Podcasts about clinical oncology

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guest Dr. Harriet Kluger discuss the JCO article "Phase II Trial of Pembrolizumab in Combination With Bevacizumab for Untreated Melanoma Brain Metastases." 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 from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, Medical Oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by JCO author Dr. Harriet Kluger. Dr. Kluger is a professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine, Director of the Yale SPORE in Skin Cancer, and an internationally recognized expert in immuno-oncology for melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. She leads early-phase and translational trials that pair novel immunotherapies with predictive biomarkers to personalized care. Today, Dr. Kluger and I will be discussing the article titled "Phase 2 Trial of Pembrolizumab in Combination with Bevacizumab for Untreated Melanoma Brain Metastases." In this study, Dr. Kluger and colleagues evaluated four cycles of pembrolizumab plus the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab followed by pembrolizumab maintenance in patients with asymptomatic non-hemorrhagic melanoma brain metastases that had not previously received PD-1 therapy. Thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Kluger. Dr. Harriet Kluger Thank you for inviting me. The pleasure is really all mine. Dr. Davide Soldato So to kick off our podcast, I just wanted to ask if you could outline a little bit the biological and clinical rationale that led you to test this type of combination for patients with untreated brain metastases from metastatic melanoma. Dr. Harriet Kluger Back in approximately 2012, patients who had untreated brain metastases were excluded from all clinical trials. So by untreated, I mean brain metastases that had not received local therapy such as surgery or radiation. The reason for it was primarily because there was this fear that big molecules wouldn't penetrate brain lesions because they can't pass the blood-brain barrier. Turns out that the blood-brain barrier within a tumor is somewhat leaky and drugs sometimes can get in there. When PD-1 inhibitors were first identified as the next blockbuster class of drugs, we decided to conduct a phase 2 clinical trial of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with untreated brain metastases. We actually did it also in lung cancer, and we could talk about that later on. Responses were seen. The responses in the brain and the body were similar. They were concordant in melanoma patients. Now, at approximately that time, also another study was done by the Australian group by Dr. Georgina Long, where they did a randomized trial where patients who didn't require immediate steroid therapy received either nivolumab alone or nivolumab with ipilimumab, and the combination arm was substantially superior. Subsequently, also, Bristol Myers Squibb also conducted a large phase 2 multicenter trial of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with untreated brain metastases. And there, once again, they saw that the responses in the brain were similar to the responses in the body. Now, somewhere along the line there, we completed our anti-PD-1 monotherapy trial. And when we looked at our data, we still didn't have the data on ipilimumab and nivolumab. And our question was, “Well, how can we do better?” Just as we're always trying to do better. We saw two really big problems. One was that patients had a lot of perilesional edema. And the other one was that we were struggling with radiation necrosis in lesions that were previously Gamma Knifed. The instance of radiation necrosis was in excess of 30%. So the rationale behind this study was that if we added bevacizumab, maybe we could treat those patients who had some edema, not requiring steroids, but potentially get them on study, get that PD-1 inhibitor going, and also prevent subsequent radiation necrosis. And that was the main rationale behind the study. We had also done some preclinical work in mouse models of melanoma brain metastases and in an in vitro blood-brain barrier model where we showed that bevacizumab, or anti-VEGF, really tightens up those leaky basement membranes and therefore would be very likely to decrease the edema. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much for putting in context the combination. So this was a phase 2 trial, and you included patients who had at least one lesion, and you wanted lesions that were behind 5 and 20 millimeters. Patients could be included also if the brain metastasis was higher in dimension than 20 millimeters, but it had to be treated, and it was then excluded from the evaluation of the primary objective of the trial. So regarding, a little bit, these characteristics, do you think that this is very similar to what we see in clinical practice? And what does this mean in terms of applicability of these results in clinical practice? Dr. Harriet Kluger So that's an excellent question. The brain metastasis clinical research field has somewhat been struggling with this issue of inclusion/exclusion criteria. When we started this, we showed pretty clearly that 5 to 10 millimeter lesions, which are below the RECIST criteria for inclusion, are measurable if you use MRIs with slices that are 1 to 2 millimeters. Most institutions in the United States do use these high-resolution MRIs. I don't know how applicable that is on a worldwide scale, but we certainly lowered the threshold for inclusion so that patients who have a smattering of small brain metastases would be eligible. Now, patients with single large brain metastases, the reason that we excluded those from the trial was because we were afraid that if a patient didn't respond to the systemic therapy that we were going to give them, they could really then develop severe neurological symptoms. So, for patient safety, we used 20 millimeters as the upper level for inclusion. Some of the other trials that I mentioned earlier also excluded patients with very large lesions. Now, in practice, one certainly can do Gamma Knife therapy to the large lesions and leave the smaller ones untreated. So I think it actually is very applicable to clinical practice. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much for that insight, because I think that sometimes criteria for clinical trials, they have to be very restrictive. But then we know that in clinical practice, the applicability of these results is probably broader. So, going a little bit further in the results of the study, I just wanted a little bit of comment from you regarding what you saw in terms of intracranial response rate and duration of response among patients who obtained a response from the combination treatment. Dr. Harriet Kluger So we were actually surprised. When we first designed this study, as I said earlier, we weren't trying to beat out ipilimumab and nivolumab. We were really just trying to exclude those patients who wouldn't have otherwise been eligible for ipilimumab and nivolumab because of edema or possibly even previous radiation necrosis. So it was designed to differentiate between a response rate of 34%, and I believe the lower bound was somewhere in the 20s, because that's what we'd seen in the previous pembrolizumab study. What we saw in the first 20 patients that we enrolled was actually a response rate that far exceeded that. And so we enrolled another cohort to verify that result because we were concerned about premature publishing of a result that we might have achieved just by chance. The two cohorts were very similar in terms of the response rates. And certainly this still needs to be verified in a second study with additional institutions. We did include the Moffitt Cancer Center, and the response rate with Moffitt Cancer Center was very similar to the Yale Cancer Center response rate. Now, your other question was about duration of response. So the other thing that we started asking ourselves was whether this high response rate was really because the administration of the anti-VEGF will decrease the gadolinium enhancement and therefore we might actually just be seeing prettier scans but not tumor shrinkage. And the way to differentiate those two is by looking at the duration of the response. Median progression-free survival was 2.2 years. That's pretty long. The upper bound on the 95% confidence interval was not reached. I can't tell you that the duration is as good as the duration would be when you give ipilimumab. Perhaps it is less good. This was a fairly sick population of patients, and it included some who might not have been able to receive ipilimumab and nivolumab. So it provides an alternative. I do believe that we need to do a randomized trial where we compare it to ipilimumab and nivolumab, which is the current standard of care in this patient population. We do need to interpret these results with caution. I also want to point out regarding the progression-free survival that we only gave four doses of anti-VEGF. So one would think that even though anti-VEGF has a long half-life of three or four weeks, two years later, you no longer have anti-VEGF effect, presumably. So it does something when it's administered fairly early on in the course of the treatment. Dr. Davide Soldato So, in terms of clinical applicability, do you see this combination of pembrolizumab and bevacizumab - and of course, as we mentioned, this was a phase 2 trial. The number of patients included was not very high, but still you saw some very promising results when compared with the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab. So do you see this combination as something that should be given particularly to those patients who might not be able to receive ipilimumab and nivolumab? So, for example, patients who are very symptomatic from the start or require a high dose of steroids, or also to provide a quicker response in terms of patients who have neurological symptoms, or do you think that someday it could be potentially used for all patients? Dr. Harriet Kluger The third part of your question, whether it can be used someday for all patients: I think we need to be very careful when we interpret these results. The study was substantially smaller than the ipilimumab/nivolumab trial that was conducted by Bristol Myers Squibb. Also going to point out that was a different population of patients. Those were all frontline patients. Here we had a mix of patients who'd had previous anti-CTLA-4 and frontline patients. So I don't think that we can replace ipilimumab and nivolumab with these results. But certainly the steroid-sparing aspect of it is something that we really need to take into consideration. A lot of patients have lesions in locations where edema can be dangerous, and some of them have a hard time coming off the steroids. So this is certainly a good approach for those folks. Dr. Davide Soldato And coming back to something that you mentioned in the very introduction, when you said that there were two main problems, which was one, the problem of the edema, and the second one, the problem of the radionecrosis. In your trial, there was a fair percentage of patients who received some type of local treatment before the systemic one. So the combination of pembrolizumab and bevacizumab. And most of the patients received radiosurgery. So I just wanted a brief comment regarding the incidence of radionecrosis in the trial and whether that specific component of the combination with bevacizumab was reduced. And how do you think that this fares in terms of what we see in clinical practice in terms of radionecrosis? Dr. Harriet Kluger I'm not sure that we really reduced the incidence of radiation necrosis. We saw radiation necrosis here. We saw less of it than in the trial of pembrolizumab monotherapy, but these were also different patients, different time. We saw more than we thought that we were going to see. It was 27%, I believe, which is fairly high still. We only gave the four doses of bevacizumab. Maybe to really prevent radiation necrosis, you have to continue to give the bevacizumab. That, too, needs to be tested. The reason that we gave the four doses of bevacizumab was simply because of the cost of the bevacizumab at the time. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much for that comment on radionecrosis. And I really think that potentially this is a strategy, so continuing the bevacizumab, that really makes a lot of sense, especially considering that the tolerability of the regimen was really very, very good, and you didn't see any significant or serious adverse events related to bevacizumab. So just wondering if you could comment a little bit on the toxicities, whether you had anything unexpected. Dr. Harriet Kluger There was one patient who had a microperforation of a diverticulum, which was probably related to the bevacizumab. It was conservatively managed, and the patient did fine and actually remains alive now, many years later. We had one patient who had dehiscence of a previous wound. So there is some. We did not see any substantial hypertension, proteinuria, but we only gave the four doses. So it is possible that if you give it for longer, we would see some side effects. But still, relative to ipilimumab, it's very, very well tolerated. Dr. Davide Soldato Yeah, exactly. I think that the safety profile is really different when we compare the combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab with the pembrolizumab/bevacizumab. And as you said, this was a very small trial and probably we need additional results. But still, these results, in terms of tolerability and safety, I think they are very interesting. So one additional question that I think warrants a little bit of comment on your part is actually related to the presence of patients with BRAF mutation and, in general, to what you think would be the best course of treatment for these patients who present with the upfront brain metastases. So this, it's actually not completely related to the study, but I think that since patients with BRAF mutation were included, I think that this warrants a little bit of discussion on your part. Dr. Harriet Kluger So we really believe that long-term disease control, particularly in brain metastases, doesn't happen when you give BRAF/MEK inhibitors. You sometimes get long-term control if you've got oligometastatic disease in extracranial sites and if they've previously been treated with a lot of immune checkpoint inhibitors, which wasn't the case over here. So a patient who presents early in the course of the disease, regardless of their BRAF status, I do believe that between our studies and all the studies that have been done on immunotherapy earlier in the course of disease, we should withhold BRAF/MEK inhibitors unless they have overwhelming disease and we need immediate disease control, and then we switch them very quickly to immunotherapy. Can I also say something about the toxicity question from the bevacizumab? I have one more comment to make. I think it's important. We were very careful not to include patients who had overt hemorrhage from brain metastases. So melanoma brain metastases relative to other tumor types tend to bleed, and that was an exclusion criteria. We didn't see any bleeding that was attributable to the bevacizumab, but we don't know for sure that, if this is widely used, that that might not be a problem that's observed. So I would advise folks to use extreme caution and perhaps not use it outside of the setting of a clinical trial in patients with overt hemorrhage in the melanoma brain metastases. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much. I think that one aspect that is really interesting in the trial is actually related to the fact that you collected a series of biomarkers, both circulating ones, but also some that were collected actually from the tissue. So just wondering if you could explain a little bit which type of biomarkers you evaluated and whether you saw any significant results that could suggest higher or lower efficacy of the combination. Dr. Harriet Kluger Thank you for that. So yes, the biomarker studies are fairly exploratory, and I want to emphasize that we don't have anything that's remotely useful in clinical practice at this juncture. But we did see an association between vessel density in the tumors and improved response to this regimen. So possibly those lesions that are more vascular are more fed by or driven by VEGF, and that could be the reason that there was improved response. We also saw that when there was less of an increase in circulating angiopoietin-2 levels, patients were more likely to respond. Whether or not that pans out in larger cohorts of patients remains to be determined. Dr. Davide Soldato Still, do you envision validation of these biomarkers in a potentially additional trial that will evaluate, again, the combination? Because I think that the signals were quite interesting, and they really make sense from a biological point of view, considering the mechanism of action of bevacizumab. So I think that, yeah, you're right, they are exploratory. But still, I think that there is very strong biological rationale. So really I wanted to congratulate you on including that specific part and on reporting it. And so the question is, really, do you envision validation of these biomarkers in larger cohorts? Dr. Harriet Kluger I would hope to see that, just as I'd like to see validation of the clinical results as well. The circulating biomarkers are very easy to do. It's a simple ELISA test. And the vessel density on the tumor is essentially CD34 staining and units per area of tumor. Also very simple to do. So I'd love to see that happen. Dr. Davide Soldato Do you think that considering the quality of the MRI that we are using right now, it would be possible to completely bypass even the evaluation on the tissue? Like, are we going in a direction where we can, at a certain point, say the amount of vessels that we see in these metastases is higher versus lower just based on MRI results? Dr. Harriet Kluger You gave me an outstanding idea for a follow-up study. I don't know whether you can measure the intensity of gadolinium as a surrogate, but certainly something worth asking our neuroradiology colleagues. Excellent idea. Thank you. Dr. Davide Soldato You're welcome. So just moving a step further, we spoke a lot about the validation of these results and the combination. And just wanted your idea on what do you think it would be more interesting to do: if designing a clinical trial that really compares pembrolizumab/bevacizumab with ipilimumab and nivolumab or going directly for the triplet. So we know that there has been some type of exploration of triplet combination in metastatic melanoma. So just your clinical impression: What would you do as an investigator? Dr. Harriet Kluger So it's under some discussion, actually. It's very difficult to compare drugs from different companies in an investigator-initiated trial. Perhaps our European colleagues can do that trial for us. In the United States, it's much harder, but it can be done through the cooperative groups, and we are actually having some discussions about that. I don't have the answer for you. It would be lovely to have a trial that compared the three drugs to ipi/nivo and to pembrolizumab/bevacizumab. So a three-arm trial. But remember, these are frontline melanoma patients. There aren't that many of them anymore like there used to be. So accrual will be hard, and we have to be practical. Dr. Davide Soldato Yeah, you're right. And in the discussion of the manuscript, you actually mentioned some other trials that are ongoing, especially one that is investigating the combination of pembro and lenvatinib, another one that is investigating the combination of nivolumab and relatlimab. So just wondering, do you think that the molecule in terms of VEGF inhibition, so bevacizumab versus lenvatinib, can really make a difference or is going to be just a mechanism of action? Of course, we don't have the results from this trial but just wondering if you could give us a general comment or your opinion on the topic. Dr. Harriet Kluger So that's a really great question. The trial of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib was our answer to the fact that bevacizumab is not manufactured by the same company as pembrolizumab, and we're trying to give a practical answer to our next study that might enable us to take this approach further. But it does turn out from our preclinical studies that bevacizumab and VEGF receptor inhibition aren't actually the same thing in terms of the effects on the blood-brain barrier or the perilesional tumor microenvironment in the brain. And these studies were done in mice and in in vitro models. Very different effects. The lenvatinib has stronger effect on the tumors themselves, the tumor cells themselves, than the bevacizumab, which has no effect whatsoever. But the lenvatinib doesn't appear to tighten up that blood-brain barrier. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you. I think that's very interesting, and I think it's going to be interesting to see also results of these trials to actually improve and give more options to our patients in terms of different mechanism of action, different side effects. Because in the end, one thing that we discussed is that some combination may be useful in some specific clinical situation while others cannot be applicable, like, for example, an all immunotherapy-based combination. Just one final comment, because I think that we focused a lot on the intracranial response and progression-free survival. You briefly mentioned this but just wanted to reinforce the concept. Did you see any differences in terms of intracranial versus extracranial response for those patients who also had extracranial disease with the combination of pembro and bevacizumab? Dr. Harriet Kluger So the responses were almost always concordant. There were a couple of cases that might have had a body response and not an intracranial response and vice-versa, but the vast majority had concordant response or progression. We do believe that it's a biological phenomenon. The type of tumor that tends to go to the brain is going to be the type of tumor that will respond to whatever the regimen is that we're giving. In the previous trial also, we saw concordance of responses in the body and the brain. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much. Just to highlight that really the combination is worth pursuing considering that there was not so much discordant responses, and the results, even in a phase 2 trial, were very, very promising. So thank you again, Dr. Kluger, for joining us today and giving us a little bit of insight into this very interesting trial. Dr. Harriet Kluger Thank you for having me. Dr. Davide Soldato So we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled "Phase 2 Trial of Pembrolizumab in Combination with Bevacizumab for Untreated Melanoma Brain Metastases," which gave us the opportunity to discuss current treatment landscape in metastatic melanoma and future direction in research for melanoma brain metastasis. 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.

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

In this episode, you'll hear about the latest developments in tailoring cancer treatments to individual patients using Precision Oncology.  Two thought leaders, Simone Ndujiuba, a Clinical Oncology Pharmacist at Prime Therapeutics, and Karan Cushman, Head of Brand Experience and host of The Precision Medicine Podcast for Trapelo Health, discuss real-world research that is paving the way for Prime and our partners to help providers reduce turnaround times so patients can start treatment as soon as possible.  Join your host Maryam Tabatabai as they dig into this evolving topic of precision oncology. www.primetherapeuitics.com ⁠Chapters⁠Defining precision medicine (08:50)Evaluating real-world operational process of biomarker testing (14:36)Turnaround times are crucial (17:40)A patients view into the importance of time (24:39)Technology and process aid in time and process (29:30)Helping bridge knowledge gaps for providers and payers (33:55) The focus is on Precision Oncology right now (37:00)Precision medicine in other disease categories (40:09)Future of precision oncology is bright (42:07) References Singh, B.P., et al. (2019). Molecular profiling (MP) for malignancies: Knowledge gaps and variable practice patterns among United States oncologists (Onc). American Society of Clinical Oncology. https://meetings. asco.org/abstracts-presentations/173392 Evangelist, M.C., et al. (2023). Contemporary biomarker testing rates in both early and advanced NSCLC: Results from the MYLUNG pragmatic study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 41(Supplement 16). https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.9109. Ossowski, S., et al. (2022). Improving time to molecular testing results in patients with newly diagnosed, metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 18(11). https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.22.00260 Naithani N, Atal AT, Tilak TVSVGK, et al. Precision medicine: Uses and challenges. Med J Armed Forces India. 2021 Jul;77(3):258-265. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2021.06.020.  Jørgensen JT. Twenty Years with Personalized Medicine: Past, Present, and Future of Individualized Pharmacotherapy. Oncologist. 2019 Jul;24(7):e432-e440. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0054.  MedlinePlus. What is genetic testing? Retrieved on April 21, 2025 from https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/testing/genetictesting/. MedlinePlus. What is pharmacogenetic testing? Retrieved on April 21, 2025 from https://medlineplus.gov/lab-tests/pharmacogenetic-tests/#:~:text=Pharmacogenetics%20(also%20called%20pharmacogenomics)%20is,your%20height%20and%20eye%20color.  Riely GJ, Wood DE, Aisner DL, et al. National Cancer Comprehensive Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines: non-small cell lung cancer, V3.2005. Retrieved April 21, 2025 from https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/nscl.pdf.  Benson AB, Venook AP, Adam M, et al. National Cancer Comprehensive Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines: colon cancer, V3.2025. Retrieved April 21, 2025 from https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/colon.pdf. Rosenberg PS, Miranda-Filho A. Cancer Incidence Trends in Successive Social Generations in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Jun 3;7(6):e2415731. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.15731. PMID: 38857048; PMCID: PMC11165384. Smeltzer MP, Wynes MW, Lantuejoul S, et al. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Global Survey on Molecular Testing in Lung Cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2020 Sep;15(9):1434-1448. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.05.002.The views and opinions expressed by the guest featured on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Prime Therapeutics LLC, its hosts, or its affiliates. The guest's appearance on this podcast does not imply an endorsement of their views, products, or services by Prime Therapeutics LLC. All content provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice.

Dr. Nimish Mohile and Dr. Jaishri Blakeley share the new rapid recommendation update to the therapy for diffuse astrocytic and oligodendroglial tumors in adults guideline. They review the evidence from the INDIGO trial that prompted this update, and how to incorporate the use of vorasidenib into clinical practice. They discuss the importance of molecular testing, particularly for IDH1 or IDH2 mutations and outstanding questions for treatment of patients with oligodendrogliomas and astrocytomas. Read the latest update, “Therapy for Diffuse Astrocytic and Oligodendroglial Tumors in Adults: ASCO-SNO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update.” Transcript This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in Journal of Clinical Oncology.   Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts.   My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Jaishri Blakeley from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Dr. Nimish Mohile from the Department of Neurology and Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester Medical Center, co-chairs on “Therapy for Diffuse Astrocytic and Oligodendroglial Tumors in Adults: American Society of Clinical Oncology-Society for Neuro-Oncology Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update.”  Thank you for being here today, Dr. Blakeley and Dr. Mohile.  Dr. Jaishri Blakeley: Thank you.  Dr. Nimish Mohile: Thank you for having us.  Brittany Harvey: And then before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Blakeley and Dr. Mohile who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes.   So then, to jump into the content here, Dr. Mohile, could you start us off by describing what prompted this rapid update to the ASCO-SNO therapy for diffuse astrocytic and oligodendroglial tumors in adults guideline, which was previously published in 2021?  Dr. Nimish Mohile: Yeah. So the key reason for this update is the publication of a study in 2023. And this was a study called the INDIGO study that looked at a new class of therapies, something called IDH inhibitors. And in this study with a drug called vorasidenib, changed how we think about the treatment of oligodendrogliomas and astrocytomas, so particularly the grade 2 oligodendrogliomas and grade 2 astrocytomas. Because of the results of that study, we decided that we needed to do an update to inform clinicians about some of these changes and how we might approach these tumors differently today.  Brittany Harvey: Great. I appreciate that background. So then, based off the new data from the INDIGO study, what are the updated and new recommendations from the expert panel?  Dr. Nimish Mohile: So the key findings from the INDIGO study involved people who had grade 2 astrocytomas and grade 2 oligodendrogliomas. And in the setting after surgery, they were treated with vorasidenib, and what they found is that this delayed the time to next intervention. And the key aspect of that is that it delayed when we could start radiation and chemotherapy in these patients.   So what we did in the guidelines is that for both low grade oligodendrogliomas and low grade astrocytomas, we added one additional guideline statement. Our previous guideline in 2021 offered the options for observation or treatment with radiation and chemotherapy. And now in this guideline, we have options for observation, treatment with vorasidenib in those in whom we feel it is safe to defer radiation and chemotherapy, and then treatment with radiation and chemotherapy. So we've added in an additional option here. And the key message of the guideline is really on how, as clinicians, we think about using the vorasidenib and what the ideal setting for using the vorasidenib is.  Brittany Harvey: Excellent. It's great to hear about this new option for patients. So then you were just talking about how we think about who to offer this IDH inhibitor to. So, Dr. Blakeley, what should clinicians know as they implement these new recommendations into practice?  Dr. Jaishri Blakeley: Yes. So, first and foremost, let's go back to 2021, and a key note from those guidelines was the importance of molecular testing. And at that point, the importance of molecular testing, which in large part was focused on IDH1 or IDH2 mutations, was prognostic. We could say there's a difference in an IDH1 mutant astrocytoma and an IDH1 wild type astrocytoma, but we didn't have a specific therapeutic recommendation attached to that, like Dr. Mohile just said. And the big shift here is now we have a specific therapeutic for that population with IDH1 or IDH2 mutant glioma.   So for clinicians, we hope that they've been getting molecular testing on newly diagnosed glioma already, but now there's an additional motivation to do so because it may change your treatment plan in the right circumstance. So since the publication of the phase III INDIGO study that Dr. Mohile mentioned, and the FDA approval of vorasidenib, if you meet the specified criteria in the clinical trial - which the guidelines point out is a little different than what's on the FDA label, so clinicians might want to dig into that a little bit - then there is a treatment option that is new and different than combined chemoradiation or radiation alone or observation.  Brittany Harvey: I appreciate those clarifications there.   So then also, Dr. Blakeley, how does this update impact patients with astrocytic or oligodendroglial tumors?  Dr. Jaishri Blakeley: So first, patients also should know if they have IDH mutant gliomas. And this update only applies to people with IDH1/2 mutant glioma. Perhaps, we're not sure, it might only apply to people who are in the newly or newly-ish diagnosed category because the INDIGO study required that people were within the first five years of their surgical diagnosis and had not had other treatment. So there are a lot of people who have astrocytoma or oligodendroglioma who may or may not know their IDH1/2 status and may have already had another therapy - this update doesn't apply to them. We hope that future research will teach us about that. This update is for people who are newly diagnosed and just starting the journey to figure out the best therapy. It does say that if you do have that IDH1/2 alteration in your tumor, there is a drug therapy that is different from the drug therapies we would offer gliomas that do not have the IDH1/2 mutation.  Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I think both that emphasis on molecular testing is very important and also thinking about that study inclusion criteria and how it impacts who's eligible for this treatment.   So then finally, Dr. Mohile, what are the outstanding questions about vorasidenib or other interventions for gliomas in adults?  Dr. Nimish Mohile: I think the key question for clinicians is exactly who we're going to use this in. The challenges with inclusion criteria in clinical trials is they don't actually always match what we're seeing in the clinic. And I think it brings up the question of, in low grade oligodendrogliomas which we think of as very slow growing tumors, do we have the option outside of the strict inclusion criteria to use that drug in other settings? I think it brings up the question for some clinicians in some of the higher grade tumors, in the grade 3 tumors, we don't yet have data in that area and our guideline doesn't address that. But I think some will be asking what the clinical activity of vorasidenib is in that setting. There are some suggestions that the IDH inhibitors may impact seizure control, and I think that that's data that we're continuing to wait on.   So I think that there's several outstanding questions there that we will have answers for hopefully in the next several years. I think the big question that we don't have an answer for and that will take a long time to know is whether the addition of vorasidenib in this setting actually improves how long people live. And given how long people with low grade oligodendrogliomas and low grade astrocytomas live today, we probably won't have an answer to that question for more than a decade.  Brittany Harvey: Definitely. We'll look forward to these ongoing developments and eventually longer term data on overall survival on these agents.   So, I want to thank you both so much for your work to rapidly include this information from this new trial. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Blakeley and Dr. Mohile.  Dr. Jaishri Blakeley: Thank you so much.  Dr. Nimish Mohile: Thank you Brittany.  Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.    The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. 

