction size. And just to give a brief primer, for any tissue, cancerous or non-cancerous, there's a sensitivity to fraction size and it's characterized by something called the alpha-beta ratio. And for prostate cancer, that's felt to be low compared to most other cancers, the alpha-beta ratio, and indeed, it's thought to be lower than the adjacent dose-limiting normal structure, which is the rectum. And so an implication of that is that hypofractionation, and by that we mean daily fraction size of more than 2 Gray, might improve the therapeutic ratio of radiation therapy in localized prostate cancer. Now the guideline-- and I think it's important to emphasize this-- it draws a distinction between what we call moderate hypofractionation and ultra-hypofractionation. Clearly, fraction size is a continuous variable, so any subdivision that we might make is necessarily a bit arbitrary, but it turns out that at least in clinical practice, there's been really two distinct approaches to hypofractionation that have arisen. And one of these is moderate hypofractionation and that's an approach where the fraction size is modestly higher than 2 Gray per fraction, and in the guideline, it's been defined as a fraction size between 2.4 and 3.4 Gray, whereas ultra-hypofractionation, this is defined in the guideline as a fraction size greater than 5 Gray. And it's also been referred to in the literature as extreme hypofractionation or Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy, SBRT, or SABR, Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy. But in any case, we are talking here about, with ultra-hypofractionation, with radical courses of treatment that are often delivered over as few as five fractions, often on an alternate day approach over two or two and a half weeks. And so the guideline really was largely motivated by the publication of a number of randomized trials, including four large-scale trials in the past two years that have compared conventionally fractioned radiation therapy and moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy. So that is really what stimulated the guideline, which was the evidence concerning moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy. But at the same time, there has been an increasing use in routine clinical practice that's been observed of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy, so the decision was made to make recommendations on it as well. So ASTRO, American Society for Radiation Oncology, in collaboration with ASCO and the AUA, convened a panel of radiation oncologists, medical physicists, urologists, radiation oncology resident, patient representative, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted and their recommendations have been made on the basis of this systematic review. So the aim was to provide recommendations on use of both moderate hypofractionation and ultra-hypofractionation, in particular with reference to oncologic outcomes, toxicity, and quality of life. So we didn't directly consider health economic endpoints, though clearly the very nature of hypofractionation is such that there are potential advantages in terms of cost and convenience for patients. And what are the key recommendations of this guideline? We separated the key recommendations into three main groups and the first set of recommendations pertains to moderate hypofractionation, and these are generally based on the highest-quality evidence. So they could be viewed as the strongest recommendations in the guideline. And the second set of recommendations concern ultra-hypofractionation. They're somewhat less strong given they're based on somewhat weaker evidence. And then the third set of recommendations relate to some of the technical aspects of the planning and delivery of hypofractionated radiation therapy. So, dealing with the moderate hypofractionation recommendations first, arguably the most important recommendation of the guideline is that the panel has recommended that in patients with localized prostate cancer who are candidates for external beam radiation therapy, moderate hypofractionation should be offered. And this is graded as a strong recommendation. It's based on high-quality evidence and it applies to patients across all risk groups. So it applies to patients with low-risk prostate cancer who require active treatment or who have declined active surveillance and it also applies to patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk localized prostate cancer. And why really does it apply to all these groups? It's essentially because these groups are well-represented in the trials of moderate hypofractionation. And the trials have shown that moderate hypofractionation really gives similar outcomes in terms of efficacy to conventional fractionation. Now one caveat I guess that I should say is that the trials generally only looked at radiation therapy to the prostate rather than radiation therapy to the prostate as well as the pelvic lymph nodes. So the panel's recommendations regarding moderate hypofractionation don't apply to the scenario where the clinician has decided to include the pelvic lymph nodes in the radiation therapy volume. The panel also made recommendations with respect to toxicity and quality of life, and specifically, they did recommend that men should be counseled about a small increased risk of acute gastrointestinal toxicity, typically rectal toxicity, with moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy. And they should also be counseled that moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy has a similar risk of late GI toxicity and also has a similar risk of both acute and late GU toxicity compared to conventional fractionation. The only difference was seen in acute GI toxicity. And I think it's probably worth dwelling on this a little bit more. Probably the most granular data on acute GI toxicity comes from the CHHiP