POPULARITY
25 episodes with Atezolizumab
9 episodes with Atezolizumab
13 episodes with Atezolizumab
3 episodes with Atezolizumab
3 episodes with Atezolizumab
11 episodes with Atezolizumab
5 episodes with Atezolizumab
2 episodes with Atezolizumab
2 episodes with Atezolizumab
We're kicking off 2026 with practice-changing data fresh from GI ASCO 2026. In this episode, we were joined once again by Dr. Rachna Shroff from the University of Arizona Cancer Center to break down the four most pivotal studies in upper GI and colorectal cancers presented at the GI ASCO 2026. We dived into the latest updates that will directly impact your clinical decisions, from new standards in perioperative therapy to revolutionary front-line regimens for metastatic disease. Key topics covered in this episode: ● MATTERHORN update: Surgical outcomes & FLOT modifications with Durvalumab in resectable gastric/GEJ cancer ● HERIZON-GEA-01: Zanidatamab + chemo + Tislelizumab the new frontline standard for HER2+ gastric cancer ● BREAKWATER: Confirming Encorafenib + Cetuximab + chemo (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) for BRAF V600E mCRC ● COMMIT: Chemo + Atezolizumab vs. Atezolizumab alone in MSI-H/dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer Tune in for this dense, insightful recap and stay ahead of the curve. Follow us on social media: • X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers • Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers • Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ Don't forget to subscribe for more expert analysis on treatment algorithms and major conference highlights! #OncologyBrothers #GI26 #GastricCancer #ColorectalCancer #HER2 #BRAF #MSI #OncologyPodcast
In this episode, Dr John Heymach and Dr Solange Peters discuss key data presented at the IASLC World Conference on Lung Cancer including first-line maintenance in ES-SCLC (IMforte and DeLLphi-303 trials) and targeted treatment for NSCLC (FLAURA2, Beamion LUNG-1, and ARROS-1 trials).Presenters:John Heymach, MD, PhDChair and ProfessorDepartment of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical OncologyRuth Legett Jones Distinguished ChairMD Anderson Cancer CenterHouston, TexasSolange Peters, MD, PhD Professor and Director of Medical OncologyDepartment of OncologyUniversity Hospital of LausanneLausanne, SwitzerlandContent based on an online CME program supported by independent educational grants from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Link to full program: https://bit.ly/3L1eksIGet access to all of our new podcasts by subscribing to the CCO Infectious Disease Podcast on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, or Spotify. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
In this podcast, Dr David Miller, MD, PhD, FAAD and Dr Vishal Patel, MD discuss the evolving treatment landscape and immunotherapeutic strategies for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) based on key data from pivotal studies that are reshaping standards of care, including:Trials of neoadjuvant immunotherapies demonstrating remarkable response rates with PD-(L)1 inhibitors such as cemiplimab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab with or without ipilimumabOngoing investigational efforts, including the phase III CLEAR CSCC study of intralesional immunotherapy and radiation-immunotherapy sequencingPresenters:David M. Miller, MD, PhD, FAADDirector, Center for Merkel Cell CarcinomaCo-Director, NMSC Multi-Disciplinary ClinicMassachusetts General Cancer CenterAssistant Professor of Medicine and DermatologyHarvard Medical SchoolBoston, MassachusettsVishal Anil Patel, MDDirector of Cutaneous Oncology, GW Cancer CenterDirector of Dermatologic Surgery, GW Department of DermatologyAssociate Professor of Dermatology & of Medicine (Hematology/Oncology)George Washington University School of Medicine & Health SciencesWashington, DCLink to full program: https://bit.ly/3JbflO3 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
In today's episode, we had the pleasure of speaking with Anne Chiang, MD, PhD, and Stephen Liu, MD, about the FDA approval of lurbinectedin (Zepzelca) plus atezolizumab (Tecentriq) or atezolizumab and hyaluronidase-tqjs (Tecentriq Hybreza) as maintenance treatment for adult patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) whose disease has not progressed after frontline induction therapy with atezolizumab or atezolizumab and hyaluronidase, carboplatin, and etoposide. Chiang is an associate professor of medicine in the Section of Medical Oncology and the associate cancer center director of Clinical Initiatives at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. Dr Liu is an associate professor of medicine at Georgetown University, as well as the director of Thoracic Oncology and head of Developmental Therapeutics at the Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center in Washington, DC. In our exclusive interview, Drs Chiang and Liu discussed the significance of this approval, key efficacy and safety data from the pivotal phase 3 IMforte trial (NCT05091567), and how the addition of this regimen in the ES-SCLC treatment paradigm may affect clinical practice.
In this episode, Dr. Daniel Morgensztern and Dr. Jonathan Strosberg discuss the emerging role of DLL3-targeted agents in the management of extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinomas, including:The clinical implications of using DLL3 as a therapeutic targetThe impact of emerging DLL3-targeted therapies on evolving treatment paradigmsHow to incorporate DLL3-based treatments into clinical practicePresenters:Daniel Morgensztern, MDProfessor of MedicineClinical Director of Thoracic OncologyWashington University School of MedicineSt Louis, MissouriJonathan Strosberg, MDProfessorDepartment of GI OncologyMoffitt Cancer Center and Research InstituteTampa, FloridaContent based on an online CME program supported by an independent educational grant from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Link to full program: https://bit.ly/4mjNPfy
In this episode, listen to Kelly Romo, PharmD, BCOP; and Shauna Kraft, PharmD, BCOP, share their takeaways from a live webinar on available emerging subcutaneous immunotherapy options for patients with cancer including:Basic mechanism of action and role of hyaluronidase in subcutaneous immunotherapy formulation and available dosing/schedulesAvailable pharmacodynamics/pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety data for subcutaneous immunotherapy formulationsCurrent and potential models for administration of subcutaneous immunotherapy in the inpatient setting and day-to-day considerationsPresenters:Kelly Romo, PharmD, BCOPManager, Oncology Medical Drug Management and Customer InitiativesBlue Cross Blue Shield MichiganDetroit, MichiganShawna Kraft, PharmD, BCOPClinical Pharmacist, SpecialistMichigan Medicine, Rogel Cancer CenterClinical Associate ProfessorUniversity of Michigan College of PharmacyAnn Arbor, MichiganResources:Consolidate your learning with a recording from an on-demand webcast, download the slides associated with this discussion, or read an expert text module or commentary on this topic.
In this episode, listen to Kelly Romo, PharmD, BCOP; and Shauna Kraft, PharmD, BCOP, share their takeaways from a live webinar on available emerging subcutaneous immunotherapy options for patients with cancer including:Basic mechanism of action and role of hyaluronidase in subcutaneous immunotherapy formulation and available dosing/schedulesAvailable pharmacodynamics/pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety data for subcutaneous immunotherapy formulationsCurrent and potential models for administration of subcutaneous immunotherapy in the inpatient setting and day-to-day considerationsPresenters:Kelly Romo, PharmD, BCOPManager, Oncology Medical Drug Management and Customer InitiativesBlue Cross Blue Shield MichiganDetroit, MichiganShawna Kraft, PharmD, BCOPClinical Pharmacist, SpecialistMichigan Medicine, Rogel Cancer CenterClinical Associate ProfessorUniversity of Michigan College of PharmacyAnn Arbor, MichiganResources:Consolidate your learning with a recording from an on-demand webcast, download the slides associated with this discussion, or read an expert text module or commentary on this topic.
In this episode, Joseph W. Franses, MD, PhD; Neehar Parikh, MD, MS; and Mark Yarchoan, MD, share their thoughts on incorporating immune checkpoint inhibitors into the care of patients with HCC including:Clinical Considerations for Selecting First-line Immunotherapy Combinations for Metastatic HCCOverview of the Latest Data for the Combination of TACE With Immunotherapy (eg, EMERALD-1 Study of TACE and Durvalumab ± Bevacizumab for Unresectable HCC; and LEAP-012 Study of TACE + Lenvatinib + Pembrolizumab) Latest Clinical Data and Updates for Systemic Therapy in Patients With High-Risk Early HCCProgram faculty:Joseph W. Franses, MD, PhDAssistant Professor of MedicineSection of Hematology-OncologyUniversity of ChicagoChicago, IllinoisNeehar Parikh, MD, MSAssociate ProfessorLi Ka Shing Research Professor of HepatologyClinical Director of HepatologyMedical Director, Liver Tumor ProgramDivision of Gastroenterology & HepatologyUniversity of MichiganAnn Arbor, MichiganMark Yarchoan, MDAssociate ProfessorSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer CenterJohns HopkinsBaltimore, Maryland Resources:To access the resources associated with this podcast discussion, please visit the program page to access a recording from a live webinar and a frequently-asked questions commentary on this topic.
Guest: Jorge Nieva, MD Can the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab be safely administered subcutaneously at home for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)? That's the exact question an ongoing study is seeking to answer, and here to discuss the study's objective, design, and potential implications for home-based subcutaneous cancer therapies is Dr. Jorge Nivea. He's an Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine.
Guest: Jorge Nieva, MD Can the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab be safely administered subcutaneously at home for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)? That's the exact question an ongoing study is seeking to answer, and here to discuss the study's objective, design, and potential implications for home-based subcutaneous cancer therapies is Dr. Jorge Nivea. He's an Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine.