Show Notes: Alison Wakoff Loren went to St Louis to medical school at Washington University. She specialized in internal medicine and later completed a subspecialty fellowship in hematology oncology at the University of Pennsylvania. She met her husband in medical school and they have three children all in their early twenties. Alison  is now the chief of the Division of Hematology Oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, specializing in bone marrow transplantation, a curative therapy for blood cancer. Taking Care of Patients Alison finds the best part of her job to be taking care of patients, especially those who have just been diagnosed with leukemia. She gets to know people when they are in a vulnerable place and understand their lives, which is a privilege. She also does a lot of administrative work, mentoring trainees and faculty, helping them understand their passions and connecting them with opportunities. Alison is proud of her mentoring success stories. She encourages everyone to show gratitude and warmth, as the world is not always generous, and it is important to show that we can make a difference for each other by showing warmth and gratitude. She also shares a story of mentoring a talented MD and PhD candidate who was unhappy in her research role.  Helping Patients with Leukemia Alison discusses the fear and uncertainty people face when discovering they have leukemia. She shares her experiences in delivering sad news to a patient who had been a high school history teacher and had leukemia come back. She mentions that people have incredibly generous spirits and sometimes don't behave their best when they're scared. She also shares examples of people making decisions that matter to their loved ones, such as stopping treatment or continuing treatment when they don't want to. Alison also discusses the range of responses people have when they have to deliver sad news. She explains that most people know they're in for an uphill climb, and it's rare to be surprised. Alison specializes in bone marrow transplants, which are intensive but curative intent therapies, and she emphasizes the importance of laying groundwork ahead of time to make difficult conversations less shocking and offering hope while grounding the conversation. She also stresses the importance of being honest and respectful in her interactions with patients. Fertility Preservation in  Cancer Treatment The conversation turns to Alison's research and the importance of fertility preservation in cancer treatment, which can harm reproductive capacity and lead to infertility. Oncology teams often don't discuss this topic, partly because they are focused on cancer and not reproductive endocrinologists. However, there is a focus on making sure all patients are counseled about the reproductive impact of their treatments and reproductive options to engage in fertility preservation before starting cancer treatments. Alison explains what is recommended for women. She mentions that it is important to discuss these options before starting cancer treatment, as it reduces distress and decision regret for people after treatment. Alison is fortunate to be able to speak and advocate for fertility preservation for people with blood cancers, which represents a special population in oncology care. She has been fortunate to co-chair an effort to develop guidelines for fertility preservation from a large cancer organization. She explains that  colleagues in reproductive science are doing amazing research to extend options for reproductive care before and after cancer treatment, which is exciting to inform oncology clinicians and advocate for insurance coverage for these treatments. Family Life, Running, and Circadian Rhythms Alison shares her experiences with her children, including a daughter who works at the Amherst College Library, an older son considering medical school, and a younger son at Bates College in Maine. Her daughter has inspired her to think about women in the workplace, as she was criticized for not valuing women in her division and for hiring women because they are cheaper. Alison also shares her experience with running, which she enjoys but has to get up early to get in before work. She talks about the concept of morning and night people, stating that people have their own internal clocks. She also mentions that research into the biology of the circadian clock is still in its early stages.  Influential Harvard Courses and Professors Alison shares her experiences at Harvard, including taking courses with Stephen Jay Gould and Dick Lewontin, who were incredibly intelligent and insightful. She also took Act 10 as a senior, which was an unexpected experience that helped her learn different ways of thinking about the subject. Alison  volunteered at the Mission Hill after-school program, which allowed her to get to know the kids and families there. She tried out for various extracurriculars, such as singing and photography, but found it intimidating. She also mentions the training program for photographers. Timestamps: 01:51: Alison Wakoff Loren's Medical Journey  04:12: Motivations and Rewards in Patient Care  22:20: Mentoring Success Stories  22:36: Challenges and Insights in Patient Care  24:17: Balancing Professional and Personal Life  24:32: Research and Advocacy in Fertility Preservation  28:54: Influences and Reflections on Harvard Education  37:25: Extracurricular Activities and Personal Growth  Links: Penn Medicine Website: https://www.pennmedicine.org/providers/profile/alison-loren American Society of Clinical Oncology: https://www.asco.org/ Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: https://www.lls.org/ Featured Non-profit: The featured non-profit of this episode of The 92 Report is recommended by Ming Chen who reports: “ One nonprofit that I've been involved in is the Keswick Foundation, which funds pilot programs in Hong Kong and mainland China to help the community serve needs that are not being met by the government. So we work with family and vulnerable populations. We work with the elderly, and we work with things like helping promote social work in China, as well as clinical psychologists in different NGOs around the region. The other nonprofit that I am on the Advisory Council of is the Asian American foundation, TAF for short, T, A, A, F, F. The Asian American foundation, basically, is a platform that gets together different organizations around anti hate, changing the narrative education, helping to advocate for Asian American history taught in public schools, as well as narrative change representation in Hollywood and beyond. And again, it was founded around the 2020, around the growing disturbing rhetoric against Asians with the rise of COVID So yeah, those are two nonprofit organizations that I'm involved with. So again, one nonprofit that's been on the board for for many, many years is called the Keswick Foundation, and it funds pilot programs in Hong Kong as well as Mainland China. And then the Asian American foundation. If you want to learn more about the Asian American foundation, it's www dot T, A, A, f.org, check it out.” To learn more about their work, visit:  The Asian American Foundation: https://www.taaf.org/ The Keswick Foundation: https://www.keswickfoundation.org.hk/    

Dr. John Sweetenham, Dr. Larry Shulman, and Dr. Rebecca Maniago discuss the integration of clinical pathways and decision support tools into the cancer center workflow, challenges to implementation at the point of care, and the promise of AI to further unlock these tools for clinicians. TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Over the last decade or so, there has been a great deal of work and a lot of discussion about the implementation of oncology clinical care pathways at the point of care, which are designed to reduce variability in care, reduce costs, and improve the quality of care and outcomes. Although clinical pathways aim to guide treatment decisions, current data suggests that the utilization of these pathways at the point of care is very low. There are many reasons for this, which we will get into on the episode today.   My guests today are Dr. Larry Shulman and Rebecca Maniago. Dr. Shulman is a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center. He's also the immediate past chair of the Commission on Cancer and serves on the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Rebecca Maniago is the director of clinical oncology at Flatiron Health, a technology platform that collects and analyzes real-world clinical data from electronic health records to facilitate decision making and research.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Larry and Rebecca, welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast and many thanks for being here.  Dr. Larry Shulman: Thank you, John.  Rebecca Maniago: Thank you for having me.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Larry, I'm going to start out, if I may, with a question for you. You and I, in a previous podcast, have discussed some of these issues regarding pathway implementation before. But to start out with, it's certainly, I think, helpful for the listeners to remind us all of what are the benefits of oncology clinical pathways and why are we still talking about this 10 years or more on.  Dr. Larry Shulman: Yeah, and that's a great question, John. I think the good news is, and all of us who live in the oncology sphere know this, that there's been tremendous progress in cancer therapies over the last decade. But what that has entailed is the introduction of many new therapies. Their complexity is becoming really very tough for people to manage.  And so what we have are oncologists who are really trying to do their best to deliver care to patients that will give them the best chance for survival and quality of life. But it's really, really hard to keep up with everything that's happening in oncology in the context of what we all know is a very busy clinic schedule. Lots of patients coming through and decisions need to be made quickly. Pathways really could help us to guide us into recommending and delivering the best therapies for our patients for a particular disease. You know, cancer is complicated. There are many different types and there are many different therapies. It's just a lot to deal with without some assistance from pathways or pathway tools.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. So, knowing that's the case and knowing that these tools reduce variability, improve costs, improve quality of care as well. Starting with you again, Larry, if I may, why do you think it's been so difficult for so many oncologists to use these pathways effectively at the point of care?  Dr. Larry Shulman: So, I just wanted to step back a little bit. There are very extensive guidelines that tell us what the best therapies are for really all of the cancers. These guidelines come from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network or NCCN and the American Society of Clinical Oncology or ASCO and other professional organizations. And they're there. They're there, in free information off their websites.  But the problem is how to translate those pretty dense documents into something that will work in the clinic for a patient, for the physician who's working in the electronic health record. And the tools that are available, and there are a number of tools that can integrate with electronic health records, are expensive. You need to purchase them from the vendor and there are yearly fees.  And they're also difficult to implement. You need to work with the vendor to integrate them into your own rendition of your electronic health record. And there's a lot of customization that needs to be done. So, it's a financial challenge and it's also a time challenge for people to integrate these tools into their workflow, into their electronic health records.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. So speaking from my own past experience of pathway implementation, it certainly has been a major challenge for the reasons that you mentioned and also because of the, I think resistance may or may not be too strong a word, of many of the clinicians to use these for a number of reasons, part of which are the time it takes, part of which many of them feel that the pathways aren't really changing decisions that they might make anyway. So, you know, the uptake of pathway utilization, even in those centers which have been successful in getting something installed and plugged into their EHR, on the whole, hasn't been as good as it could have been. So maybe I'll turn to you, Rebecca, because I know that this is something that you've worked on a lot.  And it's a kind of double-barreled question. I think the first part of it is, you know, what do you think are the major roadblocks to high physician uptake in the use of these pathways platforms? And maybe you could talk a little bit about what the various software platforms do to make them more physician-friendly and to enhance utilization right on the front line.  Dr. Rebecca Maniago: Yeah, that's a great question. And so, you know, I've worked with a number of customers and physicians over the past five and a half years on implementing these pathways. And the number one pushback is really about the time it takes in the workflow. So, if I had a dollar for every time I heard “every click counts,” I'd be a rich person and it does come down to clicks. And so, you know, as a software vendor, we really have to focus on how do we reduce that friction?  How do we make sure that the clicks we are asking for are the ones that actually matter? And how do we continue to streamline that process? And so, you know, while there is a fine balance, because as part of a Pathways platform, at the end of the day, we do need to understand some data about that patient. You need to understand the clinical scenario so you can surface the right treatment recommendation, which means there is some amount of data capture that has to happen. In some circumstances, you know, we can pull some of that data in from the EHR.  But unfortunately, the reality is that a lot of that data is messy and it's sort of stuck in documents and unstructured places. And so it doesn't easily flow in, which means we rely on the provider to give us that information. And oftentimes they've already entered it other places. So what's more frustrating than entering data twice? But, you know, I do see a great opportunity here. And this is certainly where software companies are focused is with AI.  So, know, for, especially for this data aggregation, a lot of these AI tools can actually scan through the chart instead of relying on the physician to sort of manually skim through and aggregate and find all that pertinent information. That's what AI is really good at. And almost instantaneously, it can find the messy data that lives in those unstructured documents. And wouldn't it be nice if that was automatically populated within these applications so that really all we're asking of the clinician is to validate that that information is accurate. And then choose the treatment that cuts down on the number of clicks, it cuts down on frustration. You know, again, the physician will be the one that needs to make that decision. AI is not there to replace that, but it certainly has a great opportunity to reduce some of this manual documentation and the things that physicians find the most frustrating, especially as it relates to using these pathways tools.  Dr. John Sweetenham: One of the pretty common pushbacks that I heard during my time in a couple of institutions was, “Well, you know, I'm sitting here at the point of care with my patients and I already know what I want to do and how I'm going to treat that patient if it's not in the context of a clinical trial. So I don't need to go through, you know, X number of clicks to get me to where I know I'm going to be anyway.”  Does either of you have any thoughts about that? I think you've sort of partially answered it, but what do you think, Rebecca? Do you think that this is something that is more easily overcome-able, if that's even a word, than it was a few years back?  Rebecca Maniago: Yeah, I do. And I think this is where the customization comes into play. So while they may know what an appropriate treatment for their patient is, there are more options now than ever, which means at a local level, there may be multiple options that are clinically equivalent. And so when you think about things like payer pathways or drug margins as an organization, they have to drive some of that from within. But having the capability to do so can then start to sort of sell the value to the provider that, yes, you may know what you want to order for your patient, but would you consider something else if it was clinically equivalent, but it had other benefits to either the patient or the organization?  Dr. Larry Shulman: The other thing I would add to that, John, if I can jump in here is that the data is the data and the data shows us that guideline concordant care is not always prescribed to the US. And in fact, in some circumstances, the gaps between what should be prescribed and what is being prescribed are quite wide. So, you know, people feel like they're always doing the best job and making the best recommendations. And I think, you know, I think I am. But, you know, like many of my colleagues at academic cancer centers, I'm highly specialized. I only see patients with breast cancer. But many oncologists throughout the country are more generalists. They're seeing patients with multiple diseases. And it's harder for them to be completely on top of what the current recommendations are in any particular circumstance. Our diseases are complicated. They're getting more complicated all the time with molecular and genomic testing and subcategorizations of different cancers. So, I don't think that we can be too cocky about it, quite frankly. I think we ought to use technology that Rebecca describes for the tools and for AI to really help us. I think if we turn our backs on that, I think we're making a big mistake. You just got to look at the data. The data is pretty convincing.  Dr. John Sweetenham: You know ever since we started looking seriously at decision support through pathways a number of years ago, the word has always been around the payers role in this and the day will come where we are going to get reimbursed based on pathway and concordance and I'm not sure that that day has arrived. So I have a question for both of you in this regard actually. And the first of those is maybe I'll start with you for this part of it, Larry. Where do you think we are in that regard? And are you hearing more and more of payers starting to look at pathway compliance? And then on the other end of that, and maybe I'll ask Rebecca about this, is one of the other pushback issues that I used to experience from physicians I worked with was they may go through the pathways platform and come up with a treatment recommendation. The best example of this I can think might be that the recommendation might be a biosimilar. Let's just use that as an example. But the next stage in the process would be to find out whether the patient's insurance would actually cover that particular biosimilar, which opened up a whole new can of worms. So there are two kinds of payer aspects of that. Maybe Larry, I'll ask you to start off by talking about that kind of coverage issue. And then I'll ask Rebecca, if you have any thoughts about the flow the other way in terms of getting drugs approved and what we can do to help from an insurance perspective.  Dr. Larry Shulman: Sure, that's really an important point, John. Our current state of affairs with the payers and their attempt to be sure that we're providing responsible, guideline concordant care is the use of prior authorization processes, which are incredibly costly, both for the oncology practices and for the payers.  They have an army of nurses sitting at the phone talking to us in the oncology practices to decide whether they're going to pay for something. And frankly, generally, the payers will pay for things that are part of either the NCCN or ASCO or other professional organizations' guidelines. But you need to prove to them over the phone that in fact the patient qualifies for that.  We have actually had some experiments with some of the payers to prove that to them in different ways by auto transmission of data. And this would be a big savings for them and for us, it would take away some of the delays in therapy while we're waiting for prior authorizations to go through. And we shouldn't have to do this by phone.   The EHR and the pathway tools should aggregate the data, aggregate the potential treatment and be able to transmit those data to the payer. And if in fact it meets the appropriate criteria for guideline concordant care would be approved. Right now, it's a terrible, costly, timely manual process that they should be able to fix.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. And have you, you know, from a broader perspective, so not thinking necessarily about individual patients and specific issues around prior authorization, have you seen any movement among the payers to kind of get more aggressive about this and say, okay, you know, we are going to want to see your numbers, we want to know how many of your physicians are now using their pathways platform and so on. Are you seeing any word that that might be happening? Because certainly a few years back, that was the word on the street, as it were, that this day was coming.  Dr. Lawrence Shulman: And that's the proposal that we've made to several of our payers. Let us give you the aggregate data. If our guideline concordance is above a certain level, give us a gold card, give us a pass, and we won't need to do pre-authorizations. We've actually done that at my institution in radiology. Aggregate data gives individual physicians that pass if their guideline concordance was appropriate. I got to pass. So I don't need to go through those radiology pre-authorizations for my patients. And I think we can do the same thing with therapeutics. It's been a little bit more cumbersome to do it, and there's some detailed reasons why that is. But that's really what they want to know. And the payers want to know that patients are getting guideline concordant care, but they also realize it's not going be 100%. There are always a few outlier patients who require some variation from the guidelines. But if we get above 80% guideline concordant care, I think many of the payers would be happy to accept that as long as we continue to feed them the data. And that's the case in our radiology process with one of the payers is, you know, I get a gold card, but they continue to look at my data. And if I don't continue to perform well, they'll take that away.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. And Rebecca, just returning to you, this issue of prior authorization and facilitating life for the physician at the point of care in terms of knowing, you know, which specific treatment might be covered for a patient. Do you have any thoughts or maybe you could give us some insights on what software vendors are doing to facilitate that part of the process, the communication back to the payers to take some of that burden off the physician and the physician staff?  Rebecca Maniago: Yeah, absolutely. And this is a problem we've been trying to tackle for years. And it's not easy. We've tackled it in a couple ways. So first, we try to sort of link up to the payer portal where the information that was being attested to within the application could then be automatically sent. Because at the end of the day, the data points that are being collected to surface treatment recommendations ultimately are the same data points that the payer wants.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of data interoperability challenges within that space. So that was not something that was going to be sustainable. However, in current state, because as I mentioned, the customization is key for these products, focusing more on how can we allow practices to embed payer pathways within the application. So again, you kind of start with the backbone of your standard guidelines but then having the capability of adding in a payer pathway that will only show up as that preferred option for a patient who has that insurance, at least at the point of care, the provider sees what the insurer would then approve. So while it's not automatically assuring authorization, we are at least steering the decision in a direction where we think most likely this is going to be approved based upon the pathway that they have access to. So that sort of current state, I agree. We've been talking about this idea of gold carding for years.  Presumably the data is there today, right? Like we are able to capture structured data with every order placed to recognize concordance to Larry's point. All those reports are available to provide to payers. I just haven't seen a lot of practices have a lot of success when they tackle it on their own from that direction.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Right, thanks. Larry, you and I were at the NCCN annual meeting recently and I know that you've been quite heavily involved in the policy program and in the policy forums and so on at NCCN. Are you able to share anything from this year's meeting in terms of care pathways implementation and what you think might happen next in that regard?  Dr. Larry Shulman: NCCN, in my own opinion, has really led the way in defining what guideline concordant care is through their guidelines, which are very extensive, covering basically every cancer and every situation with every cancer. And it's really an astounding amount of amazing work that all of us use and the payers largely use as well. But they've increasingly understood that there's a gap between their guidelines and the implementation of their guidelines. And they are working on some things. They are working on the digitalization of their guidelines to make them more accessible, but also thinking about ways that they may, in fact, fit into the work processes that all of us have when we go to clinic.  They're acutely aware that the country is not where it needs to be in regard to a translation, if you will, of their guidelines in the practice. And I think we're all thinking really hard about whether there are things that we can team up to do, if you will, to try to close those gaps.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Great, thank you. Just switching gears a little bit back to you, if I can, Rebecca. I think you've said a little bit about this already. What do you think are the next steps that we need to take to more effectively implement these tools in the clinic? I think we've discussed a little bit some of the roadblocks to that. But where do you think we need to go next in terms of getting better use of these pathways?  Rebecca Maniago: Yeah, I will say one thing that we haven't really touched on is the pharmacy team. So the biggest blocker that I see is actually the pre-implementation. So there's a lot of focus on how do we get physicians to use this? How do we increase adoption? But often the first barrier is the regimen library. So no matter what the pathways platform is, the backbone of it will be those regimens. And so, really helping organizations and we partner with pharmacies, they're doing all the backend configuration. And so how can we make that piece of the technology easier for them to implement because that's really the lead up and there's a ton of cleanup and maintenance. You know, as a pharmacist, I empathize, but really that's where it all begins. And so I think, you know, continuing to focus on not only the front end user and the physician, but everybody that's going to be involved in order to make a pathway program successful needs to be, you know, at the table in the beginning, helping set up those processes and, and buying into the why this is important.  Dr. John Sweetenham: That's a great point.  Dr. Larry Shulman: So could I just jump in one quickly here, John? So pathways, as we've discussed, the tools are expensive. There is a person cost, as Rebecca is just describing, about customization and implementation. But there are very good data in the literature to show that when you follow pathways, care is less costly. Survival is better, which is obviously our primary goal, but also cost is less. And the payers can benefit from that. And the question is, can they figure out ways to use that to help to fund the purchase and maintenance of pathway products that will give their patients better care, but also less costly care? And so I think that is a potential solution. I've had that conversation with some payers as well. And it would be great to see that happen. I think that would be a huge step.  Rebecca Maniago: Yeah, we have some, if they're able to set it up in the right way and really optimize, you know, from the pharmacy perspective, we have practices who the application is more than, you know, paying for itself just by way of using it to the fullest potential that it has.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, that's a really great point. A couple of other more general questions. I'm going to start with you, Rebecca, and Larry ask you to respond as well. Are you hearing anything from patients around this issue? Are they aware or becoming more aware that pathways are being used in the clinic when they're seen by their physicians? And do they have a say, are there patient advocates involved in this part of the process? Rebecca, maybe you could start.  Rebecca Maniago: I haven't had as much exposure to that side of it. So, you know, I would love to hear what Larry thinks because most of my exposure is at the physician level, which of course they are the ones who are making the decision with the patient. So my assumption is that there is at least some level of understanding that there are options and that, you know, together let's decide on the best one for you. But again, I would love to hear what Larry has to say.  Dr. Larry Shulman: Yeah, so that's a really interesting question. I actually was discussing that at the cancer center last week, particularly around the utilization of AI in this process. And, you know, right now, as you know, if you submit a journal article or, you know, many other things, ask you whether you used AI to generate it. If in fact we use tools that include AI, we're not.  Are we obligated to tell the patient that you're making this recommendation together with computer assist, if you will, that helps you to make the recommendation you are making to them? Ultimately, I think it's the physician who's responsible for the choice, but should we disclose it? I have to tell you personally, I haven't thought about doing that. But I think it's a really, really good question is whether we should upfront tell the patients that we've had assistance in making the recommendations that we have.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Right, very interesting point. To close it out, one more question for both of you and again, it's the same one. Rebecca, to start with, we've all been, as I said right up front, talking and, you know, working on this issue for more than 10 years now. In 10 years from now, how would you like it to look and how do you think it might look?  Rebecca Maniago: Great question. I think we may get to where I would like to see it quicker than 10 years. I think AI provides a lot of opportunity and excitement. I'd love to turn a corner where physicians no longer see tools like this as a hindrance, rather they rely on them, they trust them, they help them get through their day. They continue to improve quality of care and reduce costs and patient burden. Obviously, that's the pipe dream, but I think we may get there before 10 years, given what I think AI is going to enable.  Dr. Larry Shulman: Yeah, I want to add to Rebecca's comments. One of the things that I worry about, and ASCO worries about a lot, is the oncology workforce, which is progressively strained in their attempts to care for all the cancer patients in the US. And for all of us who practice oncology, for many reasons, it's become more and more inefficient, whether it's use of the EHR, pre-authorization work, and so on.  And we really need to turn that around. We need to make practice not only better, which I think these tools can do, including AI, as Rebecca says, but make it much more efficient because that's going to allow us to both deliver more high-quality care to our patients, but also to care for more patients and have them benefit from our expertise and what we have to offer. So I think this is really an obligation on our part. I think it's an imperative that we move in this direction for both quality reasons and efficiency reasons.  Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks, Larry. Well, I've really enjoyed the conversation today and I think, you know, it's been great to think about some of the challenges that we still have in this regard. But it's also great to hear what I'm sensing is quite a lot of optimism about how things may play out over the next few years. And it does sound as if there's a lot of hard work going on to bring us to a point where the clinical decision support tools are going to truly support what our oncologists are doing and no longer be seen as an obstruction. So, I want to thank you both for sharing your insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast.  Dr. Larry Shulman: Thank you so much, John.  Rebecca Maniago: Thank you so much.  Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.  Disclaimer:   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Find out more about today's speakers:  Dr. John Sweetenham  Dr. Lawrence Shulman  Rebecca Maniago  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. Lawrence Shulman:  Consulting or Advisory Role: Genetech     Rebecca Maniago:   No relationships to disclose.     