trial. This was a trial from the UK. It was far and away the largest randomized trial of moderate hypofractionation versus conventional fractionation. And they followed the amplitude of GI toxicity very carefully over the short and long term and what they did found was that in the early weeks, there was greater peak acute GI toxicity with moderate hypofractionation, but this difference had really disappeared by about 18 weeks after the start of radiotherapy. So within a few months, there was no difference, and afterwards, there was no consistent difference in long-term GU or GI toxicity across these trials. Now I guess I should mention that, at the current time, that the median follow-up of most of these trials is between five and six years, so arguably, the last word hasn't been written. The panel also offered conditional recommendations on particular moderate hypofractionation regimens. There were multiple different regimens that were evaluated but most were not compared head-to-head. And the panel preferred two particular regimens-- 60 Gray and 20 fractions over four weeks or 70 Gray and 28 fractions over five and a half weeks, as these were the two regimens that were evaluated in the largest populations. And of these two, likely the strongest evidence supports 60 Gray and 20 fractions, given it was used in two different trials and it was used across all risk groups and with or without concomitant hormonal therapy. So those were the recommendations regarding moderate hypofractionation. So moving to ultra-hypofractionation, again, this is talking about fraction size of at least 5 Gray, typically a course of as few as five fractions over perhaps two or two and a half weeks. I think it's important to say that, at the time we were preparing this guideline, there were no published efficacy or toxicity data from randomized trials comparing ultra-hypofractionation and conventional fractionation. So the strengths of the recommendations made by the panel is correspondingly lower than was the case for moderate hypofractionation. But having said that, there are several prospective non-randomized studies that have been published and have documented safe delivery of ultra-hypofractionation for appropriately-selected patients and pretty good biochemical control and low toxicities have been observed in these studies. But again, relatively few have follow-up beyond five years. So what the panel recommended was that in men with low-risk prostate cancer-- and the bulk of the data to date for ultra-hypofractionation has been in this group-- panel conditionally recommended that in those who decline active surveillance and choose active treatment with radiation therapy, that ultra-hypofractionation may be offered as an alternative to conventional fractionation. Again, this is a conditional recommendation. In men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, the panel has conditionally recommended that ultra-hypofractionation may be offered as an alternative to conventional fractionation but it's strongly recommended in this group that these patients be treated as a part of a clinical trial-- and there are several clinical trials ongoing-- or as part of the multi-institutional registry. And then finally, in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer, there was really insufficient comparative evidence for the panel to suggest offering this outside of a clinical trial or outside of a registry. Regarding particular regimens, that the panel again made a conditional recommendation that a schedule of 35 Gray to 36.25 Gray and five fractions delivered to the planning target volume could be offered and that it recommended against consecutive daily treatments for this schedule. So I think it's again important to note that compared to moderate hypofractionation, the ultra-hypofractionation literature is really substantially less mature and it is evolving rapidly. And therefore, a short-term update of this guideline to address new data pertaining specifically to ultra-hypofractionation is likely going to be necessary. And then I mentioned there was a third set of recommendations and these pertain to the technical aspects of planning and delivering radiation therapy. And these probably are not of core interest to your audience, but briefly, the guideline recommends that in the planning of hypofractionated radiotherapy, that normal tissue constraints and target volumes derive from published reference standards the use and that image guidance and intensity modulation at one form or another are recommended in delivering hypofractionated radiotherapy. Great. Thank you for the overview of those guideline recommendations. So why is this guideline so important and how will it change practice? Yeah. I guess the first point to make is that the guideline potentially can inform the care of a very large number of patients. Across North America, about 200,000 patients a year are diagnosed with prostate cancer and its far and away that the most prevalent non-dermatologic cancer in men and it's the third-leading cause of cancer death in men, at least in North America. So the vast majority of those 200,000 men are diagnosed with localized disease at the time of presentation and therefore they're potentially treatable with radiation therapy and therefore the guideline is relevant to these patients. Prior to the publication of the trials that motivated this guideline, the overwhelming majority of these men who chose external beam radiotherapy as their primary treatment have been treated with conventionally fractionated therapy. In other words, seven and a half to nine weeks of treatment. And already, since the publication of these trials-- the trials of moderate hypofractionation-- we're talking really about moderate hypofractionation because I think that is where the guideline will have its impact, at least in the short term. In the jurisdiction where I practice