Join us in this episode of the Oncology Brothers podcast as we dive deep into the rapidly evolving treatment landscape for small-cell lung cancer. Hosted by community oncologists Drs. Rahul and Rohit Gosain, we are thrilled to welcome Dr. Ticiana Leal, a thoracic medical oncologist from the Winship Cancer Institute - Emory University. In this episode, we covered: • Current treatment paradigm of small cell lung cancer, in localized setting and extensive stage. • We covered the recent approval of durvalumab in limited stage setting post chemoRT. • We touched on the role of growth factors, and how they get rarely utilized, and covered use of Trilaciclib. • Stressed the importance of immunotherapy in extensive stage with choices of Atezolizumab and Durvalumab, and touched on extended survival data with Atezolizumab • Talked about logistical issues and uptake of Tarlatamab post approval. • Stressed the importance of clinical trials to move the field ahead. Whether you're a practicing oncologist or simply interested in the latest advancements in cancer treatment, this episode is packed with valuable information to help guide your practice. Follow us on social media: • X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers • Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers • Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ Don't forget to like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell for more updates from the Oncology Brothers!
In this episode, Alexa Basilio, PharmD, BCOP and Jessica Davis, PharmD, BCOP, CPP discuss immune-related adverse events and toxicities among patients using immune checkpoint inhibitors. This overview will include discussion about: How and when to monitor and treat mild vs severe immune-related toxicitiesThe art of balancing and tapering low-dose and high-dose corticosteroidsDifferentiating between immune-related and chemotherapy- or targeted therapy–associated adverse events for optimal management approachesInvolvement of multidisciplinary teams early during treatment to prevent immune-related adverse eventsImportance of educating patients, caregivers, and providers on immune-related toxicitiesPresenters: Alexa Basilio, PharmD, BCOPUniversity of Florida College of Pharmacy Oncology Pharmacy Specialist McKesson, The US Oncology NetworkTampa, Florida Jessica Davis, PharmD, BCOP, CPP Levine Cancer InstituteClinical Pharmacist Coordinator, Adult Hematology/OncologyAtrium Health Levine CenterCharlotte, North Carolina Link to full program: https://bit.ly/3We4HJy
CME credits: 1.00 Valid until: 17-07-2025 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/pivotal-data-supporting-first-line-atezolizumabbevacizumab-in-unresectable-hcc/26331/ This online MinuteCE program provides a comprehensive evaluation of the latest clinical data on first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combinations for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Participants will critically assess survival outcomes and other key efficacy metrics from recent studies. The program emphasizes the application of efficacy and safety data to tailor treatment regimens based on individual patient profiles and preferences. Additionally, it addresses the recognition and management of treatment-related adverse events associated with these regimens. The course also incorporates strategies for effective communication and shared decision-making within the multidisciplinary care team, ensuring optimal patient-centered care.
In this JCO Article Insights episode, Rohit Singh provides summary on two articles published in the April 10th issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The first article, "Phase III, Randomized Study of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Chemotherapy in Patients With EGFR- or ALK-Mutated Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer (ATTLAS, KCSG-LU19-04)" describes a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III study evaluating the efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin (ABCP ) in EGFR- or ALK-mutated NSCLC that progressed before TKI therapy. The second is the accompanying Oncology Grand Rounds. TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Rohit Singh: Hello and welcome to JCO Article Insights. I'm your host, Dr. Rohit Singh. Today I will provide a summary of a Phase III, Randomized Study of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Chemotherapy in Patients With EGFR- or ALK-Mutated Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer (ATTLAS, KCSG-LU19-04), by Dr. Park and colleagues from Seoul, Korea. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the ABCP regimen based on IMpower150 in patients with EGFR or ALK mutated non-small cell lung cancer who had progressed on prior targeted treatment. I will also discuss an Oncology Grand Round case titled "Management of Treatment Resistance in Patients with Advanced EGFR Lung Cancer: Personalization, Parsimony, and Partnership", by Dr. Vallillo and colleagues from Lahey Hospital Medical Center and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. Oncology Grand Round cases help us to give a clinical context to the clinical trial. While TKIs are the established standard of care for non-small cell lung cancer harboring driver mutations, most patients will develop resistance to these treatments. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, with or without chemo, have shown clinical benefits of immune checkpoint monotherapy in patients with EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer. Consequently, platinum-based chemo is the standard of care for patients with EGFR TKI failure. This was a phase III, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial conducted at 16 hospitals across the Republic of Korea. Patients diagnosed with stage four non-small cell lung cancer with sensitizing EGFR mutation or ALK translocation were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to the ABCP arm or chemo-only arm in a 2:1 ratio. Eligible patients were stratified on the mutation type (EGFR mutation vs. ALK translocation) and the presence of brain metastasis. No crossover to atezolizumab was permitted. The recruitment with T790M mutation was capped at 30%. Patients who responded continued to receive maintenance with atezolizumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicities occurred. If a patient was identified to have an acquired T790M mutation after the failure of a first or second-generation EGFR TKI, the patient had to be treated with a third-generation EGFR TKI before enrollment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate according to research criteria. The secondary endpoints included overall survival and progression-free survival at one and two years, and the duration of response, along with a safety analysis. Investigators also did an exploratory biomarker analysis based on PD-L1 expression and its correlation with the response. They also analyzed the distribution of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and a cut-off of 20% inflamed score was used to compare the two arms. Overall, 228 patients were enrolled, 154 in the ABCP arm and 74 in the chemo-only arm. Most patients were female at 56.1% and never smokers at 62.7%. Brain metastasis was present in 42.7% of patients. Most patients had previously received EGFR TKI therapy, however, only 8% and 30% received third-generation TKI as first-line therapy in the ABCP arm and chemo-only arm, respectively. The majority of the patients were EGFR at 90%. The median duration of follow-up for the study population was 26 months. The objective response rate in the ABCP arm was significantly higher at 69.5% compared to 42% in the chemotherapy alone arm. The median PFS was significantly longer in the ABCP arm at 8.48 months versus 5.6 months, and the duration of response was similar at around seven months in both arms. The median overall survival was also similar at around 20 months in both arms, with a hazard ratio of 1.01. In the subgroup of patients with brain metastasis at the time of study enrollment, PFS was significantly longer in the ABCP arm at 8.4 months compared to 4.4 months in the chemotherapy-only arm. In contrast, no difference in PFS was observed in the subgroup without brain metastasis. Regarding EGFR mutation status, there was no difference in PFS or OS between the two arms in the EGFR deletion 19 subgroup. However, a favorable PFS was observed in the EGFR L858R subgroup. For those with acquired EGFR T790M mutation, there was no difference in PFS between groups, whereas a favorable PFS was observed in the subgroup without EGFR T790M mutation. In the exploratory biomarker analysis, interestingly, the impact on PFS was correlated with PD-L1 expression. The study found that the higher the PD-L1 expression, the better the PFS. In patients with PD-L1 expression of more than 50%, the hazard ratio was 0.24 for PFS. This is an interesting observation. As in previous studies, we have seen that PD-L1 expression does not have a strong association with response to checkpoint inhibitors in patients with driver mutations. Based on the distribution density of tails in the tumor bed, the inflamed score was calculated using artificial intelligence. For patients with 20% of the imflamed score, the ABCP arm has significantly prolonged PFS at 12.9 months compared to 4.8 months. The median number of ABCP treatment cycles was 4, with 12 for atezolizumab and 8 for bevacizumab as maintenance therapy, pemetrexed maintenance was administered for a median of 10 cycles. The incidence of grade 3 or higher side effects was 35.1% in the ABCP arm compared to 15% in the chemotherapy-only arm. Peripheral neuropathy, alopecia, and myalgias were the most prevalent side effects. Interesting notably, 54% of patients in the ABCP arm required treatment interruption or dose modification, and there were three reported deaths in the ABCP arm, two due to pneumonia and one due to cerebral embolic infarction. Around 10 patients or 13.5% of patients in the chemotherapy-only arm required dose interruption or modification. In conclusion, patients with EGFR-mutated or translocated non-small cell lung cancer who had failed prior TKI ABCP regimen showed a statistically significant prolongation of PFS and response rate compared to chemo alone. Patients in the subgroup with EGFR L858R, without acquired T790M mutation, and presence of brain met showed more benefit. There was no difference in overall survival, though we need more mature data. Adverse events were higher in the ABCP arm. Interestingly, in the exploratory analysis, a high PD-L1 and an inflamed score of more than 20% showed PFS benefits. Though we need to take into consideration that this trial was done and all the patients were grouped from a single country considering Asian ethnicity. And most importantly, the majority of patients were treated with first- and second-generation TKIs, whereas third-generation TKIs are the standard of care in the United States. Coming to the Oncology Grand Round, in this case, we will discuss the management of treatment resistance in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated lung cancer. A patient with a 20-pack-a-year history of tobacco use presents with weight loss and hip pain, found to have a lung mass, skeletal mets, and brain mets, and was diagnosed with lung adenocarcinoma. The patient goes with palliative radiotherapy for the brain mets. Comprehensive tumor Merkel profiling demonstrated an EGFR mutation exon 19 and alteration P53. The patient was started on third-generation EGFR TKI osimertinib. However, after 17 months, the patient has symptomatic disease progression. Usual approach, if feasible, re-biopsy at the time of progression to evaluate for possible new mutations which can guide treatment options. As mentioned earlier, in the trial, acquired resistance to the TKI is inevitable and heterogeneous. There were various mechanisms which have been proposed regarding resistance, including a second-site EGFR alteration, upregulation of bypass pathway, histological transformation to small cell histology, or suboptimal drug penetration. There are various approaches after disease progression on EGFR TKI. Combining EGFR-directed therapies to address resistance is an option. Prime results from the MARIPOSA-2 study showed amivantamab plus chemotherapy with or without lazertinib in EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer after disease progression showed a better objective response rate at 64% compared to 36% in the chemo-alone arm. It also showed improved PFS with a median of 6.3 compared to 4.2 in the chemo-alone arm. Combining immune checkpoint inhibitors, EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung, I say has been disappointing in advance of EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung, and combination therapy studies are needed to improve outcomes. Studies, as I discussed ATTLAS, have shown that combining a VEGF inhibitor with ICIs and chemotherapy can lead to a better objective response rate and PFS. However, further clinical trials are needed to figure out the better subgroup of patients who can benefit from this combination. Should the TKI be continued beyond progression in EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer? Continuing the primary EGFR TKI treatment beyond progression may be considered for patients with indolent or asymptomatic progression or localized progression. We can consider radiation, surgery, or ablation. This approach will potentially delay the need to change systemic therapy in patients. However, for patients with multifocal disease progression requiring chain systemic therapy it may be more beneficial to switch to next-line systemic therapy options like platinum doublet with or without immunotherapy and VEGF inhibitors. In the case presented, the decision was made to continue osimertinib along with platinum doublet, deferring the addition of immunotherapy and VEGF inhibitor. This choice was based on factors like the patient's history of brain metastases and intracranial control. There is also a high risk of toxicity, especially pneumonitis, with immune checkpoint inhibitors after using targeted therapy, the patient showed clinical and radiographic improvement while on this treatment regimen. The decision to continue or change therapy at cancer progression is based on factors like drug tolerability, patient preferences, and specific subgroups with different outcomes, such as those with brain metastasis or specific EGFR mutation subtypes. Choosing between combination therapy strategies that concept progression involves personalized decision-making to optimize treatment outcomes. Ultimately, the approach to management should be tailored to individual patient needs, preferences, and eligibility for different treatment modalities. This is Rohit Singh. Thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You will find all the ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. Thank you. 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 ofASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.