When it comes to tackling fertility issues associated with cancer, “oncology clinicians are often reluctant to talk about this because it is really not our wheelhouse,” says Alison Wakoff Loren, MD, MSCE, chief of the Division of Hematology Oncology, director of Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation, and the C. Willard Robinson Professor of Hematology-Oncology at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia. Dr. Loren and colleagues recently updated American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines for fertility preservation in people with cancer. She discusses the key changes with Robert Figlin, MD, interim director at Cedars Sinai Cancer Center in Los Angeles and the Steven Spielberg Family Chair in Hematology-Oncology. “This is a really important topic that I think sometimes gets lost in the shuffle of the hecticness of a young person's cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Loren explains. Increased awareness among oncologists is a crucial step that can lead to faster referrals and interventions, she says. “You better be ready for the conversation,” she urges. Dr. Loren reported research funding from Equillium (Inst). Dr. Figlin reported various financial relationships.

The International Psycho-Oncology Society (IPOS) deemed April 9th, 2025, the first-ever World Psycho-Oncology Day (WPOD). This day was meant to spread awareness of the importance of prioritizing psychosocial care for patients with all types of cancer as well as to honor Jimmie C. Holland, MD. Prior to WPOD, CancerNetwork® spoke with Cristiane Decat Bergerot, PhD, BS, MS, a psychologist and the head of supportive care at Grupo Oncoclinicas in Brazil, and a member of IPOS, about the importance of psychosocial care and the impact it has on patients with cancer. As stated by Bergerot and listed on the official IPOS website, the primary goals of WPOD are as follows: raise awareness, honor Jimmie Holland, engage stakeholders, promote action, and support fundraising efforts.1 These goals are geared towards paying homage to the history of psycho-oncology and pushing for a more advanced future. “We aim to empower patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals, fostering a future where psychosocial support is an integral part of oncology worldwide,” Bergerot said.  Psycho-oncology has become more prevalent as a cancer care field since Jimmie C. Holland, MD, worked to help found it in the 1970s. Holland, a “pioneer” of psycho-oncology, was the first ever Chief of Psychiatry Services—a department that was the first of its kind anywhere in the world—at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and a founding member of IPOS.  Bergerot stated that, in her work, she sees that patients who receive psychological support exhibit improved pain management and quality of life. Trials now focus more on end points such as quality of life and patient-reported outcomes, and guidelines have emerged to create standards of care. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology each offer guidelines that detail how to manage patient distress as they progress through cancer therapy.2,3 Distress screenings and earlier recommendations for palliative care have also become more standard in treatment.  As for the future, Bergerot highlighted that psychosocial care needs to be more integrated into care as a necessary, rather than optional, component. New developments around the world, however, have created a landscape where telehealth and new research demonstrate the potential to help psycho-oncology grow rapidly.  References 1.        World Psycho-Oncology Day (WPOD). IPOS. Accessed April 2, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/43c9rr2c 2.        Distress during cancer care. NCCN. 2024. Accessed April 2, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/ycxxvnmt 3.        Andersen BL, Lacchetti C, Ashing K, et al. Management of anxiety and depression in adult survivors of cancer: ASCO guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(18):3426-3453. doi:10.1200/JCO.23.00293

Dr. Ko Un “Clara” Park and Dr. Mylin Torres present the latest evidence-based changes to the SLNB in early-stage breast cancer guideline. They discuss the practice-changing trials that led to the updated recommendations and topics such as when SLNB can be omitted, when ALND is indicated, radiation and systemic treatment decisions after SLNB omission, and the role of SLNB in special circumstances. We discuss the importance of shared decision-making and other ongoing and future de-escalation trials that will expand knowledge in this space. Read the full guideline update, “Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update” at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-25-00099       Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park from Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Dr. Mylin Torres from Glenn Family Breast Center at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, co-chairs on “Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.” Thank you for being here today, Dr. Park and Dr. Torres. Dr. Mylin Torres: Thank you, it's a pleasure to be here. Brittany Harvey: And before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Torres and Dr. Park, 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. To start us off, Dr. Torres, what is the scope and purpose of this guideline update on the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer? Dr. Mylin Torres: The update includes recommendations incorporating findings from trials released since our last published guideline in 2017. It includes data from nine randomized trials comparing sentinel lymph node biopsy alone versus sentinel lymph node biopsy with a completion axillary lymph node dissection. And notably, and probably the primary reason for motivating this update, are two trials comparing sentinel lymph node biopsy with no axillary surgery, all of which were published from 2016 to 2024. We believe these latter two trials are practice changing and are important for our community to know about so that it can be implemented and essentially represent a change in treatment paradigms. Brittany Harvey: It's great to hear about these practice changing trials and how that will impact these recommendation updates. So Dr. Park, I'd like to start by reviewing the key recommendations across all of these six overarching clinical questions that the guideline addressed. So first, are there patients where sentinel lymph node biopsy can be omitted? Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: Yes. The key change in the current management of early-stage breast cancer is the inclusion of omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with small, less than 2 cm breast cancer and a negative finding on preoperative axillary ultrasound. The patients who are eligible for omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy according to the SOUND and INSEMA trial are patients with invasive ductal carcinoma that is size smaller than 2 cm, Nottingham grades 1 and 2, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative in patients intending to receive adjuvant endocrine therapy, and no suspicious lymph nodes on axillary ultrasound or if they have only one suspicious lymph node, then the biopsy of that lymph node is benign and concordant according to the axillary ultrasound findings. The patients who are eligible for sentinel lymph node biopsy omission according to the SOUND and INSEMA trials were patients who are undergoing lumpectomy followed by whole breast radiation, especially in patients who are younger than 65 years of age. For patients who are 65 years or older, they also qualify for omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy in addition to consideration for radiation therapy omission according to the PRIME II and CALGB 9343 clinical trials. And so in those patients, a more shared decision-making approach with the radiation oncologist is encouraged. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you outlining that criteria for when sentinel lymph node biopsy can be omitted and when shared decision making is appropriate as well. So then, Dr. Torres, in those patients where sentinel lymph node biopsy is omitted, how are radiation and systemic treatment decisions impacted? Dr. Mylin Torres: Thank you for that question. I think there will be a lot of consternation brought up as far as sentinel lymph node biopsy and the value it could provide in terms of knowing whether that lymph node is involved or not. But as stated, sentinel lymph node biopsy actually can be safely omitted in patients with low risk disease and therefore the reason we state this is that in both SOUND and INSEMA trial, 85% of patients who had a preoperative axillary ultrasound that did not show any signs of a suspicious lymph node also had no lymph nodes involved at the time of sentinel node biopsy. So 85% of the time the preoperative ultrasound is correct. So given the number of patients where preoperative ultrasound predicts for no sentinel node involvement, we have stated within the guideline that radiation and systemic treatment decisions should not be altered in the select patients with low risk disease where sentinel lymph node biopsy can be omitted. Those are the patients who are postmenopausal and age 50 or older who have negative findings on preoperative ultrasound with grade 1 or 2 disease, small tumors less than or equal to 2 cm, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who undergo breast conserving therapy. Now, it's important to note in both the INSEMA and SOUND trials, the vast majority of patients received whole breast radiation. In fact, within the INSEMA trial, partial breast irradiation was not allowed. The SOUND trial did allow partial breast irradiation, but in that study, 80% of patients still received whole breast treatment. Therefore, the preponderance of data does support whole breast irradiation when you go strictly by the way the SOUND and INSEMA trials were conducted. Notably, however, most of the patients in these studies had node-negative disease and had low risk features to their primary tumors and would have been eligible for partial breast irradiation by the ASTRO Guidelines for partial breast treatment. So, given the fact that 85% of patients will have node-negative disease after a preoperative ultrasound, essentially what we're saying is that partial breast irradiation may be offered in these patients where omission of sentinel node biopsy is felt to be safe, which is in these low risk patients. Additionally, regional nodal irradiation is something that is not indicated in the vast majority of patients where omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy is prescribed and recommended, and that is because very few of these patients will actually end up having pathologic N2 disease, which is four or more positive lymph nodes. If you look at the numbers from both the INSEMA and the SOUND trial, the number of patients with pathologic N2 disease who did have their axilla surgically staged, it was less than 1% in both trials. So, in these patients, regional nodal irradiation, there would be no clear indication for that more aggressive and more extensive radiation treatment. The same principles apply to systemic therapy. As the vast majority of these patients are going to have node-negative disease with a low risk primary tumor, we know that postmenopausal women, even if they're found to have one to three positive lymph nodes, a lot of the systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy decisions are driven by genomic assay score which is taken from the primary tumor. And therefore nodal information in patients who have N1 disease may not be gained in patients where omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy is indicated in these low risk patients. 14% of patients have 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes in the SOUND trial and that number is about 15% in the INSEMA trial. Really only the clinically actionable information to be gained is if a patient has four or more lymph nodes or N2 disease in this low risk patient population. So, essentially when that occurs it's less than 1% of the time in these patients with very favorable primary tumors. And therefore we thought it was acceptable to stand by a recommendation of not altering systemic therapy or radiation recommendations based on omission of sentinel nodes because the likelihood of having four more lymph nodes is so low. Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: I think one thing to add is the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors to that and when we look at the NATALEE criteria for ribociclib in particular, where node-negative patients were included, the bulk majority of the patients who were actually represented in the NATALEE study were stage III disease. And for stage I disease to upstage into anatomic stage III, that patient would need to have pathologic N2 disease. And as Dr. Torres stated, the rate of having pathologic N2 disease in both SOUND and INSEMA studies were less than 1%. And therefore it would be highly unlikely that these patients would be eligible just based on tumor size and characteristics for ribociclib. So we think that it is still safe to omit sentinel lymph node biopsy and they would not miss out, if you will, on the opportunity for CDK4/6 inhibitors. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I appreciate you describing those recommendations and then also the nuances of the evidence that's underpinning those recommendations, I think that's important for listeners. So Dr. Park, the next clinical question addresses patients with clinically node negative early stage breast cancer who have 1 or 2 sentinel lymph node metastases and who will receive breast conserving surgery with whole breast radiation therapy. For these patients, is axillary lymph node dissection needed? Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: No. And this is confirmed based on the ACOSOG Z0011 study that demonstrated in patients with 1 to 3 positive sentinel lymph node biopsy when the study compared completion axillary lymph node dissection to no completion axillary lymph node dissection, there was no difference. And actually, the 10-year overall survival as reported out in 2017 and at a median follow up of 9.3 years, the overall survival again for patients treated with sentinel lymph node biopsy alone versus those who were treated with axillary lymph node dissection was no different. It was 86.3% in sentinel lymph node biopsy versus 83.6% and the p-value was non-inferior at 0.02. And so we believe that it is safe for the select patients who are early stage with 1 to 2 positive lymph nodes on sentinel lymph node biopsy, undergoing whole breast radiation therapy to omit completion of axillary lymph node dissection. Brittany Harvey: Great, I appreciate you detailing what's recommended there as well. So then, to continue our discussion of axillary lymph node dissection, Dr. Torres, for patients with nodal metastases who will undergo mastectomy, is axillary lymph node dissection indicated? Dr. Mylin Torres: It's actually not and this is confirmed by two trials, the AMAROS study as well as the SENOMAC trial. And in both studies, they compared a full lymph node dissection versus sentinel lymph node biopsy alone in patients who are found to have 1 to 2 positive lymph nodes and confirmed that there was no difference in axillary recurrence rates, overall survival or disease-free survival. What was shown is that with more aggressive surgery completion axillary lymph node dissection, there were higher rates of morbidity including lymphedema, shoulder pain and paresthesias and arm numbness, decreased functioning of the arm and so there was only downside to doing a full lymph node dissection. Importantly, in both trials, if a full lymph node dissection was not done in the arm that where sentinel lymph node biopsy was done alone, all patients were prescribed post mastectomy radiation and regional nodal treatment and therefore both studies currently support the use of post mastectomy radiation and regional nodal treatment when a full lymph node dissection is not performed in these patients who are found to have N1 disease after a sentinel node biopsy. Brittany Harvey: Thank you. And then Dr. Park, for patients with early-stage breast cancer who do not have nodal metastases, can completion axillary lymph node dissection be omitted? Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: Yes, and this is an unchanged recommendation from the earlier ASCO Guidelines from 2017 as well as the 2021 joint guideline with Ontario Health, wherein patients with clinically node-negative early stage breast cancer, the staging of the axilla can be performed through sentinel lymph nodal biopsy and not completion axillary lymph node dissection. Brittany Harvey: Understood. So then, to wrap us up on the clinical questions here, Dr. Park, what is recommended regarding sentinel lymph node biopsy in special circumstances in populations? Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: One key highlight of the special populations is the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy for evaluation of the axilla in clinically node negative multicentric tumors. While there are no randomized clinical trials evaluating specifically the role of sentinel lymph nodal biopsy in multicentric tumors, in the guideline, we highlight this as one of the safe options for staging of the axilla and also for pregnant patients, these special circumstances, it is safe to perform sentinel lymph node biopsy in pregnant patients with the use of technetium - blue dye should be avoided in this population. In particular, I want to highlight where sentinel lymph node biopsy should not be used for staging of the axilla and that is in the population with inflammatory breast cancer. There are currently no studies demonstrating that sentinel lymph node biopsy is oncologically safe or accurate in patients with inflammatory breast cancer. And so, unfortunately, in this population, even after neoadjuvant systemic therapy, if they have a great response, the current guideline recommends mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I appreciate your viewing both where sentinel lymph node can be offered in these special circumstances in populations and where it really should not be used. So then, Dr. Torres, you talked at the beginning about how there's been these new practice changing trials that really impacted these recommendations. So in your view, what is the importance of this guideline update and how does it impact both clinicians and patients? Dr. Mylin Torres: Thank you for that question. This update and these trials that inform the update represent a significant shift in the treatment paradigm and standard of care for breast cancer patients with early-stage breast cancer. When you think about it, it seems almost counterintuitive that physicians and patients would not want to know if a lymph node is involved with cancer or not through sentinel lymph node biopsy procedure. But what these studies show is that preoperative axillary ultrasound, 85% of the time when it's negative, will correctly predict whether a sentinel lymph node is involved with cancer or not and will also be negative. So if you have imaging that's negative, your surgery is likely going to be negative. Some people might ask, what's the harm in doing a sentinel lymph node biopsy? It's important to recognize that upwards of 10% of patients, even after sentinel lymph node biopsy will develop lymphedema, chronic arm pain, shoulder immobility and arm immobility. And these can have a profound impact on quality of life. And if there is not a significant benefit to assessing lymph nodes, particularly in someone who has a preoperative axillary ultrasound that's negative, then why put a patient at risk for these morbidities that can impact them lifelong? Ideally, the adoption of omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy will lead to more multidisciplinary discussion and collaboration in the preoperative setting especially with our diagnostic physicians, radiology to assure that these patients are getting an axillary ultrasound and determine how omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy may impact the downstream treatments after surgery, particularly radiation and systemic therapy decisions, and will be adopted in real world patients, and how clinically we can develop a workflow where together we can make the best decisions for our patients in collaboration with them through shared decision making. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's great to have these evidence-based updates for clinicians and patients to review and refer back to. So then finally, Dr. Park, looking to the future, what are the outstanding questions and ongoing trials regarding sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer? Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: I think to toggle on Dr. Torres's comment about shared decision making, the emphasis on that I think will become even more evident in the future as we incorporate different types of de-escalation clinical studies. In particular, because as you saw in the SOUND and INSEMA studies, when we de-escalate one modality of the multimodality therapy, i.e., surgery, the other modalities such as radiation therapy and systemic therapy were “controlled” where we were not de-escalating multiple different modalities. However, as the audience may be familiar with, there are other types of de-escalation studies in particular radiation therapy, partial breast irradiation or omission of radiation therapy, and in those studies, the surgery is now controlled where oftentimes the patients are undergoing surgical axillary staging. And conversely when we're looking at endocrine therapy versus radiation therapy clinical trials, in those studies also the majority of the patients are undergoing surgical axillary staging. And so now as those studies demonstrate the oncologic safety of omission of a particular therapy, we will be in a position of more balancing of the data of trying to select which patients are the safe patients for omission of certain types of modality, and how do we balance whether it's surgery, radiation therapy, systemic therapy, endocrine therapy. And that's where as Dr. Torres stated, the shared decision making will become critically important. I'm a surgeon and so as a surgeon, I get to see the patients oftentimes first, especially when they have early-stage breast cancer. And so I could I guess be “selfish” and just do whatever I think is correct. But whatever the surgeon does, the decision does have consequences in the downstream decision making. And so the field really needs to, as Dr. Torres stated earlier, rethink the workflow of how early-stage breast cancer patients are brought forth and managed as a multidisciplinary team. I also think in future studies the expansion of the data to larger tumors, T3, in particular,reater than 5 cm and also how do we incorporate omission in that population will become more evident as we learn more about the oncologic safety of omitting sentinel lymph node biopsy. Dr. Mylin Torres: In addition, there are other outstanding ongoing clinical trials that are accruing patients right now. They include the BOOG 2013-08 study, SOAPET, NAUTILUS and the VENUS trials, all looking at patients with clinical T1, T2N0 disease and whether omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy is safe with various endpoints including regional recurrence, invasive disease-free survival and distant disease-free survival. I expect in addition to these studies there will be more studies ongoing even looking at the omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy in the post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy setting. And as our imaging improves in the future, there will be more studies improving other imaging modalities, probably in addition to axillary ultrasound in an attempt to accurately characterize whether lymph nodes within axilla contain cancer or not, and in that context whether omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy even in patients with larger tumors post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be done safely and could eventually become another shift in our treatment paradigm. Brittany Harvey: Yes. The shared decision making is key as we think about these updates to improve quality of life and we'll await data from these ongoing trials to inform future updates to this guideline. So I want to thank you both so much for your extensive work to update this guideline and thank you for your time today. Dr. Park and Dr. Torres. Dr. Mylin Torres: Thank you. Dr. Ko Un "Clara" Park: Thank you. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guests Dr. Jessica Burris discuss the article "Longitudinal Results from the Nationwide Just ASK Initiative to Promote Routine Smoking Assessment in American College of Surgeons Accredited Cancer Programs" and how persistent smoking following cancer diagnosis causes adverse outcomes while smoking cessation can improve survival. TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Davide SoldatoHello and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, medical oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today we are joined by JCO author Dr. Jessica Burris. Dr. Burris is an Associate professor of Psychology at the University of Kentucky and co leader of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Program at the Markey Cancer Center. Her research focuses on smoking cessation among cancer survivors, health disparities, and behavioral interventions to promote health equity. She also leads the BIRDS Lab, which explores the intersection of smoking, social determinants of health, and cancer survivorship. Today I will be discussing with Dr. Burris on the article titled Longitudinal Results from the Nationwide Just Ask Initiative to Promote Routine Smoking Assessment in American College of Surgeons Accredited Cancer Program. So, thank you for Speaking with us, Dr. Burris. Dr. Jessica BurrisThank you for inviting me. Dr. Davide SoldatoSo today we'll be discussing an important study on the implementation of smoking assessment in cancer care and specifically through the Just Ask Initiative. So, we know that tobacco use is a critical factor in cancer treatment outcomes in general, and yet integrating systematic smoking assessment into oncology care has faced various challenges. So, Dr. Burris, to start off our interview, I would like to ask you to briefly introduce the Just Ask Initiative for those of our readers and listeners who may not be familiar with it. So, a little bit about the primary goals and why do you think that routine smoking assessment is such an important aspect of cancer care and why the Just Ask Initiative focuses on this specific issue? Dr. Jessica BurrisSure. So, as you mentioned before, smoking is a really critical factor in terms of cancer care and cancer outcomes. It impacts a lot of things, from complications after surgery up into cancer mortality, but it also impacts patient's quality of life. Their pain may be more severe, they're more tired, their distress levels are higher. So, there's just a lot of different reasons why we need to understand and address smoking in the context of cancer care. But like you said too, there's a lot of barriers as well. But in order to effectively treat nicotine dependence and tobacco use, we really need to know who is currently smoking. And so that was really the driver for Just Ask, wanting to make sure that we are asking every person with cancer at their diagnosis and as they go through treatment, what their smoking history is, if they are currently smoking, which we usually consider to be any smoking or other tobacco use in the past 30 days, so that once we can identify that person, then we know who we need to help. Dr. Davide SoldatoThank you very much. That was very clear. And in terms of methodology, Just Ask was really a quality improvement type of initiative that involved the programs that were contacted and approached to participate in this type of initiative. And the methodology is pretty standard for this type of implementation science, which is the Plan Do Study Act methodology. So just a little bit of background on this type of methodology and why do you think it might be so successful when implementing these types of changes at the structural level and when we are implementing these types of programs. Dr. Jessica BurrisRight. So, the American College of Surgeons requires all the accredited cancer programs, both Commission on Cancer and the NAPBC or the ones that focus on breast cancer, to do at least one quality improvement project annually. And most of the programs do use the evidence-based Plan Do Study Act approach. I think it's a great one. It has a lot of evidence behind it, but it also is very practical or pragmatic. So, you're using data from your local healthcare system or clinic or program to inform what it is that you do. And then you're constantly pulling data out to see how well you're addressing the clinical practice change that you're hoping to achieve. And so, data is going in and coming out and you're using that to inform exactly what it is that you're doing over time. So, it's an iterative approach to practice change and again, one that has proven successful time and time again. And so that's the program that these programs and Just Ask used in order to increase the frequency by which they ask patients about smoking. Dr. Davide SoldatoSo as you were saying, the main objective of the initiative was really to understand if we are asking patients diagnosed with cancer and survivors if they are smoking. And how can we better report this information inside of the medical chart of the patient. So, what was the primary endpoint or the objective that you had for this type of intervention? And can you give us a little bit of results? So, what did you find the implementation of this quality improvement? How did it change the percentages of patients that were asked about smoking habits? And a little bit, what is your opinion on the results that you obtain in the study? Dr. Jessica BurrisSure. So, the goal was simple and that was to have an ask rate that was at least 90%. The way that we defined an ask rate is among all newly diagnosed cancer patients, how many were asked about their smoking history and their current status at that initial visit? And so, we wanted all of the participating programs who opted in to Just Ask in 2022 to achieve that 90% ask rate by the end of this one-year quality improvement project. And again, using the Plan Do Study Act approach, it was a very pragmatic study in some ways. So, what we did was we provided an intervention change package that we made available online. And programs could access that whenever they needed to and pull-down educational resources, patient facing materials, practical tools for changing the EHR or pulling data out of the EHR, any of those number of things. And then we also hosted webinars over the course of the year. And those webinars were great because half the time they were in response to questions that programs were asking as they went through the Just Ask QI project. And the other half of time we were really just reminding programs of the rationale and the reason for making sure that they're asking. And then of course, letting them know that they don't have to stop there, they should be advising patients to quit and assisting them with cessation. Even though that wasn't the goal of Just Ask, the goal again of Just Ask was getting that 90% rate. And so, we had over 750 programs who opted in to Just Ask and did this QI study with us, and it was successful. So, we met the goal, or rather the programs met the goal of that 90% ask rate. And that was maintained over time. And that was just fantastic. So again, we know that the end goal is really to assist patients with quitting, but we can't do that unless we know who to help. And so, you have to ask first. And again, they were able to do that. Dr. Davide SoldatoSo thank you very much. The quality improvement program was absolutely successful. And to go a little bit in the numbers, by the end of the one-year implementation of the program, you report a 98% rate of asking patients who first approached the centers or over time if they were or not smokers. So, you said before that you targeted a 90% ask rate in terms of smoking habits. But when looking at the data, I noticed that you already had in the baseline survey where you asked the programs about what were the practice before the implementation of the Just Ask initiative, already something that was quite close to the 90%. And yet, despite starting from such a good point, which was basically your endpoint, you still observed a major change over the years of the implementation. So, I wanted to just underline a little bit what is the value of this type of programs. And still starting from such a very high standard still, we managed to further improve. And as you were saying, this is pivotal and I think it's fundamental to really understand and see who are the patients that we need to refer and then to help in the smoking cessation. So, I just wanted a little bit of a comment on these very important results, despite already starting from a very good background from the centers. Dr. Jessica BurrisYeah, I'm glad that you brought up the baseline. So, I think one thing that's important about this study is that we looked at our ask rate or the asking as a clinical practice in two different ways. So, the 98% that you referred to that we found at the final survey is based on a response to a question on the frequency of asking. So, it's a Likert type question. And essentially what we did was we combined programs that reported usually asking or almost always asking into one, and that's where we arrived at the 98%. And at baseline it was 92%. What's interesting though is that we also asked them to report the specific number of patients who were seen in their cancer program during the prior six months and the number of patients who were asked about smoking in the prior six months. And with that we could get a proportion. And in every case, the self-report Likert question had a higher outcome than the raw data based on the data that was pulled from the EHR. And so, we saw this increase significantly over time, both in the self-report Likert question, but also in the EHR based data. And so, it was a win in two ways. What I think is really interesting though is that at baseline, even though 92% of programs said that they regularly ask about their patient smoking status, 16% of programs could not provide data that would allow calculation of an ask rate. So, they were reporting that they were able to do so but then could not actually do so. So, I think what that means essentially is that there's a disconnect between what programs are doing regularly or they believe that they're doing regularly and what their data actually shows. And it could be an issue with the quality of the data that's going into the EHR, or it could be an issue with pulling the data out of the EHR. And so one of the things that we saw that I think is a second indicator of success of Just Ask is that the quality of the data that programs were inputting into the EHR related to their patients smoking history and smoking status did improve over time, which meant that by the end it really was the case that the vast majority of programs were asking. And not only that, but they were also documenting it in a way to where it could inform patient care. Does that make sense? Dr. Davide SoldatoAbsolutely. And I think that that explanation really is truly important because I think that it also connects a little bit to how the initiative was able also to change things at the structural level, to be sure that there was the best possible way of asking, but also of having that information readily available inside of the EHR. This also connects a little bit to my next question, which was a little bit about organizational structure and also implementation barriers, which you report also as a self-reported information by the specific programs. So, there was a little bit of implementation barriers that was reported by the programs and this was not a specific endpoint of the Just Ask initiative, but you kind of mentioned it a little bit. The difficulties in pulling data from the EHR in understanding whether the information was collected and how it was collected. This might be one of the implementation barrier when we are looking at initiatives like Just Ask. So, I just wanted a little bit of your opinion if you think that these implementational barriers are more on the organizational side or on the provider side. And how can we use these quality improvement programs to really tackle this type of barriers to improve overall the reach and the importance of our action regarding smoking cessation. Dr. Jessica BurrisThe devils in the details, right? So I think it's a “both and” situation and not either or I think for providers, for individual providers, oncologists, nurses, supportive care providers, the issue of feeling like they're not fully trained in tobacco use assessment and treatment, and also feeling because of a lack of training that they don't feel confident or competent or even comfortable having conversations with their patients about their smoking history or being in the position to where they can really help someone who wants to quit in choosing the best path and way forward to do that that really matters. And so organizational readiness, these programs that participated were pretty high even at baseline in terms of the organizational readiness. They understood that it's a problem and they wanted to do something about it. And they were really eager and chomping at the bit to do so. But that has to trickle down to individual providers. And so, I think one of the implementation strategies that was used was staff training and provider education. And a lot of the participating programs chose that strategy. And I think as staff and providers are trained in how to ask and how to do so in a way that is nonjudgmental and that doesn't lean into things like stigma or blame or making patients feel guilty that perhaps their behavior led to their cancer, but really just understanding tobacco history and understanding nicotine dependence and the best strategies that we have to address those things that helped and that made a difference but it also is things at the system level, like having good EHR data, being able to pull those data out at a regular interval every three months or every four months, or even every six months to make sure that you're tracking smoking and also quitting over time. Both of those things need to happen. And I think those were things that we saw change as a result of Just Ask participation. Dr. Davide SoldatoRelating to this, provider readiness also to counsel patients on how to stop smoking or what is the best strategy. Despite, as you said in the very beginning, this was not the objective of Just Ask because you just wanted to improve the rate of smoking assessment and the quality of reporting of smoking assessment. You still observed higher rates of patients and survivors that were actually referred to some kind of intervention for smoking cessation. So, I was just wondering, why do you think that even though that was not required, you still observe this type of improvement? Like, is it just inherent to the fact that we are improving and we are placing more interest and more attention on the fact that patients should quit smoking, or do you think that it relates to something else completely? Dr. Jessica BurrisI think there's probably multiple things going on. One is once you're fully aware of the fact of the impact of smoking after a cancer diagnosis, you're going to be compelled to do something, I think. And so just the simple fact of knowing now that the patient sitting in front of you has smoked in the past week or two, they may be under a lot of stress because they're coping with cancer and they're coping with the side effects of their treatment. They may even have increased their smoking since their cancer diagnosis. And now you have this information. I think people who are providing cancer care, they want to improve the health and the life of the person sitting in front of them. And if they understand that smoking is a detriment or a hurdle to their doing so, then they're also more inclined to try and help that person quit smoking. And so, I think the asking and the documenting likely led to an increase in assistance and referrals to tobacco treatment specialists or to a state quit line, which was also common, simply because that's part of providing quality care. I think also there's been a greater emphasis nationally, in part led by the National Cancer Institute and a cancer moonshot initiative that it led, they're really focused on getting more treatment to more patients with smoking and increasing the reach and the effectiveness of the treatments that we provide. And so, I think there has been a shift in oncology care broadly to put more attention on smoking and smoking cessation as part of standard cancer care. And so, I think this kind of shift in the field also informed things as well as, again, thinking about the patient and the individual who's in the room and wanting to do something about the problem that you've just identified. Dr. Davide SoldatoAnd one thing that I believe is truly exceptional about the Just Ask initiative is really also the diversity of the type of programs that you involved. Like, you went from community centers to more academic centers. And really, I did not have the impression reading the manuscript that there was any difference in the way this type of quality improvement initiative can really benefit all these programs and all these centers. So, I was just wanting to have your opinion or comment on how do you think this type of initiative could be transferable across the country and across different settings and different types of cancer care? Dr. Jessica BurrisYeah, I'm really glad that you brought that up, because I think most of the clinical trials that are done in this area are done at academic medical centers, which are admittedly kind of resource rich places to receive cancer care. And so, what works in academic medical center may not work in a small rural practice in the middle of Kansas, for example, or in Mississippi. And it may not work in other community-based practices, even if they're larger and set in an urban setting. And so, one of the things that frankly I loved about Just Ask is that it was very heterogeneous in terms of the sites and the participating groups. And so not only was it national and by far the largest initiative in this area, again with over 750 different programs, but the programs were diverse. So, we had large community-based programs, integrated networks, smaller community programs. And then the academic centers were actually the smallest. Only like 10 or 12 out of the 750 plus were academic. And so, it was very different than what is the norm in this research area and in this area generally in terms of clinical practice. And we were able to show that the type of program that participated had no bearing on their success. And so, when we think about initiatives that work and interventions that work, we also really have to think about what is scalable and what could be disseminated across different practices. And this is one of those things that can. It worked and it worked across different swaths of group, which was great. Dr. Davide SoldatoAbsolutely. And just one last comment about the intervention, and it's also a point that you raised in the manuscript. This initiative, like many others also at the national levels that have been reported previously, they rarely had really the participation or the perspective of the patients embodied inside of them. So, I was wondering, how do you see the field moving forward. Like you envision something that would implement sort of a co-creation with patients or cancer survivors in order to really create something that is more appealing and takes more into consideration what is the patient perspectives when we are approaching something like smoking cessation, which as you were mentioning before, it can have a lot of stigma or already some negative feelings by the patients and feelings of guilt regarding the fact that they smoked and that might have caused that cancer. So just a little bit of your opinion as to how you see the implementation science in smoking cessation moving forward while integrating also the patient perspectives. Dr. Jessica BurrisYeah, that's a great question. So, this is something that I've thought about a lot in my lab and at Market Cancer center, which I'll use as an example. But oftentimes what we see is that even when tobacco treatment is offered as part of standard cancer care, even when we try to remove barriers like the financial cost of treatment at Markey, we embed it within our psych oncology program. And so, all of those services are offered for free. The rate at which patients say, yes, they want to engage in treatment is much, much lower than what we would want. And so that means two things. One, we need to offer help repeatedly to patients and understand that their willingness to quit and their willingness to accept treatment likely would change over time. And so, we need to keep coming back to people. It's not a one and done situation. But then also we need to understand what the barriers are from a patient's perspective. So why are they saying no? That they're either not ready or that they don't want treatment. They want to, quote, unquote, go it alone. And oftentimes what we hear is that patients want to be able to do this by themselves. They want to feel like, I quit smoking and I did it all by myself. And this is this huge thing that I've overcome. Not too different from the perspective that a lot of patients have about fighting cancer. They want to fight this addiction, this dependence that they've had oftentimes for multiple decades. And so, I think one thing that might be beneficial is to think about having peer led tobacco treatment. So have a patient who was able to quit successfully and have them provide counseling alongside a trained provider so that patients see someone like them who's went through it in the context of cancer care and who was able to overcome and to fight and win against tobacco, essentially. I think the other thing is trying to make sure that when we're asking about smoking and when we're offering treatment that we are not accidentally harming patients by bringing up feelings of stigma or guilt or shame. And I think one way to make sure we don't do that is to really lean on clinicians who are trained in addressing social determinants of health and other supportive care. So, our social workers, I think would be great. They're oftentimes embedded within oncology care. They are surely able to be trained as tobacco treatment specialists. They're already working with patients; they're addressing other barriers to care. They're sensitive in how they ask questions oftentimes. And so, they're really an ideal partner for this work. And we have found in a lot of settings that social workers are great in terms of being tobacco treatment specialists, including what we saw in Just Ask. Dr. Davide SoldatoThank you very much. That was really very, very interesting. And so, last question, moving forward, we improved the rate of asking patients. We are able to document this addiction more clearly in the EHR. So how do you see the field moving forward? In the manuscript, you speak a little bit about the Beyond Ask initiative. So just a little bit of a background about what is this initiative, what you are planning to do, and what do you think would be the best way to really act on this information that we are starting to collect in a better way and more frequently. Dr. Jessica BurrisYeah. So Beyond Ask really took everything that we did in Just Ask and amplified it. So instead of focusing on asking, we really said to make a difference and to improve cancer outcomes, ultimately patients need to be able to quit smoking. It's not enough that we know who is smoking, but that we help that individual or those groups of people quit. And so Beyond Ask had the goal to increase cessation assistance. So, either prescribing medication to help with smoking cessation, referring to a quit line, or another evidence-based program, or personally providing cessation counseling on site at that cancer program and to try and improve again within assistance. It was another one-year study, but we increased the frequency of surveys. I think we ended up with five total surveys. So, we were capturing two to three months at a time instead of a six-month period. And the data that we were capturing was very similar to what we did in Just Ask. And I can say we're still doing the data analysis, but it was another major success. So, with Beyond Ask, we had about 350 participating programs, many of whom not all, but many did participate in Just Ask. So, I think Just Ask kind of energized people around addressing the issue of smoking in their patient population. And again, they were really chomping at the bit to do more. And so, we offered Beyond Ask just after Just Ask. So Just Ask was 2022. Beyond ask was 2023. It ended in the spring of 2024. And again, another success. Dr. Davide SoldatoThank you very much. So, we are eager to see the results of this study. So that leads us to the end of this interview. So, thank you again, Dr. Burris for joining us today and speaking about your work. Dr. Jessica BurrisThank you. Dr. Davide SoldatoSo we appreciate you sharing more on the JCO article titled Longitudinal Results from the Nationwide Just Ask Initiative to Promote Routine Smoking Assessment in American College of Surgeons Accredited Cancer Program. If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and a review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. 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.  