in Canada, practice has already substantially changed in light of these trials, and I think a large majority of patients with localized prostate cancer choosing external beam radiation therapy are now typically being treated with a moderately hypofractionated approach, typically a four-week schedule. So it will be interesting to see if a similar change is occurring or will occur over time in the United States, particularly informed or potentially informed in part by this guideline. And then finally, with respect to ultra-hypofractionation, I think again I have to note that this is a very dynamic space in terms of evidence and there are a number of large-scale trials looking at ultra-hypofractionation and comparing it to either conventional fractionation or moderate hypofractionation that are in progress or near to reporting. And so again, an update of the guideline in the short-term as data emerges from these studies will likely be important and it may ultimately influence practice as well on a large scale. And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? So I think in the short term, that the recommendation that has the potential to impact patients in the greatest way is the recommendation regarding moderate hypofractionation. And the guideline really recommends that this is a management approach that substantially reduces the treatment burden without compromising treatment efficacy and without increasing the risk of long-term side effects. So in my view, the move to moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy is a win for patients with localized prostate cancer who choose radiation therapy as their primary treatment modality. And so moderate hypofractionation really represents about a halving of the overall treatment time in some patients. And those who live, for example, in rural or remote areas and who need to travel considerable distance to have their treatment, a halving of treatment time is significant. But I think even more generally, halving of treatment time is significant for patients regardless of where they live. And clearly there are also benefits potentially in terms of cost and also benefits in terms of for the health care system but those really weren't specifically studied in the guideline. Great. Thank you so much for your time today, Dr. Morgan, and thank you for your work on this important guideline. My pleasure, Shannon, and thank you for having me. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast Series. Is my name Shannon McKernin and today, I'm interviewing Dr. Elena Stoffel from the University of Michigan, lead author of "Evaluating Susceptibility to Pancreatic Cancer: ASCO Provisional Clinical Opinion.” Thank you for being here today, Dr. Stoffel. I'm delighted to join you. So first, can you tell us what a professional clinical opinion is and why this topic is so important to ASCO? Well, a provisional clinical opinion is a statement that ASCO puts out when we are seeing trends that are relevant to the care of our patients but that may not necessarily have the level of evidence needed to include in a true clinical guideline. This particular provisional clinical opinion that deals with the management of patients with pancreatic cancer and their families is based on some new data that has been published regarding the prevalence of inherited factors influencing pancreatic cancer risk. So what are the key statements of this Provisional Clinical Opinion or also known as a PCO? This particular provisional clinical opinion, which is about just the inherited susceptibility to pancreatic cancer, was prompted by several recent publications, which found that the prevalence of genetic predisposition among patients with pancreatic cancer was much higher than we had originally anticipated. And this is relevant because in talking about pancreatic cancer as one of the deadliest cancers in both in the United States and worldwide, we are very interested in finding ways to reduce the morbidity from this cancer to patients and their families. And this particular provisional clinical opinion addresses the role that genetic risk assessment should have in the care of pancreatic cancer patients and also the role for clinical genetic testing, as well as the risks and benefits of pancreatic cancer screening for at risk family members. What considerations are there for having these conversations with patients and their families? Well, many times when we see families affected with cancer, one of the questions they have is what is the likelihood that this will happen to other individuals in our family and what can we do to prevent cancers in other family members. And I think what's important here is that review of the data from multi-gene panel genetic testing in unselected individuals diagnosed with pancreatic cancer identified pathogenic germline variants in 1 out of every 10 individuals. And this is really important because when you think about it, if 1 out of every 10 patients with pancreatic cancer develop their cancer in the setting of a genetic predisposition syndrome, this has tremendous implications for management both for them as well as for their family members. One of the most common inherited cancer syndromes identified in families affected with pancreatic cancer is hereditary breast ovarian cancer associated with mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2. As you know, there are definite screening recommendations we make for individuals who carry these genetic alterations. And certainly if a family member is diagnosed with a genetic alteration, then that has an impact for cancer screening and management. Furthermore, there are emerging data about the utility of pancreatic cancer screening in high risk individuals. And while there's still some controversy about how to screen individuals at risk for pancreatic cancer, certainly there are some emerging data suggesting that this