Podcasts about cdk4

Featuring perspectives from Dr Angela DeMichele, Dr Komal Jhaveri, Dr Erica Mayer, Dr Hope S Rugo and Dr Seth Wander, including the following topics:  Introduction (0:00) 1985 NCI Consensus Conference on Early Breast Cancer: Sir Richard Peto, FRS (2:01) Current Role of Genomic Assays in Treatment Decision-Making for Localized Hormone Receptor (HR)-Positive Breast Cancer — Dr DeMichele (5:13) Case: A premenopausal woman in her mid 40s with an ER-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC) after partial mastectomy/radiation therapy who enrolls in the prospective, observational FLEX study: MammaPrint® low risk — Laurie Matt-Amaral, MD, MPH (15:30) Case: A premenopausal woman in her mid 40s after modified radical mastectomy for T2N0 ER-positive, HER2-negative IDC with an Oncotype DX® Recurrence Score (RS®) of 19 — Swati Vishwanathan, MD Case: A woman in her mid 60s with locally advanced (19 cm) ER-positive, HER2-low (IHC 1+) Stage IIIB mucinous carcinoma breast cancer and an RS of 18 — Alan B Astrow, MD (22:40) Role of CDK4/6 Inhibitors and Other Novel Strategies in Therapy for HR-Positive, HER2-Negative Localized Breast Cancer — Dr Jhaveri (30:18) Case: A woman in her mid 50s with ER-positive, HER2-negative Stage IIB, T2N1 IDC after neoadjuvant dose-dense AC-T, lumpectomy and adjuvant radiation therapy — Eleonora Teplinsky, MD (42:14) Case: A woman in her mid 60s with ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer with a surgically removed solitary lung metastasis after 4 years of adjuvant letrozole — Eric Fox, DO (46:32) Evolving Up-Front Treatment Paradigm for HR-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer (mBC) — Dr Rugo (49:45) Case: A woman in her early 80s with Type 2 diabetes, well controlled hypertension and recurrent ER-positive, HER2-negative mBC after 4 years of adjuvant letrozole — Sunil Gandhi, MD (1:02:30) Clinical Utility of Agents Targeting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR Pathway for Patients with Progressive HR-Positive mBC — Dr Mayer (1:06:37) Case: A woman in her late 60s with ER-positive, HER2-low (IHC 1+), PIK3CA-mutant mBC with disease progression after 2 years of adjuvant letrozole — Laila Agrawal, MD (1:20:22) Case: A woman in her early 60s with ER-positive, HER2-low PIK3CA-mutant mBC and disease progression on first-line palbociclib/fulvestrant — Dr Teplinsky (1:26:36) Results from the Global Phase III lidERA Breast Cancer Trial of Giredestrant versus Standard Endocrine Therapy as Adjuvant Treatment for ER-Positive, HER2-Negative Localized Breast Cancer (1:31:48) Current and Future Role of Oral Selective Estrogen Receptor Degraders for Progressive HR-Positive mBC — Dr Wander (1:42:30) Case: A woman in her early 100s with locally advanced ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer with disease progression on letrozole, now with an ESR1 mutation — Dr Astrow (1:57:51) CME information and select publications

Iaaaago Jorge convida Raphael Barreto e Lucas Brandão para discutir sobre neutropenia febril, em 5 clinicagens:1. Neutropenia febril é emergência oncológica2. Como escolher o antibiótico?3. Quando escalonar o antibiótico?4. Quando suspender o antibiótico?5. Quando prescrever filgrastim?Referências:1. Klastersky J, de Naurois J, Rolston K, et al. Management of febrile neutropaenia: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(suppl 5):v111-v118. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdw3252. Taplitz RA, Kennedy EB, Bow EJ, et al. Outpatient Management of Fever and Neutropenia in Adults Treated for Malignancy: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(14):1443-1453. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.77.62113. Zhang H, Wu Y, Lin Z, et al. Naproxen for the treatment of neoplastic fever: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(22):e15840. doi:10.1097/MD.00000000000158404. Zheng B, Huang Z, Huang Y, Hong L, Li J, Wu J. Predictive value of monocytes and lymphocytes for short-term neutrophil changes in chemotherapy-induced severe neutropenia in solid tumors. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(3):1289-1294. doi:10.1007/s00520-019-04946-35. Douglas C, Morse JD, Anderson BJ. Mucositis Pain and Its Temporal Relationship to White Cell Count. Paediatr Anaesth. 2025;35(4):302-309. doi:10.1111/pan.150636. Vassallo M, Michelangeli C, Fabre R, et al. Procalcitonin and C-Reactive Protein/Procalcitonin Ratio as Markers of Infection in Patients With Solid Tumors. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:627967. Published 2021 Mar 12. doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.6279677. Smith TJ, Bohlke K, Lyman GH, et al. Recommendations for the Use of WBC Growth Factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(28):3199-3212. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.62.34888. Heil G, Hoelzer D, Sanz MA, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study of filgrastim in remission induction and consolidation therapy for adults with de novo acute myeloid leukemia. The International Acute Myeloid Leukemia Study Group. Blood. 1997;90(12):4710-4718.9. Weiss JM, Csoszi T, Maglakelidze M, et al. Myelopreservation with the CDK4/6 inhibitor trilaciclib in patients with small-cell lung cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy: a phase Ib/randomized phase II trial. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(10):1613-1621. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz27810. Bodey GP, Buckley M, Sathe YS, Freireich EJ. Quantitative relationships between circulating leukocytes and infection in patients with acute leukemia. Ann Intern Med. 1966;64(2):328-340. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-64-2-32811. Nucci M, Arrais-Rodrigues C, Bergamasco MD, et al. Management of febrile neutropenia: consensus of the Brazilian Association of Hematology, Blood Transfusion and Cell Therapy - ABHH. Hematol Transfus Cell Ther. 2024;46 Suppl 6(Suppl 6):S346-S361. doi:10.1016/j.htct.2024.11.11912. Guarana M, Nucci M, Nouér SA. Shock and Early Death in Hematologic Patients with Febrile Neutropenia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63(11):e01250-19. Published 2019 Oct 22. doi:10.1128/AAC.01250-1913. Rosa RG, Goldani LZ. Cohort study of the impact of time to antibiotic administration on mortality in patients with febrile neutropenia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(7):3799-3803. doi:10.1128/AAC.02561-1414. Averbuch D, Orasch C, Cordonnier C, et al. European guidelines for empirical antibacterial therapy for febrile neutropenic patients in the era of growing resistance: summary of the 2011 4th European Conference on Infections in Leukemia. Haematologica. 2013;98(12):1826-1835. doi:10.3324/haematol.2013.09102515. Beyar-Katz O, Dickstein Y, Borok S, Vidal L, Leibovici L, Paul M. Empirical antibiotics targeting gram-positive bacteria for the treatment of febrile neutropenic patients with cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6(6):CD003914. Published 2017 Jun 3. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003914.pub416. Puerta-Alcalde P, Cardozo C, Suárez-Lledó M, et al. Current time-to-positivity of blood cultures in febrile neutropenia: a tool to be used in stewardship de-escalation strategies. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019;25(4):447-453. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2018.07.02617. Ljungman P, Alain S, Chemaly RF, et al. Recommendations from the 10th European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia for the management of cytomegalovirus in patients after allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation and other T-cell-engaging therapies. Lancet Infect Dis. 2025;25(8):e451-e462. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(25)00069-618. Maertens J, Lodewyck T, Donnelly JP, et al. Empiric vs Preemptive Antifungal Strategy in High-Risk Neutropenic Patients on Fluconazole Prophylaxis: A Randomized Trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Clin Infect Dis. 2023;76(4):674-682. doi:10.1093/cid/ciac62319. Aguilar-Guisado M, Espigado I, Martín-Peña A, et al. Optimisation of empirical antimicrobial therapy in patients with haematological malignancies and febrile neutropenia (How Long study): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 4 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4(12):e573-e583. doi:10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30211-9

In this podcast, experts Tiffany A. Traina, MD, FASCO, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, FASCO, Mark E. Robson, MD, FASCO, and Rebecca Shatsky, MD discuss data for CDK4-6 inhibitors, PARP inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors in the management of early-stage hormone receptor-positive, HER-2-negative breast cancer.

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

Welcome to the Oncology Brothers podcast! In this episode, we dived into the key highlights from the SABCS 2025 conference, focusing on metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Join us as we discussed: • The role of CDK4-6 inhibitors in frontline therapy, featuring updates from the AMBRE and MONALEESA-3 studies • Insights into second-line treatment options, including the VIKTORIA-1, evERA, EMBER-3, SERENA-6 trials • A critical look at the ASCENT-07 study, exploring the role of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in endocrine-resistant disease We were thrilled to have Dr. Hope Rugo, a world-renowned breast medical oncologist from City of Hope, share her expertise and insights on these pivotal studies. Tune in for an informative discussion that unpacks the latest advancements in treatment options for metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, and learn how these findings may impact clinical 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 check out our other episodes for more insights on treatment algorithms, recent approvals, and conference highlights! #SABCS2025 #MBC #HRpositive #CDK46 #ADCs #OncologyBrothers

Guest: Seth Wander, MD, PhD Over the past decade, CDK4/6 inhibitors have transformed the treatment landscape for HR+ breast cancer, but resistance remains a key clinical challenge. Hear from Dr. Seth Wander as he explores the latest translational insights into resistance mechanisms, including genomic alterations affecting cell cycle and signal transduction pathways, and discusses evolving therapeutic strategies. Dr. Wander is an Assistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Director of Precision Medicine at the Termeer Center for Targeted Therapies at Mass General Brigham Cancer Institute. He also spoke about this topic at the 2025 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Guest: Seth Wander, MD, PhD Over the past decade, CDK4/6 inhibitors have transformed the treatment landscape for HR+ breast cancer, but resistance remains a key clinical challenge. Hear from Dr. Seth Wander as he explores the latest translational insights into resistance mechanisms, including genomic alterations affecting cell cycle and signal transduction pathways, and discusses evolving therapeutic strategies. Dr. Wander is an Assistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Director of Precision Medicine at the Termeer Center for Targeted Therapies at Mass General Brigham Cancer Institute. He also spoke about this topic at the 2025 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Dr. Juan Carlos Samamé, oncólogo médico de Lima, Perú, y vicepresidente de la Latin American Breast Cancer Association (LABCA), recibe al Dr. Antonio Llombart Cussac, jefe de servicio en el Hospital Arnau de Vilanova y coordinador en la Universidad Cardenal Herrera en Valencia, España. Juntos nos hablan sobre lo mejor en cáncer de mama, presentado en el marco del Simposio de Cáncer de Mama de San Antonio 2025, celebrado del 9 al 12 de diciembre de 2025 en San Antonio, Texas, Estados Unidos.Cáncer de mama luminal:lidERA Breast Cancer [1]EPIK-B5 [2]Cáncer de mama HER2:PHERGain [3] CLEOPATRA[4]PATINA[5]HER2CLIMB-05[6]ALTTO[7]Referencias:Giredestrant vs standard-of-care endocrine therapy as adjuvant treatment for patients with estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer: Results from the global Phase III lidERA Breast Cancer trial. https://sabcs.org/events/general-session-1/. Presentación científica (Abstract GS1-10). Presentado en el marco del Simposio de Cáncer de Mama de San Antonio 2025, celebrado del 9 al 12 de diciembre de 2025 en San Antonio, Texas, Estados Unidos.De Laurentiis M., Ferreira A. M., Gligorov, J., y cols. (2025, diciembre 9–12). Alpelisib plus fulvestrant for PIK3CA-mutated, HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer after a CDK4/6 inhibitor (EPIK-B5): Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study (Abstract RF7-02). Presentado en el marco del Simposio de Cáncer de Mama de San Antonio 2025, celebrado del 9 al 12 de diciembre de 2025 en San Antonio, Texas, Estados Unidos.Llombart-Cussac, A., Pérez-García, J., Ruiz-Borrego., y cols. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2[+]) Early Breast Cancer (EBC): Translational analysis of PHERGain neoadjuvant tailored treatment study (Abstract GS1-06). Presentado en el marco del Simposio de Cáncer de Mama de San Antonio 2025, celebrado del 9 al 12 de diciembre de 2025 en San Antonio, Texas, Estados Unidos.Rinnerthaler, G., Gampenrieder, S. P., Pichler, A., y cols. Clinical predictors for first-line treatment duration in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: Results from the AGMT_MBC-Registry. AGMT_MBC-Registry study (Abstract PS5-01-04). Presentado en el marco del Simposio de Cáncer de Mama de San Antonio 2025, celebrado del 9 al 12 de diciembre de 2025 en San Antonio, Texas, Estados Unidos.Metzger, O., Mandrekar, S., & Dockter, T. (2025, December 9–12). Central nervous system outcomes from the Phase III PATINA trial (AFT-38) (Abstract RF4-01). Presentado en la San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2025; del 09 al 12 de diciembre de 2025; San Antonio, Texas.Hamilton E., Curigliano G., Martin M., y cols (2025). HER2CLIMB-05: A randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of tucatinib versus placebo in combination with trastuzumab and pertuzumab as maintenance therapy for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer. Abstract GS1-01. Presentado en el marco del Simposio de Cáncer de Mama de San Antonio 2025, celebrado del 9 al 12 de diciembre de 2025 en San Antonio, Texas, Estados Unidos.Lambertini M, Samy F, Agostinetto E y cols. Adjuvant aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen in patients with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-positive early breast cancer: An exploratory analysis from the ALTTO (BIG 2-06) trial. Abstract #GS1-03. Presentado en la San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2025; del 09 al 12 de diciembre de 2025; San Antonio, Texas. Abstract GS1-09.