Burnout among oncologists is a serious concern, and artificial intelligence (AI) represents a potential solution, says Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, a practicing oncologist and breast cancer specialist in Austin, Texas, who also serves as the chair of the AI task force for the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Technological advances are poised to improve cancer care while reducing the documentation burden for oncologists, she tells Robert A. Figlin, MD, the interim director of Cedars-Sinai Cancer in Los Angeles, and Steven Spielberg Family Chair in Hematology-Oncology. Dr. Patt describes the various practical ways in which AI is already changing oncology clinics, but acknowledges a generational divide that will need to be bridged: “I would say that the youngest generation of oncologists that is coming out, they are digital natives. They have grown up with this,” she explains. But for those who have been in practice longer, “Change management for us looks a little bit different than it does for the younger generation of oncologists that just sort of do this naturally.” Dr. Patt reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Figlin reported various financial relationships.

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti and Dr. Charu Aggarwal discuss the evolution of ctDNA as a critical tool in precision oncology and its implications for lung cancer management, including its potential role in the early-stage setting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Hello. I am Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, your guest host for the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I am a professor of medicine and director of thoracic medical oncology at the Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health.  The management of small cell lung cancer has rapidly evolved over the past few decades, and today, molecular testing and biomarker testing for lung cancer are absolutely critical in terms of designing treatment options for our patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Today, I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Charu Aggarwal for a discussion on ctDNA (circulating tumor DNA) and the role of ctDNA in lung cancer management. Dr. Aggarwal is the Leslye Heisler Professor of Lung Cancer Excellence and section chief of thoracic and head and neck oncology at University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center.  You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of that episode.  Dr. Agrawal, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Thank you for being here. Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Thank you for having me. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Let's start off with setting the stage for ctDNA technology. These technologies have rapidly evolved from experimental conceptual stage to essential clinical tools for day-to-day clinical practice. Could you briefly discuss how recent advancements in ctDNA technologies are shaping our approach to precision medicine, especially in lung cancer? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Absolutely. And you know, I think we need to just level set a little bit. What exactly is circulating tumor DNA? This is a way to assess exactly that. Every tumor sheds little pieces of tumor-derived DNA into the bloodstream, and this occurs in a variety of solid tumors. But now we have the technology to be able to derive this DNA that's actually being shed from the tumor into the bloodstream, these minute fragments of DNA, take them out, amplify them and sequence them with a variety of different mechanisms. They can be DNA sequencing alone, they can be DNA and RNA sequencing, they can be whole transcriptome sequencing. The technology, as you rightly pointed out, Dr. Velcheti, has significantly improved from just being able to look at circulating tumor DNA to now being able to amplify it, sequence it, and use it to offer personalized therapy. I think lung cancer is definitely the poster child for such an approach as we have a lot of data that has shown clinical utility and validity of being able to use circulating tumor DNA next-generation gene sequencing to guide therapy. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: There have been so many technological leaps. It's really impressive how far we've come to advance these sequencing platforms. Recent advances with AI and machine learning are also playing important roles in interpreting ctDNA data. How are these computational advances really enhancing clinical decision-making in day-to-day clinical practice? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: I think while we have firmly established the role of ctDNA in the management of patients with metastatic lung cancer, some of the approaches that you talked about are still experimental. So let me backtrack a little bit and set the stage for how we use ctDNA in clinical practice right now. I think most patients, when they come in with a new diagnosis of stage IV lung cancer, we want to test for biomarkers. And this should actually be the established standard. Now included in the NCCN guidelines and actually also international guidelines, is to consider using blood-based testing or plasma-based testing to look for biomarkers, not just tissue-based testing which had been our historical standard, but to use these plasma guided approaches to identify the seven to nine biomarkers that may be truly implicated in either first- or second-line therapy that are called as your immediately actionable mutations.  What you're talking about is AI computational methods. I think there's a lot of excitement about how we can use genomic signatures that are derived from either tissue or ctDNA-based biomarker testing, combine it with radiomic features, combine it with histologic features, look at H & E patterns, use AI algorithmic learning to be able to actually predict recurrence scores, or can we actually come up with predictive signatures that may be extremely helpful?  So, I think some of the techniques and technologies that you're talking about are incoming. They are provocative. I think they're very exciting, but very early. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I think it's really amazing how many advances we have with these platforms. You know, the challenge really is the significant gap in terms of uptake of molecular testing. Even today, in 2025, there are significant gaps in terms of all metastatic lung cancer patients being tested for all biomarkers.  So, why do you think there's such a challenge in testing patients with lung cancer? In most academic practices, we try to achieve 100% testing for all our patients, but we know from recent studies that that's not the case across the country. What do you think the gaps are? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Biomarker testing is so essential, like you pointed out, for us to be able to guide the right therapy for our patients. And we see this in our practice every day as you and I see patients with lung cancer, that a large proportion of our patients either don't get tested or they start therapy before their test results come back. So, I think this is a real problem.  However, to add some optimism to this problem, I do think that we are making a move in the right direction. So, four or five years ago, there was a lot of data being presented at national meetings, including ones from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where we saw that, nationally, the rates of biomarker testing were probably in the rate of 40 to 50%. However, now with the availability of both tissue and plasma, I do think that the rates of biomarker testing are increasing. And if you were to survey a sample or even perform retrospective data research, I believe that the number is closer to 70% of all patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.  And you know, you asked why is it not 100%? I think there are many reasons. I think the number one reason is tissue availability. Many times, the biopsies are small, or the tumor is very necrotic. So, either the tissue quantity itself is small, or the tissue quantity is insufficient to perform gene sequencing. And that's exactly where plasma comes in. When you don't have tissue availability, we have shown, as have others, that you can use plasma effectively to increase the proportion of patients who are not only tested but also receive the right therapy. I think there are also other barriers, including inertia. You know, I think this is both patient and physician inertia, where patients want to get started quickly, they don't want to wait. Physicians are very busy and sometimes want to be able to deliver treatment as soon as possible. We have seen there are some institutional barriers. Not every institution has in-house gene sequencing testing. So how do you really operationalize, send out these tests in a fast, efficient manner so that you get results back? Is it a pathologist who sends out the test? Is it the medical oncologist? Is it the pulmonologist or the interventionalist? I think there is this need to develop reflex testing mechanisms which some institutions do really well and some don't. And then finally, there are financial implications as well. How do we do this in a most cost-efficient fashion?  So there are many barriers, but I'm happy to say that we are making a move in the right direction as we are understanding that it's important to do it, it's easy to do it maybe with a value add of plasma, and finally, as you said, you know, as these technologies become more available, they're actually getting more cost-effective. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Dr. Aggarwal, you've been at the cutting edge of these advanced platforms and testing. So, what do you do in UPenn? How do you handle all these barriers and what is your workflow for patients in University of Pennsylvania? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: One of the things that I mentioned to you was there may be institutional barriers when it comes to gene sequencing. So, we actually, several years ago now, instituted a very robust reflex testing paradigm where almost all of our patients, regardless of stage, with a non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer diagnosis, would automatically be reflexively sent to our molecular pathology lab where they would get gene sequencing both for the DNA as well as with an RNA fusion-based platform. And the reason we did this was because we wanted to expedite and reduce the turnaround time. We also wanted to ensure that we were not just doing DNA testing, which I think is really important for our listeners here. There are many fusions as well as certain skipping mutations like MET exon 14 that may be missed on DNA testing alone. So, it's really incredibly important to run both DNA and RNA samples.  So, we do this routinely, and based on our research and others, what we also do routinely is that we send concurrent tissue and liquid biopsies or plasma MGS testing upon initial diagnosis. For example, if a patient comes in with a diagnosis of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer, their tissue might already be at my molecular pathology lab based on the reflex mechanism that I just described to you. But upon their initial meeting with me, we will send off plasma. And I will tell you this, that Penn is not just one institution, right? We have a large network of sites. And as part of my research, one of the things that we wanted to do was implement wide scale means to improve biomarker testing. And we have done this with the use of technology like you mentioned, Dr. Velcheti: How can we actually use AI? How can we leverage our electronic medical record to identify these patients? So, we have a nudge-based mechanism which actually facilitates the pending of orders for biomarker testing for patients with new diagnosis of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. And we are looking at our rates of biomarker testing but also rates of completion of biomarker testing before first-line therapy started. So many of our participating sites are clusters for our randomized control trial to increase molecular testing. And I'm really excited about the fact that we're able to implement it not just at our main satellite, downtown Penn Hospital, but also across our community. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: I think that's great. Thank you so much for those insights, Dr. Aggarwal. I think it's so important because having the best technology is just not enough. I think implementation science is actually a real thing. And I think we need to all learn from each other, advance these things.  So, I want to ask you about the new emerging paradigm in terms of using ctDNA. Of course, in the metastatic setting, we've been using ctDNA for molecular profiling for a while now. But the recent data around monitoring early-stage disease, especially post-operative monitoring, is an exciting area. There are a lot of opportunities there. Could you please talk us through the emerging data in lung cancer and how do we incorporate ctDNA-based monitoring MRD or should we even do that right now? Is the data ripe enough for us to kind of deploy this in a clinical setting? Dr. Charu Aggarwal: I think using ctDNA in the early-stage setting is our next frontier in lung cancer. I think naturally we have been able to successfully deploy this in the stage 4 setting. It made a meaningful difference in the lives of our patients, and we are a little bit behind the A ball in terms of how MRD is used in lung cancer. Because, you know, colorectal cancer has already done large-randomized trials based on ctDNA and MRD. It's routinely used in hematological malignancy. So, it makes sense that we should start to use it.  However, when I say this, I say this with excitement, but also a little bit of gentle caution saying that we actually don't quite have the prospective randomized data just yet on how to deploy. Yes, intuitively we would say that if you detect ctDNA and MRD, that patient is at higher risk. So, we identify that, but we actually don't know what to do with the second part of that information once you identify a patient with high risk. Are there other techniques that we can then come in with or other drugs that we can come in with to modify that risk? And that's the thing that I think we don't have right now. The other thing that we don't have right now is the timing of the assay, when to use it. Is it to be tested in the pre-op setting? Is the post-op test the best timing, or is it monitoring and dynamics of ctDNA that are most important? And the third thing I will say in terms of precautionary cause is that we don't know which test just yet. There are actually a few commercially available tests out in the market right now. We know about them and I'm sure our community colleagues know about them. Some of them even have Medicare approval. However, many of these tests are currently tissue informed. We don't have tissue uninformed tests. And what does that mean? Tissue uninformed means that you actually take a piece of tumor tissue, you sequence that tumor and based on the gene profile of that tumor, you actually design a panel that can then be used to track the mutations in the blood-based pack. This requires, as the name implies, a tumor. So can this be used in the pre-op setting is a large question. Because coming back to the idea of tissue availability, you and I both know that when we get FNAS and we use it for PDL-1 testing and we use it for gene sequencing, there often isn't enough tissue left for us to then either do whole genome sequencing or even whole transcriptome sequencing, which may be required to build some of these assays.  I think the future lies in this idea of tumor uninformed assays because if we could go to a blood only or a plasma only approach using novel signatures like proteomics or methylation, I think that's where the future is. But we're still a little bit early in the discovery stages of those, as well as to come are the validation stages so that we can be confident that these blood-only assays may actually give us an answer.  So, with those three cautionary notes, I would say that optimism is still very high. I think ctDNA MRD is the right place to think about. We need to do this for our patients to better identify high-risk patients and to think about means to escalate treatment for them. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I completely agree, and I think with all the changes and evolution of treatments in the management of early-stage lung cancer now with neoadjuvant and adjuvant, there's really a need for an escalation and de-escalation of therapies post-operatively. And I think it's a huge opportunity. I think we all could learn from our colorectal colleagues. I think they've done a really good job at actually doing prospective trials in this setting. I think we're kind of a little behind here.  Dr. Charu Aggarwal: I think in the metastatic setting there are ongoing trials to look at this exact question. How do you choose an appropriate first-line therapy, a monitor ctDNA at the six-week trial? It's being evaluated in a trial called the “Shedders” trial, where if patients are still ctDNA positive at six weeks, then you can escalate treatment because they haven't “cleared” their ctDNA. There has been a lot of research that has shown that lack of ctDNA clearance in the metastatic setting may be a poor prognostic factor. We and others have shown that if you do clear your ctDNA or if you have a reduction in ctDNA load overall, that that is directly related to both an improved progression-free survival and overall survival. This has been shown with both tissue informed and uninformed assays. So I think it's very clear that yes, you can track it. I think the question is: Can you apply that data to the early-stage setting? And that's an open research question. A lot of groups are looking at that and I think it's completely reasonable, especially to determine duration of therapy, to determine optimal timing, optimal timing of scans even. And I think these are just such interesting questions that will be answered in the future. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: And also like a kind of early detection of resistance patterns that might inform early initiation of combination strategies. And I think it's a lot of opportunities I think yet to be explored. A lot of exciting things to come and I'm sure we'll kind of see more and more data in the next few years.  Dr. Aggarwal, thank you so much for sharing your fantastic insights today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. It's been a pleasure to have you on the podcast today. Hope to see you at ASCO. Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Thank you so much. This was great and I remain so excited by all of the possibilities to improve outcomes for our patients. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Thank you to all the listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear from the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Thank you so much. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:  Dr. Vamsidhar Velcheti  @VamsiVelcheti  @vamsivelcheti.bsky.social Dr. Charu Aggarwal @CharuAggarwalMD   Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)  ASCO on Bluesky ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures: Dr. Vamsidhar Velcheti:  Honoraria: Glavanize Therapeutics Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, GSK, Amgen, Taiho Oncology, Novocure, Takeda, Janssen Oncology, Picture Health, Regeneron Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech, Trovagene, Eisai, OncoPlex Diagnostics, Alkermes, NantOmics, Genoptix, Altor BioScience, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Atreca, Heat Biologics, Leap Therapeutics, RSIP Vision, GlaxoSmithKline  Dr. Charu Aggarwal: Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Regeneron/Sanofi, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Arcus Biosciences, Gilead Sciences, Novocure, Abbvie Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca (an immediate family member) Research Funding (Inst): Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Lilly@Loxo, Candel Therapeutics  

In this episode of the Onc Now Podcast, host Jonathan Sackier is joined by Stephen Chan, Clinical Professor at the Department of Clinical Oncology of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, to discuss groundbreaking trials in hepatobiliary cancers, the role of diet in chronic liver disease, and the future of liver cancer care.  Timestamps:    00:00 – Introduction  02:09 – CARES-310 trial for liver cancer   4:33 – Camrelizumab + rivoceranib versus sorafenib  7:07 – Prevention and early detection of liver cancer   10:30 – Impact of lifestyle and diet on liver disease  12:38 – KEYNOTE-966 trial for biliary tract cancer  14:45 – Alternative strategies for liver cancer treatment  17:14 – Key initiatives of the International Liver Cancer Association  19:26 – Chan's three wishes for healthcare 

Lidia Schapira, MD, is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford Comprehensive Cancer Institute and Director of Stanford's Cancer Survivorship program. A nationally renowned expert in breast cancer, Dr. Schapira has pioneered workshops and helped develop innovative educational programs to improve the communication skills of cancer clinicians by building experienced and compassionate teams. She has been a champion of promoting patient activation and self-management at all phases of the cancer journey. She is the former Editor-in-Chief of cancer.net, and consultant editor for the Journal of Clinical Oncology. She also hosts JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology podcast which features stories, dialogue, and personal reflections that explore the experience of living with cancer or caring for people with cancer.  “We need to redefine what we mean by failure and success. Failure is not that the patient dies. Failure is that the patient dies abandoned, alone, or in pain. One can still die of an incurable illness, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we as the treating physicians have failed. If we can figure out how to treat an illness and support a person in a family, this is the best combination.” In this episode of The Medicine Mentors, Dr. Lidia Schapira offers an innovative perspective on success, teaches us how to find strength in the bleakest moments, and mentors us on how to outgrow conventional definitions of failure. Pearls of Wisdom:   1. The most important thing to look for within is what it is that tickles us, inspires us. Then trying to preserve at least some of our time to work on that to keep us engaged.  2. The Art of Oncology is finding the human side of the patients we care for.   3. I do this meditative hand-washing before I enter a room so I can be fully present and let them know I'm interested in them, not just the disease.  4. Have an open mind and be very curious, pursue answers in places that aren't obvious. 5. I've learned over the years to sit with emotion and not be eager to fix or stop it. Support people by letting them express their emotions.  