may have a role for early detection. And finally, the panel included a discussion section on the limitations of the research and future directions. So what are the key points of this section? I think that what we're learning is with genetic testing, and particularly with multi-gene panel testing, we are we often find unexpected results. Certainly variants of uncertain significance are not uncommon when multi-gene panel tests are used. And being able to interpret the clinical significance of some of these genetic test results can pose some challenges, especially for clinicians who don't have specific expertise in genetics. Certainly being able to deal with the volumes of patients who need genetic testing who are also battling pancreatic cancer, we want to make sure that we have the resources to be able to offer genetic testing to everyone who needs it. And finally, in talking about screening for pancreas cancer, while there are some studies that have demonstrated that screening with MRIs and/or endoscopic ultrasounds has led to early detection and down staging of cancers in some cases, larger studies are needed to be able to refine more specifically who and how to screen individuals at risk for pancreas cancer. Great. Thank you so much for taking your time today to discuss this PCO with us, Dr. Stoffel. Thank you very much for having me. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. If you've enjoyed what you heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.

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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. My name is Shannon McKernin and today I'm interviewing Dr. Scott Morgan from the Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, lead author on "Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer: an ASTRO, ASCO, and AUA Evidence-Based Guideline.” Thank you so much for being here today, Dr. Morgan. It's my pleasure, Shannon. I'm happy to take part in the podcast and hopefully share the highlights of the guideline with your listeners. So first, can you give us a general overview of what this guideline covers? Yeah. So the guideline covers really hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy, which is a treatment for localized prostate cancer, and for the non-radiation oncology folks in your audience, I think it's important to begin by placing the guideline sort of in its context and going over some of the terminology that we use as radiation oncologists. So external beam radiotherapy, it's a standard treatment-- standard local treatment option for men with localized prostate cancer. It gives outcomes which are really equivalent to those of radical prostatectomy or brachytherapy, which are the other two standard local treatment options. And traditionally, it's given in small daily fractions over several weeks and the usual daily fraction size is 1.8 to 2 Gray per day. And this is called conventional fractionation. And that really translates into a course of about seven and a half to nine weeks of treatment. And so that total dose which is delivered in those daily treatments, five days a week, is about 76 to 80 Gray. And that's what we call conventional or standard fractionation. And there's a theoretical framework in radiation medicine and there's some evidence to accompany that that suggests that prostate cancer is quite sensitive to radiation fraction size. And just to give a brief primer, for any tissue, cancerous or non-cancerous, there's a sensitivity to fraction size and it's characterized by something called the alpha-beta ratio. And for prostate cancer, that's felt to be low compared to most other cancers, the alpha-beta ratio, and indeed, it's thought to be lower than the adjacent dose-limiting normal structure, which is the rectum. And so an implication of that is that hypofractionation, and by that we mean daily fraction size of more than 2 Gray, might improve the therapeutic ratio of radiation therapy in localized prostate cancer. Now the guideline-- and I think it's important to emphasize this-- it draws a distinction between what we call moderate hypofractionation and ultra-hypofractionation. Clearly, fraction size is a continuous variable, so any subdivision that we might make is necessarily a bit arbitrary, but it turns out that at least in clinical practice, there's been really two distinct approaches to hypofractionation that have arisen. And one of these is moderate hypofractionation and that's an approach where the fraction size is modestly higher than 2 Gray per fraction, and in the guideline, it's been defined as a fraction size between 2.4 and 3.4 Gray, whereas ultra-hypofractionation, this is defined in the guideline as a fraction size greater than 5 Gray. And it's also been referred to in the literature as extreme hypofractionation or Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy, SBRT, or SABR, Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy. But in any case, we are talking here about, with ultra-hypofractionation, with radical courses of treatment that are often delivered over as few as five fractions, often on an alternate day approach over two or two and a half weeks. And so the guideline really was largely motivated by the publication of a number of randomized trials, including four large-scale trials in the past two years that have compared conventionally fractioned radiation therapy and moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy. So that is really what stimulated the guideline, which was the evidence concerning moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy. But at the same time, there has been an increasing use in routine clinical practice that's been observed of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy, so the decision was made to make recommendations on it as well. So ASTRO, American Society for Radiation Oncology, in collaboration with ASCO and the