How do cancer outcomes in New Zealand compare to Australia? How can we optimise post-neoadjuvant treatment in patients with early breast cancer who achieve pathologic complete response? Does bevacizumab improve efficacy when administered with platinum combination therapy and atezolizumab in patients with advanced nonsquamous non small cell lung cancer? And how do AI chatbots perform when asked for cancer treatment recommendations?Welcome to The Oncology Journal Club Podcast – your go-to source for in-depth discussions on the latest oncology research tailored for medical professionals.Join our esteemed Hosts, Professor Craig Underhill, Dr. Kate Clarke and Professor Christopher Jackson for the low down on the latest oncology papers. They also discuss ASCO guidelines, inequities, financial conflicts and environmental issues. But that's not all – we also add a touch of whimsy to the episode, rounding off with a fun song inspired by Craig's latest half marathon, crafted in the style of Taylor Swift (courtesy of CJ's favourite new lyric-writing machine, Chat GPT!).Tune in to The Oncology Journal Club Podcast for an informative and entertaining journey through the world of oncology research and practice.For papers, bios and other links visit the Show Notes on our website.For the latest oncology news visit www.oncologynews.com.au.We invite healthcare professionals to join The Oncology Network for free - you'll also receive our free weekly publication The Oncology Newsletter.The Oncology Podcast - An Australian Oncology Perspective
Adding checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy to adjuvant chemotherapy did not improve survival among patients with triple-negative breast cancers. These findings from a study reported at the 14th European Breast Cancer Conference were presented by Heather McArthur, MD, MPH, Clinical Director of Breast Cancer and Komen Distinguished Chair in Clinical Breast Research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. After McArthur’s talk in Italy, she shared the details with Peter Goodwin, OncTimesTalk correspondent.
Join the Oncology Brothers, Drs. Rahul and Rohit Gosain, in this engaging podcast episode as they delve into the treatment landscape for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with Dr. Tanios S. Bekaii-saab from Mayo Clinic. The discussion covers the treatment options for different stages of HCC, including liver transplant, local therapy, and systemic treatments. Dr. Tanios S. Bekaii-saab provides insights on utilizing Atezolizumab with Bevacizumab, dual checkpoint inhibitors, and TKIs in advanced or metastatic HCC. Clinical pearls on managing side effects and patient selection criteria are also discussed. Don't miss this comprehensive overview of HCC treatment strategies in both community and academic settings. Stay informed and educated on the latest developments in oncology with the Oncology Brothers podcast series. Subscribe now for more insightful discussions on various cancer types and treatment approaches. #Oncology #HepatocellularCarcinoma #CancerTreatment #PodcastEpisode
Dr. Andy Livingston is a clinician and researcher in Sarcoma Medical Oncology and holds a joint appointment in Pediatric Oncology, and is Co-director of the MD Anderson Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) oncology program. His clinical and translational research is focused on developing new treatment strategies for patients with osteosarcoma and other bone sarcomas. Dr. Livingston joins us on OsteoBites to discuss the background and scientific rationale for combining immunotherapy with cabozantinib in teens and young adults with osteosarcoma and provide information about the ongoing TACOS study: Atezolizumab and Cabozantinib for the Treatment of Adolescents and Young Adults With Recurrent or Metastatic Osteosarcoma.Dr. Livingston is a clinician and researcher in Sarcoma Medical Oncology and holds a joint appointment in Pediatric Oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. After completing medical school at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, he went on to residency training at Duke University where he completed a combined residency in internal medicine and pediatrics. Dr. Livingston completed his fellowship training at MD Anderson where he served as the Chief Fellow for Hematology/Oncology Fellowship Program. Dr. Livingston has a particular interest in the care of teens and young adults with cancer and is Co-director of the MD Anderson Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) oncology program. His clinical and translational research is focused on developing new treatment strategies for patients with osteosarcoma and other bone sarcomas. He received the MIB OutSmarting Osteosarcoma award in 2020 for his work on the immune landscape of osteosarcoma and serves as a member of the MIB Scientific Advisory Board.
Neeraj Agarwal describes the results of this positive randomised Phase 3 trial.
Interview with Jennifer A. Pietenpol, PhD, Brian D. Lehmann, PhD, and Vandana G. Abramson, MD, authors of Atezolizumab in Combination With Carboplatin and Survival Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: The TBCRC 043 Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. Hosted by Mary L. (Nora) Disis, MD. Related Content: Atezolizumab in Combination With Carboplatin and Survival Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
Interview with Jennifer A. Pietenpol, PhD, Brian D. Lehmann, PhD, and Vandana G. Abramson, MD, authors of Atezolizumab in Combination With Carboplatin and Survival Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: The TBCRC 043 Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. Hosted by Mary L. (Nora) Disis, MD. Related Content: Atezolizumab in Combination With Carboplatin and Survival Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
In this episode, Brian Slomovitz, MD, MS, FACOG, and Keiichi Fujiwara, MD, PhD, share their thoughts and opinions on seminal data presented at the 2023 IGCS annual meeting for endometrial, ovarian, and cervical cancers, including:Phase III NRG GY018 trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without pembrolizumab followed by pembrolizumab or placebo maintenance for 2 years in patients with measurable stage III/IVA, stage IVB, or recurrent endometrial cancer. Phase III ENGOT-EN6/GOG-3031/RUBY trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without dostarlimab followed by dostarlimab or placebo maintenance for 3 years in patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. Results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III AtTEnd trial of atezolizumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.Randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III DUO-E study of carboplatin and paclitaxel vs durvalumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel followed by durvalumab maintenance with or without olaparib as frontline treatment of newly diagnosed, advanced, endometrial cancer.An international, randomized, multicenter phase III trial evaluating short-course chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation vs chemoradiation alone in patients with newly diagnosed stage IB1N+, IB2, II, IIIB, IVA squamous, adeno, adenosquamous cervical cancer (INTERLACE).Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III KEYNOTE-A18 trial of pembrolizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy vs placebo plus chemoradiation in patients with high-risk locally advanced cervical cancer.Phase III ICON8B study comparing carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab every 3 weeks vs dose-dense weekly paclitaxel plus bevacizumab every 3 weeks in newly diagnosed high-risk epithelial ovarian cancer, either stage III (with residual disease or requiring new adjuvant chemotherapy) or stage IV.Presenters:Brian Slomovitz, MD, MS, FACOGDirectorGynecologic OncologyMount Sinai Medical CenterProfessorObsterics and GynecologyFlorida International UniversityMember, Board of DirectorsGOG FoundationUterine Cancer LeadGOG PartnersMiami, Florida Keiichi Fujiwara, MD, PhDProfessor of Gynecologic OncologySaitama Medical University International Medical CenterHidaka, JapanProfessor of OBGYNInternational University of Health and WelfareNarita, JapanThis educational activity is supported by educational grants from AstraZeneca, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, Novocure, and Seagen. Link to full program, including a downloadable highlights slideset and ClinicalThought commentaries:https://bit.ly/424E3Uq
More great highlights from the latest edition of European Urology!! Here on the European Urology Podcast we bring you selected highlights each month with some great guests. As ever we highlight two key papers (details below) from this month's journal, including interviews with key authors and expert commentators. We also look at other highlights in this month's journal with guest contributor Dr Bernard Jansen (Amsterdam). Declan Murphy hosting on his own this week as co-Host Joyce Baard couldn't make it. But Joyce will be back for our first podcast in 2024!!Even better on our YouTube channelPodcast Priority Papers1. Phase 2 Trial of Atezolizumab in Bacillus Calmette-Guérin–unresponsive High-risk Non–muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: SWOG S1605 Featured author - Dr Peter Black (University of British Columbia, Vancouver)Discussant - Dr Carmen Mir (La Ribera University Hospital, Valencia)2. Clinical and Genomic Differences Between Advanced Molecular Imaging-detected and Conventional Imaging-detected Metachronous Oligometastatic Castration-sensitive Prostate Cancer Featured author - Dr Philip Sutera (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore)Discussant - Dr Giorgio Ganglia (San Raffaele University, Milano)Full index to European Urology December 2023
In this episode, Isabelle Ray-Coquard, MD, PhD, and Ana Oaknin, MD, PhD, provide expert insights on new clinical trial data presented at the 2023 ESMO annual congress for endometrial, ovarian, and cervical cancers, including:Results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III AtTEnd trial of atezolizumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancerRandomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III DUO-E study of durvalumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel followed by durvalumab maintenance with or without olaparib as frontline treatment of newly diagnosed, advanced, endometrial cancerFirst results from a phase II biomarker-directed platform study with assigned treatments for patients with measurable persistent or recurrent platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer based on tumor-specific molecular alterations (ENGOT-GYN/GOG-3051/BOUQUET)Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III KEYNOTE-A18 trial of pembrolizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with high-risk locally advanced cervical cancerAn international, randomized, multicenter phase III trial evaluating short-course chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation vs chemoradiation alone in patients with newly diagnosed stage IB1N+, IB2, II, IIIB, IVA squamous, adeno, adenosquamous cervical cancer (INTERLACE)Primary results from the global, randomized phase III BEATcc trial of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy + bevacizumab as frontline treatment in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancerInterim analysis results from the global, randomized, open-label phase III innovaTV 301 study of tisotumab vedotin vs investigator's choice of chemotherapy in second-line or third-line recurrent/metastatic cervical cancerPresenters:Ana Oaknin, MD, PhDHead of Gynaecologic Cancer ProgrammeDepartment of Medical OncologyVall d' Hebron University HospitalVall d'Hebron Institute of OncologyBarcelona, SpainIsabelle Ray-Coquard, MD, PhDPresident of the Gineco GroupCentre Leon BérardLaboratories RESHAPE Université Claude Bernard Lyon EstLyon, FranceThis educational activity is supported by educational grants from AstraZeneca, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, Novocure, and Seagen. Link to full program, including a downloadable highlights slideset and ClinicalThought commentaries:https://bit.ly/424E3Uq