After surgery, many people with stage I to stage III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer take tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor for five to 10 years. This has been the standard of care for the last 25 years. At the 2025 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, UCLA scientist Dr. Aditya Bardia presented results on giredestrant, a new oral selective estrogen degrader/downregulator (SERD) that offered better disease-free survival — how long people live without the cancer returning – than tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor. Listen to the episode to hear Dr. Bardia explain: how giredestrant is different from the two other available SERDs if giredestrant could be combined with a CDK4/6 inhibitor giredestrant side effects what the results mean for people diagnosed with early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer

The paper featured on the cover of this issue of Aging-US, published on October 30, 2025, entitled “SAMP-Score: a morphology-based machine learning classification method for screening pro-senescence compounds in p16-positive cancer cells,” represents an important methodological and conceptual advance at the interface of senescence biology, imaging and drug discovery. In this study, led by first author Ryan Wallis and corresponding author Cleo L. Bishop (Queen Mary University of London), the authors introduce SAMP-Score, a machine-learning–based framework designed to identify bona fide senescence induction in cancer cells where canonical markers fail. This is a timely and much-needed contribution to the field. Therapy-induced senescence has emerged as a powerful strategy to restrain tumor growth, yet its reliable detection in cancer cells remains a major bottleneckIn these contexts, cells often already display features associated with cellular aging, rendering conventional senescence markers ambiguous or misleading. Distinguishing true senescence from toxicity, stress responses or baseline “aged” phenotypes is therefore a critical unmet need. Rather than relying on predefined molecular readouts, the authors take a different approach and train a machine-learning model to recognize senescence-associated morphological profiles (SAMPs) which are subtle but reproducible changes in cellular architecture captured through high-content microscopy. By learning directly from image-based phenotypes, SAMP-Score is able to identify senescence with a level of precision that is difficult to achieve using marker-based strategies alone. The strength of the platform demonstrated through a large-scale screen of over 10,000 novel chemical entities in p16-positive basal-like breast cancer cells. From this screen, the compound QM5928 emerged as a robust inducer of senescence across multiple cancer models, notably without inducing cytotoxicity. Importantly, QM5928 retains activity in cellular contexts that are resistant to CDK4/6 inhibition, including palbociclib-refractory, p16-high tumors. Mechanistically, the authors show that QM5928 promotes nuclear relocalization of p16, consistent with a functional engagement of cell-cycle arrest pathways. These nuanced phenotypic changes would likely have gone undetected without the resolution and discrimination provided by SAMP-Score, underscoring the platform's ability to separate true senescence from confounding cellular states. This work exemplifies how machine learning and quantitative imaging can be harnessed to solve long-standing problems in senescence research, moving the field beyond binary marker expression toward phenotype-driven classification. Beyond its immediate relevance for cancer therapy, SAMP-Score offers a broadly applicable framework for senescence-based screening efforts across biological contexts. DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.206333 Corresponding author - Cleo L. Bishop - c.l.bishop@qmul.ac.uk Abstract video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXI_KI3EgHE Sign up for free Altmetric alerts about this article - https://aging.altmetric.com/details/email_updates?id=10.18632%2Faging.206333 Subscribe for free publication alerts from Aging - https://www.aging-us.com/subscribe-to-toc-alerts To learn more about the journal, please visit https://www.Aging-US.com​​ and connect with us on social media at: Bluesky - https://bsky.app/profile/aging-us.bsky.social ResearchGate - https://www.researchgate.net/journal/Aging-1945-4589 Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/AgingUS/ X - https://twitter.com/AgingJrnl Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/agingjrnl/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@Aging-US LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/aging/ Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/AgingUS/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/1X4HQQgegjReaf6Mozn6Mc MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/ARM865. CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until November 20, 2026.Risk Assessment and Treatment Initiation: Successfully Jumpstarting the Adjuvant CDK4/6 Inhibitor Treatment Journey in HR+, HER2- EBC In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by an educational grant from Lilly.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/DTQ865. CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until November 25, 2026.Nurturing Lasting Benefits of Adjuvant CDK4/6 Inhibitor Therapy in High-Risk HR+, HER2- EBC: Best Practices for Patient Education, AE Monitoring and Management, and Enhanced Adherence/Persistence In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by an educational grant from Lilly.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/ARM865. CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until November 20, 2026.Risk Assessment and Treatment Initiation: Successfully Jumpstarting the Adjuvant CDK4/6 Inhibitor Treatment Journey in HR+, HER2- EBC In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by an educational grant from Lilly.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/DTQ865. CME/MOC/NCPD/CPE/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until November 25, 2026.Nurturing Lasting Benefits of Adjuvant CDK4/6 Inhibitor Therapy in High-Risk HR+, HER2- EBC: Best Practices for Patient Education, AE Monitoring and Management, and Enhanced Adherence/Persistence In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by an educational grant from Lilly.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

Featuring an interview with Dr Priyanka Sharma, including the following topics: Patient-reported outcomes from the SERENA-6 trial of camizestrant with a CDK4/6 inhibitor for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and ESR1 mutations emerging during first-line endocrine-based therapy (0:00) Mayer E et al. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the SERENA-6 trial of camizestrant (CAMI) + CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) for emergent ESR1m during first-line (1L) endocrine-based therapy and ahead of disease progression in patients (pts) with HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer (ABC). ESMO 2025;Abstract 486MO. Imlunestrant and abemaciclib versus fulvestrant and abemaciclib for ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: An indirect treatment comparison of 3 Phase III trials (3:00) Bidard FC et al. Imlunestrant plus abemaciclib versus fulvestrant plus abemaciclib in estrogen receptor positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC): An indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of three phase 3 trials. ESMO 2025;Abstract 496P . Giredestrant in the treatment of ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer: The Phase III evERA Breast Cancer and EMPRESS trials (5:39) Mayer E et al. Giredestrant (GIRE), an oral selective oestrogen receptor (ER) antagonist and degrader, + everolimus (E) in patients (pts) with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (ER+, HER2– aBC) previously treated with a CDK4/6 inhibitor (i): Primary results of the phase III evERA BC trial. ESMO 2025;Abstract LBA16. Llombart-Cussac A et al. Preoperative window-of-opportunity study with giredestrant or tamoxifen (tam) in premenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) and Ki67≥10% early breast cancer (EBC): The EMPRESS study. ESMO 2025;Abstract 294MO. Capivasertib/fulvestrant as first- and second-line endocrine-based therapy for PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered HR-positive advanced breast cancer in the CAPItello-291 trial and gedatolisib/fulvestrant with or without palbociclib for HR-positive, HER2-negative, PIK3CA wild-type advanced breast cancer in the VIKTORIA-1 trial.(10:25) Rugo HS et al. Capivasertib plus fulvestrant as first and second-line endocrine-based therapy in PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: Subgroup analysis from the phase 3 CAPItello-291 trial. ESMO 2025;Abstract 526P. Hurvitz SA et al. Gedatolisib (geda) + fulvestrant ± palbociclib (palbo) vs fulvestrant in patients (pts) with HR+/ HER2-/PIK3CA wild-type (WT) advanced breast cancer (ABC): First results from VIKTORIA-1. ESMO 2025;Abstract LBA17. CME information and select publications

Did you know that the prevalence of acquired ESR1 mutations increases after exposure to endocrine therapy? Credit available for this activity expires: 11/26/2026 Earn Credit / Learning Objectives & Disclosures: https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/advancing-copd-care-through-precision-medicine-and-patient-2025a1000x00?ecd=bdc_podcast_libsyn_mscpedu

In this episode of the Oncology Brothers podcast, we took a deeper dive into the evolving landscape of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the treatment of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Joined by esteemed oncologists Dr. Sara Tolaney from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Dr. Adam Brufsky from UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, the discussion focused on real-world scenarios involving adjuvant and metastatic settings. Key topics included: • The recent updates from the MonarchE and NATALEE trials, highlighting the approval of abemaciclib and ribociclib. • Strategies for selecting the right adjuvant treatment for high-risk patients, including dosing considerations and side effect management. • Insights into managing common toxicities associated with CDK4/6 inhibitors, such as diarrhea and QTc prolongation. • The role of CDK4/6 inhibitors in patients with visceral involvement and the implications of using these therapies in the metastatic setting. Whether you're a healthcare professional or someone interested in the latest advancements in breast cancer treatment, this episode provided valuable insights and expert opinions on navigating complex treatment decisions. 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 episodes and send us your challenging cases for future discussions! #CDK4/6i #BreastCancer #MonarchE #NATALEE #Abemaciclib #Ribociclib #OncologyBrothers #HRpositive

Featuring a slide presentation and related discussion from Dr Erika Hamilton, including the following topics: Mechanisms of endocrine resistance; incidence of ESR1 mutations in breast cancer (0:00) Testing methods for ESR1 mutations in patients with breast cancer; therapeutic options for patients with ESR1-mutant breast cancer (3:59) General overview of proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs); comparison of PROTAC estrogen receptor (ER) degraders and selective ER degraders (7:39) Early-phase data with vepdegestrant monotherapy or in combination with CDK4/6 inhibitors in ER-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) (11:54) Phase III VERITAC-2 trial of vepdegestrant versus fulvestrant in ER-positive, HER2-negative mBC previously treated with endocrine therapy and a CDK4/6 inhibitor (17:48) Ongoing clinical trials evaluating vepdegestrant in novel combinations or treatment settings; other clinical applications of PROTACs (26:08) CME information and select publications

LAST CHANCE – Expires November 21! Dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS) poses significant challenges for diagnosis and management. In this expert‑led discussion, Dr. Richard F. Riedel (Duke University Medical Center) and Dr. Candace L. Haddox (Dana‑Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School) share practical insights on identifying MDM2/CDK4 amplification, exploring emerging treatments such as CDK4/6 inhibitors and immunotherapies, and improving outcomes through a multidisciplinary approach. Listen now and earn 0.5 CME credit: https://bit.ly/49GyP5T

In today's episode, we had the pleasure of speaking with Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, FASCO, about the evolving treatment paradigm for hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer post-CDK4/6 inhibition, as well as the need for more advanced therapies to improve patient outcomes in this setting. Dr Kalinsky is a professor and director in the Division of Medical Oncology of the Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology at Emory University School of Medicine, as well as the director of the Glenn Family Breast Center and the Louisa and Rand Glenn Family Chair in Breast Cancer Research at Winship Cancer Institute in Atlanta, Georgia. In our exclusive interview, Dr Kalinsky discussed combination therapies that have shown promise for the management of HR-positive breast cancer following endocrine therapy, factors influencing treatment selection for patients who have received prior CDK4/6 inhibition, best practices for genomic testing in this population, and breast cancer research highlights from the 2025 ESMO Congress.

Drs. Waks and Lynce review the PATINA trial, which showed that adding a CDK4/6 inhibitor to HER2-targeted and endocrine therapy improved progression-free survival in triple-positive breast cancer, shaping how this subgroup may be managed.

As part of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2025, CancerNetwork® spoke with a variety of experts about key takeaways from different late-breaking abstracts, oral presentations, and other sessions focused on potential advancements across cancer care. Presenting investigators highlighted updated results from clinical trials evaluating novel therapeutic strategies across different cancer populations, including breast cancer and lung cancer.  Phase 3 VIKTORIA-1 Trial Sara A. Hurvitz, MD, FACP, the Smith Family Endowed Chair in Women's Health and senior vice president and director of the Clinical Research Division at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center, and tumor chair in breast oncology for the ONCOLOGY® editorial advisory board, first discussed findings from the phase 3 VIKTORIA-1 trial (NCT05501886). Her presentation highlighted how VIKTORIA-1 was “the first study to demonstrate a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival [PFS] with PAM inhibition” for patients with PIK3CA wild-type advanced breast cancer. Data from the trial showed that gedatolisib plus fulvestrant (Faslodex) and palbociclib (Ibrance) produced a median PFS of 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.2-16.6) vs 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.8-2.3) with fulvestrant alone (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.17-0.35; P

According to a KFF poll, about one in eight, or 12%, of adults in the United States have used a GLP-1 medicine like Ozempic, Trulicity, Victoza, Mounjaro, Wegovy, or Zepbound. These drugs were originally developed to treat diabetes, but quickly started being prescribed for weight loss and other uses. While they seem like wonder drugs, GLP-1 medicines do cause side effects and have risks. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation are common side effects. The drugs also can cause dizziness, headaches, and elevated heartbeat.  Dr. Neil Iyengar is a breast medical oncologist who studies how diet and exercise can improve quality of life for people with breast cancer. He's also prescribed GLP-1 medicines for the people he cares for. Listen to the episode to hear Dr. Iyengar explain: how GLP-1 medicines work the risks these drugs may pose for people receiving chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or a CDK4/6 inhibitor why he works closely with a weight loss specialist or endocrinologist when prescribing these medicines why the medicines work best when a person also makes lifestyle changes

Two Onc Docs, hosted by Samantha A. Armstrong, MD, and Karine Tawagi, MD, is a podcast dedicated to providing current and future oncologists and hematologists with the knowledge they need to ace their boards and deliver quality patient care. Dr Armstrong is a hematologist/oncologist and assistant professor of clinical medicine at Indiana University Health in Indianapolis. Dr Tawagi is a hematologist/oncologist and assistant professor of clinical medicine at the University of Illinois in Chicago. In this episode, OncLive On Air® partnered with Two Onc Docs to feature a comprehensive review of the current management of metastatic breast cancer, emphasizing evidence-based treatment strategies across molecular subtypes, toxicity management, and patient-centered care. Drs Armstrong and Tawagi discussed that the primary goals of metastatic breast cancer therapy include prolonging survival, controlling symptoms, minimizing toxicity, improving quality of life, and incorporating patients' goals and preferences into care decisions. Their discussion also highlighted the importance of recognizing when transitioning to best supportive care is most appropriate. For estrogen receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer, they noted that first-line therapy includes an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant (Faslodex) combined with a CDK4/6 inhibitor, with ovarian function suppression for premenopausal patients. PARP inhibitors are recommended for patients with BRCA1/2-positive disease. In visceral crisis, chemotherapy remains the category 1 recommendation. Second-line treatment options include therapies guided by repeat molecular testing. fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki (T-DXd; Enhertu) is approved for patients with HER2-low disease. For HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, first-line treatment consists of a taxane plus pertuzumab (Perjeta) and trastuzumab (Herceptin), followed by T-DXd in the second-line setting. For triple-negative metastatic breast cancer, therapy depends on PD-L1 status. The episode concluded by underscoring the role of bone-protective agents such as zoledronic acid, pamidronate, or denosumab (with dental clearance to prevent osteonecrosis). Key takeaways emphasize tailoring therapy to molecular subtype, recognizing drug-specific toxicities, and prioritizing patient-centered decision-making in the management of metastatic breast cancer.