Dr. Irene Su and Dr. Alison Loren present the latest evidence-based recommendations on fertility preservation for people with cancer. They discuss established, emerging, and investigational methods of fertility preservation for adults and children, and the role of clinicians including discussing the risk of infertility with all patients. Dr. Su and Dr. Loren also touch on other important aspects of fertility preservation, including the logistics of referral to reproductive specialists, navigating health insurance, and costs. They also discuss ongoing research and future areas to explore, including risk stratification, implementing screening, referral, and navigation processes in lower resource settings, fertility measurements, and health care policy impacts. Read the full guideline update, “Fertility Preservation in People with Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update” at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines." TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology,  https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-24-02782   In this guideline, the terms "male" and "female" were defined based on biological sex, specifically focusing on reproductive anatomy at birth. "Male" refers to individuals born with testes, while "female" refers to those born with ovaries. The guideline, and this podcast episode, we will refer to individuals as "males" or "females" based on this definition. Brittany Harvey Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Irene Su from the University of California, San Diego, and Dr. Alison Loren from the University of Pennsylvania, co-chairs on “Fertility Preservation in People With Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.” Thank you for being here today, Dr. Su and Dr. Loren. Dr. Irene Su: Thanks for having us. Dr. Alison Loren: Thanks for having us. Brittany Harvey: Then before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Su and Dr. Loren, who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then, to jump into the content here, Dr. Loren, this is an update of a previous ASCO guideline. So what prompted this update to the 2018 guideline on fertility preservation? And what is the scope of this particular update? Dr. Alison Loren: Yeah, thanks, Brittany. So, yeah, a couple of things, actually. I would say the biggest motivation was the recognition that the field was really moving forward in several different directions. And we felt that the previous guidelines really hadn't adequately covered the need for ongoing reproductive health care in survivorship, including the fact that fertility preservation methods can be engaged in even after treatment is finished. And then also recognizing that there is increasing data supporting various novel forms of fertility preservation in both male and female patients. And we wanted to be able to educate the community about the wide array of options that are available to people with cancer, because it really has changed quite a bit even in the last six years. And then lastly, as I'm sure this audience, and you definitely know, ASCO tries to update the guidelines periodically to make sure that they're current. So it sort of is due anyhow, but I would say motivated largely by those changes in the field. Brittany Harvey: Great. I appreciate that background information. So then I'd like to dive a little bit more into those updates that you discussed. So, Dr. Su, I'd like to review the key recommendations across the main topics of this guideline. So starting with what are the recommendations regarding discussing the risk of infertility with patients undergoing cancer treatment? Dr. Irene Su: Thanks, Brittany. So for every child, adolescent, and adult of reproductive age who's been diagnosed with cancer, the recommendation remains that healthcare clinicians should discuss this possibility of infertility as early as possible before treatment starts, because that allows us, as reproductive endocrinologists and fertility specialists, to preserve the full range of options for fertility preservation for these young people. Where it's possible, I think risk stratification should be a part of the clinical infertility risk counseling and then the decision making. And then for patients and families who have an expressed interest in fertility preservation, and for those who are uncertain, the recommendation is to refer these individuals to reproductive specialists. And it turns out this is because fertility preservation treatments are medically effective for improving post-treatment fertility and counseling can ultimately reduce stress and improve quality of life, even for those who don't undergo fertility preservation. And as Dr. Loren said, a change in the guideline is specifically about continuing these discussions post-treatment yearly or when cancer treatments change because that changes their infertility risk or when pregnancy is being considered. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Discussing that risk of infertility at the beginning, before any treatment is initiated, and when treatment changes, is key. So then talking about the options for patients, Dr. Loren, what are the recommended fertility preservation options for males? Dr. Alison Loren: There has been a little bit of an evolution in options for male patients. The standard of care option which is always recommended is cryopreservation of sperm, or otherwise known as sperm banking. And this is something that should be offered ideally prior to initiating cancer directed therapy. The guideline does reflect the fact that we're starting to understand in a little bit more depth the impact of cancer-directed treatments on the health and quantity of sperm. And so trying to understand when, if ever, it's appropriate to collect sperm after initiation of treatment, but before completion of treatment remains an area of active research. But the current understanding of the data and the evidence is that sperm banking should be offered prior to initiating cancer-directed therapy. And all healthcare clinicians should feel empowered to discuss this option with all pubertal and post-pubertal male patients prior to receiving their treatment. We do offer a little bit more information about the ideal circumstances around sperm banking, including a minimum of three ejaculates of sufficient quality, if possible, but that any collections are better than no collections. We also talk about the fact that there is a relatively new procedure known as testicular sperm extraction, which can be offered to pubertal and post-pubertal males who can't produce a semen sample before cancer treatment begins. There remains no evidence for hormonal protection of testicular function - that has been a long-standing statement of fact and that remains the case. And then we also begin to address some of the potential risk of genetic damage in sperm that are collected soon after initiation of cancer-directed therapy. We are starting to understand that there is a degradation in the number and DNA integrity of sperm that can occur even after a single treatment. And so, really highlighting the fact that collecting samples, again, to Dr. Su's point, as early as possible and as many as possible to try to optimize biological parenthood after treatment. Brittany Harvey: Yes. Thank you for reviewing those options and what is both recommended and not recommended in this scenario. So then, following those recommendations, Dr. Su, what are the recommended fertility preservation options for female patients? Dr. Irene Su: There are a number of established and effective methods for fertility preservation for people with ovaries, and this includes freezing embryos, freezing oocytes, freezing ovarian tissue. For some patients, it may be appropriate to do ovarian transposition, which is to surgically move ovaries out of the field of radiation in a conservative gynecologic surgery, for example, preserving ovaries or preserving the uterus in people with gynecologic cancers. We do recommend that the choice between embryo and oocyte cryopreservation should be guided by patient preference and clinical considerations, their individual circumstances, including future flexibility, the success rates of embryo versus egg freezing that we detail more in the guideline, and legal considerations. And what is new in this guideline, as Dr. Loren alluded to earlier, is consideration of post-treatment fertility preservation for oocyte and embryo freezing. And this is going to be because, for some females, there's going to be a shortened but residual window of ovarian function that may not match when they are in their life ready to complete their families. And so for those individuals, there may be an indication to consider post-treatment fertility preservation. We clarify that gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists, GNRH agonists, while they shouldn't be used in the place of established fertility preservation methods, e.g., oocyte and embryo freezing, they can definitely be offered as an adjunct to females with breast cancer. Beyond breast cancer, we don't really understand the benefits and risks of GNRH agonists and feel that clinical trials in this area are highly encouraged. And also, that for patients who have oncologic emergencies that require urgent chemotherapy, these agonists can be offered because they can provide additional benefits like menstrual suppression. What's emerging is in vitro maturation of oocytes. It's feasible in specialized labs. It may take a little bit shorter time to retrieve these oocytes. There are cases of live births following IVM, in vitro maturation, that have been reported. But these processes remain inefficient compared to standard controlled ovarian stimulation. And therefore, it's really being treated as an emerging method. Finally, uterine transposition. It's experimental, but it's a novel technique for us. It's really moving the uterus out of the field of radiation surgically. We recommend that this is done under research protocols. So taken together, there are improvements in fertility preservation technology, and consideration of which of any of these methods really depends on tailoring to what is that patient's risk, what is the time that they have, what is feasible for them, and what is the effectiveness comparatively among these methods for them. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you reviewing those recommendations and considerations of patient preferences, the clarification on GNRH agonists, and then those emerging and experimental methods as well. So then the next category of recommendations, Dr. Loren, what are the recommended fertility preservation options for children? Dr. Alison Loren: Thanks, Brittany. This remains a very challenging area. Certainly for older children and adolescents who have begun to initiate puberty changes, we support proceeding with previously outlined standard methods of either sperm or oocyte collection and cryopreservation. For younger children who are felt to be at substantial risk for harm to fertility, the really only options available to them are gonadal tissue cryopreservation, so ovarian tissue or testicular tissue cryopreservation. As Dr. Su mentioned, the ovarian tissue cryopreservation methods are quite effective and well established. There's less data in children, but we know that in adults and older adolescents that this is an effective method. Testicular cryopreservation remains experimental, and we suggest that if it is performed, that strong consideration should be given to doing this as an investigational research protocol. However, because these are the only options available to children, we understand there may be reasons why there might need to be some flexibility around this in the proper setting of informed consent and ascent when appropriate for children. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And so we've discussed a lot of recommendations on fertility preservation options. So, Dr. Loren, what is recommended regarding the role of clinicians in advising people about these fertility preservation options? Dr. Alison Loren: Yeah, this is a really important question, Brittany, and I think that we really hope to empower the entire oncology clinical team to bring these issues to the forefront for patients. We know from qualitative studies that oncology providers sometimes feel uncomfortable bringing these issues up because they feel inexpert in dealing with them or because it's so overwhelming. Obviously, these are usually younger patients who are not expecting a cancer diagnosis, and there can be quite a lot of distress, understandably, around the diagnosis itself and the treatment plan, and it can be sometimes overwhelming to also bring up fertility as a potential risk of therapy. We are seeing that as patients are becoming more familiar and comfortable kind of speaking up, I think, social media and lots of sort of online communities have raised this issue, that we're seeing that young people with cancer do spontaneously bring this up in their visits, which we really appreciate and encourage. But I think sometimes clinicians feel it's sometimes described as a dual crisis of both the cancer diagnosis and a risk to future fertility and it can be a really challenging conversation to initiate. I feel, and we hope that the guidelines convey, that the whole point is just to bring it up. We do not expect an oncology clinician of any kind, including social workers, nurses, to be able to outline all of the very complex options that are articulated in this guideline. And in fact, the reason that the co-chairs include myself, a hematologist oncologist, and Dr. Su, who's a reproductive specialist, is because we understand that the complex reproductive options for our patients with cancer require expert conversations. So we do not expect the oncology team to go into all the guideline options with their patients. We really just want to empower everyone on the team to bring up the issue so that we can then get them the care that they need from our colleagues in reproductive endocrinology so that they can be fully apprised of all of their options with enough time before initiation of treatment to be able to embark on whichever therapies they feel are most suited to their family planning wishes. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And then jumping off of that, as a reproductive endocrinologist, Dr. Su, what do you think clinicians should know as they implement these updated recommendations? Dr. Irene Su: I wholly echo what Dr. Loren has said about- this is a team effort and it's been really fun to work as a team of various specialties on this guideline, so we hope that the guideline really reflects all of the partnerships that have occurred. I think that what clinicians should know is it may be well worth spending some time in identifying a pathway for our patients. So that starts off with the oncology team. How are we going to screen? How are we going to screen with fidelity? And then from the time of screening, really anybody who has an interest or potentially is unsure about their future fertility needs, who are the reproductive specialists, male and female, that you are in the community with to refer to? What is that referral process going to be like? Is it emails? Is it a phone? Is it a best practice advisory in your electronic health record system? From our standpoint as fertility specialists, we need to spend some time implementing in this system a way to receive these referrals urgently and also be able to support insurance navigation. Because actually, what is really exciting in this field is for the purpose of equitable access, there is increasing insurance coverage, whether it is because employers feel that this is the right thing to do to offer, or 17 states and the District of Columbia also have state mandates requiring fertility preservation coverage by many insurances, as well as, for example, federal employees and active military members. So more than ever, there is a decreased cost barrier for patients and still early days, so navigating health insurance is a little bit challenging. And that is the role, in part, of navigators and fertility clinic teams to help support these patients to do that. Dr. Alison Loren: Forming these relationships and reinforcing them so early and often is really key. Because although these patients come up with some infrequency, when they occur, they're really emergencies and we want to make sure that there's a well-established path for these patients to get from their oncology clinicians to the reproductive specialists. And as Dr. Su said, whatever works best for your system - there's a lot of different ways that people have tackled these challenging referrals - but it is really important to have an expedited path and for the receiving reproductive specialist office to understand that these are urgent patients that need to be expedited and that the oncology clinician's responsibility is to make sure that that's communicated appropriately. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. Thinking in advance about those logistics of referral and navigating health insurance and cost is key to making sure that patients receive the care that they want and that they'd like to discuss with clinicians. So then, Dr. Loren, you touched on this a little bit earlier in talking about the dual crisis, but how does this guideline impact people diagnosed with cancer? Dr. Alison Loren: Well, what we're hoping is that this is sort of a refresher. I think that many or hopefully most or all oncology clinicians are aware that this is a potential concern. And so part of our hope is that, as this guideline rolls out, it'll sort of bring to the top of people's memories and action items that this is an important part of oncology care is the reproductive health care of our patients. And it's a critical component of survivorship care as well. We want to remind people that the field continues to advance and progress. In oncology, we're very aware of oncologic progress, but we may not be so aware of reproductive healthcare progress. And so letting people know, “Hey, there's all these new cool things we can do for people that open up options, even in situations where we might have thought there were no options before.” It's a reminder to refer, because we're not going to be able to keep up with all the advances in the field. But Dr. Su and her colleagues will be able to know what might be an option for patients. I want to highlight that communication piece again because our reproductive colleagues need to know what treatments are going to be given, what the urgency is, what the risks are. And so part of our responsibility as part of the team is to make sure that it's clear to both our patients and our reproductive specialist colleagues what the risks are. And Dr. Su mentioned this earlier, but one really important open question is risk stratification. We know that not all cancer treatments are created equal. There are some treatments, such as high dose alkylating agents, such as cyclophosphamide or busulfan, or high doses of radiation directly to the gonadal tissue, that are extremely high risk for causing permanent gonadal harm very immediately after exposure. And there are other therapies, particularly emerging or novel therapies, that we really just have no idea what the reproductive impact will be. And in particular, as patients are living longer, which is wonderful for our patients, how do we integrate reproductive care and family building into the management of perhaps a younger person who's on some chronic maintenance therapies, some of which we know can harm either the developing fetus or reproductive health, and some of which we really don't know at all. And so there's a very large open question around emerging therapies and how to counsel our patients. And so we hope that this guideline will also raise to the forefront the importance of addressing these questions moving forward and helping our patients to understand that we don't necessarily have all the answers either, which we hope will enrich the discussion and really have it be a good example of shared decision making between the clinical teams and the patient, so that ultimately the patients are able to make decisions that make the most sense for them and reduce the potential for decision regret in the future. Dr. Su, I know you have spent a lot of time thinking about this. Dr. Irene Su: Yeah. I really echo this notion that not all cancer treatments are going to be toxic to future reproductive function. And as clinicians, I and colleagues know that patients want to know as much when there is no effect on their fertility, because that feels reassuring in that that prevents them from having to go through the many hoops that sometimes it can be to undergo fertility preservation, as it is to know high risk, as it is to know we don't know. This is key and central, and we need more data. So, for example, we often chat about, wouldn't it be great if from the time of preclinical drug development all the way to clinical trials, that reproductive health in terms of ovarian function, testicular function, fertility potential, is measured regularly so that we are not having to look back 30, 40, 50 years later to understand what happened. And so this is one of our key research questions that we hope the field takes note of going forward. Dr. Alison Loren: This is an important point. We focus greatly, as we should, on potential harms to fertility, making sure that there's access to all the reproductive options for young people with cancer. But to Dr. Su's point, not all therapies are created equal, and there are some therapies that are somewhat lower risk or even much lower risk, including, I'm a blood cancer specialist and so certainly in the patients that I take care of, the treatments related to AML, ALL, and some lymphomas are actually fairly low risk, which is why the post-treatment fertility preservation options are so important. And particularly for patients who potentially present acutely ill with acute leukemia do not have the time or the ability to engage in fertility preservation because of their medical circumstances, it's important to have that conversation. I want to emphasize to oncology clinicians that even if you know medically that this patient is unable to undergo fertility preservation techniques at the time of diagnosis of their cancer, that it's still appropriate to talk about it and to say, “We're going to keep talking about this, this is something that we're going to raise again once you're through this initial therapy. I'm not forgetting about this. It may not be something we can engage in now, but it's a future conversation that's important in your ongoing care.” And then to think about pursuing options when possible, particularly for patients who may require a bone marrow transplant in their future, either due to higher risk disease at presentation or in the event of a relapse, we know that generally bone marrow transplants, because of the high intensity conditioning that they require for most patients who are young, that permanent gonadal insufficiency will be a fixture. And so there can be a window of time in between initial therapy and transplant where a referral might be appropriate. So my public service announcement is that it's never the wrong time to refer to a reproductive specialist. And sometimes people make assumptions about chemotherapy that, “Oh, they've already been treated, so there's nothing we can do,” and I want to make sure that people know that that's not true and that it's always appropriate to explore options. Dr. Irene Su: I think we talk a lot about how important screening and referral is and I can imagine that it's hard to actually know how to implement that. One of our other research questions to look out for is that we see a lot of tertiary care centers that have put together big teams, big resources, and that's not always feasible to scale out to all kinds of settings. And so what's emerging is: What are the key processes that have to happen and how can we adapt this screening, referral, financial navigation process from larger centers to smaller centers to less resource settings. So I guess my public service announcement is there's research in this area, there's focus in this area, so keep an eye out because there will be hopefully better tools to be able to fit in different types of settings. And more research is actually needed to be able to trial these different screening, referral, navigation processes in lower resource settings as well. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's important to think about the research questions on how to improve both the delivery of fertility preservation options and the discussion of it, and it's important to recognize, as you mentioned, the different fertility risks of different cancer directed treatment options and the importance to have the conversations around this. So then just to expand on this notion a little bit, Dr. Su, we've touched on the research needed here in terms of discussing fertility options with patients and referring and then also in some of the experimental and emerging treatment options. So, what are the other outstanding research questions regarding fertility preservation for people with cancer? Dr. Irene Su: A couple others I'd like to add and then have Dr. Loren chime in in case I missed anything in all of our discussions, there's so many wants. So head to head comparisons of which method is best for which patient and what the long term outcomes are: How many kiddos? Do we complete family building? That is still missing. Being able to invest in novel methods from - there's fertoprotective agents that are being tested, potentially spermatogonial stem cell transplant. These are closer to clinical trials to really early research on ovarian, testicular, uterine biology. This is needed in order to inform downstream interventions. One of the questions that is unanswered is: After treatment starts, when is it safe to retrieve oocytes? And so this is a question because, for example, for our leukemia patients who are in the middle of treatment, when is it safe to retrieve eggs? And we don't know. And then post-treatment, for people who have a reduced window, when do you optimally have the most number of eggs or embryos that you can cryopreserve? That's unknown. But I think the question around once treatment has started, is recent exposure of anti-cancer treatments somehow mutagenic or somehow toxic to the oocytes with regard to long term offspring health? That is unanswered. I'm going to scope out a little bit and maybe policy nerd this a little bit. It's been very exciting to see advocacy, advocacy from our patients, from our clinicians on trying to improve health care policy. Like how can we use mandates to improve this delivery? But we actually don't know because actually the mandates from states that require health insurance coverage for fertility preservation, they vary. And so actually what are the key ingredients and policies that will ultimately get the most patients to the care they need? That is in question and would be really interesting. And so what is a part of this guideline which is not often seen in clinical guidelines, is a call for what we think are best practices for health insurance plans to help patients be able to access. And so this means that we recommend being specific and comprehensive in the coverage of these established fertility preservation services that have been recommended. And this means, for example, an egg freezing covering the whole process from consultation to office visits, to ultrasounds and laboratories, to medicines, to the retrieval, and then to long term storage. Because particularly for the youngest of our patients, these gametes could be frozen for a number of years and may not always be so affordable without health insurance coverage. We think that fertility preservation benefits really should be at parity, that you should not be having more cost sharing on the patient compared to other medical services that are covered. This is an inequity and where possible we should eliminate prior authorization because that timing is so short between diagnosis and needing to start anti-cancer treatment. And so prior authorization having to go through multiple layers of health insurance is really a key barrier because we all know that health insurance literacy is limited for all of us. And so whatever we can do to support our patient for the intent of these benefits would be recommended. Dr. Alison Loren: That was so well said, Dr. Su. I'll take the oncology perspective and say that from our side, really being able to understand the risks of infertility and understanding better measurements of fertility capacity, understanding where our patients are - every patient is different. These conversations are very different for a 37-year-old than they are for a 17-year-old. And so what we haven't really talked about is the fact that certainly at least female patients, as they age, their reproductive potential declines naturally. And so their infertility trajectory may be accelerated, they may have a shorter timeline or have less reserve than younger patients. And so being able to tailor our risk discussions not just based on the specific treatments, but on the reproductive age of the patient sitting in front of us and really being able to tailor those to very personalized risks would be really helpful. Because, as Dr. Su mentioned, and I think, as many people know, undergoing fertility preservation techniques can be really arduous. Even if they're covered and paid for, and all of those logistics are easy, which they seldom are, the physical drain of having to do injections, go for labs, all of the parts of those therapies can be really difficult for patients. And so being able to really understand who needs to have these interventions and who could pass, and understanding what the risks are, as I mentioned earlier, for these novel and emerging therapies would be really helpful. Another really important aspect of future research questions is we would like to encourage all clinicians, both reproductive specialists and oncology clinicians, and also our young people with cancer, to participate in clinical studies pertaining to fertility measurements and preservation. We also exhort our industry colleagues to consider including important reproductive endpoints, including biomarkers of ovarian and testicular reserve, if possible, in clinical trials. It will enhance our ability to provide counseling and support for these therapies in the future to be able to understand what the true impact of infertility, family building and health of offspring to be able to include these data in prospective databases and trials. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And I want to thank you both for raising those really important points. So we'll look forward to this ongoing research and optimizing policies for covering fertility preservation benefits for all patients with cancer. I want to thank you both so much for your work to update this critical guideline and talk about these important needs of people with cancer. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Su and Dr. Loren. Dr. Alison Loren: Thanks so much for having us. Dr. Irene Su: You're welcome. This was really fun. Dr. Alison Loren: It was fun. And I just will add that the team at ASCO is amazing and really made this a pleasure. Dr. Irene Su: I couldn't agree more. And from the point of being a fertility specialist, being invited to be a part of this with ASCO and with all of our colleagues, it's been really amazing. And so thanks for allowing us to contribute. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And a big thanks to the entire panel as well. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    

Dr. Elizabeth Comen, MD, is a distinguished board-certified oncologist,researcher and author. She is an award-winning researcher and has beenpublished in prestigious scientific journals, including Nature, Cancer Cell and The Journal of Clinical Oncology. Her book “All In Her Head” empowers women to take charge of their health and to learn about the misconceptions of women's health. Her work has been featured on The Today Show, Good Morning America and Oprah. She joins us on The Vault to discuss ways that we can prevent cancer, how to address anxiety around cancer and how to advocate for your health as a woman in today's healthcare system. She addresses myths around hormone replacement therapy and cancer. We also discuss how to live a more purpose driven life as a physician and healthcare professional. What are the myths around HRT and cancer? How can I advocate for better healthcare as a woman in today's healthcare system? Ways to address cancer anxiety? How to prevent cancer and poor health outcomes? How to support loved ones who have been diagnosed with cancer? What are ways to encourage loved ones to get cancer screenings? How to Cope with High Functioning Depression.Follow Dr. Elizabeth Comen: Dr. Elizabeth Comen Instagram https://www.instagram.com/drelizabethcomen/ Dr. Elizabeth Comen Book https://www.amazon.com/All-Her-Head-Medicine-Matters/dp/0063293013 Dr. Elizabeth Comen Website https://www.drelizabethcomen.com/Follow Dr. Judith:Instagram: https://instagram.com/drjudithjoseph TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@drjudithjoseph Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/drjudithjoseph Website: https://www.drjudithjoseph.com/Sign up for my newsletter here: https://www.drjudithjoseph.com/newsletter-sign-upDisclaimer: You may want to consider your individual mental health needs with a licensed medical professional. This page is not medical advice.