ASCO: You're listening to a podcast from Cancer.Net. This cancer information website is produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, known as ASCO, the voice of the world's oncology professionals. 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. Guests' statements on this 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. Cancer research discussed in this podcast is ongoing, so data described here may change as research progresses. In this podcast, Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Lung Cancer, Dr. Charu Aggarwal, and Cancer.Net Specialty Editor for Thymoma, Dr. Ryan Gentzler, discuss what people with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer should know about their treatment options before and after surgery, called neoadjuvant therapy and adjuvant therapy, respectively. Dr. Aggarwal is the Leslye Heisler Associate Professor of Medicine in the Hematology-Oncology Division at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine. Dr. Gentzler is a thoracic medical oncologist and Associate Professor of Medicine in the Division of Hematology/Oncology at the University of Virginia (UVA) Comprehensive Cancer Center. View disclosures for Dr. Aggarwal and Dr. Gentzler at Cancer.Net. To begin, Dr. Gentzler will discuss what people with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer should know about neoadjuvant treatment options before lung surgery. Welcome, Dr. Gentzler. Dr. Gentzler: Hi, this is Ryan Gentzler from the University of Virginia. We're here to discuss the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. So first, I thought I'd address some of the data and definition of what is neoadjuvant treatment. So when we think about treating lung cancer that is not metastatic, that is earlier stage disease, there typically involves multimodality treatment. Sometimes these lesions or tumors can be very small and can be stage I and treated with surgery alone or perhaps radiation alone and no further treatment is needed. But the vast majority of lung cancers that are considered early stage are in fact either larger tumors, involve lymph nodes, and typically fall into the category of stage II or III lung cancers. And these are cancers that often require multiple treatments beyond the local surgery approach alone. When we think about how we deliver that treatment, it can either be given before surgery or after a surgery. If we give treatment before a surgery, we call that neoadjuvant. If it is given after the surgery, we call that adjuvant. And most of the data that we have today in lung cancer uses one or the other of these approaches, and we don't typically give treatments both before and after, at least in terms of the chemotherapy part of that treatment. Historically, most of the data exists in the adjuvant treatment of lung cancer going back several decades that showed that the benefit of chemotherapy after a surgery, particularly for those with stage II and stage III lung cancer, derived a clear benefit of survival by giving chemotherapy after surgery. More recently, with the advent of immune therapy, which we have used in patients with stage IV lung cancer as well as those with stage III lung cancer who cannot undergo surgery, those immunotherapy drugs have been shown to improve overall survival and improve clinical outcomes for a wide range of patients with more advanced disease. And so in the last 4 or 5 years, we have really looked at new trials that have added immunotherapy in what we call perioperative space, either before surgery or after surgery for those that have surgically resectable disease. I'm going to focus on the neoadjuvant approaches that we have seen today, and this largely all started with data from Patrick Forde out of Johns Hopkins and Jamie Chaft from Memorial Sloan Kettering looking at single agent treatment with nivolumab immunotherapy. This was no chemotherapy given for 3 treatments prior to or three cycles prior to surgery. And that trial demonstrated a high degree of patients with tumor reduction and more importantly, we saw that the pathologic response, meaning how much tumor was left under the microscope at the time of surgery, was higher than what anyone anticipated with just immunotherapy alone. That launched a whole series of larger randomized prospective trials evaluating largely the combination of chemotherapy and immune therapy prior to surgery. Now, before we get into some of the results of these trials, I really wanted to emphasize some of the theoretical advantages to neoadjuvant approach. Now, the first potential advantage of giving neoadjuvant treatment is that we know when you start with immunotherapy and chemotherapy regimens and that's the first type of treatment, everyone is guaranteed to get that treatment. And we know that the completion rate prior to surgery is higher than it is after surgery. These patients can get all of the prescribed treatment and will be more likely to get it than if they get it after surgery. So this is one advantage. The other is potentially starting these medications which go throughout the body and treat the cancer, wherever it may be, earlier. We know that one of the risks of all cancers, but lung cancer in particular, is that even with good surgery and removing all of that cancer, there is a chance that there are cancer cells left behind, which leads to risk of recurrence in the years to come after surgery. Naturally, if we start the treatment that can eliminate those cancer cells, wherever they may be, and do that first, perhaps we catch this earlier with fewer cells that have escaped and have a more likely chance of success of eliminating the cancer and resulting in a cure. The third, I think, is one that we still have yet to learn more about, but if we give immunotherapy in particular, these are medications that activate the immune system, particularly the type of immune system cell called a T cell. If that T cell is able to recognize tumor cells, it is more likely to be able to continue to attack those tumor cells. And if we give that treatment prior to removal of the tumor, perhaps that activates the immune system in a more robust way that it can go after these cancer cells and eliminate those that are left behind after the surgery. If you give the immunotherapy after a surgery and the bulk of the tumor, most of the cancer cells have been removed, it may be harder to find those antigens or foreign proteins that are expressed in cancer cells. So the immune system may not be as robustly able to go after cancer if you give it solely after a surgery. Another potential advantage of neoadjuvant approaches is that it really helps us learn as oncologists how well a cancer is responding to a treatment. If we give these treatments for 4 cycles after a surgery, we don't know whether it's eliminating those residual cancer cells or whether it is totally ineffective. If we give it before a surgery and we see that there is tumor reduction or that there is a complete elimination of the cancer, we know that that treatment was an effective treatment at attacking the cancer cells and eliminating them. We know that the cancer was sensitive to that treatment. We can then better prognosticate how well the patients are going to do after surgery. We know based on the latest data that if you achieve what we call a pathologic complete response with chemotherapy and immunotherapy prior to surgery, meaning there are no cancer cells left when we look at that surgical specimen under the microscope, we know that those patients have a much better likelihood of surviving for longer periods of time than those who have active cancer at the time of surgery after prior treatment. And so neoadjuvant approaches allow us in a 2-month time frame to get a great sense of how well our treatments are working and able to prognosticate outcomes based on how well those cancer cells have been eliminated at the time of surgery. One large phase 3 trial called the CheckMate 816 trial was a randomized phase 3 trial and that enrolled patients with stage IB through IIIA non-small cell lung cancer using the old staging system of the 7th edition. These would all now be categorized as stage II and stage III non-small cell lung cancer patients. And it randomized these patients to 3 cycles of chemotherapy plus nivolumab, which is an immunotherapy drug, and compared that to patients treated with chemotherapy alone for 3 cycles. After these 3 cycles of chemotherapy, which is about a 9-week time frame, patients had surgical resection of their tumors. And then after surgery, patients received no further treatment, although treating physicians were allowed to give additional treatments like chemotherapy or radiation if they thought it would be beneficial for these patients, although it was not mandated by the study. One of the first results we saw from this study was that there was a much higher rate of pathologic complete response of 24% of patients achieving a path CR [pathologic complete response] with the nivolumab plus chemotherapy combination compared to only 2.2% with chemotherapy alone. This was highly statistically significant and demonstrated a clear benefit for those receiving the immunotherapy. The other main endpoint of this study was event-free survival, meaning that the time that the patients were alive and without any significant event like cancer progression or death after the enrollment of the trial. And in this analysis, the median event-free survival was significantly longer in those who have received the immunotherapy plus chemotherapy combination prior to surgery. One of the potential concerns about neoadjuvant treatment is that it may render patients unfit for surgery who otherwise could have had their cancer removed. When we look at the outcomes from this CheckMate 816 trial, it actually did not appear to be the case to a large degree. In fact, those that got the nivolumab plus chemotherapy combination were more likely to proceed on with surgery, and the majority did; 83% received the planned surgery. There were patients who were unable to receive surgery due to adverse events of their treatment, but that was only 1% of patients enrolled in the trial. Other reasons for canceling the surgery included disease progression, meaning the cancer got worse to the point where they could not undergo surgery, or other reasons, such as the patient declined surgery, or it was found to be unresectable at the time the surgeon wanted to remove the cancer, or poor lung function. One of the insights we got from the surgical