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we'll delve into a series of remarkable advancements and strategic movements shaping the landscape of healthcare. Let's start with a recent spotlight on the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2025, where key clinical trial outcomes have emerged, potentially reshaping future treatment protocols.AstraZeneca made waves with its Phase 3 trial results for Imfinzi, a PD-L1 inhibitor, in high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. The findings suggest that Imfinzi stands strong against Pfizer's PD-1 candidate, Sasanlimab. This is particularly noteworthy as bladder cancer has historically had limited non-invasive treatment options. The implications for patient care are substantial, providing hope for improved management of this form of cancer and possibly influencing treatment standards.Meanwhile, Eli Lilly's Verzenio marked another success at the ESMO Congress with its overall survival win in early breast cancer cases. This victory enhances Verzenio's standing within the CDK4/6 inhibitor class, suggesting increased adoption in clinical settings. The demonstration of extended survival benefits not only strengthens Verzenio's competitive position but also contributes to setting a new standard of care in early breast cancer treatment.On the regulatory front, Sanofi encountered mixed outcomes from the European Medicines Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. While Rezurock was not recommended as a third-line treatment for chronic graft-versus-host disease, this decision underscores the stringent regulatory processes companies navigate despite existing market success in other regions like the U.S.In a significant move by the FDA to expedite drug approvals, nine companies including Merck KGaA and Regeneron received priority review vouchers. These vouchers allow a shortened review timeline, reflecting an ongoing trend towards accelerating drug availability to address unmet medical needs swiftly.In terms of strategic developments, EMD Serono—Merck KGaA's U.S. branch—has unveiled a major discount initiative for its IVF treatments on the TrumpRx platform. This aligns with broader efforts to make fertility treatments more accessible amidst rising demand and economic pressures.The metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) arena is also witnessing robust interest with over $10 billion recently reported in mergers and acquisitions. This surge indicates confidence among Big Pharma players in MASH as a lucrative therapeutic field ripe for innovation and development.In response to competitive pressures and operational challenges, Kezar Life Sciences is preparing for layoffs following the FDA's decision to cancel a critical meeting related to its R&D program. This situation illustrates the volatile dynamics within biotech firms where regulatory decisions can significantly impact corporate strategies and workforce stability.Overall, these developments reflect an industry characterized by rapid innovation, strategic realignments, and an evolving regulatory framework. The implications for patient care are substantial as these scientific advancements promise enhanced treatment options across various therapeutic areas.Switching gears to scientific developments, Bristol Myers Squibb has reported promising results from early-stage trials of its EGFRxHER3 antibody-drug conjugate. Demonstrating a 55% overall response rate, this positions BMS to potentially gain a competitive edge in the ADC market—a sector valued for targeting cancer cells while minimizing side effects on healthy tissues.Strategic partnerships continue to shape industry growth and innovation. Roche has secured a deal with Hansoh Pharmaceutical worth up to $1.45 billion for global rights to an experimental ADC outside Greater China. SimilSupport the show

Host: Charles Turck, PharmD, BCPS, BCCCP Guest: Sarah Sammons, MD About 40 percent of patients with metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer have an activating mutation in the PIK3CA gene,1,2 which plays a key role not only in tumor growth, but also in driving resistance to endocrine therapy.3-5 And while there are several FDA-approved PI3K pathway-targeted agents for patients with PIK3CA tumor mutations,6-8 they come with challenges, like modest efficacy and on-pathway effects.9-12 Given this unmet need, the ReDiscover trial evaluated the investigational agent RLY-2608 in combination with fulvestrant in in patients with PIK3CA-mutated HR+/HER2- aBC previously treated with a CDK4/6 inhibitor.13 Joining Dr. Charles Turck to share updated safety and efficacy data from the trial is Dr. Sarah Sammons, a Senior Physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and an Assistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. References: Vasan N, Cantley LC, Vasan N, Cantley LC. At a crossroads: how to translate the roles of PI3K in oncogenic and metabolic signalling into improvements in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2022;19(7):471-485. doi:10.1038/s41571-022-00633-1 Network TCGA. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2012;490(7418):61-70. doi:10.1038/nature11412 Saal LH, Johansson P, Holm K, et al. Poor prognosis in carcinoma is associated with a gene expression signature of aberrant PTEN tumor suppressor …

In this episode of Oncology Brothers, we dived deep into the world of CDK4-6 inhibitors, focusing on their side effects and management in breast cancer treatment. Joined by an esteemed guest, Dr. Stephanie Graff, a medical breast oncologist from Brown University Health. We explored the side effects and management strategies for three commonly used CDK4/6 inhibitors: ribociclib, abemaciclib, and palbociclib. Key topics discussed include: •⁠  ⁠The evolving role of CDK4/6 inhibitors in early breast cancer and adjuvant settings. •⁠  ⁠Detailed management of side effects such as QT prolongation, liver function tests, and diarrhea. •⁠  ⁠The importance of shared decision-making with patients regarding treatment options. •⁠  ⁠Insights into the latest clinical trial data and its implications for practice. Whether you're a healthcare professional or someone interested in oncology, this episode provides valuable insights into optimizing patient care while managing the complexities of CDK4-6 inhibitors. Follow us on social media: •⁠  ⁠X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers •⁠  ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers •⁠  Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ Don't forget to like, subscribe, and check out our other episodes for more discussions on oncology treatments and patient management strategies! #CDK4/6inhibitors #BreastCancer #Ribociclib #Abemaciclib #Palbociclib #OncologyBrothers #SideEffectManagement #HRpositiveBC

The George Washington Cancer Center serves a racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse population across Washington, D.C., northern Virginia, and southern Maryland. Their Breast Cancer Program has found that a community-informed model is most successful for managing care and adverse events related to CDK4/6 inhibitors. In this episode, CANCER BUZZ speaks with Pavani Chalasani, MD, MPH, director of the division of hematology/oncology at the George Washington University Cancer Center about the flexible and collaborative team design that allows for culturally responsive and comprehensive care for their patients with breast cancer.   Pavani Chalasani, MD, MPH  Director, Division of Hematology/Oncology George Washington University Cancer Center Washington, DC   “I think adapting and knowing what the barriers are and how we can divide and support and come up with roles for our team members is essential.” “[Navigators] give us an understanding of where the hesitancy is coming from, or where the concerns are coming from, so that we can do a better job explaining and overcoming those barriers.”   Resources ·      Spotlight on George Washington (GW) Cancer Center: Managing Adverse Effects of CDK4/6 Inhibitors With a Patient-Centered, Team-Based Approach ·      ACCC Resource: CDK4/6 Inhibitors Management ·      ACCC CDK4/6 Inhibitors Infographic

CME credits: 0.75 Valid until: 07-10-2026 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/Triple-Threat-Key-Data-on-Simultaneous-Estrogen-CDK4-6-and-PI3K-Inhibition-in-mBC/37335/ The PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway is a crucial signaling network dysregulated in many cancers, promoting cell survival, growth, and proliferation, and often implicated in resistance to cancer therapies. Inhibition of this pathway by PI3K inhibitors disrupts a complex network of cellular processes that contribute to breast cancer, markedly reducing cell proliferation, promoting apoptosis, inhibiting angiogenesis, and ultimately preventing tumor formation and progression. In hormone receptor–positive (HR+), activating PIK3CA mutations occur in approximately 35% to 40% of patients and a variable prevalence across BC subtypes. Testing is thus crucial to ensure appropriate treatment selection. The development of PI3K-targeted agents may revolutionize the treatment landscape for HR+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC, and due to the recent approval of inavolisib, clinicians must be apprised of both the clinical evidence and best practices regarding the use of this agent. This activity has been designed to review the role of the PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway in breast cancer, the importance of testing when making clinical decisions, and the role of PI3K-targeted therapies in HR+, HER- mBC.

CME credits: 0.75 Valid until: 07-10-2026 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/Triple-Threat-Key-Data-on-Simultaneous-Estrogen-CDK4-6-and-PI3K-Inhibition-in-mBC/37335/ The PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway is a crucial signaling network dysregulated in many cancers, promoting cell survival, growth, and proliferation, and often implicated in resistance to cancer therapies. Inhibition of this pathway by PI3K inhibitors disrupts a complex network of cellular processes that contribute to breast cancer, markedly reducing cell proliferation, promoting apoptosis, inhibiting angiogenesis, and ultimately preventing tumor formation and progression. In hormone receptor–positive (HR+), activating PIK3CA mutations occur in approximately 35% to 40% of patients and a variable prevalence across BC subtypes. Testing is thus crucial to ensure appropriate treatment selection. The development of PI3K-targeted agents may revolutionize the treatment landscape for HR+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC, and due to the recent approval of inavolisib, clinicians must be apprised of both the clinical evidence and best practices regarding the use of this agent. This activity has been designed to review the role of the PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway in breast cancer, the importance of testing when making clinical decisions, and the role of PI3K-targeted therapies in HR+, HER- mBC.