Dr. Shannon Westin and her guest, Dr. Breelyn Wilky, discuss the JCO article, "“Botensilimab (Fc-enhanced anti-cytotoxic lymphocyte-association protein-4 antibody) Plus Balstilimab (anti-PD-1 antibody) in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Metastatic Sarcomas." TRANSCRIPT  Shannon Westin: Hello, everyone, and welcome to another episode of JCO After Hours, the podcast where we get in depth on research that has been published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Gynecologic Oncologist and Social Media Consultant Editor of the JCO, Shannon Westin. I serve here from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. And I am so excited to welcome Dr. Breelyn Wilky. She's an Associate Professor and the Director of Sarcoma Medical Oncology in the Department of Medicine Division of Medical Oncology, and the Cheryl Bennett & McNeilly family endowed chair in Sarcoma Research, the Deputy Associate Director of Clinical research at the University of Colorado Cancer Center. Welcome. Dr. Breelyn Wilky: Thank you so much. I'm delighted to be here. Shannon Westin: And with all those titles, I'm super impressed that she was able to complete the manuscript that we're going to discuss today, which is “Botensilimab (Fc-enhanced anti-cytotoxic lymphocyte-association protein-4 antibody) Plus Balstilimab (anti-PD-1 antibody) in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Metastatic Sarcomas.” And this was published in the JCO on January 27, 2025. And please note, our participants do not have any conflicts of interest. So this is exciting. Let's first level set. Can you review with us just the current state of sarcoma incidents, survival outcomes, that kind of thing so we all know where we're starting? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: Yes. So, you know, sarcomas are really, I like to call them the black box cancer type. And the big thing is that there's really more than a hundred different kinds of sarcomas, which collectively altogether make up only 1% of adult cancers. And so we talk about these as being bone and soft tissue tumors, but really, the heterogeneity is just incredible. You're talking maybe 10,000 to 12,000 new cases of soft tissue sarcoma per year, which is pretty rare in the grand scheme of things. And the trouble with these is that while you can cure sarcomas if you find them early and they're localized, when they metastasize and spread and are not resectable, we're looking at median overall survivals of really only 12 to 18 months, even, you know, with our best therapies that we have. So, really there's just a dire need for new treatments for this really tough group of diseases. Shannon Westin: Yeah, I agree. I'm a gynecologic oncologist, and we have our little subset of sarcomas that I know there's a little bit out of every one. So I'm really excited to pull this manuscript as one of our podcasts offerings because I think we're all seeing these patients in the clinic and certainly our listeners that have sarcoma or have family members with sarcoma, this is so good to have a real focus on a rare group of tumors that have been a little bit lumped together. Now, with that being said, I know this is such a heterogeneous population, but can you briefly overview a little bit around the standard of care for treatment of recurrent sarcomas? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: We have actually been using the same drugs really since about the 1970s, and up until very recently, nothing had really challenged doxorubicin, the old ‘red devil', like we used to call it. And this has been the mainstay of treatment for metastatic sarcomas and really used across the board. In the GYN literature, for uterine leiomyosarcoma, we did see some promising activity with the combination of doxorubicin and trabectedin coming out of the French group. But, except for that study, no combination therapy or new drug has been proven better in terms of overall survival compared to doxorubicin monotherapy, really over 40, 50 years. So it's definitely a tough situation. Now, we do have other drugs that we use, so most patients will wind up getting doxorubicin-based therapy. There's a couple of other regimens that we'll reach to, like gemcitabine docetaxel. And once you get into the specific subtypes, we have some approvals in liposarcomas and leiomyosarcomas for some other drugs. But really the median progression for survival for most of these regimens is somewhere four to six months. And response rates typically are somewhere like 10%, 15% for most of these. So it's really just a very tough field and a tough group of patients to try to make an impact for. Shannon Westin: So let's talk a little bit more kind of getting focused on what you've studied here. What's been the role of immunotherapy thus far in the treatment of sarcomas maybe prior to this particular study? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: Clearly, we all know that immune therapy has just changed cancer care forever over the last few years for so many different types of cancers and diseases like melanoma and renal cell and lung cancer have just been transformed by checkpoint inhibitors specifically directed against PD-1 or CTLA-4 or both. And so, of course, you know, sarcoma docs we're super excited to try to see if these might potentially have activity in our tumors as well. I never had seen myself in my career getting into immunotherapy until I was able to run an investigator-initiated study during my role in Miami, where we combined pembrolizumab, so PD-1 inhibitor, with axitinib which was a pan-VEGF inhibitor. And lo and behold, like I had patients that I was seeing responses when other treatments, all those chemotherapies I was just talking about had failed. And one of my first patients I treated was about a 60-year-old lady with something called cutaneous angiosarcoma. So this is a blood vessel sarcoma all over her face. And we had treated her with 10 different therapies, all the chemotherapy regimens, targeted therapies, clinical trials, and nothing was working. But I put her on a phase 1 trial with a baby dose of CTLA-4 and this woman had a complete response. And so for me, once I saw it work in even just those couple of patients, like that was nothing that we'd ever seen with our chemotherapy regimens. And so that sort of shifted my career towards really focusing on this, and this is about the time where some of the studies started to come out for sarcomas. And the take home with sarcoma is about 20% of sarcomas have this sort of immune hot physiology. So what that basically means is if you look at gene expression of immune related gene signatures, or you look for infiltrating T-cells, sort of the SWAT team of our immune system, like you can find those in the tumors. And it's sort of evidence that the immune system had some clue for that 20% of patients that this was a foreign tumor and that it should be attacking it and maybe just needed a little help. But globally, about 80% of sarcomas are these immune cold tumors, which means the immune system has no clue that these things are even a threat. And there's almost no immune activation, very, very few antigens. In other cancer types, high neoantigens or tumor antigens help the immune system work better. And so that basically goes with what we've seen with trials of PD-1 or CTLA-4 blockade. About 20% of sarcomas, with some exceptions, can respond. But really 80% across the board, you're stuck, you just can't get them to be recognized. And so that's where I think this data is so interesting is there's some signals of activity in these immune cold tumors which, at least historically with the trials we've done so far, we really haven't seen that with sort of the traditional checkpoints. Shannon Westin: So I think now this is a great time to maybe talk about the study design in general, the eligibility and just give us kind of a run through of that. Dr. Breelyn Wilky: So this trial was a phase 1 trial of a drug called botensilimab, which is a next generation CTLA-4 directed immune modulator. So what makes botensilimab different is that the CTLA-4 end is very similar to other CTLA-4 inhibitors that are out there, but it's been engineered on the back end of the molecule that binds to Fc gamma receptors to basically bind tighter with higher affinity. And what this translates to in laboratory models and increasingly now in patients is it does a better job of priming, of educating our T cells, our, again, these highly intelligent antigen specific cells, but also natural killer cells. It does a better job of sort of educating those. It helps to activate macrophages and other supporting actors in the immune response. And so the idea here is that there's evidence that botensilimab may do a better job at creating new responses in immune cold tumors. The study combined either botensilimab as monotherapy or in combination with a PD-1 inhibitor called balstilimab. And this was all comers, really a variety of tumor types. And to date I think we're close to about 500 patients with a variety of solid tumors that have been accrued to this study, this C-800-01 phase 1 trial. This paper reports on the sarcoma patients that were enrolled as part of this study. And so, again, given what I've told you about sarcomas being really immune cold, we were just so excited to have the opportunity to enroll on a next generation immune therapy for these tumors that really we were running into roadblocks trying to use immunotherapy previously. Shannon Westin: It's a very compelling idea and I'm so excited for you to tell people what you found. I think first things first, it was an early phase trial. So why don't we talk a little bit about the safety of the regimen. Was there anything that you didn't expect? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: Right. So similar to other checkpoint inhibitors, you know, the idea is that these drugs can cause immune mediated toxicities, right? So essentially you're revving up the immune system and it can sometimes get a bit confused and start attacking our normal cells, our normal organs, leading to essentially any number of toxicities of basically head to toe, something can get inflamed and you can develop a toxicity from that. So the key take homes with this particular drug with, botensilimab with balstilimab, we saw colitis was sort of the primary immune mediated toxicity and it was about a third of patients, give or take. It happens and it can be aggressive and needs to be managed aggressively. And you know, one of the things that we learned very quickly taking part in this study is how important it is that as soon as patients start to get diarrhea, immunosuppression gets on board. So steroids, early use of TNF alpha blockade, so infliximab for example, if we jumped on it quickly and we recognized it and we got the patients treated, it would resolve fairly quickly and even some patients could remain on treatment. So I think that was sort of the first take home is “Okay if you get colitis, you treat it fast, you treat it early and you can still have patients not only recover, which essentially everybody recovered from this colitis and then being able to continue on treatment and still have their anti-tumor responses.” So that's the first point. The second thing that was really interesting is part of the engineering of botensilimab on the back end of the molecule, it's been designed to decrease complement binding and it's thought that that triggers some of these other toxicities that we've seen with prior CTLA-4 inhibitors like pneumonitis or hypophysitis. We actually don't see that with botensilimab. So there's sort of this selective toxicity that may reflect the design of the molecule. But overall the treatment was, we didn't see any new safety signals that were outside of what we would expect in class. And colitis was sort of the dominant thing that we had to be ready for and ready to manage. Shannon Westin: We've been doing it for a while now, so we kind of know what to do and we can act quickly and really try to mitigate and avoid some of the major toxicities. So that's great that that was what was reflected in what you found. And then of course I think: What about the efficacy?” Right. This is what we care about as practitioners, as patients. Does it work and are there any subtypes that seem to benefit the most from this combination? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: Right. So for the sarcoma patients, we treated 64 patients and 52 of those patients were evaluable for efficacy. So a decent size group of patients in sarcomas, where, you know, typically our trials are pretty small, they're very rare, but we had 52 evaluable with at least one post baseline scan. So that was our criteria. And basically we saw across all of the patients, and keep in mind, these are heavily pre-treated patients, as you mentioned, so a median of 3 prior lines of therapy, so most of these patients had had chemotherapies and then about 20% had also had prior immunotherapy as well. So PD-1 treatments or so on. The overall response rate by RECIST was 19.2% for all of the evaluable patients. And then with iRECIST, which is sort of that immune adapted response criteria that allows for early pseudo progression, we actually had another patient who did have that. And so that response rate was 21.2%. Overall, we were really excited to see this in a heavily pre-treated group of patients. But what was really exciting to me was when we looked at the subset of patients that had angiosarcoma, that blood vessel tumor I was talking about earlier with my other patient. So angios come in two flavors. One is this sort of cutaneous type, or meaning involving the skin that has a UV signature, a UV damage signature, very similar to melanoma. So these tumors tend to have a high mutation burden. And oftentimes there is a track record that we've seen responses with immunotherapy in cutaneous angiosarcomas. But the other group that we deal with is called visceral angiosarcomas. And so these are totally different biologically. These are often driven by mutations in MYC or KDR amplification, and they arise in organs, so primary breast angiosarcoma, not associated with radiation, or they can arise in the liver or the spleen or an extremity. So these are very, very different tumors, and the visceral ones almost never historically have responded to checkpoint inhibitors. So we had 18 patients with angio split - 9 with cutaneous, 9 with visceral. And we were just blown away because the response rate for that group was 27.8%. And if you looked at the responses between the hot ones and the cold ones, it was almost equal and a little bit better in the visceral. So we had a 33% response rate in visceral angiosarcoma, which is crazy, historically speaking, and about 20% again in the cutaneous angios. So for a disease where visceral angio gets treated with chemotherapy, might respond initially, but then rapidly progresses - like these people go through multiple lines of therapy - to have a third of patients responding, and then some of those responses were durable. Our median duration of response for the study was 21.7 months, which is just nuts for sarcomas where we just don't see those sorts of long term benefits with the drugs that we have. So I think those are kind of the two main things. There were other subtypes that had clinical benefit and responses as well in d-diff liposarcoma, soft tissue leiomyosarcoma, which are again thought to be fairly cold immune subtypes. So just really exciting to kind of see responses we hadn't expected in a very challenging group of tumors. Shannon Westin: We see all these patients and we have patients that respond so well to immunotherapy with other histotypes. And so it's so exciting to see an option for these really hard to treat tumors that our patients struggle with. So this is so, so very exciting. I wanted to make mention, you know, I was really impressed with the amount of translational work you were able to do in this early phase study. So do you want to review just maybe a few of the key findings that you guys discovered? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: It's always great. I'm a translational researcher at heart and we do a lot of immune correlative work. And I think the reason I got so excited about this field to begin with was trying to learn why it works for some patients and why it doesn't work for other patients. So I'm a huge believer in learning from every patient that we can. So it's such a testament to the company, Agenus, who sponsored this trial to invest their time and resources into correlative studies at this phase. It's huge. So we learned a couple of things. IL-6 or interleukin 6 is a cytokine that basically has, in other tumor types, been associated with worse outcomes. And what we were interested in this group is we saw the same thing. And again, sarcomas have very, very little correlative biology that's done. We're really in infancy and understanding the microenvironment and how that milieu balances out in our tumors. So we were really excited to see again that lower peripheral interleukin 6 associated with improved overall survival. So again, kind of sorting out a group of patients that might be immunologically favorable when it comes to this type of therapy. The other thing that's important to know about sarcoma is so the other tumor types are lucky and have PD-L1 expression and the tumor is a biomarker, but we never have PD-L1 expression. We can find it in sarcomas and it can be loosely correlated with a chance of benefit with immunotherapy. But I've had patients respond that were PD-L1 negative, and I've had patients that were loaded with PD-L1 that didn't seem to make a difference. And that's not just in this study. So we saw in this trial a trend towards improved overall survival with PD-L1 expression that wasn't significant, but there was like this trend. And it's really interesting because, again, this is largely a CTLA-4 directed therapy. And so what we wondered is if PD-L1 expression is an index of sort of this underlying potential immunogenicity. And actually PD-1 works very late in the whole immune process. That's really at the very end where you've got the T cell that's facing the tumor cell and it's just activating that T cell that's already grown up and already educated and ready to go. Whereas CTLA-4 is really educating in early immune responses and expanding the T cells that have potential to kill. So I'm interested to look into this in more depth in the future to see if this is actually the biomarker for CTLA-4 directed therapy that we've been looking for, because we really don't have a great sense about that. And then the last piece just to note is that in this trial, like most others, very, very few sarcomas had high mutational burden. Everybody was very low, which reflects the population. And it's just really more encouragement than an immune cold tumor with very crappy neoantigens can still respond to immunotherapy if we get them the right agents. Shannon Westin: Yeah, I mean, I'm taking notes because we have such a struggle with this across the gynecologic tumors. I'm like, “Okay, maybe this is finally it.” So hopefully your work will go on to really inspire us across a number of solid tumors that have been traditionally cold. So, so very exciting. And I would just say for my last question, obviously, congratulations on this successful study. What do you think are the next steps for this combination in sarcomas? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: So, again, just to your point, this trial enrolled a bunch of different subtypes, and sarcomas are not the only immune cold tumor that this combo has looked really promising for, microsatellite stable colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer that was platinum refractory, non-small cell lungs. So I think the future is really bright for immune cold tumors kind of across the board. So, yes, lots of hope for not just sarcomas but in terms of our patients, I just have to be so grateful to Agenus for their interest in a rare disease. Sometimes it's hard to get that interest for a very challenging group of patients that are all heterogeneous, they are not all the same and our big clinical trials are a few hundred patients. It's just a very different environment. But they have been so supportive and involved in making sure that sarcomas are represented in their priorities. So there are ongoing discussions about what the optimal way to explore this further in sarcomas is going to be and I cannot wait to have the official plans in place. But my hope is this will not be the last that we see of these drugs for our patients. Shannon Westin: Well, I support that and my vote is on your side. So, thank you so much again, Dr. Wilky. This time just flew by. This was such a great discussion and I mean, I think it's, again, a testament to your exciting data. And thank you to all of our listeners. This has been JCO After Hours' discussion of “Botensilimab (Fc-enhanced anti-cytotoxic lymphocyte-association protein-4 antibody) Plus Balstilimab (anti-PD-1 antibody) in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Metastatic Sarcomas,” published in the JCO on January 27, 2025. So be sure to check out the full manuscript. And we hope that you enjoyed this podcast. And if you want to hear more about research published in the JCO, check this out on our ASCO JCO website or wherever you get your podcasts. Have an awesome day.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Dr. Wilky Disclosures  Consulting or Advisory Role: SpringWorks Therapeutics, Deciphera, Epizyme, Adcendo, Polaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, AADi, InhibRx Research Funding: Exelixis Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Agenus    

Dr. Mellar Davis discusses the joint guideline from MASCC, ASCO, AAHPM, HPNA, and NICSO on opioid conversion in adults with cancer. He reviews the limited evidence, and the formal consensus process used to develop the guideline. He shares the key recommendations on pre-conversion assessment, how opioid conversion should be conducted, including opioid conversion ratios, and post-conversion assessment. We touch on gaps and questions in the field and the impact of these new recommendations.  Read the full guideline, “Opioid Conversion in Adults with Cancer: MASCC-ASCO-AAHPM-HPNA-NICSO Guideline” at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline in the Supportive Care in Cancer, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00520-025-09286-z   Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Mellar Davis from Geisinger Medical Center, lead author on “Opioid Conversion in Adults with Cancer: Multinational Association of Supportive Care and Cancer, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association, Network Italiano Cure di Supporto and Oncologia Guideline.” Thank you for being here today, Dr. Davis. Dr. Mellar Davis: Thank you. I'm glad to be here. Brittany Harvey Before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Davis, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline, which is linked in our show notes. So then, to dive into the content here, Dr. Davis, can you provide an overview of both the scope and purpose of this guideline on opioid conversion in people with cancer? Dr. Mellar Davis: This is an important topic in management of cancer pain and this topic came up as a result of a survey that MASCC had done, which involved 370 physicians in 53 countries. They were queried about how they change or convert one opioid to another, which is a common practice, and we found that there was quite a divergence in opioid conversion ratios. To step back a little bit, about two thirds of patients with advanced cancer have moderate to severe pain and most of the time they're managed by opioids. But about 20% or 40% require a switch either because they have an adverse reaction to it or they don't respond to it, or the combination of both. Rarely, it may be that they need a route change, perhaps because they have nausea or vomiting. So, the opioid conversion works basically because of the complexity of the new opioid receptor which has at least four exons to it as a result of that non-cross tolerance between opioids. As a result of the survey, we convened a group of specialists, 14 international specialists, to look to see if we could develop an international guideline. And we did a systematic review which involved viewing 21,000 abstracts and we came up with 140 randomized trials and 68 non-randomized trials. And after reviewing the data, we found that the data was really not strong enough to provide a guideline. As a result, ASCO, MASCC, the AAHPM, the HPNA and the Italian Group formed a supportive network that allowed us then to do a Delphi guideline based upon ASCO modified criteria for doing Delphi guidelines. And so we then involved 27 additional international experts informing the guideline to it. And this guideline is then the result of the Delphi process. It consists basically of a pre-conversion ratio recommendations, conversion ratios, which is actually a major contribution of this guideline, and then what to do after converting someone to another opioid. Our target audience was not only oncologists, but also we wanted to target nurses, pharmacists, hospitalists, primary care physicians, patients and caregivers. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate that background information, particularly on the evidence that is underpinning this and the lack of quality of evidence there, which really transformed this into a formal consensus guideline. We're glad to have all of these organizations coming together to collaborate on this guideline. So then next I'd like to review the key recommendations. So starting with, what is recommended for pre-conversion assessment? Dr. Mellar Davis: In regards to pre-conversion, physicians and clinicians need to be aware of pain phenotypes. That is, there are pains that are more opioid refractory than others, such as neuropathic pain, hence, they may be more resistant to the opioid that you're converting to. One needs to be aware of the fact that patients may not be compliant, they're either afraid of opioids not taking what was prescribed, so it's important to query patients about whether they are taking their opioid as prescribed. Occasionally, there are patients who will divert their medication for various reasons. Pain may be poorly controlled also because of dosing strategies that are poorly conceived, in other words, giving only ‘as needed' opioids for continuous cancer pain. And there are rare circumstances where an opioid actually induces pain and simply reducing the opioid actually may improve the pain. The other issue may be cancer progression. So that poorly controlled pain or rapidly increasing pain may actually be a result of progressive cancer and changing treatment obviously will be important. And you need to assess the pain severity, the quality of the pain, the radiating localizing effects, which does require not only a physical exam but also radiographic examinations. But the other thing that's very important in opioid conversions are pain scales with function. A significant number of patients don't quite understand a numerical scale which we commonly use: 0 to 10, with 10 being severe pain and 0 being no pain. They may in fact focus more on function rather than on pain severity or pain interference with daily activities or roles. Sometimes patients will say, “Oh, my pain is manageable,” or “It's tolerable,” rather than using a numerical scale. Choices of opioids may be based on cost, drug-drug interactions, organ function, personal history or substance use disorder so that one will want to choose an opioid that's safe when converting from one to another. And obviously social support and having caregivers present and understanding the strategy in managing pain will be important. Brittany Harvey: Thank you, Dr. Davis, for reviewing those pre-conversion assessment considerations and particularly the challenges around some of those. So, following this pre-conversion assessment, what are the recommendations on how opioid conversion should be conducted? Dr. Mellar Davis: Opioid conversions are basically the safe dose. People have used the term ‘equianalgesia', but the panel and the consensus group felt that that would be inappropriate. So a conversion ratio is the dose at which the majority of patients will not experience withdrawal or adverse effect. It would be the safe dose. Thereafter, the dose will need to be adjusted. So, in converting, that's only the first step in managing pain, the doses need to be adjusted to the individual thereafter. There are a significant number of conversions that are done indirectly, that is that there has not been a study that has looked at a direct conversion from one opioid to another in which one needs to convert through another opioid. We call that a ‘morphine equivalent daily dose'. So, most of the time a third opioid is used in the conversion. It allows you then to convert when there hasn't been a direct study that has looked at conversion between those two opioids, but it is less accurate and so one has to be a little bit more careful when using morphine daily equivalents. We found, and I think this is the major advantage to the guideline, is that commonly used opioids - oxycodone, morphine, hydromorphone - we did establish conversion ratios to which we found in the MASCC guideline they were widely divergent and hope that actually, internationally, they will be adopted. We also found some conversion ratios for second-line opioids. However, we felt also that an opioid like methadone, which has a unique pharmacology, should be left to experts and that experts should know at least several ways of converting from morphine usually to methadone. There is what appears to be a dose-related increased potency of methadone relative to morphine, which makes it more difficult, particularly at higher doses, to have an accurate conversion ratio. Most patients will have transient flares of pain. We came up with two suggestions. One is using a 10 or 15% of the around-the-clock dose for the breakthrough dose, but we also realized that there was a poor correlation between the around-the-clock dose and the dose used for transient flares of pain. And so the breakthrough dose really needs to be adjusted to the individual responses. There was also a mention of buprenorphine. One of the unique things about buprenorphine is that if you go from high doses of a drug like morphine to buprenorphine in a stop-start dosing strategy, you can precipitate withdrawal. And so one has to be careful and have some experience in using buprenorphine, which can be an effective analgesic. Brittany Harvey: Yes, I think that the conversion ratios that you mentioned that are in Table 3 in the full guideline are a really useful tool for clinicians in practice. And I appreciate the time that the panel and the additional consensus panel went through to develop these. I think it's also really key what you mentioned about these not being equianalgesic doses and the difficulties in some of these conversions and when people need to really look to specialists in the field. So then, following opioid conversion, what assessments are recommended post-conversion? Dr. Mellar Davis: Post-conversion, probably the cardinal recommendation is close observation for response and for toxicity. And I think that probably summarizes the important parts of post-conversion follow up. So assessment should be done 24-48 hours after conversion and patients followed closely. Assessment scales should include patient personalized goals. Now, it used to be in the past that we had this hard stop about a response being below 4 on a 0 to 10 scale, but each patient has their own personal goals. So they gauge the pain severity and their function based upon response. So a patient may function very well at “a severity of 5” and feel that that is their personal goal. So I think the other thing is to make sure that your assessment is just not rote, but it's based upon what patients really want to achieve with the opioid conversion. The average number of doses per day should be assessed in the around-the-clock dose so those should be followed closely. Adverse effects can occur and sometimes can be subtle. In other words, a mild withdrawal may produce fatigue, irritability, insomnia and depression. And clinicians may not pick up on the fact that they may be actually a bit under what patients have or they're experiencing withdrawal syndrome. It's important to look for other symptoms which may be subtle but indicating, for instance, neurotoxicity from an opioid. For instance, visual hallucinations may not be volunteered by patients. They may transiently see things but either don't associate with the opioid or are afraid to mention them. So I think it's important to directly query them, for instance, about visual hallucinations or about nightmares at night. Nausea can occur. It may be temporary, mild, and doesn't necessarily mean that one needs to stop the second opioid. It may actually resolve in several days and can be treated symptomatically. Pruritus can occur and can be significant. So close observation for the purposes of close adjustments are also necessary. As we mentioned, you want to start them on an around-the-clock of breakthrough dose, but then assess to see what their response is and if it's suboptimal then you'll need to adjust the doses based both upon the around-the-clock and the breakthrough dose or the dose that's used for breakthrough pain. Also looking at how patients are functioning, because remember that patients frequently look at pain in terms of function or interference with their roles during the day. So, if patients are able to do more things, that may, in fact, be the goal. Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing all of these recommendations across pre-conversion assessment, how opioid conversion should be conducted, including conversion ratios, and what assessments are recommended after opioid conversion. I think it's really important to be watching for these adverse events and assessing for response and keeping in mind patient goals. So, along those lines, how will these guideline recommendations impact both clinicians and people with cancer? And what are the outstanding questions we're thinking about regarding opioid conversion? Dr. Mellar Davis: I think it's important to have a basic knowledge of opioid pharmacology. There's, for instance, drugs that are safer in liver disease, such as morphine, hydromorphone, which are glucuronidated. And there are opioids that are safer in renal failure, such as methadone and buprenorphine, which aren't dependent upon renal clearance. I think knowing drug-drug interactions are important to know. And sometimes, for instance, there may be multiple prescribers for a patient. The family physician's prescribing a certain medication and the oncologist is another, so being aware of what patients are on, and particularly over-the-counter medications which may influence opioid pharmacokinetics. So complementary medications, for instance, being aware of cannabis, if patients are using cannabis or other things, I think, are important in this. There are large gaps and questions and that's the last part of the guideline that we approach or that we mentioned that I think are important to know. And one is there may be ethnic differences in population in regards to clearance or cytochrome frequencies within communities or countries, which may actually alter the conversion ratios. This has not been explored to a great extent. There's opioid stigmata. So we are in the middle of an opioid crisis and so people have a great fear of addiction and they may not take an opioid for that reason, or they may have a relative who's been addicted or had a poor experience. And this may be particularly true for methadone and buprenorphine, which are excellent analgesics and are increasingly being used but may in fact have the stigmata. There are health inequalities that occur related to minority groups that may in fact not get the full benefit of opioid conversions due to access to opioids or to medical care. Age, for instance, will cause perhaps differences in responses to opioids and may in fact affect conversion ratios. And this may be particularly true for methadone, which we have not really explored to a great extent. And finally, the disease itself may influence the clearance or absorption of an opioid. So for a sick patient, the opioid conversion ratio may be distinctly different than in a healthy individual. This is particularly seen with transdermal fentanyl, which is less well absorbed in a cachectic patient, but once given IV or intravenously has a much longer half life due to alterations in the cytochrome that clears it. And so conversion ratios have frequently been reported in relatively healthy individuals with good organ function and not that frequently in older patient populations. So just remember that the conversion ratios may be different in those particular populations. Brittany Harvey: Yes. So I think a lot of these are very important things to consider and that managing cancer pain is key to quality of life for a lot of patients and it's important to consider these patient factors while offering opioid conversion. I want to thank you so much for your work to review the existing literature here, develop these consensus-based recommendations and thank you for your time today, Dr. Davis. Dr. Mellar Davis: Thank you. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