data from this trial were that those who received the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy had slightly higher rates of smaller surgeries like a lobectomy compared to a pneumonectomy for those who had received [chemotherapy alone.] There were also fewer numbers of patients who required a conversion from a minimally invasive surgical procedure to an open surgical procedure if they were getting the immunotherapy combination. A higher number of patients also were able to have complete resection of their tumor if they received the immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination. The length of hospitalization was slightly lower, and the rates of pain were slightly lower in those who received the combination as well. These comparisons were not statistically significantly different, but numerically, there seems to be at least a trend toward benefit in surgical outcomes in this neoadjuvant chemotherapy/immunotherapy approach. And I think this makes sense. We know that this combination is more able to eliminate a cancer and make it a pathologic complete response when we look at it under the microscope, and therefore, if there is shrinking the tumor to a higher degree, naturally, it seems there would be more likely of completely removing the tumor, using a smaller incision to remove that tumor, shortening the length of stay in the hospital and recovery time and pain control. All makes sense if we know that the treatment itself is able to reduce that size of the tumor. There are many other phase 3 trials ongoing studying the impact of immunotherapy plus chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting. The AEGEAN trial has recently reported data at the AACR meeting this year in 2023 with similar results that we saw with the CheckMate 816 trial. There are 3 other phase 3 trials that are ongoing, one of which we will see later this summer called the KEYNOTE-671 trial evaluating pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting and then 2 other trials evaluating nivolumab, the CheckMate 77T trial, or atezolizumab in the IMpower030 trial. Each of these more recent trials typically have used 4 cycles of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy prior to surgery and also continued the immunotherapy after surgery for a period of time, most commonly approximately 1 year. From the data we have seen so far, it remains uncertain whether additional immunotherapy beyond the 3 or 4 cycles given in the neoadjuvant setting provides any additional benefit. We still do not understand what to do with patients who did not achieve a pathologic response whether further treatment would be of any additional benefit. We do not know if there will be further benefit even in those that achieved a pathologic complete response whether a slightly longer duration of immunotherapy would further improve outcomes in that group. We suspect with longer-term follow-up over the years of all of these phase 3 trials that some of these questions will be answered. So what are some key questions that patients should ask when considering a neoadjuvant chemotherapy/immunotherapy approach? I think the first question that's key is what is my tumor stage? We know that the trials that enrolled patients with a neoadjuvant approach enrolled patients using our current staging system would be a stage II or stage III lung cancer. And this is where it gets really tricky is, what subdivision of stage III is it? We tend to think of stage IIIA's as being one that it would be surgically resectable, with a smaller number of stage IIIBs, and then stage IIIC, one that we would not typically recommend surgery for. I think the next question within the tumor stage is, is this based on imaging or based on the biopsies? And we know that biopsies are really the best way to stage locally advanced cancers, particularly getting samples of lymph nodes in the mediastinum. Sometimes what looks like a stage I or stage II on imaging is, in fact, a stage III based on biopsies that are done at the time of surgery. It's ideal to know that information prior to making the decision about surgery so that that surgery is not futile. On the opposite side, sometimes there is imaging suggestive of lymph nodes that are enlarged in the mediastinum, and it's presumed that this is a more advanced stage III and is not surgically resectable. However, if you go and biopsy those lymph nodes, sometimes they are benign. Sometimes they are inflammation related to infection or cancer but do not actually contain cancer cells. And so we typically advise that getting biopsies of lymph nodes in the mediastinum, at least any that are particularly suspicious, is highly recommended for these locally advanced cancers. I think the next question that's key to ask is, what are my tumor biomarkers? And there are multiple biomarkers that we look at in non-small cell lung cancer that help us decide what is the best treatment. What is the best approach? What is the best medicine to treat the cancer? We know that one of these biomarkers that is a key is a mutation. So multiple different mutations can occur in lung cancers, particularly those that are adenocarcinoma subtypes. And these mutations may be less likely to benefit from immunotherapy and we may want to take a different approach with surgery, chemotherapy, and potentially targeted therapies that specifically target that mutation that exists in the tumor. The other key biomarker here is PD-L1. We know that tumors with a higher level of PD-L1 are more likely to respond and benefit from immunotherapy. As of right now, that PD-L1 status plays a more important role in the adjuvant setting. All of the chemotherapy plus immunotherapy combinations in the neoadjuvant setting seem to benefit the group as a whole regardless of that PD-L1 status. But still, an important biomarker that we should have prior to making all final decisions on treatment. I think another question that should be asked any time you have an earlier stage cancer is, is my tumor surgically resectable? And there can be many reasons why cancers are not resectable, perhaps due to the anatomy of where the tumor is located, if it invades into the mediastinum, for example, or is near large blood vessels, or perhaps because there are too many lymph nodes and this is a more advanced stage. And so I think the main reasons for not being surgically resectable would be the tumor is too large, if the stage is too high, or is it more of a function of fitness for surgery and that can be because of other underlying lung disease. Perhaps removing part or all of a lung would not be safe due to impaired lung function to begin with. And I think it's important to understand that sometimes stage III lung cancers are resectable and sometimes they are not, and understanding the reason why they are not, I think, is important. And then I think lastly and ultimately when we're talking about a neoadjuvant approach, you want to ask your treating oncologist, "Would it be better to give my treatment before surgery or after surgery?" And really discuss the pros and cons with the physician and have them incorporate all of the factors that go into these treatment decisions. How well you'll tolerate chemotherapy, other medical conditions that may play a role in the likeliness of getting through those treatments safely, perhaps underlying diseases that may increase the risk of immune-related side effects with immunotherapy. You really want to factor in all of these things and discuss the pros and cons of a systemic treatment first versus surgery first before making final decisions on how to treat locally advanced lung cancer. All right. Thank you. ASCO: Thank you, Dr. Gentzler. Next, Dr. Aggarwal will discuss what people with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer should know about their adjuvant treatment options for after lung surgery. Dr. Aggarwal: This is Dr. Charu Aggarwal. I'm the Leslye Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence at University of Pennsylvania's Abramson Cancer Center. And today I will talk to you about the use of adjuvant immunotherapy in the setting of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. We'll start by discussing what adjuvant therapy is, what types of options we have for adjuvant therapy, what kind of testing is important, and what options there may be in terms of adjuvant immunotherapy. So let's get started. Early-stage lung cancer comprises of stages between stage I to stage III. These stages vary by the size of the tumor as well as the level of lymph node involvement. In the setting of very early-stage lung cancer, such as stage I and stage II, as well as some select stage III lung cancers, we recommend surgical resection. And in these patients, the use of additional treatment is recommended based upon the pathological determination of the tumor size as well as the lymph node status. If usually lymph nodes are involved, we recommend adjuvant chemotherapy, and also, many experts will deliver adjuvant chemotherapy for tumors that may be larger than 4 centimeters even in the absence of lymph node involvement. The data for adjuvant chemotherapy comes from several large clinical trials that were conducted about a couple of decades ago now that demonstrated not only an improvement in preventing recurrence of the cancer but also a modest improvement in overall survival, really laying the ground for improvement and therefore becoming the gold standard. Four cycles of chemotherapy are usually administered about 6 to 12 weeks following surgical resection, and this is really the basis of our treatment in the early-stage setting. In today's time and age, we now have several other options. We have treatment options that include molecular therapy, which is biomarker driven, as well as the use of immunotherapy. So it's actually very important for us in the adjuvant setting--or in the post-surgical setting--to test for mutations such as EGFR. It's also important for us to test PD-L1 status. So let's dive into why each of these may be important. Patients with EGFR mutations, especially those with sensitizing mutations in EGFR exon 19 or 21, now have the opportunity to receive a targeted therapy in the form of osimertinib, which is an oral drug, very targeted and specific for the EGFR mutation that has been studied in a clinical trial setting in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. In patients with stage IB to IIIA non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR mutation, use of osimertinib was associated with a significant improvement in our ability to delay the recurrence of cancer. Based on this significant improvement, FDA approved therapy with osimertinib, and it is currently available and ready to use. We usually recommend it for 3 years, so daily therapy for 3 years, and patients are monitored with routine CAT scans and lab work. For patients who don't have an EGFR mutation, we do recommend broad panel testing. Of course, this is not the standard, but I think it's important for us to identify patients who may not benefit from immunotherapy. Patients that have an ALK mutation, for example, or ROS1 translocation, may not have the best chances of responding to adjuvant immunotherapy, and therefore, I think testing should be performed to make sure that we are having a shared decision-making conversation with our patients about the use of the correct