Dr. Kathleen Horst, Dr. Rachel Jimenez, and Dr. Yara Abdou discuss the updated guideline from ASTRO, ASCO, and SSO on postmastectomy radiation therapy. They share new and updated recommendations on topics including PMRT after upfront surgery, PMRT after neoadjuvant systemic therapy, dose and fractionation schedules, and delivery techniques. They comment on the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and providing personalized care based on individual patient characteristics. Finally, they review ongoing research that may impact these evidence-based guidelines in the future. Read the full guideline, “Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy: An ASTRO-ASCO-SSO Clinical Practice Guideline” at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines" TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-25-01747  Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I am interviewing Dr. Kathleen Horst, expert panel chair from Stanford University; Dr. Rachel Jimenez, expert panel vice chair from Massachusetts General Hospital; and Dr. Yara Abdou, ASCO representative from the University of North Carolina, authors on "Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy: An American Society for Radiation Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Horst, Dr. Jimenez, and Dr. Abdou. Dr. Kathleen Horst: Thank you for having us. Brittany Harvey: And then just before we discuss this guideline, I would like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Horst, Dr. Jimenez, and Dr. Abdou who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. Then to dive into the content that we are here today to talk about, Dr. Horst, could you start us off by describing what prompted the update for this joint guideline between ASTRO, ASCO, and SSO, and what is the scope of this 2025 guideline on postmastectomy radiation therapy? Dr. Kathleen Horst: Thank you. This joint guideline was last updated in 2016. Over the past decade, the treatment of breast cancer has evolved substantially. Newer systemic therapy regimens have increasingly personalized treatment based on tumor biology, and local therapy management has explored both the de-escalation of axillary surgery and more abbreviated courses of radiation therapy. Given these advances, it was important to revisit the role of postmastectomy radiotherapy in this modern era of breast cancer therapy. This updated guideline addresses four key questions, including postmastectomy radiation therapy after upfront surgery as well as after neoadjuvant systemic therapy. It also reviews the evolving role of various dose and fractionation schedules and optimal treatment techniques and dose constraints. Brittany Harvey: Excellent. I appreciate that background, Dr. Horst. So then, next, Dr. Jimenez, I would like to review the recommendations of this guideline across those four key questions that Dr. Horst just mentioned. So first, what does the panel recommend for PMRT for patients who received initial treatment with mastectomy? Dr. Rachel Jimenez: The panel provided pretty strong consensus that patients with positive lymph nodes or patients with large tumors involving the skin or the chest wall should receive postmastectomy radiation. However, the panel also recognized that the omission of postmastectomy radiation may be appropriate for select patients who have positive lymph nodes and have an axillary lymph node dissection if they have a low nodal burden and other favorable clinical or pathologic features. For patients without lymph node involvement at the time of surgery and no involvement of the skin or chest wall, postmastectomy radiation was not advised by the panel. Brittany Harvey: Understood. It is helpful to understand those recommendations for that patient population. Following that, Dr. Abdou, what are the key recommendations for PMRT for patients who received neoadjuvant systemic therapy before mastectomy? Dr. Yara Abdou: When we think about PMRT after neoadjuvant treatment, the key point is that the initial stage of presentation still matters a lot. So for example, if a patient comes in with more advanced disease, say a large primary tumor, like a clinical T4, or more extensive nodal disease, like an N2 or N3 disease, those patients should get PMRT, no matter how well they respond to neoadjuvant therapy, because we know it reduces the risk of recurrence and that has been shown pretty consistently. On the other hand, if there are still positive lymph nodes after neoadjuvant treatment, basically residual nodal disease, PMRT is also strongly recommended because the risk of local-regional recurrence is much higher in that setting. The gray area is the group of patients who start with a lower burden of nodal disease, such as N1 disease, but then become node negative at surgery. For those patients, we tend to individualize the decision. So if the patient is young or has triple-negative disease, or if there is a lot of residual disease in the breast even though the nodes are cleared, then radiation is probably helpful. But if everything has melted away with pCR in both the breast and the nodes, then it may be safe to omit PMRT in those patients. For patients with smaller tumors and no nodal involvement to begin with, like a clinical T1-T2 N0, if they are still node negative after neoadjuvant treatment, then PMRT is generally not recommended because their baseline recurrence risk is low. And finally, if the margins are positive and cannot be re-excised, then PMRT is recommended after neoadjuvant therapy. Brittany Harvey: Yes, those distinctions are important for appropriate patient selection. So then, Dr. Horst, we have just reviewed the indications for PMRT, but for those patients who receive PMRT, what are the appropriate treatment volumes and dose fractionation regimens? Dr. Kathleen Horst: The guideline addresses coverage of the chest wall and regional nodes with a specific discussion of the data regarding internal mammary nodal irradiation, which has been an area of controversy over many years. The guideline also reviews the data exploring moderate hypofractionation, or shorter courses of radiation therapy. The task force recommends utilizing moderate hypofractionation for the majority of women requiring postmastectomy radiation, which is likely to have a large impact on clinical practice. This recommendation is based on the evolving data demonstrating that a 3-week course of radiotherapy after mastectomy provides similar oncologic outcomes and minimal toxicity for most patients compared to the standard 5-week treatment course. Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing that set of recommendations as well. So then, Dr. Jimenez, to wrap us up on the key questions here, what delivery techniques are recommended for treating patients who receive PMRT? Dr. Rachel Jimenez: So this portion of the guideline is likely to be most helpful for radiation oncologists because it represents the most technical part of the guideline, but we do believe that it offers some important guidance that has, to this point, been lacking in the postmastectomy radiation setting. So first, the panel recommends that all patients should undergo 3-dimensional radiation planning using CAT scan based imaging, and this includes contouring. So contouring refers to the explicit identification, using a drawing interface on the CAT scan imaging, by the radiation oncologist to identify the areas that are targeted to receive radiation, as well as all of the nearby normal tissues that could receive unintended radiation exposure. And we also provide radiation oncologists in the guideline with suggestions about how much dose each target tissue should receive and what the dose limits should be for normal tissues. Additionally, we make some recommendations regarding the manner in which radiation is delivered. So for example, we advise that when conventional radiation methods are not sufficient for covering the areas of the body that are still at risk for cancer, or where too high of a dose of radiation would be anticipated to a normal part of the body, that providers employ a technique called intensity modulated radiation therapy, or IMRT. And if IMRT is going to be used, we also advise regular 3-dimensional imaging assessments of the patient's body relative to the treatment machine to ensure treatment fidelity. When the treatments are delivered, we further advise using a deep inspiration breath-hold technique, which lowers the exposure to the heart and to the lungs when there is concern for cardiopulmonary radiation exposure, and again, that image guidance be used along with real-time monitoring of the patient's anatomy when those techniques are employed. And then finally, we advise that patients receiving postmastectomy radiation utilize a bolus, or a synthetic substance placed on the patient's skin to enhance radiation dose to the superficial tissue, only when there is involvement of the skin with cancer or other high-risk features of the cancer, but not for every patient who receives postmastectomy radiation. Brittany Harvey: Understood. And then, yes, you just mentioned that section of the guideline is probably most helpful for radiation oncologists, but I think you can all comment on this next question. What should all clinicians, including radiation oncologists, surgical oncologists, medical oncologists, and other oncologic professionals, know as they implement all of these updated recommendations? Dr. Rachel Jimenez: So I think one of the things that is most important when we consider postmastectomy radiation and making recommendations is that this is a multidisciplinary panel and that we would expect and encourage our colleagues, as they interpret the guidelines, to employ a multidisciplinary approach when they are discussing each individual patient with their surgical and medical oncology colleagues, that there is no one size fits all. So these guidelines are intended to provide some general guidance around the most appropriate techniques and approaches and recommendations for the utilization of postmastectomy radiation, but that we recognize that all of these recommendations should be individualized for patients and also represent somewhat of a moving target as additional studies, both in the surgical and radiation oncology realm as well as in the systemic therapy realm, enter our milieu, we have to adjust those recommendations accordingly. Dr. Kathleen Horst: Yeah, I would agree, and I wanted to comment as a radiation oncologist, we recognize that local-regional considerations are intertwined with systemic therapy considerations. So as the data evolve, it is critical to have these ongoing updates in a cross-disciplinary manner to ensure optimal care for our patients. And as Dr. Jimenez mentioned, these multidisciplinary discussions are critical for all of us to continue to learn and understand the evolving recommendations across disciplines but also to individualize them according to individual patients. Dr. Yara Abdou: I could not agree more. I think from a medical oncology perspective, systemic therapy has gotten much better with adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitors, T-DM1, capecitabine, and immune therapy. So these are all newer adjuvant therapies, so the baseline recurrence risks are lower than what they were in the trials that established PMRT. So the absolute benefit of radiation varies more now, so smaller for favorable biology but still relevant in aggressive subtypes or with residual disease. So it is definitely not a one-size-fits-all. Brittany Harvey: Yes, I think it is important that you have all highlighted that multidisciplinary approach and having individualized, patient-centric care. So then, expanding on that just a little bit, Dr. Abdou, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients with breast cancer? Dr. Yara Abdou: So basically, reiterating what we just talked about, these guidelines really move us towards personalized care. So for patients at higher risk, so those with larger tumors, multiple positive nodes, or residual nodal disease after neoadjuvant therapy, PMRT remains essential, consistently lowering local-regional recurrence and improving survival. But for patients at intermediate or lower risk, the recommendations support a more selective approach. So instead of a blanket rule, we now integrate tumor biology, response to systemic therapy, and individual patient factors to decide when PMRT adds meaningful benefit. So the impact for patients is really important because those at high risk continue to get the survival advantage of radiation while others can be spared the unnecessary treatment and side effects. So in short, we are aligning PMRT with modern systemic therapy and biology, making sure each patient receives the right treatment for their situation. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Individualizing treatment to every patient will make sure that everyone can achieve the best outcomes as possible. So then, Dr. Jimenez, to wrap us up, I believe Dr. Horst mentioned earlier that data continues to evolve in this field. So in your opinion, what are the outstanding questions regarding the use of PMRT and what are you looking to for the future of research in this space? Dr. Rachel Jimenez: So there are a number of randomized phase III clinical trials that are either in active accrual or that have reported but not yet published that are exploring further de-escalation of postmastectomy radiation and of axillary surgery. And so we do not yet have sufficient data to understand how those two pieces of information integrate with each other. So for example, if you have a patient who has a positive lymph node at the time of diagnosis and forgoes axillary surgery aside from a sentinel lymph node biopsy, we do not yet know that we can also safely forgo radiation entirely in that setting. So we expect that future studies are going to address these questions and understand when it is appropriate to simultaneously de-escalate surgery and radiation. Additionally, there is a number of trials that are looking at ways in which radiation could be omitted or shortened. So there is the RT CHARM trial, which has reported but not yet published, looking at a shorter course of radiation. And so we do make recommendations around that shorter course of radiation in this guideline, but we anticipate that the additional data from the RT CHARM study will provide further evidence in support of that. Additionally, there is a study called the TAILOR RT trial, which looks at forgoing postmastectomy radiation in patients who, to Dr. Abdou's point, have a favorable tumor biology and a low 21-gene recurrence score. And so we are going to anticipate the results from that study to help guide who can selectively forgo postmastectomy radiation when they fall into that favorable risk category. So there are a number of questions that I think will help flesh out this guideline. And as they publish, we will likely publish a focused update on that information to help provide context for our colleagues in the field and clarify some of these recommendations to suit the latest data. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. We will look forward to those de-escalation trials and ongoing research in the field to build on the evidence and look for future updates to this guideline. So I want to thank you for your work to update these guidelines, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Horst, Dr. Jimenez, and Dr. Abdou. Dr. Rachel Jimenez: Thank you. Dr. Yara Abdou: Thank you. Dr. Kathleen Horst: Thank you. Brittany Harvey: And then finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you have heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Effective management of adverse events and addressing barriers to care are critical to optimizing outcomes and maintaining quality of life for patients receiving CDK4/6 inhibitors. In this episode, CANCER BUZZ speaks with Julia Lea Ziegengeist, PharmD, BCOP, clinical pharmacist coordinator in solid tumor oncology at Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute about proactive, team-based strategies to identify, monitor, and manage treatment-related toxicities in patients with early-stage and metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. Dr. Ziegengeist sheds light on the patient journey, the roles of various multidisciplinary care team members, and useful resources for language and literacy barriers. “I think the biggest thing that is specific to CDK4/6 inhibitors is... eligibility criteria and when we're using the drugs in what setting, having those monitoring protocols and getting that multidisciplinary collaboration is really key.” – Julia Lea Ziegengeist, PharmD, BCOP   Julia Lea Ziegengeist, PharmD, BCOP   Clinical Pharmacist Coordinator, Solid Tumor Oncology   Levine Cancer Institute   Atrium Health   Charlotte, NC       Resources: ACCC Resource: CDK4/6 Inhibitors Management  ACCC CDK4/6 Inhibitors Infographic 

Dr. Virginia Kaklamani, world renowned breast cancer specialist and researcher, visits with Healthcare Unfiltered EXPRESS to detail how this class of agents are used in metastatic and early stage breast cancer. A perfect guide for all clinicians.