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

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

In this JCO Article Insights episode, Peter Li summarizes “Neoadjuvant Modified Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin With or Without Radiation Versus Fluorouracil Plus Radiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Updated Results of the FOWARC Study After a Median Follow-Up of 10 Years,” by Dr. Jianwei Zhang et al. published on December 13, 2024. TRANSCRIPT Peter Li: Hello and welcome to the JCO Article Insights. I'm your host Peter Li and today we will be discussing the Journal of Clinical Oncology article, “Neoadjuvant Modified Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin With or Without Radiation Versus Fluorouracil Plus Radiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Updated Results of the FOWARC Study After a Median Follow-Up of 10 Years,” by Dr. Jianwei Zhang et al.  For a reminder to the audience, the FOWARC study is a Chinese-based study that looked into the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancers with neoadjuvant chemotherapy based regimens with or without radiation. This study was first published back in 2019 where the three-year data showed no difference in three-year disease-free survival over survival between the three study arms. As a reminder of what those arms were, there were one historical control and two interventional arms. The control arm used 5-FU with radiation therapy with five cycles of 5-fluorouracil with radiation during cycles two to four followed by surgery and then seven cycles adjuvantly. Their first interventional arm was the same as the control arm with the addition of oxaliplatin on day 1of each cycle. And lastly, the third arm was FOLFOX only for four to six cycles followed by surgery and then six to eight cycles adjuvantly completing about a total of 12 weeks of chemotherapy.  They recruited about 495 patients with 165 patients randomized to each arm. They were relatively well balanced by age, clinical staging and distance from the anal verge. Median age was about mid-50s with a slight male predominance and patients were primarily stage 3 with 20% to 30% being stage 2. About 30% had clinical T4 disease and about 25% had clinical N2 disease. Median follow up time was 122.5 months or 10 years and their follow up endpoints were disease-free survival, overall survival and local recurrence, and they also performed subgroup analyses based on post surgical pathological staging. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method with a significant threshold of p being less than 0.05. About 451 patients actually underwent surgery, which is about 91% of patients. The main reason for not going through surgery was due to refusal but one was due to toxicity and two were due to disease progression in the control arm. Follow up loss rate was about 10% in each group. Now looking at their primary endpoints in their initial study, local recurrence was about 8.8% in the control arm versus 7.9% in the FOLFOX radiation group versus 9.2% in the FOLFOX only group. Distant metastasis was about 30% in each arm and the sites of metastases were primarily in the lung and liver.   Now, following up with 10 years, there were only three new events in the chemoradiation group with local recurrence happening at 10.8% in the control arm versus 8% in the FOLFOX RT group versus 9.6% in the chemo only group. These findings were not statistically significant. In their subgroup analysis by pathological staging, they found that pathological CR or complete response had a lower rate of local recurrence compared to those with increasing pathological staging coming in at 3% versus 4.3% versus 11.6% versus 15.8% in pCR versus Stage 1, 2, 3 respectively. And they found no difference in each stage with each interventional arm. Looking at long term survival their 10-year disease free survival showed 52.5% in the 5-FU radiation group versus 62.6% in the FOLFOX RT group versus 60.5% in the chemotherapy only group with no statistically significant difference between three groups. By pathological staging, they found improved 10-year disease survival in those who achieved pathological complete response versus those who did not with 84.3% in the pCR group versus 78.7% versus 56.8% versus 27.7% in the stage 1 versus 2 versus 3 group. And again they found no statistical significance difference between each arm.   Now looking at the 10-year overall survival rates between the three arms, in the control arm the 10-year overall survival was 65.9% versus 72.3% in the FOLFOX RT group versus 73.4% in the chemo only group. By pathological stage, again, they showed a statistically significant difference in those who achieved pCR versus those who had pathological stage 1 to 3 disease with overall survival being 92.4% in those who achieved pCR versus 84.9% versus 68.6% versus 48.8% in stage 1, 2, 3 respectively. Now in the discussion, authors mentioned that with a median follow up of 10 years, FOLFOX alone had similar disease-free survival, local recurrence and distant metastasis and overall survival compared to those who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation, justifying the omission of radiation without compromising results or outcomes for each patient. There were no differences in subgroup analysis for disease free survival local recurrence or overall survival based on pathological staging. There were only three new events compared to the last follow up, with local recurrence happening only in the chemo radiation groups. Local recurrence rates at 10 years was about 10%. Compared to other clinical trials such as CAO, ARO or AIO-94, the rate of local recurrence was similar to those historical trials.  The authors also compared their findings to the PROSPECT study which looks at the use of total neoadjuvant chemo radiation versus chemotherapy alone, which boasted only about a 2% local recurrence rate. But as a reminder, high risk locally advanced rectal cancers were excluded, mainly those with T4 or N2 disease, which may explain the difference in terms of local recurrence in the PROSPECT versus this study. Another finding is that pathological complete responses are also an important prognostic marker with lower 10-year local recurrence rate, disease-free survival and overall survival with worse outcomes with increased pathological staging. Distant metastasis rates were still at 30%, with the most common site being lung then liver then lymph nodes consistent with other historical studies. Chemotherapy seemed to be better at reducing liver mets than lung metastasis per their findings. In their post hoc analysis of their own study, chemo radiation was also associated with higher incidence of low anterior resection syndrome and persistent ostomy compared to chemotherapy alone, meaning that they had better quality of life with the chemotherapy only approach.  In conclusion, a chemotherapy only approach can be safe and a feasible treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer without compromising outcomes. Omission of radiation may reduce the risk of overtreatment and improve quality of life for some of these patients. However, this does not necessarily exclude the role of radiation as it may still play a role in a response escalation approach for those who do not respond to chemotherapy alone.   This wraps up today's episode. Thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit asco.org/podcasts.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Host Dr. Shannon Westin and guests Dr. Bill Aronson discuss the article "High Omega-3, Low Omega-6 Diet With Fish Oil for Men With Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance: The CAPFISH-3 Randomized Clinical Trial" and how Omega-6 are predominant in the American diet while the study significantly lowered the intake of Omega- 6 fats. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Shannon Westin: Hello everyone and welcome to another episode of JCO After Hours, the podcast where we get in depth on manuscripts published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Shannon Westin, GYN Oncologist by trade and one of the grateful Social Media Editors of the JCO. And I am very excited to welcome a special guest today, Dr. William Aronson. He is professor of Urology in the UCLA Department of Urology, the Chief of Urology at Olive View UCLA Medical Center, and Chief of Urologic Oncology at the Veterans Administration West Los Angeles. Welcome, Dr. Aronson. Dr. William Aronson: Thank you, Shannon, and delighted to be here. Dr. Shannon Westin: We are so excited to have you discussing your manuscript, “High Omega-3, Low Omega-6 Diet With Fish Oil for Men With Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance: The CAPFISH-3 Randomized Clinical Trial,” which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on December 13, 2024. So let's get right to it. First of all, you know we have a very mixed audience, so can you just level set for us and speak about the population you studied in this important trial - that low risk, favorable, intermediate risk prostate cancer. How common is that? How is it defined? That would really help. Dr. William Aronson: I would say about 50% of the patients that we diagnose with prostate cancer either have low risk disease or what we call favorable intermediate risk disease. So when the pathologists look at the cancer under the microscope, they assign what's called a Gleason grade. Grade 3 is the slower growing type of prostate cancer, grade 5 is the fastest growing type, and grade 4 is somewhere in between. So a low risk group would be only the grade 3, the slower growing type. And the favorable intermediate risk group would actually be the grade 3+4, which means they mostly see the low risk type in there, but they also see the slightly faster growing type, grade 4. So this is what we typically see. We see these patients on a very regular basis when they're newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. Dr. Shannon Westin: Okay, got it. And then can you walk us through just what the management options are typically for this patient population? Dr. William Aronson: So typically for what we call the low risk group, the patients with a low PSA and only that grade 3 type, slower growing type of prostate cancer, the standard recommendations are active surveillance. So typically, we'll periodically monitor these patients with PSA blood testing and periodically do prostate biopsies depending upon the patient's other medical problems. Dr. Shannon Westin: So I think it would also be really helpful just to understand what your typical management options are for this patient population. Dr. William Aronson: So for patients with low risk prostate cancer, they only have the Gleason Grade 3+3 with a low PSA. The standard practice is observation. And so these men will periodically see them and measure their PSA values. And periodically, they'll undergo prostate biopsy to make sure they're not getting progression of their disease. For men with favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer, that's a little different. In some practices, the patient and the urologist will decide to do active surveillance. In other scenarios, these patients will definitely elect treatment, either with radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy or other treatments that are available. Dr. Shannon Westin: So your manuscript notes that there was a high level of interest in dietary supplements and approaches among patients with prostate cancer that do elect for active surveillance. Prior to the results of CAPFISH-3, did we have any data to support those types of recommendations? Dr. William Aronson: We actually don't have any long term prospective randomized trials that support that recommendation. There have been a number of very interesting epidemiologic studies, for example, suggesting maybe a plant-based diet might be helpful. Or a number of other studies suggesting maybe more tomato-based products like tomato sauces or tomato paste may be helpful. But no prospective longer term randomized trials that were positive. Dr. Shannon Westin: Okay, that makes sense. So what led you all to explore the high omega-3, low omega-6 fatty acid diet in this trial? Dr. William Aronson: After our initial omega-6 studies, we subsequently did some studies where we raised the omega-3 from fish oil and lowered the 6, looking at a more favorable ratio of the omega-3 to omega-6. And once again, we found that in our animal models, there was a significant delay in progression of prostate cancer. That then led us to perform a clinical trial. It was a short term trial in men prior to undergoing radical prostatectomy. And in these men, they were randomly assigned to one of two groups, either a western high fat diet or a low fat diet with fish oil. And we found after just four to six weeks, a significant change in the Ki67 level in their radical prostatectomy tissue. And Ki67 is actually a strong indicator of prostate cancer progression, spread, or even death from prostate cancer. Dr. Shannon Westin: Well, and I think that leads us really nicely into the design of the current study. So why don't you walk us through how CAPFISH-3 was designed. And you've already spoken a little bit about your primary endpoint. Dr. William Aronson: Based on the results of what we saw in the lab and what we saw in our short term clinical trial, we decided to perform a one year trial, a longer term trial in men on active surveillance. And these men were randomly assigned to either a diet with slight reduction in dietary fat, specifically reduction in the omega-6 intake as well as increase in foods with omega-3 and fish oil capsules. The other group, we asked the men to just not take fish oil capsules, but they could eat whatever else they wanted during the course of the study. Men in the diet where we lowered the omega-6 and raised the omega-3, they were seen by a dietitian once a month to really ensure that they were compliant with that intervention, which they were. The other intriguing part of our study, which I think is super important, is the precision that was used when these men underwent prostate biopsy. So, at baseline and at one year, when these men underwent prostate biopsy, they had the same site within the prostate biopsied. That's important because it's not so easy to find the same site within the prostate because of heterogeneity throughout the prostate. And so we were able to obtain that high level of precision as they were in an active surveillance program at UCLA with Dr. Leonard Marks. Dr. Shannon Westin: So we spoke a little bit about what's important about the Ki67 index as your primary endpoint. Can you talk a little bit about what the study found with your intervention? Dr. William Aronson: So we found that the Ki67 index increased by 24% in the control group and decreased by 15% in the low omega-6, high omega-3 group with fish oil capsules. So that ended up resulting in a statistically significant change between the groups favoring the low omega-6, high omega-3 group. Dr. Shannon Westin: And then what were the secondary endpoints that CAPFISH-3 explored? Anything of note that you want to review for the listeners? Dr. William Aronson: So a number of positive secondary endpoints from the trial. Firstly, we saw that the triglyceride levels were lower, which is what can typically be seen with omega-3 intake. We also saw reduced levels of a cytokine, a circulating factor in the bloodstream called ‘macrophage colony stimulating factor'. And that's particularly interesting because there's a certain type of macrophage which is well known to be involved in prostate cancer progression in men with more advanced prostate cancer, and we've been able to inhibit that in our animal models and in our tissue culture studies. And it was especially interesting to see that we did have an effect on this particular cytokine in this prospective randomized trial. We did not see changes in a number of other measures, including Gleason grade or PSA. These are measures that we use in clinical practice. To see an effect on those would have required a longer term and larger study to be performed. Dr. Shannon Westin: That makes sense. I think it's always great to try to get as much of these types of translational data as we can. But sometimes you just have to do what is reasonable and you get what you get. It looks to me like this regimen was fairly well tolerated. Did you obtain any patient reported outcomes or feedback on the trial? Dr. William Aronson: So, there were four patients in the fish oil group that did have some side effects, and we withdrew them from the study. They did have some effects on their upset stomach, and a number of men also had some diarrhea as well. And so for those four patients, we did withdraw them from the study. Dr. Shannon Westin: And then I guess the last question I have is really, what's next for this intervention? Are we ready to move this to the clinic or what do you see as next steps? Dr. William Aronson: Well, this next step that we're working on right now is to better understand exactly what happened in these patients. So we have blood, we have tissue, we're doing genetic studies on these patients. So that's really the first step, in our mind, to better understand what happened before moving to the next step. I'm particularly intrigued about trying this intervention in men with more advanced prostate cancer, specifically because of what we see, this particular diet and how it's affecting the patient's immune system and how that may favorably affect their course of their prostate cancer. Dr. Shannon Westin: Well, great. Well, thank you so much for taking the time to chat with us about such an important clinical trial, and I really appreciate all the work you're doing and hope to get to see you soon. Dr. William Aronson: Well, thanks for having me, Shannon. It's really an exciting finding and I think it's something that clinicians and patients are going to be super interested in. Dr. Shannon Westin: We love straightforward interventions that actually make a difference, so you guys are to be congratulated for that. And I just want to thank all of you for listening. Thanks again, and I hope you enjoyed this episode of JCO After Hours. Be sure to check out our other podcast offerings wherever you get your podcasts. Have an awesome day.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Dr. Aronson Disclosures: Stock and Other Ownership Interests Johnson and Johnson Speakers' Bureau Company name: Janssen Oncology, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Pfizer/Astellas Research Funding: Lantheus Medical Imaging UCLA Health Article Video

Dr. Chris Holsinger shares the new guideline from ASCO on transoral robotic surgery (TORS) for patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. He reviews the evidence-based recommendations on baseline assessment, the role of TORS in HPV-positive and HPV-negative disease and in the salvage/recurrent setting, which patients are eligible or ineligible for TORS, and the role of adjuvant therapy. He discusses the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration and shared decision-making between patients and their clinicians. Read the full guideline, “Transoral Robotic Surgery in the Multidisciplinary Care of Patients with Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline.”   TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at asco.org. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.   Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts, delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts.    My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Chris Holsinger from Stanford University, lead author on “Transoral Robotic Surgery in the Multidisciplinary Care of Patients with Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline.” Thank you for being here today, Dr. Holsinger. Dr. Chris Holsinger: Thanks, Brittany. We've been working together for years on these guidelines and what a pleasure to get to meet you at least virtually today. Brittany Harvey: Yes, it's great to have you on. And then just before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Holsinger, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So let's jump into this important guideline. Dr. Holsinger, to start us off, can you provide an overview of both the scope and purpose of this guideline? Dr. Chris Holsinger: Absolutely. And again, thanks for the opportunity to be here, Brittany. I appreciate the invitation to participate in the ASCO Guidelines and to work with the great people on this paper that's now out there. I think it's a really important guideline to be published because it really talks about surgery, specifically transoral robotic surgery, a minimally invasive technique, as a new way to treat head and neck cancer. Why that's so important is that what is now known as head and neck cancer is completely different than what we saw even 25 years ago. Around the turn of the century, some really thoughtful epidemiologists working at Hopkins and UW in Seattle started to see this connection between the human papillomavirus and head and neck cancer. And since then we've seen this precipitous rise in the number of throat cancers specifically due to HPV. The results from the American Cancer Society showed last year that head neck cancer, in particular these cancers of the oropharynx, actually were one of the few cancers that still had an increasing incidence, I think it was around 2.5% per year. And other studies have shown that almost 50% of the cases we're seeing across the United States now are actually HPV-mediated throat cancers. That's bad news because we're seeing this rise in cases, but it's good news in the sense that this is a cancer that is highly curable and I think opens up a lot of different treatment avenues that we didn't have a couple of decades ago. And when patients are facing a mortality risk that's two or three times lower than the formerly HPV-negative smoking-driven cancers, it really behooves us as clinicians, as oncologists to think about treatment selection in a completely different way. And for years, the only function-sparing option, surgery certainly was not, was radiation therapy with concurrent cisplatin chemotherapy. In 2009, the FDA approved the use of surgical robotics using a transoral approach, a minimally invasive approach to resect the primary tumors and to perform neck dissection. And so now when patients walk in the door, they not only have this gold standard option in the path of radiation therapy with chemo, but also frontline surgery. And with some recent publications, especially the ECOG 3311 study, there's some really good evidence that for HPV-mediated throat cancers, we can actually de-escalate the intensity of adjuvant therapy when we start with surgery first. So who we choose that option for, which patients want that option - these are all really important new questions that we try to grapple with in these guidelines. Brittany Harvey: That background is really key for setting the stage for what we're about to talk about today. And so next I'd like to review the key recommendations across the clinical questions that the panel addressed. So you just talked about the importance of treatment selection. So to start that off, first, what is recommended for baseline assessment for patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma who are being considered for transoral robotic surgery? Dr. Chris Holsinger: So I think here we tried in the guidelines to really standardize the workup and approach of this disease, in general, but with a strong focus on who might be a good surgical candidate. As I mentioned in the introduction, I mean, this is a disease that is very new. Our workup is in flux. And so what we tried to do, especially in items 1.2 and 1.3, is to really standardize and confirm that the tumor that we're dealing with, which oftentimes presents in a metastatic lymph node, is in fact associated with the human papillomavirus. So how biopsy is done, how high risk HPV testing is performed, whether you're doing that with an in situ hybridization, a DNA based study, or a p16 immunohistochemical study. And we try to tackle these issues first to really make sure that the patient population we're considering is actually indeed eligible for this kind of treatment de-escalation with surgery. Brittany Harvey: Understood. So it's important to consider which patients could be eligible for TORS upfront. So what is the role of TORS in patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma? Dr. Chris Holsinger: Yeah, exactly. So I think first of all, surgery is ideally suited, and the robot is FDA approved for early-stage cancers - T1 and T2 cancers that are amenable to a minimally invasive approach. And we really try to emphasize, especially in our patient selection section of the guideline, who is really an ideal candidate for this. It's not just the T1 and T2 tumor. It's a tumor that is lateralized so that we can maybe consider managing the neck concurrently just on the side of the tumor, rather than doing bilateral neck dissection for most patients. Which patients might get the best functional outcome is a really critical component of this. And in fact, that actually goes back to a guideline that we didn't have time to chat about earlier, which is that we think every head neck cancer patient, whether or not they're being considered for transoral robotic surgery or frontline radiation therapy with cisplatin, every patient should have a pre-treatment assessment by a speech and swallowing expert. They're called different names across the country: speech language pathologists, speech pathologists, etc. But having a really good functional assessment of the patient's ability to swallow before treatment selection is really critical. And why that's important with frontline surgery is that there's a period of about one or two weeks after which that patient really needs intensive rehabilitation. And so for every patient being considered by TORS, we want to work really hand in hand with that speech pathologist to do pre-habilitation and then immediate post-operative rehab and then long longitudinal rehabilitation so that if radiation is needed down the road in a month, that patient just hopefully sails through this de-escalated treatment that we're offering. Brittany Harvey: Great. I appreciate you describing which patients can be considered for transoral robotic surgery. So beyond that, which patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma aren't really good candidates for TORS? Dr. Chris Holsinger: We talked about that sort of ideal patient, but you know, we're not always living in an ideal world. And so I think it's important, and I'm really happy about the multidisciplinary discussions that led to these final guidelines because I think it helped engage radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and surgeons around who's maybe not a good candidate for this because radiation therapy, with or without cisplatin chemotherapy, remains a good option for many of these patients. But I think the consensus, especially among the surgeons in this group, were that patients with tumors were more endophytic - that's the old fashioned oncology and surgical oncology term that refers to tumors that seem to not be as evident on the surface and have more of an infiltrative deep growth pattern - these are not ideal tumors. Whereas an exophytic tumor that's growing upwards, that's more readily seen on flexible endoscopy during a routine clinic assessment, or frankly, better seen on imaging, those exophytic tumors are better suited to a surgical approach because the surgeon has a better chance when he or she sees the tumor to get a good margin. When we can appreciate not just the surface mucosal margins that need to be taken, but also have a better chance to appreciate their depth. And with those infiltrative tumors, it's much harder to really understand how to get that deep margin, which in many cases is always the hardest. And so that's a long way to say that surgical decision making, patient selection is really critical when it comes to offering TORS as a multidisciplinary group. And then there are a few other things that we can quickly talk about before we move on to discussing adjuvant therapy. But I think there are some relative contraindications to patients who might have tumors arising in a palatine tonsil or tonsillar pillar, but which might grow significantly into the soft palate, such that a major palatal resection would be needed to get a good margin. For T1 and T2 tumors, we're not sure that that is an ideal candidate. And the other relative contraindication, but it's a hard and fast contraindication in my personal practice, is patients with extensive nodal disease. I think a patient who has preoperative extranodal extension, matted nodes, clinically and on MRI, you know pre-op they're going to need intensive post operative concurrent chemoradiation post-op that's maybe not the best patient for TORS, although there are some select cases where that that might make sense. But that's a quick overview of patient selection for TORS, Brittany. Hopefully, that's helpful. Brittany Harvey: That's definitely helpful. I think it's really important to consider not only who is eligible, but who isn't eligible for this de-escalation of treatment, and I appreciate you clarifying some of that. So then you've just also mentioned adjuvant therapy along with multidisciplinary discussion. So what is recommended regarding adjuvant therapy for patients who have resected HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma? Dr. Chris Holsinger: Definitely. And I think the post-operative discussion has to begin with great pre-op planning. And pre-op planning is really anchored in a really robust multidisciplinary team. So, we spoke earlier about the critical importance of getting speech language pathology involved initially, but they're part of a much larger team that includes not just a surgeon, but medical oncologist, a radiation oncologist and a dental oncologist - all of these specialties, and I could think of several others if we had time to chat further - this should also be really engaged in the care of these patients. But great decision making regarding adjuvant therapy really begins with a robust multidisciplinary consultation pre-op and we try to emphasize that in the guidelines. But just to return and answer your question very directly, I think adjuvant therapy is really the critical piece in getting that great functional outcome for a patient with HPV-mediated throat cancer. And I think traditionally patients who have a variety of different risks, based on a large study done again by the ECOG group, ECOG 3311, we showed that by stratifying patients based on their surgical pathology rather than on an estimate of disease extent, we can better stratify adjuvant therapy. And so the low risk patient is a patient with good margins and of course, good margin, we could spend another two hours discussing that. But good margins are greater than at least 1 to 3 millimeters superficially and a clear deep margin. Patients with lymph node metastases that are less than 3 cm and a single lymph node can sometimes be observed but most patients don't fall into that low risk category. Most patients fall into an intermediate risk where the margin is good and it's clear, but it might be close. That depends if you're talking about the superficial mucosal margin or the deep. But more often than not, we spend a lot of time considering the extent of lymph node involvement as it pertains to how adjuvant therapy is delivered. And I think for patients with less than 4 lymph nodes traditionally without extranodal extension, radiation therapy will suffice for adjuvant therapy after TORS. And the question of dose then comes up. Are we talking 50 Gray, the experimental arm that showed real promise in the ECOG 3311 trial, or 60 Gray or more traditional dose? And that is a topic definitely for another podcast, which we should do with a radiation oncologist online. I don't want to get into the weeds with that, but I refer you to our guidelines and Bob Ferris and Barbara Burtness' paper from JCO in 2021 for further details about that. But then for patients with positive margins with more than four lymph nodes, but especially patients with extranodal extension, the role of radiation therapy and chemotherapy is really absolutely critical. Because these patients and while they only accounted for around 20% to 30% of patients that we're seeing in this new era of TORS, they're the ones that we're really focusing on how can we do better because their overall survival is still good, it's 90%, but it's not as good as the patients we're seeing with a low and intermediate risk. So that's a brief overview there. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate that overview. And yes, we'll refer listeners to the full guideline, which is linked in the show notes of this episode to learn more about the intricacies of the radiation therapy that you mentioned. So then we've talked a lot about patients with HPV-positive disease, but what is the role of TORS in patients with HPV-negative disease? Dr. Chris Holsinger: I think TORS still has a role for these patients. Our colleague in India, Surender Dabas, has a really nice series that shows that for HPV-negative patients, this is a way for early stage cancers to potentially escalate the intensity of treatment for a disease that does worse than this new HPV-positive we're seeing in the US. So I think there's a good signal there. I think more study needs to be done and I think those studies, in fact, are underway in India and other countries. I hope that we can, as an oncology community here in the United States, also tackle this disease, which is still a significant part of the disease we face in head and neck oncology. Brittany Harvey: Yes, we'll look forward to more data coming out for HPV-negative disease. So then, the last clinical question that the guideline panel addressed: What is the role of TORS in the salvage or recurrent setting? Dr. Chris Holsinger: So we wrap up the guidelines tackling this topic. It's definitely something for the experienced TORS surgeon in consultation with that multidisciplinary team. Oftentimes, we are still seeing many patients who need salvage surgery and I think, while TORS alone could be a really effective treatment option, TORS with a microvascular reconstruction is oftentimes what is needed for these patients who, with recurrence, do often present with an RT 2, 3, 4 tumor. In my own practice, I found that using TORS as a way to minimize the superficial mucosal extent and then delivering that tumor through a traditional lateral pharyngotomy, then neck dissection and then having a microvascular flap inset done after that really provides the best possible chance for good long term function and of course control of the tumor. Here, I definitely refer the listener to some great work done out of the Royal Marsden with Vin Paleri, who we're happy to have on our TORS guideline panel for his RECUT study that really grapples in some detail with these very issues. Brittany Harvey: Excellent. And so we've covered a lot of the recommendations here that were made by the panel and you've touched a little bit about how this changes things for clinicians in practice. But what should clinicians know as they implement these new recommendations? Dr. Chris Holsinger: One thing as we close, I hope that in the future we can really start to grapple with this concept of patient selection. I think these guidelines help establish that TORS is a great oncologic option with - really the only option for treatment de-escalation in the here and now. Radiation therapy and cisplatin concurrent chemotherapy is going to be an option that is such an important choice for patients. And I think where I hope the field goes in the future is figuring out which patient wants one of these options. And I think certain patients really want that tumor taken out and others just the idea of surgery is not something that makes sense for them. How we in the context of a multidisciplinary team, really engage that patient, elicit their treatment preferences and then through considering treatment eligibility criteria that we've spelled out here for surgery and can be spelled out for chemo RT, bringing all that together in a formal shared decision making process is really where I hope the field will be going in the next few years. And hopefully these guidelines help to pave the way there. Brittany Harvey: Definitely the aspect of care by a multidisciplinary team and talking with patients to go through shared decision making is key to implementing these guidelines. So then, in that same vein, what do these recommendations mean for patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma? Dr. Chris Holsinger: I think the central take home message for patients should be that especially if you have a T1 and T2 tumor, it's really important to have that consultation with a surgeon who knows how to do TORS and has a busy practice, but then also having an honest discussion up front about what the functional outcomes would be both with surgery and also chemo RT. And I think just knowing all those different options, that multidisciplinary treatment selection process is going to be that much more robust. And I think more right decisions will get made and we'll see less decisional regret down the road, which I think is a long term goal of our field. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. That discussion of preferences is key. So then to wrap us up, you touched on this a little bit earlier in talking about ongoing research and data, particularly in the field of HPV-negative disease, but what are the outstanding questions regarding TORS in this patient population? Dr. Chris Holsinger: Yeah, I think that in addition to this work around shared decision making, I really hope that we'll embrace shared decision making in the context of future clinical trial. I think where we are now is you have surgeons saying, “Hey, TORS and 50 gray is a great option. Why aren't we doing that?” And then our colleagues, perhaps across the aisle, if I can use a political metaphor, are saying, “Well, where's the comparative data? Can we even do a randomized clinical trial between surgery and radiation?” Well, Christian Simon in Lausanne in Switzerland is trying to do this in a small pilot study being led by the EORTC, and I would encourage American investigators to consider something analogous. But I think how we solve this question of I think treatment choice is going to be pivotal for any such trial to ever be done. And then finally, I think, how will the changing treatment landscape around immunotherapy change this? There's some really provocative data that dates back to 1996 in a JCO paper from Ollivier Laccourreye and the University of Paris experience that showed induction chemotherapy followed by function preserving surgery in the larynx was a really powerful strategy for organ preservation, and that has never been followed up in the United States. And so especially with the upcoming presentation of KEYNOTE-689, will we be doing neoadjuvant approaches for patients and then following them by minimally invasive surgery or lower dose radiation? I think these are going to be some exciting new areas of study and I can't wait to see how this might evolve so we can refine the treatment - still get those great outcomes, but reduce those late toxicity. Brittany Harvey: Yes. We'll look forward to this ongoing research to continue to move the field forward. So, Dr. Holsinger, I want to thank you so much for your time to develop this important guideline. It's been great to have you on the podcast to discuss it today. Dr. Chris Holsinger: Well, thanks a lot Brittany. It's nice to finally meet you. Brittany Harvey: Likewise. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Historically, Vizient has published the Pharmacy Market Outlook biannually. This year, we are introducing the Spend Management Outlook, which integrates the comprehensive insights from the Pharmacy Market Outlook with the Vizient Budget Impact Report. This new report enhances strategic planning by aligning pricing projections across the healthcare supply chain and providing key market insights. Dr. Carina Dolan, Associate Vice President of Clinical Oncology, Pharmacoeconomics, & Market Insights, and Jeff King, Director of Research and Intelligence at Vizient, join Program Host Carolyn Liptak to discuss the unique features and critical importance of the new Spend Management Outlook.   Guest speakers:  Carina Dolan, Pharm. D., MS Pharm, BCOP Associate Vice President, Clinical Oncology, Pharmacoeconomics and Market Insights Vizient   Jeff King Research and Intelligence Director Vizient   Host: Carolyn Liptak, MBA, BS Pharm VerifiedRx Host   Show Notes:  [01:06-01:56] Jeff's background and role [01:57-02:50] The transition from Pharmacy Market Outlook and Budget Impact Report to Spend Management Outlook [02:51-03:28] Defining spend management [03:29-04:43] Key insights into spend management categories med-surg and laboratory [04:44-06:01] Key insights into spend management categories Capital equipment and physician preferences insights [06:02-07:23] Enhancements to pharmacy projections of this edition [07:24-08:39] Spend management projection methodology [08:40-09:34] The spend management projections   Links | Resources: Spend Management Outlook   Subscribe Today! Apple Podcasts Amazon Podcasts Spotify Android RSS Feed