adjuvant options. In terms of adjuvant immunotherapy, we now have 2 approved agents. One of them is atezolizumab, and the other one that was just recently approved is pembrolizumab. Atezolizumab was approved on the basis of a large clinical trial called the IMpower010 study, which randomized 1,280 patients with stage IB to IIIA non-small cell lung cancer to either 1 year of atezolizumab or best supportive care. Of note, all of these patients had to have had adjuvant chemotherapy that included a cisplatin platinum chemotherapy. In the first analysis, we found that the disease-free survival or the probability of the patients remaining cancer-free was significantly improved in those patients that had a tumor expression of PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% and received atezolizumab compared to patients who did not receive atezolizumab. On the basis of this positive primary endpoint, the U.S. FDA approved the use of adjuvant atezolizumab for patients with stage II to IIIA resected non-small cell lung cancer after surgical resection and adjuvant chemotherapy. Recently, we heard that this does lead to small but significant improvement in overall survival. There is a trend towards improvement in overall survival. However, the data are quite immature at this point, and we do need longer follow-up to be able to follow this trend. The greatest magnitude of overall survival benefit was found in patients who had the PD-L1 greater than or equal to 50%. So it's important to know what the PD-L1 level of a patient may be when I'm thinking about adjuvant immunotherapy because adjuvant immunotherapy is most likely to benefit those that don't have an actionable mutation, such as EGFR, and those that have the highest PD-L1 staining, at least in the IMpower trial. Secondly, the PEARLS clinical trial is a clinical trial that evaluated the use of pembrolizumab, which is another immunotherapy agent, again, in the adjuvant setting. For this clinical trial as well, there was a small but significant improvement in disease-free survival, again preventing the probability of recurrence in all patients that received pembrolizumab compared to the best supportive care. And basically, this led to also an approval by the FDA for the use of pembrolizumab. Again, now we have 2 options. Both of these are administered for 1 year. What should patients know about therapy? These drugs are usually administered once every 3 weeks. They are given intravenously. Sometimes, we can change the treatment schedule to be either once every 4 weeks in the case of atezolizumab or every 6 weeks in the case of pembrolizumab. These may be associated with some side effects. Immunotherapy side effects that are most common are fatigue, chills, myalgias, or basically a feeling of pains in the body or joints. But also, some serious life-threatening reactions can occur such as activation of the immune system to such an extent that the immune system may start to attack the body's organs. So this may lead to swelling or inflammation in the organs that may manifest itself as colitis if the gut gets inflamed, or pneumonitis if the lungs were to get inflamed, or pancreatitis if the pancreas were to get inflamed. Any organ in the body can really get inflamed. We've certainly seen cases of thyroiditis. We've seen cases of polyarthritis. We've seen cases where the brain may also get inflamed or the pituitary may get inflamed. So there are definitely some life-threatening reactions or side effects that can occur with the use of immunotherapy that should be closely monitored. The benefit of having used immunotherapy in the metastatic setting is that now we have a lot of experience managing these side effects. And if recognized early, these side effects can be managed appropriately with the use of steroids as well as holding therapy. Many of the times, we can even reinstitute immunotherapy without significant harm to the patients. However, I think immunotherapy benefits as well as side effects should be discussed in detail with the provider, especially in the adjuvant setting. Patients may ask if neoadjuvant immunotherapy along with chemotherapy is a better approach compared to adjuvant immunotherapy. At this time, we don't have a clinical trial that is comparing neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy followed by surgery to an approach that is surgery followed by adjuvant immunotherapy. In general, I would say that if the decision by a multidisciplinary team has been made to proceed with surgery, careful discussion should be had about adjuvant chemotherapy as well as the use of adjuvant immunotherapy, and molecular testing should be performed. All patients with early-stage disease should have a multidisciplinary tumor board discussion, which includes engagement with surgeons, radiation oncologists, pulmonologists, pathologists, and medical oncologists so that they can ensure that many experts have had the chance to weigh into their case as well as come to the right conclusion on whether or not to use new adjuvant chemoimmunotherapy or just to proceed with surgical resection. ASCO: Thank you, Dr. Aggarwal. You can learn more about neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment options for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer at www.cancer.net/lung. Cancer.Net Podcasts feature trusted, timely, and compassionate information for people with cancer, survivors, and their families and loved ones. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts for expert information and tips on coping with cancer, recaps of the latest research advances, and thoughtful discussions on cancer care. And check out other ASCO Podcasts to hear the latest interviews and insights from thought leaders, innovators, experts, and pioneers in oncology. Cancer.Net is supported by Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation, which funds lifesaving research for every type of cancer, helping people with cancer everywhere. To help fund Cancer.Net and programs like it, donate at CONQUER.ORG/Donate.
Drs Sapna Patel and Yana Najjar analyze the data and share their approach to frontline therapy. Relevant disclosures can be found with the episode show notes on Medscape (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/989035). The topics and discussions are planned, produced, and reviewed independently of advertisers. This podcast is intended only for US healthcare professionals. Resources Combination Dabrafenib and Trametinib Versus Combination Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Patients With Advanced BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: The DREAMseq Trial-ECOG-ACRIN EA6134 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36166727/ Sequencing of Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab and Encorafenib Plus Binimetinib for Untreated BRAF-Mutated Metastatic Melanoma (SECOMBIT): A Randomized, Three-Arm, Open-Label Phase II Trial https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36049147/ Long-Term Outcomes of Patients With Active Melanoma Brain Metastases Treated With Combination Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab (CheckMate 204): Final Results of an Open-Label, Multicentre, Phase 2 Study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34774225/ Health-related Quality of Life With Nivolumab Plus Relatlimab Versus Nivolumab Monotherapy in Patients With Previously Untreated Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma: RELATIVITY-047 Trial https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37167764/ Overall Survival With Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28889792/ Evaluation of Two Dosing Regimens for Nivolumab in Combination With Ipilimumab in Patients With Advanced Melanoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 511 Trial https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30811280/ Adjuvant Therapy of Nivolumab Combined With Ipilimumab Versus Nivolumab Alone in Patients With Resected Stage IIIB-D or Stage IV Melanoma (CheckMate 915) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36162037/ Single-Agent PD-1 Blockade Is "Treatment of Choice" for Desmoplastic Melanoma https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37071762/ Single-agent Pembrolizumab May Benefit Patients With Rare Type of Skin Cancer https://www.aacr.org/about-the-aacr/newsroom/news-releases/single-agent-pembrolizumab-may-benefit-patients-with-rare-type-of-skin-cancer/ Atezolizumab, Vemurafenib, and Cobimetinib as First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Advanced BRAFV600 Mutation-Positive Melanoma (Imspire150): Primary Analysis of the Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 3 Trial https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32534646/ Overall Survival Benefit With Tebentafusp in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551229/ Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Alone or in Combination With Ipilimumab in Patients With Mucosal Melanoma: A Pooled Analysis https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28056206/ Single-Agent Anti-PD-1 or Combined With Ipilimumab in Patients With Mucosal Melanoma: An International, Retrospective, Cohort Study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35716907/ CheckMate 067: Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Mucosal Melanoma. https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.10019 A Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Encorafenib + Binimetinib + Nivolumab Vs Ipilimumab + Nivolumab In BRAFV600-Mutant Melanoma Brain Metastases https://www.swog.org/clinical-trials/s2000
Toni Choueiri describes the results of this renal cancer trial exploring rechallange with immune therapy
Featuring perspectives from Drs Eric Lee, Neil Morganstein and Swati Vishwanathan, including the following topics: • Gastroesophageal Cancers — Zev Wainberg, MD, MSc o Introduction (0:00) o Systemic therapy considerations for HER2-negative localized gastroesophageal cancers (4:33) o First-line systemic therapy for metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer (10:05) o Zolbetuximab/chemotherapy as first-line treatment for HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancers (16:19) o Repeat tissue biopsy versus circulating tumor DNA testing for HER2-positive GI cancers after disease progression on first-line therapy (20:59) o Trastuzumab deruxtecan as second-line therapy for HER2-positive gastric cancer; management of CNS disease (25:05) • Hepatobiliary Cancers — Lipika Goyal, MD, MPhil o Tissue biopsy for suspected hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (29:59) o Atezolizumab/bevacizumab versus durvalumab/tremelimumab as first-line therapy for HCC; disease etiology and response to treatment (33:34) o Liver-directed therapy in the era of effective novel systemic regimens (40:50) o First-line, single-agent immunotherapy for HCC (44:33) o Sequencing tyrosine kinase inhibitors for patients with HCC with and without contraindications to immunotherapy (47:46) o Survival benefit with durvalumab/gemcitabine/cisplatin for advanced biliary tract cancers (BTCs) in the TOPAZ-1 trial — A new standard? (51:25) o Spectrum of targetable genetic alterations in BTCs; novel FGFR2 inhibitors for cholangiocarcinoma (54:28) CME information and select publications
FDA Drug Information Soundcast in Clinical Oncology (D.I.S.C.O.)