Host Davide Soldato and guest Dr. John K. Lin discuss the JCO article "Racial and Ethnic Disparities Along the Treatment Cascade Among Medicare Fee-For-Service Beneficiaries with Metastatic Breast, Colorectal, Lung, and Prostate Cancer." TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello, and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, a medical oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by Dr. Lin, assistant professor in the Department of Health Services Research at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Dr. Lin and I will be discussing the article titled, "Racial and Ethnic Disparities Along the Treatment Cascade Among  Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries With Metastatic Breast, Colorectal, Lung, and Prostate Cancer." Thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Lin. Dr. Lin: Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, just to start, to frame a little bit the study, I just wanted to ask you what prompted you and your team to look specifically at this question - so, racial and ethnic disparities within this specific population? And related to this question, I just wanted to ask how this work is different or builds on previous work that has been done on this research topic. Dr. Lin: Yeah, absolutely. Part of the impetus for this study was the observation that despite people who are black or Hispanic having equivalent health insurance status - they all have  Medicare Fee-for-Service - we've known that treatment and survival differences and disparities have persisted over time for patients with metastatic breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer. And so, the question that we had was, "Why is this happening, and what can we do about it?" One of the reasons why eliminating racial and ethnic disparities in survival among Medicare beneficiaries with metastatic cancer has been elusive is because these disparities are occurring along a lot of dimensions. Whether or not it's because the patient presented late and has very extensive metastatic cancer; whether or not the patient has had a difficult time even seeing an oncologist; whether or not the patient has had a difficult time starting on any systemic therapy; or maybe it's because the patient has had a difficult time getting guideline-concordant systemic therapy because, more recently, these treatments have become so expensive. Disparities, we know, are occurring along all of these different facets and areas of the treatment cascade. Understanding which one of these is the most important is the key to helping us alleviate these disparities. And so, one of our goals was to evaluate disparities along the entire treatment cascade to try to identify which disparities are most important. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. That was very clear. So, basically, one of the most important parts of the research that you have performed is really focusing on the entire treatment cascade. So, basically, starting from the moment of diagnosis up to the moment where there was the first line of treatment, if this line of treatment was given to the patient. So, I was wondering a little bit, because for this type of analysis, you used the SEER-Medicare linked database. So, can you tell us a little bit which was the period of time that you selected for the analysis? Why do you think that that was the most appropriate time to look at this specific question? And whether you feel like there is any potential limitation in using this type of database and how you handled this type of limitations? Dr. Lin: Yeah, absolutely. It's a great question. And I want to back up a little bit because I want to talk about the entire treatment cascade because I think that this is really important for our research and for future research. We weren't the first people to look at along the treatment cascade for a disease. Actually, this idea of looking along the treatment cascade was pioneered by HIV researchers and has been used for over a decade by people who study HIV. And there are a lot of parallels between HIV and cancer. One of them is that with HIV, there are so many areas along that entire treatment cascade that have to go right for somebody's treatment to go well. Patients have to be diagnosed early, they have to be given the right type of antiretrovirals, they have to be adherent to those antiretrovirals. And if you have a breakdown in any one of those areas, you're going to have disparities in care for these HIV patients. And so, HIV researchers have known this for a long time, and this has been a big cornerstone in the success of getting people with HIV the treatment that they need. And I think that this has a lot of parallels with cancer as well. And so, I am hoping that this study can serve as a model for future research to look along the entire treatment cascade for cancer because cancer is, similarly, one of these areas that requires multidisciplinary, complex medical care. And understanding where it is breaking down, I think, is crucial to us figuring out how we can reduce disparities. But for your question about the SEER-Medicare linked database, so we looked between 2016 and 2019. That was the most recent data that was available to us. And one of the reasons why we were excited to look at this is because there were some new treatments that were just released and FDA-approved around 2018, which we were able to study. And this included immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer, and then it also included androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, the second-generation ones, for prostate cancer. And the reason why this is important is because for some time, as we have developed these new therapies, there's been a lot of concern that there have been disparities in access to these novel therapies because of how expensive they are, particularly for the Medicare population. And so one of the reasons why we looked specifically at this time period was to understand whether or not, in more recent years, these novel therapies, people are having increasing disparities in them and whether or not increasing disparities in these more expensive, newer therapies is contributing to disparities in mortality. That being said, obviously, we're in 2025 and these data are by now six years old, and so there are additional therapies that are now available that weren't available in the past. But I think that, that being said, at least it's sort of a starting point for some of the more important therapies that have been introduced, at least for non–small cell lung cancer and prostate cancer. And the database, SEER-Medicare, is helpful because it uses the population cancer registry, which is the SEER registry cancer registry, linked to Medicare claims. So, any type of medical care that's billed through Medicare, which is going to basically be all of the medical care that these patients receive, for the most part, we're going to be able to see it. And so, I think that this is a really powerful database which has been used in a lot of research to understand what kind of care is being received that has been billed through Medicare. So, one of the limitations with this database is if there is care that's received that was not billed through Medicare, we're not going to be able to see that. And this does not happen probably that frequently, particularly because most patients who have insurance are going to be receiving care through insurance. However, we may see it for some of the oral Part D drugs. Some of those drugs are so expensive that patients cannot pay for the coinsurance during that time. And it's possible that some of those drugs patients were getting for free through the manufacturer. We potentially missed some of that. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, going a little bit into the results, I think that these are very, very interesting. And probably the most striking one is that when we look at the receipt of any type of treatment for metastatic breast, colorectal, prostate, and lung cancer - and specifically when we look at guideline-directed first-line treatments - you observed striking differences. So, I just wanted you to guide us a little bit through the results and tell us a little bit which of the numbers surprised you the most. Dr. Lin: So, what we were expecting is to see large disparities in receiving what we called guideline-directed systemic therapy. And guideline-directed systemic therapy during this time kind of depended on the cancer. So, we thought that we were going to see large disparities in guideline-directed therapy because these were the more novel therapies that were approved, and thus they were going to be the more expensive therapies. And so, what this meant was for colorectal cancer, this was going to be any 5-FU–based therapy. For lung cancer, this was going to be any checkpoint inhibitor–based therapy. For prostate cancer, this was going to be any ARPI, so this was going to be things like abiraterone or enzalutamide. And for breast cancer, this was going to be CDK4 and 6 TKIs plus any aromatase inhibitor. And so, for instance, for breast, prostate, and lung cancer, these were going to be including more expensive therapies. And so, what we expected to see was large disparities in receiving some of these more expensive, novel therapies. And we thought we were going to see fewer disparities in receiving some of the cheaper therapies, such as aromatase inhibitors, 5-FU, older platinum chemotherapies for lung cancer, and ADT for prostate cancer. We were shocked to find that we saw large racial and ethnic disparities in seeing some of the older, cheaper chemotherapies and hormonal therapies. So for instance, for breast cancer, 59% of black patients received systemic therapy, whereas 68% of white patients received systemic therapy. For colorectal, only 23% of black patients received any systemic therapy versus 34% of white patients. For lung, only 26% of black patients received any therapy, whereas 39% of white patients did. And for prostate, only 56% of black patients received any systemic therapy versus 77% of white patients. And so, we were pretty shocked by how large the disparities were in receiving these cheap, easy-to-access systemic therapies. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. So, I just wanted to go a little bit deeper in the results because, as you said, there were striking differences even when we looked at very old and also cheap treatments that, for the majority of the patients that were included inside of your study, were actually basically available for a very small price to these patients who had the eligibility for Medicare or Medicaid. And I think that one of the very interesting parts of the research was actually the attention that you had at looking how much of these disparities could be explained by several factors. And actually, one of the most interesting results is that you observed that low-income subsidy status was actually a big determinant of these disparities in terms of treatment. So, I just wanted to guide us a little bit through these results and then just your opinion about how these results should be interpreted by policymakers. Dr. Lin: Yeah, absolutely. I'm going to explain a little bit about what low-income subsidy status is and dual-eligibility status. Some of the listeners may not know what low-income subsidy status or dual-eligibility status is. Low-income subsidy status is part of Medicare Part D. Medicare Part D is an insurance benefit that allows patients to receive oral drugs. So these are drugs that are dispensed through the pharmacy, such as the CDK4/6 inhibitors, as well as second-generation ARPIs in our study. For patients who have Medicare Part D and whose income is low enough - falls below a certain federal poverty level threshold - those patients will receive their oral drugs for much cheaper. And this is really important for some of these more novel therapies because for some of these more novel therapies, if you don't have low-income subsidy status, you may be paying thousands of dollars for a single prescription of those drugs. Whereas if you have low-income subsidy status, you may be paying less than $10. And so that difference, greater than $1,000 or $2,000 versus less than $10, one would think that the patient who's paying less than $10 would be much more likely to receive those therapies. So that's low-income subsidy status. Low-income subsidy status, importantly, doesn't apply for infused medications like immunotherapy. But it's important to know that most people with low-income subsidy status - about 88% - are also dual-eligible. What dual-eligible means is that they have both Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare being the insurance that everybody has in our study who's greater than 65. And Medicaid is the state-run but federally subsidized insurance that patients with low incomes have. And so patients who are dual-eligible - and about 87% of those with low-income subsidy status are dual-eligible - those patients have both Medicaid and Medicare, and they basically pay next to nothing for any of their medical care. And that's because Medicare will reimburse most of the medical care and the copays or coinsurance are going to be covered by Medicaid. So Medicaid is going to pick up the rest of the bill. So, most of the patients who have low-income subsidy status who are dual-eligible, these patients pay almost nothing for their medical care - Part B or Part D, any of their drugs. And so, one would expect that if cost were the main determinant of disparities in cancer care, then one would expect that dual-eligibles, most of them would be receiving treatment because they're facing minimal to no costs. What we found is that when we broke down the racial and ethnic disparity by a number of factors - including LIS status/dual eligibility, age, the number of comorbidities, etcetera - what we found was that the LIS or dual-eligibility status explained about 20% to 45% of the disparities that we saw in receiving treatment. And what that means is despite these patients paying next to nothing for their drugs, these are the most likely patients to not be treated for their cancer at all. So they're most likely to basically be diagnosed, survive for two months, see an oncologist, and then never receive any systemic therapy for their cancer. And this is not just chemotherapies for colorectal or lung cancer. This includes cheaper, easier-to-tolerate hormonal therapies that you can just take at home for breast cancer, or you can get every six months for prostate cancer, that people who even have poorer functional status are able to take. However, for whatever reason, these dual-eligible or LIS patients are very unlikely to receive treatment compared to any other patient. The low likelihood of treating this group of patients, that explains a large portion of the racial and ethnic disparities that we see. Dr. Davide Soldato: And one thing that I think is very interesting and might be of potential interest to our listeners is, did you compare survival outcomes in these different settings? And did you observe any significant differences in terms of racial and ethnic disparities once you saw that there was a significant difference when looking at both receipt of any type of treatment and also guideline-directed treatments? Dr. Lin: We saw that there were large disparities in survival by race and ethnicity when you look overall. However, when you just account for the patients who received any systemic therapy at all - not just guideline-directed systemic therapy - those differences in survival essentially disappeared. And so, what that suggests is that if black patients were just as likely to receive any systemic therapy at all as white patients, we would expect that the survival differences that we were seeing would disappear. And this is not even just looking at guideline-directed systemic therapy. This was looking just at systemic therapy alone. And so, while guideline-directed systemic therapy should be a goal, our research suggests that if we are to close the gap in disparities in overall survival among black and white patients, we must first focus on patients just receiving any type of treatment at all. And that should be the very first focus that policymakers, that leaders in ASCO, that health system leaders, that physicians, that we should focus on: just trying to get any type of treatment to our patients who are poorer or black. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. And this was not directly related to the research that you performed, but going back to this very point - so, increasing the number of patients that receive any kind of systemic treatment before looking at guideline-directed treatments - what would you feel would be the best way to approach this in order to decrease the disparities? Would you look at interventions such as financial navigation or maybe improving referral pathways or providing maybe more culturally adapted information to the patients? Because in the end, what we see is disparities based on racial and ethnicity. We see that we can reduce these disparities if we get these patients to the treatment. But in the end, what would you feel is the best way to bring patients to these types of treatments? Dr. Lin: I think the most important thing is to understand that these disparities are not primarily happening because of the high cost of cancer treatment. These disparities are happening because of other social vulnerabilities that these patients are facing. And so these vulnerabilities could be a lot of things. It could be mistrust of the medical system. It could be fear of chemotherapy or other treatments. It could be difficulty taking time off of work. It could be any number of things. What we do know is when we've looked at the types of interventions that can help patients receive treatment, navigation is probably the most effective one. And the reason why I think that is because when patients don't receive treatment because of social vulnerability, I sort of look at social vulnerability like links in a chain. Any weakest link is going to result in the patient not receiving treatment. This may be because they have a hard time taking time off of work. This may be because they had a hard time getting transportation to their physician. It may be because they had an interaction with a physician, but that interaction was challenging for the patient. Maybe they mistrusted the physician. Maybe they're worried about the medical system. If any of these things goes wrong, the patient is not going to be treated. The patient navigator is the only person who can spot any of those weak links within the chain and address them. And so, I think that the first thing to do is to get patient navigation systems in place for our vulnerable patients throughout the United States. And this is incredibly important because in Medicare, patient navigation is reimbursable. And so this is not something that's ‘pie in the sky'. This is something that's achievable today. The second thing is that it's really important that we see these vulnerabilities happening for patients who are dual-eligible, who have both Medicare and Medicaid. One of the reasons why this is important is because there has been a lot of research outside of what we've done that has shown vulnerabilities for dual-eligible patients who have Medicare for a number of different diseases. And the reason why is because, although patients are supposed to have the benefits of both Medicare and Medicaid, usually these two insurances do not play nicely together. It creates a huge, bureaucratic, complex mess and maze that most of these patients are unable to navigate. And so many of these patients are unable to actually receive the full reimbursement from both Medicare and Medicaid that they should be getting because those two insurers are not communicating well. And so the second thing is that national cancer organizations need to be supporting policies and legislation that is already being discussed in Congress to revamp the dual-eligible system so that it facilitates these patients getting properly reimbursed for their care from both Medicare and Medicaid and these systems working together well. The third thing is that Medicaid itself has many benefits that can allow patients to receive care, like they have transportation benefits so that patients can get to and from their doctor's appointments with ease. And so I think this will be additionally very, very helpful for patients. The last thing is, you know, it's possible that future innovations such as telemedicine and tele-oncology and cancer care at home can also make it easier for some of these patients who may be working a lot to receive care. But what I would say is that our study should be a call for healthcare delivery researchers to start piloting interventions to be able to help these patients receive systemic therapy. And so what this could look like is trying to get that care navigation and implement that in clinics so that patients can be receiving the care that they need. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. That was a very clear perspective on how we can tackle this issue. So, I just wanted to close with a sort of personal question. I was wondering what led you to work specifically in this research field that is very challenging, but I think it's particularly critical in healthcare systems like in the United States. Dr. Lin: Yeah, absolutely. One of the most important things for me as an oncologist and a researcher is being able to know that all patients in the United States - and obviously abroad - who have cancer should be able to receive the kind of care that they deserve. I don't think that patients, because their incomes are lower or because their skin looks a certain color or because they live in rural areas, these shouldn't be determinants of whether or not cancer patients are receiving the care that they need. We can develop and pioneer the very best treatments and breakthroughs in oncology, but if our patients are not receiving them - if only 20% of our patients with colon cancer or lung cancer are receiving any type of systemic therapy, who are black - this is a big problem. But this is something that I think that our system can tackle. We need to get these breakthroughs that we have in oncology to every single cancer patient in America and every single cancer patient in the world. I think this is a goal that all oncologists should have, and I think that this is something that, honestly, is achievable. I think that research is a powerful tool to give us a lens into understanding exactly why it is that certain patients are not getting the care that they deserve. And my goal is to continue to use research to shed light on why our system is not performing the way that we all want it to be. Dr. Davide Soldato: Circling back to your research, actually the manuscript that was published was supported by a Young Investigator Award by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. So, was this the first step of a more broad research, or do you have any further plans to go deeper in this topic? Dr. Lin: Yeah, absolutely. First, I want to thank the ASCO Young Investigator Award for funding this research because I think it's fair to say that this research would not have happened at all without the support of the ASCO YIA. And the fact that ASCO is doing as much as it can to support the future generation of cancer researchers is incredible. And it's a huge resource, and having it come at the time that it did is critical for so many of us. So I think that this is an unbelievable thing that ASCO does and continues to do with all of its partners. For me, yeah, this is definitely a stepping stone to further research.  Medicare Fee-for-Service is only one part of the population. I want to spread this research and extend it to patients who have other types of insurances, look at other types of policies, and also try to conduct some of the cancer care delivery research that's needed to try to pilot some interventions that can resolve this problem. So hopefully this is the first step in a broader series of studies that we can all do collectively to try to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in cancer care and survival. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, I think that we've come at the end of this podcast. Thank you again, Dr. Lin, for joining us today. Dr. Lin: Thank you so much. It was a pleasure to be a part of this. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article, "Racial and Ethnic Disparities Along the Treatment Cascade Among Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries With Metastatic Breast, Colorectal, Lung, and Prostate Cancer." If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