AUA, convened a panel of radiation oncologists, medical physicists, urologists, radiation oncology resident, patient representative, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted and their recommendations have been made on the basis of this systematic review. So the aim was to provide recommendations on use of both moderate hypofractionation and ultra-hypofractionation, in particular with reference to oncologic outcomes, toxicity, and quality of life. So we didn't directly consider health economic endpoints, though clearly the very nature of hypofractionation is such that there are potential advantages in terms of cost and convenience for patients. And what are the key recommendations of this guideline? We separated the key recommendations into three main groups and the first set of recommendations pertains to moderate hypofractionation, and these are generally based on the highest-quality evidence. So they could be viewed as the strongest recommendations in the guideline. And the second set of recommendations concern ultra-hypofractionation. They're somewhat less strong given they're based on somewhat weaker evidence. And then the third set of recommendations relate to some of the technical aspects of the planning and delivery of hypofractionated radiation therapy. So, dealing with the moderate hypofractionation recommendations first, arguably the most important recommendation of the guideline is that the panel has recommended that in patients with localized prostate cancer who are candidates for external beam radiation therapy, moderate hypofractionation should be offered. And this is graded as a strong recommendation. It's based on high-quality evidence and it applies to patients across all risk groups. So it applies to patients with low-risk prostate cancer who require active treatment or who have declined active surveillance and it also applies to patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk localized prostate cancer. And why really does it apply to all these groups? It's essentially because these groups are well-represented in the trials of moderate hypofractionation. And the trials have shown that moderate hypofractionation really gives similar outcomes in terms of efficacy to conventional fractionation. Now one caveat I guess that I should say is that the trials generally only looked at radiation therapy to the prostate rather than radiation therapy to the prostate as well as the pelvic lymph nodes. So the panel's recommendations regarding moderate hypofractionation don't apply to the scenario where the clinician has decided to include the pelvic lymph nodes in the radiation therapy volume. The panel also made recommendations with respect to toxicity and quality of life, and specifically, they did recommend that men should be counseled about a small increased risk of acute gastrointestinal toxicity, typically rectal toxicity, with moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy. And they should also be counseled that moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy has a similar risk of late GI toxicity and also has a similar risk of both acute and late GU toxicity compared to conventional fractionation. The only difference was seen in acute GI toxicity. And I think it's probably worth dwelling on this a little bit more. Probably the most granular data on acute GI toxicity comes from the CHHiP trial. This was a trial from the UK. It was far and away the largest randomized trial of moderate hypofractionation versus conventional fractionation. And they followed the amplitude of GI toxicity very carefully over the short and long term and what they did found was that in the early weeks, there was greater peak acute GI toxicity with moderate hypofractionation, but this difference had really disappeared by about 18 weeks after the start of radiotherapy. So within a few months, there was no difference, and afterwards, there was no consistent difference in long-term GU or GI toxicity across these trials. Now I guess I should mention that, at the current time, that the median follow-up of most of these trials is between five and six years, so arguably, the last word hasn't been written. The panel also offered conditional recommendations on particular moderate hypofractionation regimens. There were multiple different regimens that were evaluated but most were not compared head-to-head. And the panel preferred two particular regimens-- 60 Gray and 20 fractions over four weeks or 70 Gray and 28 fractions over five and a half weeks, as these were the two regimens that were evaluated in the largest populations. And of these two, likely the strongest evidence supports 60 Gray and 20 fractions, given it was used in two different trials and it was used across all risk groups and with or without concomitant hormonal therapy. So those were the recommendations regarding moderate hypofractionation. So moving to ultra-hypofractionation, again, this is talking about fraction size of at least 5 Gray, typically a course of as few as five fractions over perhaps two or two and a half weeks. I think it's important to say that, at the time we were preparing this guideline, there were no published efficacy or toxicity data from randomized trials comparing ultra-hypofractionation and conventional fractionation. So the strengths of the recommendations made by the panel is correspondingly lower than was the case for moderate hypofractionation. But having said that, there are several prospective non-randomized studies that have been published and have documented safe delivery of ultra-hypofractionation for appropriately-selected patients and pretty good biochemical control and low toxicities have been observed in these studies. But again, relatively few have follow-up beyond five years. So what the panel recommended was that in men with low-risk prostate cancer-- and the bulk of the data to date for ultra-hypofractionation