Listen to a soundcast of the December 9 and 12, 2022, FDA approvals of Tecentriq (atezolizumab) for unresectable or metastatic alveolar soft part sarcoma, and Krazati (adagrasib) for KRAS G12C-mutated locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer”
Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent vaccine under investigation; Trial evaluating HIV prevention vaccine discontinued; Early detection sepsis test cleared; Trial results for RSV-associated disease vaccine; Combo Tx for HCC recurrence shows promise
In this podcast episode from a live CCO Cancer Conversations webinar, Mark Pegram, MD, and Sara Tolaney, MD, MPH, provide expert perspectives on optimal treatment strategies for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), with topics including:Current data and strategies for using PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in early-stage TNBC Clinical implications of PD-L1 status on therapeutic planning for patients with metastatic TNBC Current data and treatment strategies and the future of antibody–drug conjugates in the management of relapsed/refractory advanced TNBC Treatment implications of the presence of BRCA1/2 mutations and homologous recombination deficiency genes in advanced TNBCRole of PARP inhibitors in the treatment of TNBCPresenters: Mark Pegram, MDProfessor Medical OncologyStanford UniversityPalo Alto, CaliforniaSara Tolaney, MD, MPHAssociate Professor of MedicineDivision of Breast OncologyHarvard Medical SchoolChief, Division of Breast OncologyBreast Oncology ProgramDana-Farber Cancer InstituteBoston, MassachusettsContent based on an online CME/CE/CPE program supported by educational grants from Gilead Sciences, Inc.Link to full program:http://bit.ly/3iQzDz5
A new research paper was published in Oncotarget's Volume 13 on December 6, 2022, entitled, “Plasma growth hormone is a potential biomarker of response to atezolizumab and bevacizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients.” Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has limited systemic therapy options when discovered at an advanced stage. Thus, there is a need for accessible and minimally invasive biomarkers of response to guide the selection of patients for treatment. In this new study, researchers Yehia I. Mohamed, Dan G. Duda, Muhammad O. Awiwi, Sunyoung S. Lee, Lina Altameemi, Lianchun Xiao, Jeffrey S. Morris, Robert A. Wolff, Khaled M. Elsayes, Rikita I. Hatia, Aliya Qayyum, Shadi M. Chamseddine, Asif Rashid, James C. Yao, Armeen Mahvash, Manal M. Hassan, Hesham M. Amin, and Ahmed Omar Kaseb from MD Anderson Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Michigan State University, University of Pennsylvania, and Perelman School of Medicine investigated the biomarker value of plasma growth hormone (GH) level as a potential biomarker to predict outcome in unresectable HCC patients treated with current standard therapy, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo/Bev). “The present study was designed to investigate the association between GH levels and overall survivals (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) in HCC patients treated with current standard, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.” The study included unresectable HCC patients scheduled to receive Atezo/Bev. Patients were followed to determine progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Plasma GH levels were measured by ELISA and used to stratify the HCC patients into GH-high and GH-low groups (the cutoff normal GH levels in women and men are ≤3.7 μg/L and ≤0.9 μg/L, respectively). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate median OS and PFS and Log rank test was used to compare survival outcomes between GH-high and -low groups. Thirty-seven patients were included in this analysis, of whom 31 were males and 6 females, with a median age of 67 years (range: 37–80). At the time of the analysis, the one-year survival rate was 70% (95% CI: 0.51, 0.96) among GH low patients and 33% (95% CI: 0.16, 0.67) among GH high patients. OS was significantly superior in GH-low compared to GH-high patients (median OS: 18.9 vs. 9.3 months; p = 0.014). PFS showed a non-significant trend in favor of GH-low patients compared to the GH-high group (median PFS: 6.6 vs. 2.9 months; p = 0.053). “Plasma GH is a biomarker candidate for predicting treatment outcomes in advanced HCC patients treated with Atezo/Bev. This finding should be further validated in larger randomized clinical trials in advanced HCC patients.” DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28322 Correspondence to: Ahmed Omar Kaseb - akaseb@mdanderson.org Keywords: growth hormone, hepatocellular carcinoma, immunotherapy, atezolizumab, bevacizumab About Oncotarget: Oncotarget (a primarily oncology-focused, peer-reviewed, open access journal) aims to maximize research impact through insightful peer-review; eliminate borders between specialties by linking different fields of oncology, cancer research and biomedical sciences; and foster application of basic and clinical science. To learn more about Oncotarget, visit Oncotarget.com and connect with us on social media: Twitter – https://twitter.com/Oncotarget Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/Oncotarget YouTube – www.youtube.com/c/OncotargetYouTube Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/oncotargetjrnl/ LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/company/oncotarget/ Pinterest – https://www.pinterest.com/oncotarget/ LabTube – https://www.labtube.tv/channel/MTY5OA SoundCloud – https://soundcloud.com/oncotarget For media inquiries, please contact: media@impactjournals.com.
Listen to a blog summary of a trending research paper published in Volume 13, entitled, “Plasma growth hormone is a potential biomarker of response to atezolizumab and bevacizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients.” __________________________________________________ Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a highly aggressive cancer of the liver with a very poor prognosis; many patients pass away within a year of diagnosis. Currently, there is no effective screening method for HCC and thus, 80% of patients are diagnosed at advanced stages. This makes treatment difficult and often unsuccessful. As a result, new treatments for HCC are constantly being explored. Atezolizumab and bevacizumab are two standard therapies used to treat unresectable, advanced HCC. However, researchers Yehia I. Mohamed, Dan G. Duda, Muhammad O. Awiwi, Sunyoung S. Lee, Lina Altameemi, Lianchun Xiao, Jeffrey S. Morris, Robert A. Wolff, Khaled M. Elsayes, Rikita I. Hatia, Aliya Qayyum, Shadi M. Chamseddine, Asif Rashid, James C. Yao, Armeen Mahvash, Manal M. Hassan, Hesham M. Amin, and Ahmed Omar Kaseb from MD Anderson Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Michigan State University, and University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine noticed a significant gap in research on biomarkers of response in advanced HCC patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. The team conducted a new study aimed at beginning to close this gap. On December 6, 2022, their research paper was published in Oncotarget's Volume 13, entitled, “Plasma growth hormone is a potential biomarker of response to atezolizumab and bevacizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients.” “This study investigated the biomarker value of plasma growth hormone (GH) level as a potential biomarker to predict outcome in unresectable HCC patients treated with current standard therapy, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo/Bev).” Full blog - https://www.oncotarget.org/2022/12/08/plasma-growth-hormone-in-hcc-a-biomarker-of-response-to-atezo-bev/ DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28322 Correspondence to - Ahmed Omar Kaseb - akaseb@mdanderson.org Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2_6kjhwOfM Sign up for free Altmetric alerts about this article - https://oncotarget.altmetric.com/details/email_updates?id=10.18632%2Foncotarget.28322 Keywords - growth hormone, hepatocellular carcinoma, immunotherapy, atezolizumab, bevacizumab About Oncotarget Oncotarget is a primarily oncology-focused, peer-reviewed, open access journal. Papers are published continuously within yearly volumes in their final and complete form, and then quickly released to Pubmed. On September 15, 2022, Oncotarget was accepted again for indexing by MEDLINE. Oncotarget is now indexed by Medline/PubMed and PMC/PubMed. To learn more about Oncotarget, please visit https://www.oncotarget.com and connect with us: SoundCloud - https://soundcloud.com/oncotarget Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/Oncotarget/ Twitter - https://twitter.com/oncotarget Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/oncotargetjrnl/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/OncotargetYouTube LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/oncotarget Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/oncotarget/ Reddit - https://www.reddit.com/user/Oncotarget/ Media Contact MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM 18009220957
Recent voluntary withdrawals from the US market of belantamab-mafodotin and atezolizumab's indication for bladder cancer have us weighing (again) the pros & cons of the accelerated approval program. Also, FDA approves the 1st fecal transplant product.
In this podcast episode from Clinical Care Options (CCO), Heinz-Josef Klumpen, MD, PhD, and Chris Verslype, MD, PhD, discuss challenges in selecting and sequencing therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Topics include:Factors to consider before selecting frontline immunotherapyRole of TKIs in the frontlineImpact of Child-Pugh status on the efficacy of immunotherapy/VEGF inhibitor combination therapyReal-world evidence on frontline immunotherapy/VEGF combination therapyFactors to consider when selecting second-line therapy including the role of TKIs and planning for multiple lines of therapyPresenters:Heinz-Josef Klumpen, MD, PhDStaff Specialist, Medical OncologistDepartment of Medical OncologyAmsterdam UMCAmsterdam, The NetherlandsChris Verslype, MD, PhDProfessorClinical Digestive OncologyKULeuvenHead of ClinicHepatologyDigestive OncologyU.Z. LeuvenLeuven, Belgium
New OS data is out for adjuvant atezolizumab in NSCLC - how does it compare to the original DFS data? Plus, lots of recent FDA expanded approvals to discuss.
A VIDEO RECORDING OF THIS INTERVIEW IS AVAILABLE HERE. Interim results on overall survival in phase 3 of the IMpower010 trial were presented at this year's meeting of the International Assosciation for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC). As part of the NEJM Group's coverage of the conference, Christine Sadlowski interviewed the presenter, Dr. Enriqueta Felip. […] The post Podcast 299: Lung cancer and atezolizumab — results from the IMpower010 trial first appeared on Clinical Conversations.