In this episode, Drs William J. Gradishar, Heather McArthur, and Joanne Mortimer address audience questions from a recent live event on the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in patients with early and metastatic breast cancer, including:Genomic testing options for assessing risk of recurrenceAdjuvant treatment duration and holidays with CDK4/6 inhibitorsManaging renal toxicities, prophylaxis for DVT, and asymptomatic ILDCDK4/6 inhibitors with inavolisib and fulvestrantPresenters:William J. Gradishar, MD, FACP, FASCOBetsy Bramsen Professor of Breast OncologyRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer CenterNorthwestern UniversityChicago, IllinoisHeather McArthur, MD, MPH, FASCOProfessor, Department of Internal MedicineClinical Director, Breast Cancer ProgramKomen Distinguished Chair in Clinical Breast Cancer ResearchUT Southwestern Medical CenterDallas, TexasJoanne Mortimer, MD, FACP, FASCOVice Chair, Medical OncologyProfessor, Division of Medical Oncology & Experimental TherapeuticsAssociate Director for Education and TrainingBaum Family Professor of Women's CancersCity of Hope Comprehensive Cancer CenterDuarte, CaliforniaLink to full program:https://bit.ly/4osHLTm

Anticipating and managing CDK4/6 inhibitor toxicities in HR+ HER2- breast cancer is essential to improving patient quality of life and optimizing clinical outcomes. In this episode, CANCER BUZZ speaks with Diana Van Ostran, PharmD, BCOP, clinical pharmacy specialist – breast clinic at Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, about strategies to monitor and manage treatment-related adverse events in patients with early-stage and metastatic breast cancer receiving CDK4/6 inhibitors. She discusses the importance of individualized care and robust patient education around lifestyle and dietary techniques to improve tolerance of this treatment.   Diana Van Ostran, PharmD, BCOP  Clinical Pharmacy Specialist – Breast Clinic Miami Cancer Institute Baptist Health South Florida  Miami, FL   “Clinical pharmacists play a vital role in managing the patient's treatment. Because, as we know, if you're having excessive side effects, patients are going to be less likely to take their medications.”   Resources: ACCC Adverse Event Management for CDK Inhibitors in HR+ Breast Cancer ACCC CDK Inhibitors Management Miami Cancer Institute ACCC Spotlight on Miami Cancer Institute: The Role of a Breast Cancer Clinical Pharmacy Specialist for CDK4/6 Inhibitor Management

Osteosarcoma Webinar Series: Karen E. Pollok, PhD, and Pankita H. Pandya, PhD, from the Indiana University School of Medicine, join us on OsteoBites to discuss their work exploring CDK4/6i, particularly in the context of BET inhibition, as a therapeutic option for pediatric OS, regardless of RB status.Hyperactivation of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) has been identified as an actionable molecular signature in pediatric and AYA OS patients at the Indiana University School of Medicine and others. While targeting CDK4/6 has shown promise in significantly reducing tumor progression in many cancers, resistance to CDK4/6 inhibition remains a challenge. To maximize CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) efficacy, a combination therapy will likely be required to mitigate emergence of resistance. Moreover, retinoblastoma proficiency (RB+) has been used as a biomarker to predict response and stratify patients for treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors in other cancers. This is concerning in the context of OS, since over 70% of OS patients harbor a retinoblastoma deficiency (RB-). Therefore, validation of RB as a biomarker of therapeutic response to CDK4/6 inhibition in OS is needed. The lab's objective in these investigations is to identify rational drug combinations that enhance efficacy of CDK4/6 inhibition, and test prioritized combinations in both RB+ and RB- OS models. Their findings support further exploration of CDK4/6i, particularly in the context of BET inhibition, as a therapeutic option for pediatric OS, regardless of RB status.Dr. Pollok is the Associate Director of Basic Science and Director of the Preclinical Modeling and Therapeutics Shared Resource Facility for the IU Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center (IUSCCC). Dr. Pollok works with cancer research laboratories in the IUSCCC to enhance programmatic science focused on translation to the clinic. In her own lab, she leads a team-oriented research program that brings together basic scientists and clinicians focused on finding cures for aggressive cancers such as sarcomas and brain tumors. Her team utilizes multi-omics data to prioritize the testing of novel combination therapies and has developed over 60 tumor models from pediatric and adolescent patients treated at the Riley Hospital for Children IU Health. In collaboration with Dr. Pankita Pandya and the Pediatric Precision Genomics Program, they employ multi-omics data from these models to focus on testing new molecularly-guided targeted therapies. Their goal is to understand the mechanisms behind therapy-mediated tumor efficacy and emerging resistance.Dr. Pandya is heavily involved in translational team science, where she works in partnership with the Pediatric Precision Genomics Program at the Riley Hospital for Children at IU Health, as well as under the mentorship of Dr. Karen E. Pollok at the Herman B Wells Center. Her research initiatives involve testing novel targeted therapies for improving therapeutic outcomes while minimizing toxicity in pediatric and young adult solid cancers like sarcomas. As a genomics data scientist, she has training in multi-omics data management and mining. Additionally, Dr. Pandya has extensive expertise in in-vivo modeling of aggressive pediatric sarcomas. Such skillsets have enabled Dr. Pandya to identify risk signatures, biomarkers of therapeutic response, and other clinically-relevant therapeutic vulnerabilities in pediatric sarcoma patients for functional validation using molecularly characterized preclinical models that our translational team has developed.

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

Featuring perspectives from Dr Harold J Burstein, Dr Javier Cortés, Prof Rebecca A Dent, Dr Kevin Kalinsky, Dr Hope S Rugo and Dr Joyce O'Shaughnessy, moderated by Dr Rugo, including the following topics: Introduction (0:00) Optimizing the Management of HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer (mBC) — Dr Cortés (3:52) Individualized Selection of Up-Front Therapy for Patients with HR-Positive, HER2-Negative mBC — Dr Kalinsky (23:10) Available Therapies for Patients with HR-Positive, HER2-Negative Disease Progressing on CDK4/6 Inhibition — Dr Burstein (48:09) Current and Potential Future Role of HER2-Targeted Therapy for HER2-Low and HER2-Ultralow Disease — Dr O'Shaughnessy (1:04:00) Current and Future Strategies for Patients with Endocrine-Refractory HR-Positive mBC — Dr Rugo (1:22:28) Selection and Sequencing of Therapy for Patients with Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer — Prof Dent (1:42:51) CME information and select publications