has been in this group-- panel conditionally recommended that in those who decline active surveillance and choose active treatment with radiation therapy, that ultra-hypofractionation may be offered as an alternative to conventional fractionation. Again, this is a conditional recommendation. In men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer, the panel has conditionally recommended that ultra-hypofractionation may be offered as an alternative to conventional fractionation but it's strongly recommended in this group that these patients be treated as a part of a clinical trial-- and there are several clinical trials ongoing-- or as part of the multi-institutional registry. And then finally, in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer, there was really insufficient comparative evidence for the panel to suggest offering this outside of a clinical trial or outside of a registry. Regarding particular regimens, that the panel again made a conditional recommendation that a schedule of 35 Gray to 36.25 Gray and five fractions delivered to the planning target volume could be offered and that it recommended against consecutive daily treatments for this schedule. So I think it's again important to note that compared to moderate hypofractionation, the ultra-hypofractionation literature is really substantially less mature and it is evolving rapidly. And therefore, a short-term update of this guideline to address new data pertaining specifically to ultra-hypofractionation is likely going to be necessary. And then I mentioned there was a third set of recommendations and these pertain to the technical aspects of planning and delivering radiation therapy. And these probably are not of core interest to your audience, but briefly, the guideline recommends that in the planning of hypofractionated radiotherapy, that normal tissue constraints and target volumes derive from published reference standards the use and that image guidance and intensity modulation at one form or another are recommended in delivering hypofractionated radiotherapy. Great. Thank you for the overview of those guideline recommendations. So why is this guideline so important and how will it change practice? Yeah. I guess the first point to make is that the guideline potentially can inform the care of a very large number of patients. Across North America, about 200,000 patients a year are diagnosed with prostate cancer and its far and away that the most prevalent non-dermatologic cancer in men and it's the third-leading cause of cancer death in men, at least in North America. So the vast majority of those 200,000 men are diagnosed with localized disease at the time of presentation and therefore they're potentially treatable with radiation therapy and therefore the guideline is relevant to these patients. Prior to the publication of the trials that motivated this guideline, the overwhelming majority of these men who chose external beam radiotherapy as their primary treatment have been treated with conventionally fractionated therapy. In other words, seven and a half to nine weeks of treatment. And already, since the publication of these trials-- the trials of moderate hypofractionation-- we're talking really about moderate hypofractionation because I think that is where the guideline will have its impact, at least in the short term. In the jurisdiction where I practice in Canada, practice has already substantially changed in light of these trials, and I think a large majority of patients with localized prostate cancer choosing external beam radiation therapy are now typically being treated with a moderately hypofractionated approach, typically a four-week schedule. So it will be interesting to see if a similar change is occurring or will occur over time in the United States, particularly informed or potentially informed in part by this guideline. And then finally, with respect to ultra-hypofractionation, I think again I have to note that this is a very dynamic space in terms of evidence and there are a number of large-scale trials looking at ultra-hypofractionation and comparing it to either conventional fractionation or moderate hypofractionation that are in progress or near to reporting. And so again, an update of the guideline in the short-term as data emerges from these studies will likely be important and it may ultimately influence practice as well on a large scale. And finally, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients? So I think in the short term, that the recommendation that has the potential to impact patients in the greatest way is the recommendation regarding moderate hypofractionation. And the guideline really recommends that this is a management approach that substantially reduces the treatment burden without compromising treatment efficacy and without increasing the risk of long-term side effects. So in my view, the move to moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy is a win for patients with localized prostate cancer who choose radiation therapy as their primary treatment modality. And so moderate hypofractionation really represents about a halving of the overall treatment time in some patients. And those who live, for example, in rural or remote areas and who need to travel considerable distance to have their treatment, a halving of treatment time is significant. But I think even more generally, halving of treatment time is significant for patients regardless of where they live. And clearly there are also benefits potentially in terms of cost and also benefits in terms of for the health care system but those really weren't specifically studied in the guideline. Great. Thank you so much for your time today, Dr. Morgan, and thank you for your work on this important guideline. My pleasure, Shannon, and thank you for having me. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and refer the show to a colleague.