In this episode, Jubilee Brown, MD, and Elisabeth Diver, MD, provide expert insights on new data presented at ASCO 2022 for ovarian, endometrial, and cervical cancers regarding:Subgroup analyses from KEYNOTE-826 evaluating pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancerPreliminary subgroup analyses from phase III ENGOT-EN5/GOG-3055 SIENDO trial of selinexor vs placebo maintenance in recurrent endometrial cancerUpdated analyses from phase I GARNET trial of dostarlimab in dMMR/MSI-H and pMMR/MSS advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer (cohorts A1 and A2)EndoBARR trial of atezolizumab, bevacizumab, and rucaparib in previously treated recurrent and progressive endometrial cancerPhase III ATHENA-MONO trial of first-line rucaparib vs placebo maintenance after platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancerPresenters:Jubilee Brown, MDProfessor and Division DirectorGynecologic OncologyLevine Cancer Institute, Atrium HealthCharlotte, North CarolinaElisabeth Diver, MDClinical Assistant ProfessorDivision of Gynecologic OncologyDepartment of Obstetrics and GynecologyStanford UniversityStanford Cancer InstituteStanford University Hospital and ClinicsStanford, CaliforniaContent supported by educational grants from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm Therapeutics, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.Link to full program, including a downloadable highlights slideset, and ClinicalThought commentaries:https://bit.ly/3ufB8Js
In this episode, Sandip Patel, MD shares his thoughts on optimizing immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and discusses best practices for individualizing therapy decisions and managing adverse events.Topics include:Currently approved ICIsRole of biomarker and PD-L1 testing in advanced NSCLCStrategies to individualize ICI treatment for patients with advanced NSCLCStrategies for identifying and managing immune-related adverse events in patients treated with ICIPresenter:Sandip P. Patel, MDAssociate ProfessorDepartment of MedicineDivision of Hematology/OncologyUniversity of California – San DiegoLa Jolla, California Link to full program:https://bit.ly/39vuCHC
In this episode, Beth Sandy, MSN, CRNP provides her thoughts on key data presented at the 2022 ASCO annual conference relating to immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Findings covered include:Survival results after 3 years from the phase III Checkmate 9LA study of nivolumab and ipilimumab combined with 2 cycles of chemotherapy vs chemotherapy in previously untreated advanced NSCLCUpdated survival and safety results after 5 years from the phase III Checkmate 227 study of nivolumab and ipilimumab vs chemotherapy in previously untreated advanced NSCLC, including assessment of a treatment-free intervalUpdated analysis from the phase III ATEZO-BRAIN trial of atezolizumab + carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with advanced NSCLC with untreated brain metastases Updated overall response analysis from the phase II KEYNOTE-799 study of pembrolizumab with concurrent chemoradiation in unresectable, locally advanced stage III NSCLCResults from a phase II trial evaluating nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab monotherapy following chemoradiation in unresectable stage III NSCLCPathological complete response results from the phase II NADIM II study of nivolumab and chemotherapy vs chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant NSCLC settingPresenter:Beth Sandy, MSN, CRNPNurse PractitionerAbramson Cancer CenterUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, PennsylvaniaLink to full program:https://bit.ly/39vuCHC
In this episode, Jyoti D. Patel, MD, and Ani Balmanoukian, MD, discuss several studies investigating agents targeting TIGIT, an emerging immune checkpoint target with promising results in PD-L1-positive NSCLC. The episode includes a review of phase II data on the use of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab in NSCLC, the use of PD-L1 as a marker of response, the potential role of anti-TIGIT therapies in solid tumors, and ongoing trials in lung cancer including SKYSCRAPER-01, SKYSCRAPER-02, SKYSCRAPER-03, and SKYSCRAPER-05. Presenters:Jyoti D. Patel, MDProfessor of MedicineDivision of Hematology and OncologyMedical Director for Thoracic OncologyAssistant Director for Clinical ResearchAssociate Vice Chair of Clinical ResearchDepartment of MedicineRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer CenterNorthwestern UniversityChicago, Illinois Ani Balmanoukian, MDDirector of Thoracic OncologyMedical OncologyThe Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, a Cedars-Sinai AffiliateLos Angeles, CaliforniaLink to the complete program, including an online text module with downloadable slidesets, ClinicalThought commentaries, and an additional podcast on this topic:https://bit.ly/38qVCH7
In this first episode of two podcasts, Dr. Amit Singal and Dr. Mark Yarchoan discuss the latest data supporting their approach to selecting treatment regimens for patients with HCC, with topics including: the current challenges in the management of HCC, recommended initial workup strategies and the evolving treatment landscape in HCC. This activity is available for CE/CME credit. Claim your credit at pce.is/GIGU.Contributors:Amit Singal, MD, MSMark Yarchoan, MDBridget O'Brien, DNP, FNP-BC, AOCNPDr Singal: consulting fees: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech, Roche.Dr Yarchoan: consulting fees: AstraZeneca, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech; other financial or material support: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte.Dr O'Brien: fees for non-CME/CE services: Amgen, Novartis.
In this second episode of two podcasts, Dr. Amit Singal and Dr. Mark Yarchoan discuss how to identify, prevent and mitigate treatment-related adverse events, and review cases with careful considerations for patient-specific factors guiding treatment selection, followed by a question-and-answer session on the management of patients with HCC. This activity is available for CE/CME credit. Claim your credit at pce.is/GIGU.Contributors:Amit Singal, MD, MSMark Yarchoan, MDBridget O'Brien, DNP, FNP-BC, AOCNPDr Singal: consulting fees: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech, Roche.Dr Yarchoan: consulting fees: AstraZeneca, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech; other financial or material support: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte.Dr O'Brien: fees for non-CME/CE services: Amgen, Novartis.
In this podcast episode from Clinical Care Options (CCO), Josep M. Llovet, MD, PhD, and Markus Peck-Radosavljevic, MD, MBA, discuss second line treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Topics include:Available agents for the management of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the second lineThe current role of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinomaOngoing clinical trials in the second-line settingPresenters: Josep M. Llovet, MD, PhD, FAASLDProfessor of MedicineDirector, Mount Sinai Liver Cancer ProgramDivision of Liver DiseasesMount Sinai School of MedicineNew York, New YorkProfessor of ResearchLiver Unit, IDIBAPSHospital Clinic BarcelonaBarcelona, SpainUniv. Prof. Markus Peck-Radosavljevic, MD, MBAProfessor of MedicineMedical University of ViennaVienna, AustriaDepartment Chair, Innere Medizin und GastroenterologieKlinikum Klagenfurt am WörtherseeKlagenfurt am Wörthersee, AustriaLink to full program, including accompanying downloadable slidesets:https://bit.ly/2ZL9bxq
In this second of two podcasts, discuss the management of advanced urothelial cancer with novel therapies and how to address adverse events, and concludes the episode with a review of audience questions and patient cases. This activity is available for CE/CME credit. Claim your credit at pce.is/GIGU.Contributors:Arjun Balar, MDRana R. McKay, MDTerran W. Sims, MSN, ACNP-C, CNN-BC, COCNDr Balar: consulting fees: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Istari Oncology, Janssen, Pfizer; consulting fees/research support: Immunomedics, Seagen; consulting fees/contracted research/fees for non-CME/CE services: AstraZeneca/Medimmune, Genentech; Merck; consulting fees/contracted research: Immunomedics/Gilead, Nektar, Seagen; consulting/ownership interest: EpiVax Oncology, GT Biopharma.Dr McKay: consulting fees: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calithera, Caris, Dendreon, Exelixis, Janssen, Merck, Myovant, Novarits, Sanofi, Sorrento Therapeutics; Vividion Therapeutics; consulting fees/contracted research: Bayer, Pfizer, Tempus.Ms Sims: consulting fees: Coloplast.
FDA Drug Information Soundcast in Clinical Oncology (D.I.S.C.O.)
Listen to a soundcast of the October 15, 2021 FDA approval of Tecentriq (atezolizumab) for adjuvant treatment following resection and platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with stage II to IIIA non-small cell lung cancer.
This week, we're reviewing the details of Genentech's decision to withdraw atezolizumab's indication for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. We'll then hear about a systematic review and meta-analysis that provided a profile of treatment-related adverse events observed in clinical trials combining PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and radiotherapy.Coverage of stories discussed this week on ascopost.com:Update on U.S. Indication for Atezolizumab in PD-L1–Positive Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast CancerProfile of Adverse Events Related to PD-1 and PD-L1 Inhibitor–Based TherapyTo listen to more podcasts from ASCO, visit asco.org/podcasts.
This week, we'll review results of a trial that evaluated first-line anti–PD-L1 therapy vs platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with metastatic lung cancer and high PD-L1 expression. We'll also discuss findings from a study that evaluated whether patients receiving care for advanced cancer based on the recommendations of a molecular tumor board tended to survive longer or experience more time without disease progression.Coverage of stories discussed this week on ascopost.com:First-Line Atezolizumab vs Chemotherapy in PD-L1–Positive Metastatic NSCLC: IMpower110Cancer Therapy Based on Molecular Tumor Board Recommendations: Improvement in Outcomes?To listen to more podcasts from ASCO, visit asco.org/podcasts.
This week, we summarize two studies presented at the recent ESMO Asia Congress—one on a novel combination therapy for unresectable liver cancer, and the second on the activity of a Chinese-manufactured trastuzumab biosimilar. We'll also discuss last week's FDA approval of acalabrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma.Coverage of stories discussed this week on ascopost.com:ESMO Asia 2019: Combination of Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab for Unresectable Hepatocellular CarcinomaESMO Asia 2019: Trastuzumab Biosimilar HLX02 Shows Activity in HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast CancerFDA Approves Acalabrutinib for CLL/SLL as Part of Project Orbis
This week, we discuss two studies in genitourinary cancers presented at the ESMO Congress 2019. The CARD trial investigated treatment with cabazitaxel vs an androgen signaling–targeted inhibitor among patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had disease progression on docetaxel and the alternative androgen signaling–targeted inhibitor. The IMvigor130 trial focused on the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab as monotherapy or combined with platinum-based chemotherapy vs placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.Coverage of stories discussed this week on ascopost.com:ESMO 2019: Cabazitaxel vs Abiraterone or Enzalutamide in Previously Treated Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate CancerESMO 2019: IMvigor130: Addition of Atezolizumab to Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