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

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

Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. Erika Hamilton highlight key abstracts that were presented at ASCO25, including advances in breast and pancreatic cancers as well as remarkable data from the use of structured exercise programs in cancer care. Transcript Dr. Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. John Sweetenham. Today, we'll be discussing some of the key advances and novel approaches in cancer care that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. I'm delighted to be joined again by the chair of the Meeting's Scientific Program, Dr. Erika Hamilton. She is a medical oncologist and director of breast cancer and gynecologic cancer research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Hamilton, congratulations on a fantastic meeting. From the practice-changing science to the world-renowned speakers at this year's Meeting, ASCO25 really reflected the amazing progress we're seeing in oncology today and the enormous opportunities that lie ahead of us. And thanks for coming back on to the podcast today to discuss some of these advances. Dr. Hamilton: Thanks, Dr. Sweetenham. I'm happy to join you today. It really was an impactful ASCO Annual Meeting. I probably am biased, but some great research was presented this year, and I heard lots of great conversations happening while we were there. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. There was a lot of buzz, as well as a lot of media buzz around the meeting this year, and I think that's probably a good place to start. So I'd like to dive into abstract number LBA3510. This was the CHALLENGE trial, which created a lot of buzz at the meeting and subsequently in the media. This is the study that was led by the NCI Canada Clinical Trials Group, which was the first randomized phase 3 trial in patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer, which demonstrated that a post-treatment structured exercise program is both feasible and effective in improving disease-free survival in this patient group. The study was performed over a long period of time and in many respects is quite remarkable. So, I wonder if you could give us your thoughts about this study and whether you think that this means that our futures are going to be full of structured exercise programs for those patients who may benefit. Dr. Hamilton: It's a fantastic question. I think that this abstract did create a lot of buzz. We were very excited when we read it. It was highlighted in one of the Clinical Science Symposium sessions. But briefly, this was a phase 3 randomized trial. It was conducted at 55 centers, so really a broad experience, and patients that had resected colon cancer who completed adjuvant therapy were allowed to participate. There were essentially 2 groups: a structured exercise program, called ‘the exercise group,' or health education materials alone, so that was called just ‘the health education group.' And this was a 3-year intervention, so very high quality. The primary end point, as you mentioned, was disease-free survival. This actually accrued from 2009 to 2024, so quite a lift, and almost 900 patients underwent randomization to the exercise group or the health education group. And at almost 8 years of follow-up, we saw that the disease-free survival was significantly longer in the exercise group than the health education group. This was essentially 80.3% of patients were disease-free in exercise and 73.9% in the health education group. So a difference of over 6 percentage points, which, you know, at least in the breast cancer world, we make decisions about whether to do chemotherapy or not based on these kind of data. We also looked at overall survival in the exercise group and health education group, and the 8-year overall survival was 90.3% in the exercise group and 83.2% in the health education group. So this was a difference of 7.1%. Still statistically significant. I think this was really a fantastic effort over more than a decade at over 50 institutions with almost 900 patients, really done in a very systematic, high-intervention way that showed a fantastic result. Absolutely generalizable for patients with colon cancer. We have hints in other cancers that this is beneficial, and frankly, for our patients for other comorbidities, such as cardiovascular, etc., I really think that this is an abstract that deserved the press that it received. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely, and it is going to be very interesting, I think, over the next 2 or 3 years to see how much impact this particular study might have on programs across the country and across the world actually, in terms of what they do in this kind of adjuvant setting for structured exercise. Dr. Hamilton: Absolutely.  So let's move on to Abstract 3006. This was an NCI-led effort comparing genomic testing using ctDNA and tissue from patients with less common cancers who were enrolled in but not eligible for a treatment arm of the NCI-MATCH trial. Tell us about your takeaways from this study. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, so I thought this was a really interesting study based, as you said, on NCI-MATCH. And many of the listeners will probably remember that the original NCI-MATCH study screened almost 6,000 patients to assess eligibility for those who had an actionable mutation. And it turned out that about 60% of the patients who went on to the study had less common tumors, which were defined as anything other than colon, rectum, breast, non–small cell lung cancer, or prostate cancer. And most of those patients lacked an eligible mutation of interest and so didn't get onto a trial therapy. But with a great deal of foresight, the study group had actually collected plasma samples from these patients so that they would have the opportunity to look at circulating tumor DNA profiles with the potential being that this might be another way for testing for clinically relevant mutations in some of these less common cancer types. So initially, they tested more than 2,000 patients, and to make a somewhat complicated story short, there was a subset of five histologies with a larger representation in terms of sample size. And these were cholangiocarcinoma, small cell lung cancer, esophageal cancer, pancreatic, and salivary gland cancer. And in those particular tumors, when they compared the ctDNA sequencing with the original tumor, there was a concordance there of around 84%, 85%. And in the presentation, the investigators go on to list the specific mutated genes that were identified in each of those tumors. But I think that the other compelling part of this study from my perspective was not just that concordance, which suggests that there's an opportunity there for the use of ctDNA instead of tumor biopsies in some of these situations, but what was also interesting was the fact that there were several clinically relevant mutations which were detected only in the circulating tumor DNA. And a couple of examples of those included IDH1 for cholangiocarcinoma, BRAF and p53 in several histologies, and microsatellite instability was most prevalent in small cell lung cancer in the ctDNA. So I think that what this demonstrates is that liquid biopsy is certainly a viable screening option for patients who are being assessed for matching for targeted therapies in clinical trials. The fact that some of these mutations were only seen in the ctDNA and not in the primary tumor specimen certainly suggests that there's some tumor heterogeneity. But I think that for me, the most compelling part of this study was the fact that many of these mutations were only picked up in the plasma. And so, as the authors concluded, they believe that a comprehensive gene profiling with circulating tumor DNA probably should be included as a primary screening modality in future trials of targeted therapy of this type. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I think that that's really interesting and mirrors a lot of data that we've been seeing. At least in breast cancer, you know, we still do a biopsy up front to make sure that our markers, we're still treating the right disease that we think we are. But it really speaks to the utility of using ctDNA for serial monitoring and the emergence of mutations. Dr. Sweetenham: Absolutely. And you mentioned breast cancer, and so I'd like to dwell on that for a moment here because obviously, there was a huge amount of exciting breast cancer data presented at the meeting this year. And in particular, I'd like to ask you about LBA1008, the DESTINY-Breast09 clinical trial, which I think has the potential to establish a new first-line standard of care for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. And that's an area where we haven't seen a whole lot of innovation for around a decade now. So can you give us some of the highlights of this trial and what your thinking is, having seen the results? Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, absolutely. So this was a trial in the first-line metastatic HER2 setting. So this was looking at trastuzumab deruxtecan. We certainly have had no shortage of reports around this drug, initially approved for later lines. DESTINY-Breast03 brought it into our second-line setting for HER2+ disease and we're now looking at DESTINY-Breast09 in first-line. So this actually was a 3-arm trial where patients were randomized 1:1:1 against standard taxane/trastuzumab/pertuzumab in one arm; trastuzumab deruxtecan with pertuzumab in another arm; and then a third arm, trastuzumab deruxtecan alone. And what we did not see reported was that trastuzumab deruxtecan-alone arm. But we did have reports from the trastuzumab deruxtecan plus pertuzumab versus the chemo/trastuzumab/pertuzumab. And what we saw was a statistically significant improvement in median progression-free survival, 26.9 months up to 40.7, so an improvement of 13.8 months, over a year in PFS. Not to mention that we're now in the 40-month range for PFS in first-line disease. Really, across all subgroups, we really weren't able to pick out a subset of patients that did not benefit. We did see about a 12% ILD rate with trastuzumab deruxtecan. That really is on par with what we've seen in other studies, around 10%-15%. I think that this is going to become a new standard of care in the first-line. I think it did leave some unanswered questions. We saw some data from the PATINA trial this past San Antonio Breast, looking at the addition of endocrine therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor, palbociclib, for those patients that also have ER+ disease, after taxane has dropped out in the first-line setting. So how we're going to kind of merge all this together is, I suspect that there are going to be patients that we or they just don't have the appetite to continue 3 to 4 years of trastuzumab deruxtecan. And so we're probably going to be looking at a maintenance-type strategy for them, maybe integrating the PATINA data there. But how we really put this into practice in the first-line setting and if or when we think about de-escalating down from trastuzumab deruxtecan to antibody therapy are some lingering questions. Dr. Sweetenham: Okay, so certainly is going to influence practice, but watch this space for a little bit longer, it sounds as though that's what you're saying. Dr. Hamilton: Absolutely.  So let's move on to GI cancer. Abstract 4006 reported preliminary results from the randomized phase 2 study of elraglusib in combination with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus the chemo gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. Can you tell us more about this study? Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. As you mentioned, elraglusib is actually a first-in-class inhibitor of GSK3-beta, which has multiple potential actions in pancreatic cancer. But the drug itself may be involved in mediating drug resistance as well as in some tumor immune response modulation. Some of that's not clearly understood, I believe, right now. But certainly, preclinical data suggests that the drug may be effective in preclinical models and may also be effective in combination with chemotherapy and potentially with immune-modulating agents as well. So this particular study, as you said, was an open-label, randomized phase 2 study in which patients with pancreatic cancer were randomized 2:1 in favor of the elraglusib plus GMP—gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel—versus the chemotherapy alone. And upon completion of the study, which is not right now, median overall survival was the primary end point, but there are a number of other end points which I'll talk about in just a moment. But the sample size was planned to be around 207 patients. The primary analysis included 155 patients in the combination arm versus 78 patients in the gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel arm. Overall, the 1-year overall survival rate was 44.1% for the patients in the elraglusib-containing arm versus 23.0% in the patients receiving gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel only. When they look at the median overall survival, it was 9.3 months for the experimental arm versus 7.2 months for chemotherapy alone. So put another way, there's around a 37% reduction in the risk of death with the use of this combination arm. The treatment was overall well-tolerated. There were some issues with grade 1 to 2 transient visual impairment in a large proportion of the patients. The most common treatment-related adverse effects with the elraglusib/GMP combination was transient visual impairment, which affected around 60% of the patients. Most of the more serious treatment-related adverse events included neutropenia, anemia, and fatigue in 50%, 25%, and 16% of the patients, respectively. So the early results from this study show a significant benefit for 1-year overall survival and for median overall survival with, as I mentioned above, a significant reduction in the risk of death. The authors went on to mention that the median overall survival for the control arm in this study is somewhat lower than in other comparable trials, but they think that this may be related to a more advanced disease burden in this particular study. Of interest to me was that right now: there is no apparent difference in progression-free survival between the 2 arms of this study. The authors described this as potentially indicating that this may be related in some way to immune modulation and immune effects on the tumor, which, if I'm completely honest, I don't totally understand. And so, the improvement in overall survival, as far as I can see at the moment, is not matched by an improvement in progression-free survival. So I think we probably need to wait for more time to elapse to see what happens with the study. And so, I think it certainly is an interesting study, and the results are intriguing, but I think it's probably a little early for it to actually shift the treatment paradigm in this disease. Dr. Hamilton: Fantastic. I think we've been waiting for advances in pancreatic cancer for a long time, but this, not unlike others, we learn more and then learn more we don't realize, so. Dr. Sweetenham: Right. Let's shift gears at this point and talk about a couple of other abstracts in kind of a very different space. Let's start out with symptom management for older adults with cancer. We know that undertreated symptoms are common among the older patient population, and Abstract 11002 reported on a randomized trial that demonstrated the effects of remote monitoring for older patients with cancer in terms of kind of symptoms and so on. Can you tell us a little bit about this study and whether you think this approach will potentially improve care for older patients? Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I really liked this abstract. It was conducted through the Veterans Affairs, and it was based in California, which I'm telling you that because it's going to have a little bit of an implication later on. But essentially, adults that were 75 years or older who were Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were eligible to participate. Forty-three clinics in Southern California and Arizona, and patients were randomized either into a control group of usual clinic care alone, or an intervention group, which was usual care plus a lay health worker-led proactive telephone-based weekly symptom assessment, and this was for 12 months using the validated Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. So, there was a planned enrollment of at least 200 patients in each group. They successfully met that. And this lay health worker reviewed assessments with a physician assistant, who conducted follow-up for symptoms that changed by 2 points from a prior assessment or were rated 4 or greater. So almost a triage system to figure out who needed to be reached out to and to kind of work on symptoms. What I thought was fantastic about this was it was very representative of where it enrolled. There were actually about 50% of patients enrolled here that were Hispanic or Latinos. So some of our underserved populations and really across a wide variety of tumor types. They found that the intervention group had 53% lower odds of emergency room use, 68% lower odds of hospital use than the control group. And when they translated this to actual total cost of care, this was a savings of about $12,000 U.S. per participant and 75% lower odds of a death in an acute care facility. So I thought this was really interesting for a variety of reasons. One, certainly health care utilization and cost, but even more so, I think any of our patients would want to prevent hospitalizations and ER visits. Normally, that's not a fantastic experience having to feel poorly enough that you're in the emergency room or the hospital. And really showing in kind of concrete metrics that we were able to decrease this with this intervention. In terms of sustainability and scalability, I think the question is really the workforce to do this. Obviously, you know, this is going to take dedicated employees to have the ability to reach out to these patients, etc., but I think in value-based care, there's definitely a possibility of having reimbursement and having the funds to institute a program like this. So, definitely thought-provoking, and I hope it leads to more interventions. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, we've seen, over several years now, many of these studies which have looked at remote symptom monitoring and so on in this patient population, and many of them do show benefits for that in kinds of end points, not the least in this study being hospitalization and emergency room avoidance. But I think the scalability and personnel issue is a huge one, and I do wonder at some level whether we may see some AI-based platforms coming along that could actually help with this and provide interactions with these patients outside of actual real people, or at least in combination with real people. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, that's a fantastic point.  So let's talk a little bit about clinical trials. So eligibility assessment for oncology clinical trials, or prescreening, really relies on manual review of unstructured clinical notes. It's time-consuming, it's prone to errors, and Abstract 1508 reported on the final analysis of a randomized trial that looked at the effect of human-AI teams prescreening for clinical trial eligibility versus human-only or AI-only prescreening. So give us more good news about AI. What did the study find? Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, this is a really, a really interesting study. And of course, any of us who have ever been involved in clinical trials will know that accrual is always a problem. And I think most centers have attempted, and some quite successfully managed to develop prescreening programs so that patients are screened by a health care provider or health care worker prior to being seen in the clinic, and the clinical investigator will then already know whether they're going to be eligible for a trial or not. But as you've already said, it's a slow process. It's typically somewhat inefficient and requires a lot of time on the part of the health care workers to actually do this in a successful way. And so, this was a study from Emory University where they took three models of ways in which they could assess the accuracy of the prescreening of charts for patients who are going to be considered for clinical trials. One of these was essentially the regular way of having two research coordinators physically abstract the charts. The second one was an AI platform which would extract longitudinal EHR data. And then the third one was a combination of the two. So the AI would be augmented by the research coordinator or the other way around. As a gold standard, they had three independent oncology reviewers who went through all of these charts to provide what they regarded as being the benchmark for accuracy. In a way, it's not a surprise to me because I think that a number of other systems which have used this combination of human verification of AI-based tools, it actually ultimately concluded that the combination of the two in terms of chart accuracy was for the most part better than either one individually, either the research coordinator or the AI alone. So I'll give you just a few examples of where specifically that mattered. The human plus AI platform was more accurate in terms of tumor staging, in terms of identifying biomarker testing and biomarker results, as well as biomarker interpretation, and was also superior in terms of listing medications. There are one or two other areas where either the AI alone was somewhat more accurate, but the significant differences were very much in favor of a combination of human + AI screening of these patient charts. So, in full disclosure, this didn't save time, but what the authors reported was that there were definite efficiency gains, and presumably this would actually become even more improved once the research coordinators were somewhat more comfortable and at home with the AI tool. So, I thought it was an interesting way of trying to enhance clinical trial accrual up front by this combination of humans and technology, and I think it's going to be interesting to see if this gets adopted at other centers in the future. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I think it's really fascinating, all the different places that we can be using AI, and I love the takeaway that AI and humans together are better than either individually. Dr. Sweetenham: Absolutely.  Thanks once again, Dr. Hamilton, for sharing your insights with us today and for all of the incredible work you did to build a robust program. And also, congratulations on what was, I think, a really remarkable ASCO this year, one of the most exciting for some time, I think. So thank you again for that. Dr. Hamilton: Thanks so much. It was really a pleasure to work on ASCO 2025 this year. Dr. Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to all the abstracts we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Be sure to catch up on all of our coverage from the Annual Meeting. You can catch up on my daily reports that were published each day of the Annual Meeting, featuring the key science and innovations presented. And we'll have wrap-up episodes publishing in June, covering the full spectrum of malignancies from ASCO25. If you value the insights you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   More on today's speakers: Dr. John Sweetenham   Dr. Erika Hamilton @erikahamilton9   Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:     Dr. John Sweetenham:     No relationships to disclose    Dr. Erika Hamilton: Consulting or Advisory Role (Inst): Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Mersana, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ellipses Pharma, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Stemline Therapeutics, Tubulis, Verascity Science, Theratechnologies, Accutar Biotechnology, Entos, Fosun Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Medical Pharma Services, Hosun Pharma, Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Jefferies, Tempus Labs, Arvinas, Circle Pharma, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson   Research Funding (Inst): AstraZeneca, Hutchison MediPharma, OncoMed, MedImmune, Stem CentRx, Genentech/Roche, Curis, Verastem, Zymeworks, Syndax, Lycera, Rgenix, Novartis, Millenium, TapImmune, Inc., Lilly, Pfizer, Lilly, Pfizer, Tesaro, Boehringer Ingelheim, H3 Biomedicine, Radius Health, Acerta Pharma, Macrogenics, Abbvie, Immunomedics, Fujifilm, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Merus, Nucana, Regeneron, Leap Therapeutics, Taiho Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, ArQule, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, CytomX Therapeutics, InventisBio, Deciphera, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Zenith Epigentics, Arvinas, Harpoon, Black Diamond, Orinove, Molecular Templates, Seattle Genetics, Compugen, GI Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Dana-Farber Cancer Hospital, Shattuck Labs, PharmaMar, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Immunogen, Plexxikon, Amgen, Akesobio Australia, ADC Therapeutics, AtlasMedx, Aravive, Ellipses Pharma, Incyte, MabSpace Biosciences, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pionyr, Repetoire Immune Medicines, Treadwell Therapeutics, Accutar Biotech, Artios, Bliss Biopharmaceutical, Cascadian Therapeutics, Dantari, Duality Biologics, Elucida Oncology, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, Tolmar, Torque, BeiGene, Context Therapeutics, K-Group Beta, Kind Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, Oncothyreon, Orum Therapeutics, Prelude Therapeutics, Profound Bio, Cullinan Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squib, Eisai, Fochon Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Inspirna, Myriad Genetics, Silverback Therapeutics, Stemline Therapeutics

Featuring perspectives from Dr Virginia F Borges, Ms Jamie Carroll, Mr Ronald Stein and Dr Seth Wander, including the following topics: Introduction (0:00) Role of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Localized and Metastatic Hormone Receptor (HR)-Positive Breast Cancer (12:49) PI3K Inhibition as First-Line Treatment for HR-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer (mBC) (38:24) Clinical Utility of AKT and PI3K Inhibitors in Progressive HR-Positive mBC (1:01:44) Current and Future Role of Oral Selective Estrogen Receptor Degraders in HR-Positive mBC (1:24:38) NCPD information and select publications

Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 2 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including new data on the treatment of ER+/HER2-negative breast cancer and potentially practice-changing results for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence.  Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, your host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, welcoming you to our special coverage of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Today, I'll be bringing you my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 2 of the Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Today's selection features important, new data on the treatment of ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, the use of tumor treating fields in combination with chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer, and potentially practice-changing results for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma at high-risk of recurrence.  Our first selected abstract is LBA1000. This important phase 3 study was presented by Dr. Erika Hamilton from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville and evaluated the use of a novel agent, vepdegestrant, in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer, which had progressed after first-line endocrine therapy. Vepdegestrant is a selective oral PROTAC estrogen receptor degrader, which targets wild-type and mutant estrogen receptor through a novel mechanism of action which directly harnesses the ubiquitin-proteasome system to degrade ER. It has potential advantages over fulvestrant, a selective ER degrader which has to be administered intramuscularly and has limited benefit in patients who progress after endocrine therapy plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor.  Building on the encouraging results from the initial phase 1/2 study of vepdegestrant, Dr. Hamilton reported results from the VERITAC-2 global phase 3 trial, comparing this agent with fulvestrant. The patients in the study had already received treatment with hormone therapy and a CDK inhibitor and were randomly assigned to receive treatment with either vepdegestrant (313 patients) or fulvestrant (311 patients). The vepdegestrant was taken orally each day, while the fulvestrant was given intramuscularly on days 1 and 15 of the first cycle of treatment and day 1 of each subsequent treatment cycle. Patients were stratified by the presence of wild-type ER or ESR1 mutation. A total of 43.3% of patients had ESR1 mutations; 136 of those were in the vepdegestrant group and 134 in the fulvestrant group.   For patients with ESR1 mutations, vepdegestrant significantly increased progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant. For patients who received vepdegestrant, the median PFS was 5 months versus 2.1 months for those who received fulvestrant. The clinical benefit rate was 42.1% in the vepdegestrant group vs. 20.2% in the fulvestrant group. The overall response rate was 18.6% in the vepdegestrant group compared with only 4% in the fulvestrant group.  The PFS and response benefits of vepdegestrant were largely restricted to the population with ESR1 mutations. Overall survival data are currently immature. The safety profile was favorable, with fewer than 5% of patients having dose reductions or discontinuation due to toxicity. The most frequent toxicities were fatigue, nausea, and elevated transaminases.  The authors concluded that oral vepdegestrant demonstrates statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant in this group of patients with ESR1-mutated ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer who have progressed after endocrine therapy and a CDK inhibitor. Patients with recurrent disease in this context are now routinely tested for ESR1 mutations, and this agent is for sure a potential treatment option for them.  The next study on today's episode, LBA4005, reports on the use of tumor treatment fields for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Tumor treatment fields are electric fields which disrupt cell division and may also induce an enhanced immune response, using a non-invasive portable device attached to the skin, and are already approved for the treatment of some cancers, including GBM and non-small cell lung cancer. A previous phase 2 trial, PANOVA-2, confirmed the feasibility and safety of using this approach in combination with gemcitabine plus or minus nabpaclitaxel in pancreatic cancer. In today's presentation, Dr. Vincent Picozzi from the Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle presented the results of the PANOVA-3 trial, a phase 3 study comparing gemcitabine and nabpaclitaxel with the same chemotherapy plus tumor treatment fields in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.  Five hundred and seventy-one eligible patients were enrolled in the study with a total of 405 (198 in the treatment field group and 207 in the standard arm) comprising the modified intent- to-treat population. The duration of chemotherapy treatment was comparable in both study arms, and patients receiving treatment fields had a median exposure of almost 27 weeks.  Statistically significant improvements were observed for several study endpoints, including overall survival (a median of 16.2 versus 14.2 months), distant PFS (at 13.9 versus 11.5 months) and pain-free survival (at 15.2 versus 9.1 months), all in favor of the treatment fields arm. Although quality of life data were not reported in detail, the authors noted a significant improvement in global health status in the treatment fields arm. Safety data showed a higher level of skin adverse events in the treatment fields arm but were otherwise as expected for the GnP combination.  These are quite remarkable results which add to the growing evidence base for tumor treatment fields and are particularly compelling in this patient group given the substantial improvement in pain-free survival. It will be especially interesting to see the mature analysis of the quality-of-life endpoints in a subsequent report.  The final selection today is Abstract 6001, which describes the C-POST trial, a phase 3 trial of adjuvant cemiplimab versus placebo in patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the skin. This study was presented by Dr. Danny Rischin from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.   Although surgical resection with or without adjuvant radiation is curative in 90% of patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, high-risk features, including nodal disease, skin and subcutaneous metastases, perineural invasion and bone involvement, predict for an inferior prognosis.  Cemiplimab, a PD-1 targeting antibody is standard therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who are not candidates for curative surgical resection or radiation therapy, with an overall response rate of almost 50%.  The C-POST study evaluated the use of cemiplimab as adjuvant therapy following surgery and radiation in high-risk patients, compared with placebo. Treatment was administered at 3-week intervals for 12 weeks, and then 6-week intervals for a further 36 weeks, with a primary endpoint of disease-free survival. Four hundred and fifteen patients were randomized in the study, 209 to cemiplimab and 206 to placebo. With median follow-up at 24 months, Dr. Rischin reported a highly significant improvement in disease-free survival for the cemiplimab arm, 49.4 months for placebo versus not reached for cemiplimab, with improvements also observed in the rates of locoregional recurrence and distant recurrence at 80% and 60% reductions, respectively. No new safety signals were observed.  This study is potentially practice-changing and provides strong evidence that cemiplimab should be considered the new standard of care in this clinical context.  Thanks for listening today and join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.  Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speaker:   Dr. John Sweetenham   Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter   @ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures:   Dr. John Sweetenham:   No relationships to disclose  

Featuring an interview with Dr Rinath M Jesselsohn, including the following topics: Evaluating first-line treatment of metastatic ER-positive, HER2-positive breast cancer: heredERA Breast Cancer study (0:00) Kuemmel S et al. heredERA Breast Cancer: A phase III, randomized, open-label study evaluating the efficacy and safety of giredestrant plus the fixed-dose combination of pertuzumab and trastuzumab for subcutaneous injection in patients with previously untreated HER2-positive, estrogen receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2024;24(1):641. Abstract  Treatment outcomes with CDK4/6 inhibitors and with elacestrant in real-world studies (4:13) Lloyd MR et al. CDK4/6 inhibitor efficacy in ESR1-mutant metastatic breast cancer. NEJM Evid 2024;3(5). Abstract  Lloyd M et al. Impact of prior treatment, ESR1 mutational (ESR1m) landscape, and co-occurring PI3K pathway status on real-world (RW) elacestrant outcomes in patients (pts) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (aBC). San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024;Abstract PS7-05.  Evaluating the CNS activity of imlunestrant, an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) (8:06) VandeKopple M et al. Preclinical characterization of imlunestrant, an oral brain-penetrant selective estrogen receptor degrader with activity in a brain metastasis (BM) model. ESMO Breast 2023;Abstract 41P.  Selective review of trials of oral SERDs in the adjuvant setting (11:27) A study of imlunestrant versus standard endocrine therapy in participants with early breast cancer (EMBER-4). NCT05514054 CME information and select publications

This featured podcast includes a discussion with 3 experts on managing patients with hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) from a satellite symposium held in conjunction with the 42nd Annual Miami Breast Cancer Conference® in March 2025. In observational studies of treatment patterns in older women with mBC, approximately half of the patients were undertreated, and only half received a CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i)-based regimen in the first-line setting. Reasons for undertreatment include concerns about the patient's age, perceived frailty, and underlying health issues. Aging is a heterogeneous process; older patients must receive individualized treatment that is not based solely on their age but on a comprehensive assessment that objectively assesses their overall health and ability to tolerate treatment. This program is designed to help clinicians assess the fitness of older patients with HR+/HER2– mBC, review the efficacy and safety of CDK4/6i in this patient population, and individualize treatment decision-making appropriately. Acknowledgment of Educational Grant Support This activity is supported by an educational grant from Pfizer Inc. Today's faculty are: Hope S. Rugo, MD Director, Women's Cancers Program Division Chief, Breast Medical Oncology Professor, Department of Medical Oncology & Therapeutics Research City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center Duarte, CA Professor Emeritus, UCSF Disclosures: Grant/Research Support: Ambrx; AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG/Genentech, Inc; Gilead Sciences, Inc; Lilly; Merck & Co., Inc; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; OBI Pharma; Pfizer; Stemline Therapeutics. Consultant: Napo Therapeutics; Puma Biotechnology; Sanofi. Honoraria: Chugai; Mylan/Viatris. Neil M. Iyengar, MD Associate Attending, Breast Medicine Service Program Lead, MSK Healthy Living Department of Medicine Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Associate Professor of Medicine Weill Cornell Medical College New York, NY Disclosures: Consultant/Adviser: Arvinas, AstraZeneca, BD Life Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Menarini-Stemline, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, Seagen, TerSera Therapeutics. Speaker: Cardinal Health, Curio Sciences, DAVA Oncology, IntrinsiQ Health. Editorial Position: npj Breast Cancer, Oncology®. Equity/Ownership: Complement Theory, Bettering Company. Research Support (to institution): American Cancer Society, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Conquer Cancer Foundation, Kat's Ribbon of Hope, National Cancer Institute/National Institutes of Health. Contracted Research: Novartis, SynDevRx. Komal Jhaveri, MD, FACP Patricia and James Cayne Chair for Junior Faculty Associate Attending Physician, Breast Medicine Service and Early Drug Development Service Section Head, Endocrine Therapy Research Program Clinical Director, Early Drug Development Service Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine Weill Cornell Medical College New York, NY Disclosures: Consultant/Advisory Board: AbbVie Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo Inc, Eisai Inc, Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, Gilead Sciences Inc, Jounce Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company, Menarini Group, Novartis, Olema Oncology, Pfizer Inc, Scorpion Therapeutics, Seagen Inc, Stemline Therapeutics Inc, Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company Ltd, Taiho Oncology Inc. Research Funding: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Debiopharm, Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, Gilead Sciences Inc, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Puma Biotechnology Inc, Scorpion Therapeutics, Zymeworks Inc. The staff of Physicians' Education Resource®, LLC, have no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies. PER® mitigated all COI for faculty, staff, and planners prior to the start of this activity by using a multistep process. Off-Label Disclosure and Disclaimer This activity may or may not discuss investigational, unapproved, or off-label use of drugs. Learners are advised to consult prescribing information for any products discussed. The information provided in this accredited activity is for continuing education purposes only and is not meant to substitute for the independent clinical judgment of a health care professional relative to diagnostic, treatment, or management options for a specific patient's medical condition. The opinions expressed in the content are solely those of the individual faculty members and do not reflect those of PER® or any company that provided commercial support for this activity.

Featuring perspectives from Prof Rebecca A Dent and Dr Nancy U Lin, including the following topics: Introduction: A New Paradigm for Triple-Positive Breast Cancer? (0:00) CDK4/6 Inhibitors for HR-Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer (10:06) Oral Selective Estrogen Receptor Degraders for HR-Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer (21:17) Treatment of PIK3CA/PTEN/AKT-Mutated Breast Cancer (31:34) Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs) for HR-Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer (38:41) ADCs for HER2-Positive Breast Cancer (46:30) HER2-Targeting Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for HER2-Positive Breast Cancer (53:26) ADCs for Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (58:29) CME information and select publications

Featuring a slide presentation and related discussion from Dr Adam M Brufsky, including the following topics: Mechanism of action of and long-term data with CDK4/6 inhibitors in the management of metastatic breast cancer (mBC) (0:00) Comparing safety profiles of CDK4/6 inhibitors (9:49) Role of CDK4/6 inhibitors in therapy for older patients with mBC (24:06) Real-world evidence with CDK4/6 inhibitors (27:31) CME information and select publications

Featuring perspectives from Dr Aditya Bardia, Dr Virginia F Borges, Dr Harold J Burstein and Dr Joyce O'Shaughnessy, including the following topics: Introduction (0:00) HER2-Positive Breast Cancer — Dr O'Shaughnessy (3:13) Triple-Negative Breast Cancer — Dr Bardia (32:56) Personalizing Adjuvant Therapy for Patients with HR-Positive Breast Cancer — Dr Borges (57:35) Current Role of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in the Localized Setting — Dr Burstein (1:25:15) CME information and select publications

Featuring an interview with Dr Raajit K Rampal, including the following topics: Clinical decision-making in the initiation and stopping of systemic therapy for myelofibrosis (MF) (0:00) Novel research strategies involving CDK4/6 inhibitors for MF (8:03) Implications of the JUMP study for clinical practice (10:00) Therapeutic switching strategies with JAK inhibitors for MF (12:17) Clinical rationale for the use of luspatercept and elritercept for MF (15:35) Emerging clinical data involving BET inhibitors for MF (16:57) Tolerability concerns with selinexor in patients with MF (20:01) Mechanism of and clinical data with the MDM2 inhibitor navtemadlin for MF (22:32) Additional novel strategies under clinical investigation for MF (25:52) Potential transformation of myeloproliferative neoplasms to acute myeloid leukemia (29:40) Management of polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia (34:27) General management principles for myeloproliferative neoplasms (37:53) CME information and select publications