In this JCO Article Insights episode, Ece Cali summarizes findings from the JCO article, "Datopotamab Deruxtecan Versus Docetaxel for Previously Treated Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Randomized, Open-Label Phase III TROPION-Lung01 Study." TRANSCRIPT Ece Cali: Hello and welcome to the JCO Article Insights. I'm your host Ece Cali and today we will be discussing the Journal of Clinical Oncology article the “Datopotamab Deruxtecan Versus Docetaxel for Previously Treated Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Randomized, Open-Label Phase III TROPION-Lung01 Study.”  Despite significant advances in non-small cell lung cancer treatment over the past decades, second line treatment options for non-small cell lung cancer without actionable genomic alterations have remained largely unchanged since 2000. Many clinical trials failed to demonstrate improved overall survival compared to docetaxel based regimens. TROPION-Lung01 is a global open label randomized phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of Dato-DXd to docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Dato-DXd is an antibody drug conjugate targeting TROP2 and delivering deruxtecan, a DNA topoisomerase 1 inhibitor, as its payload. The trial is designed with dual primary endpoints of progression free survival, as assessed by blinded independent central review, and overall survival. The initial PFS results were presented at ESMO in 2023 and this article reports more detailed data and overall survival analysis of the trial.   In the TROPION-Lung01, 299 patients were randomly assigned to receive Dato-DXd and 305 patients to receive docetaxel. Patients were stratified by the presence of actionable genomic alterations, histology, treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy as the last line of therapy, and geographical region. The baseline characteristics of the patient population were overall balanced between the treatment arms. I'd like to highlight a couple of key points here. The median age was 63 years in the Dato-DXd and 64 years in the docetaxel arm. Similar to the many clinical trials in the thoracic oncology field, this is younger than the median age of lung cancer diagnosis in the US, which is around 70. African American and Hispanic patients were underrepresented in this trial with 41% of patients identifying themselves as white and 39% as Asian. The Ddocetaxel arm had a slightly higher percentage of male patients, 69% versus 61%. The majority of the trial population, 73%, had adenocarcinoma. Patients with actionable genomic alterations were included in this trial if they received one or more targeted therapy and platinum based chemotherapy prior to the enrollment. 17% of the trial population had an actionable genomic alteration in this trial.  When it comes to the efficacy results in the full analysis set, the PFS improvement was statistically significant. The median PFS was reported as 4.4 months for the Dato-DXd, and 3.7 months for the docetaxel arm with the hazard ratio of 0.75 and a P value of 0.004. However, after a median follow up of 23 months, the trial did not meet its primary endpoint of overall survival. The median overall survival was 12.9 months for patients treated with Dato-DXd and 11.8 months for patients treated with docetaxel with the hazard ratio of 0.94 and a P value of 0.53. Objective response was a secondary endpoint and the confirmed objective response rate was 26% with Dato-DXd, and 13% with docetaxel.  Now let's take a closer look at some of the subgroup analyses. Exploratory analyses of key subgroups in TROPION-Lung01 demonstrated differences in efficacy based on histology. In the nonsquamous subgroup, Dato-DXd showed a longer progression free survival of 5.5 months compared to 3.6 months with docetaxel with a hazard ratio of 0.84. However, in the squamous subgroup, Dato-DXd performed worse with a progression free survival of 2.8 months compared to 3.9 months with docetaxel corresponding to a hazard ratio of 1.32. A similar trend was observed in the overall survival analyses, though confidence intervals crossed 1 in both histology subsets, in this case, the differences observed were not statistically significant. In the nonsquamous subset, the median overall survival was 14.6 months with Dato-DXd and 12.3 months with docetaxel with a hazard ratio of 0.84. In the squamous subset, both arms had shorter survival compared to the nonsquamous subset. The median overall survival with Dato-DXd was almost two months shorter, so 7.6 months, compared to 9.6 months with docetaxel corresponding to a hazard ratio of 1.32. While these analyses suggest the potential survival benefit for Dato-DXd in nonsquamous subset, this trial was not powered to test this hypothesis hence these analyses remain exploratory. Another subgroup analysis of note was the group with actionable genomic alterations. Patients with actionable genomic alterations achieved a median PFS of 5.7 months with Dato-DXD and 2.6 months with docetaxel corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.35. Similarly, the median overall survival was longer in patients with actionable genomic alterations by almost six months, with a median overall survival of 15.6 months with Dato-DXd and 9.8 months with docetaxel corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.65.  Now, let's talk about safety. Grade 3 or higher treatment related adverse events occurred in 26% of patients with Dato-DXd and 42% with docetaxel. The most common adverse event of any grade seen in the Dato-DXd arm were stomatitis seen in 47% of patients, nausea in 34%, and alopecia in 32%. Treatment related interstitial lung disease occurred in 8.8% of patients on Dato-DXd and 4.1% of patients on docetaxel. Of note, grade 5 drug related ILD was more frequent with Dato-DXd. Seven patients on Dato-DXd and one patient on docetaxel died secondary to drug related ILD in this trial.  In summary, TROPION-Lung01 aims to address an unmet need for patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer. For this population, the treatment options remain limited with poor survival outcomes. TROPION-Lung01 is a positive trial by design due to clinically modest improvement in PFS. However, the lack of overall survival improvement is disappointing. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggest Dato-DXd may offer survival advantage in specific subsets such as nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer and patients with actionable genomic alterations. However, these findings require further validation in a prospective trial since TROPION-Lung01 was not designed to address these questions. The data from this trial alone is not sufficient to argue for a change in clinical practice. However, it informs how the future trials using this drug should be tailored. This highlights the importance of studying potential predictive biomarkers earlier in the drug development and incorporating these biomarkers prospectively into the clinical trial designs.  Due to the lack of overall survival benefit in this trial, the biologic license application for accelerated approval of Dato-DXd for patients with previously treated nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer was voluntarily withdrawn. New BLA was submitted for Dato-DXd for patients with previously treated advanced EGFR positive non-small cell lung cancer. This BLA is based on data from TROPION-Lung05, TROPION-Lung01 and TROPION-PanTumor01. Of note, the results of TROPION-Lung05 trial have been just published in JCO.   This wraps up today's episode. Thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit asco.org/podcasts.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    

Dr. Janet Abrahm is a Fellow of the American Academy of Physicians, Fellow of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, and a Fellow of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. She is a Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, a former practicing oncologist, and an internationally recognized expert in supportive and palliative care for patients with cancer. She has over 20 years of experience in the forefront of palliative care at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. She is the author of the newly updated Comprehensive Guide to Supportive and Palliative Care for Patients with Cancer as well as an award-winning clinician and educator in palliative care. This week she joins me to talk about the latest updates in palliative care. We chat about palliative precedes, the treatment of cancer related fatigue, new thinking about cancer cachexia and more.You can learn more about Dr. Abrahm and her work at janetabrahm.com.Here's to healing the heart of the healers,Dr. DeliaDelia Chiaramonte, MDwww.integrativepalliative.com Coping Courageously: A Heart-Centered Guide for Navigating a Loved One's Illness Without Losing Yourself is available here: www.copingcourageously.com A free guide for physicians to help reclaim your joy at work and in life https://trainings.integrativepalliative.com/pl/2148540010Please review this podcast wherever you listen and forward your favorite episode to a friend! And be sure to subscribe!Sign up to stay connected and learn about upcoming programs:https://trainings.integrativepalliative.com/IPI-stay-in-touchI'm thrilled to be listed in Feedspot's top 15 palliative podcasts!https://blog.feedspot.com/palliative_care_podcasts/

In this enlightening episode of the Patient From Hell, host Samira Daswani interviews Dr. Sara Tolaney, a leading oncologist specializing in breast cancer. They delve into the evolving landscape of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), exploring advancements in treatment, from targeted therapies to immunotherapy, and the challenges faced by patients in both early-stage and metastatic settings. With her characteristic warmth and expertise, Dr. Tolaney provides actionable insights for patients and caregivers, offering hope and understanding in navigating this complex diagnosis. Key Highlights: 1. A New Paradigm in Early-Stage TNBC Treatment: Dr. Tolaney explains how neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy has revolutionized outcomes, achieving pathologic complete response rates above 60%. 2. Metastatic TNBC Advances: The discussion highlights the critical role of biomarker testing and the introduction of innovative therapies like antibody-drug conjugates, providing extended survival for many patients. 3. Empowering Patient Symptom Management: The episode underscores the importance of patient-reported outcomes and emerging tools like health apps to enhance self-management and real-time support for side effects. About our guest: Sara Tolaney, MD, MPH is the Chief of the Division of Breast Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and is internationally recognized for her research and education leadership in breast cancer. She also serves as Associate Director of the Susan F. Smith Center for Women's Cancers and is a Senior Physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Tolaney received her undergraduate degree from Princeton University and her medical degree from UC San Francisco. She subsequently completed her residency in Internal Medicine at Johns Hopkins University, and fellowships in hematology and medical oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. She obtained her Masters in Public Health from Harvard School of Public Health. Her research focuses on the development of novel therapies in the treatment of breast cancer and developing more effective and less toxic treatment approaches. Her work has demonstrated that a relatively low risk regimen is beneficial in women with early stage node-negative HER2-positive cancers, and this works has been incorporated into national and international guidelines. She has developed several follow-up studies looking at novel approaches to early stage HER2-positive disease and has also played a significant role in development of cdk 4/6 inhibitors, antibody drug conjugates, and immunotherapy in breast cancer. She is the author of over 150 peer-reviewed publications with manuscripts included in many prestigious journals such as the New England Journal, Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, and JAMA Oncology. Key Moments: At 8 minutes: "It used to be that if someone had a triple negative breast cancer, we would often take someone to surgery and then after surgery give them some chemotherapy to kill any stray cells that might've gotten into the bloodstream and integrate radiation as needed. But we've really changed our approach very dramatically over the last few years where we've learned that if someone has an early stage, stage two or three triple negative breast cancer, it is actually very critical that they not go to upfront surgery, but in fact get chemotherapy with immunotherapy prior to surgery." Disclaimer: All content and information provided in connection with Manta Cares is solely intended for informational and educational purposes only. This content and information is not intended to be a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition.

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

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech Daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in the Pharma and Biotech world. ## Breakthrough in Cancer TreatmentA new study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology reveals a groundbreaking new treatment for advanced stage melanoma. The therapy, a combination of targeted therapy and immunotherapy, has shown remarkable results in clinical trials. Patients who received the treatment had a significant increase in progression-free survival compared to traditional treatments. This breakthrough offers hope for those with advanced melanoma, and could potentially revolutionize cancer treatment as we know it.## FDA Approval for Alzheimer's DrugThe FDA has recently approved a new drug for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. The drug, which targets amyloid plaques in the brain, has shown promising results in clinical trials. Patients who received the drug experienced a significant improvement in cognitive function and a slowing of disease progression. This approval marks a major milestone in the fight against Alzheimer's, as it is the first new drug to be approved for the disease in over 20 years.## Vaccine Efficacy StudyA new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine has found that the efficacy of certain vaccines may be lower than previously thought. The study, which looked at data from over 10,000 patients, found that the effectiveness of some vaccines waned over time. This has raised concerns about the need for booster shots to maintain immunity. The findings highlight the importance of ongoing research and monitoring of vaccine efficacy to ensure continued protection against infectious diseases.## Gene Therapy BreakthroughResearchers have made a significant breakthrough in the field of gene therapy with the development of a new treatment for a rare genetic disorder. The therapy, which targets a specific gene mutation, has shown promising results in preclinical trials. Patients who received the treatment experienced a dramatic improvement in symptoms and quality of life. This breakthrough offers hope for those with rare genetic disorders and could pave the way for future gene therapy treatments.## Regulatory Update on Drug PricingThe FDA has announced new regulations aimed at addressing rising drug prices in the United States. The regulations will require pharmaceutical companies to justify price increases for certain medications and provide transparency on pricing decisions. This move is seen as a step towards increasing affordability and accessibility of medications for patients. The regulations are set to take effect next year, and are expected to have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry.## Biotech Funding AnnouncementA biotech startup has announced a major funding round to support the development of a new therapy for autoimmune diseases. The funding, which totals $50 million, will be used to advance clinical trials and bring the therapy to market. The treatment has shown promising results in early studies, and offers hope for those suffering from autoimmune conditions. This funding announcement highlights the growing interest and investment in biotech research and development.## ConclusionIn conclusion, these recent developments in cancer treatment, Alzheimer's research, vaccine efficacy, gene therapy, drug pricing regulations, and biotech funding are all significant milestones in the Pharma and Biotech world. Each breakthrough brings us one step closer to improving patient outcomes, advancing medical science, and addressing critical healthcare challenges. Stay tuned for more updates on these and other important developments in future episodes.

Dr. Evan Yu presents the new evidence-based guideline on genetic testing for metastatic prostate cancer. He discusses who should receive germline and somatic testing with next-generation sequencing technologies, what samples are preferred for testing, and the therapeutic & prognosistc impacts of genetic testing. Dr. Yu emphasizes the need for awareness and refers to areas of active investigation and future research to improve personalized therapies for patients with metastatic prostate cancer.  Read the full guideline, “Germline and Somatic Genomic Testing for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline” at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-24-02608 Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Evan Yu from the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, lead author on “Germline and Somatic Genomic Testing for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: ASCO Guideline”. Thank you for being here today, Dr. Yu. Dr. Evan Yu: Thanks for having me on. Brittany Harvey: Great. Then before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the entire guideline, including Dr. Yu, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then, Dr. Yu, to start us off on the content of this guideline, could you first provide an overview of both the purpose and scope of this guideline? Dr. Evan Yu: Yeah, absolutely. So I think the one key thing to recognize is that prostate cancer is the highest incidence of all cancers in males. Additionally, it's the second highest cause of mortality in males, and that's about 35,000 deaths in 2024. So with that being said and done, it's a disease where we need to do better. And part of that is recognizing that we now have many targeted therapies, precision medicine type of therapies, but unlike a lot of other cancers out there, prostate cancer patients are not always getting sequencing, next generation DNA sequencing, let's say, to identify both inherited and also spontaneously develop what we call somatic mutations in their tumor. And I suspect that's partially because other cancers like breast cancer, we're so used to- in the first line, you present the patient, you throw out their estrogen receptor status, progesterone receptor status, HER2, ER/PR HER2; in lung cancer it's EGFR, ALK, ROS1, etc. In things like prostate cancer, things like BRCA2 have major important patient treatment implications and potentially family counseling and downstream cascade testing implications. But it hasn't made their way into that first-line presentation yet. And for that reason, there are some studies out there that show that testing in the community may be as low as 15% of patients with metastatic prostate cancer. We want to bring awareness to that and hopefully increase testing down the road so that we can better help our patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's important to get these targeted therapies to the patients who can benefit most. Using that context, I'd like to next review the key recommendations of this guideline across the six clinical questions that the panel addressed. So, starting with: Who should receive germline testing with next generation sequencing technologies? Dr. Evan Yu: Yeah. We think that it's common enough that everyone with metastatic prostate cancer should receive germline genetic testing. And the reason for that is there have been studies that have looked at this and have shown that 12% of men with metastatic prostate cancer have some sort of inherited germline mutation in a gene, mostly DNA repair genes. But 12% have something that is inherited and that loved ones, first degree relatives, siblings, offspring might have also inherited. Now, most of these are in the DNA repair genes, but that being said and done, there's not only treatment implications for the patient, where there are newer drugs that that patient could get treated with, but other loved ones that might have inherited these gene mutations, that these things can cause other cancers as well - not just prostate cancer, but breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer. So, it's very important to test, with as high of an incidence as 12%, to test, and if you identify it in a patient, it's our job to talk to the patient about it and talk to them about the pros and cons of family counseling and talking to their loved ones and potentially having their loved ones get tested. Because if they test positive, then their doctors may want to know and may screen them very, very aggressively and differently for a whole host of other cancers. And the whole idea is you find the cancer very early and cure the patients before the cancer really takes hold and has the ability to spread so we can save a lot of lives down the road. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. This germline testing is important not just for the patient, but has wider implications for their families as well, as you mentioned. So then, beyond those recommendations for germline testing, which patients should receive somatic testing with next-generation sequencing technologies? Dr. Evan Yu: So let's talk a little bit about somatic testing. So germline again, as we know, is inherited. The patient inherited it in every single cell in their body, then it becomes very easy, many of these are cancer predispositions for them to lose the other allele and then to have biallelic loss and then develop the cancer. Now, somatic just means it spontaneously occurred. Certainly, it's not going to occur in every cell in the body, but you can get one hit, lose one allele and then lose the other allele. And if that gene is truly carcinogenic and leading to that cancer, then that can have implications potentially for treatment as well. So we recommend that all patients with metastatic prostate cancer also undergo somatic next-generation sequencing testing. We recognize that at this point in time it's only those with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer or hormone-resistant prostate cancer, which is a later disease state where there are drugs that may target those mutations, for instance, like PARP inhibitors, but that early identification for a patient population that's fit and that can benefit from these therapies makes sense so that you know it's in place already and you have your treatments outlined and mapped out for the future. So we recommend it for everybody - somatic testing also for everyone with metastatic prostate cancer. Brittany Harvey: Understood. And then when patients are receiving that somatic testing, what is recommended for somatic testing? Primary tumor archival tissue? Fresh metastatic biopsy tissue? Or circulating tumor DNA testing? Dr. Evan Yu: We recommend that in the initial setting when you're first diagnosed, that archival tissue samples are fine and preferred. But circulating tumor DNA is good when there's no accessible archival tissue, or if the archival tissue, let's say, is very old and it's been sitting around for a long time, or you can't get it anymore because it's many years back when maybe a patient had a prostate needle biopsy. So if it's not accessible, then we recommend ctDNA. We believe that is preferred and also that ctDNA is recommended in a situation where you can't easily biopsy a metastatic site. Sometimes it's just not in a safe area to go after. Sometimes it's just a small lesion. So in general, we recommend tissue when available, and when we think that the tissue sample will yield clean results, if not, then we recommend doing ctDNA at that point in time. Brittany Harvey: So you have described who should get germline and somatic genomic testing. But what are the therapeutic impacts of this germline or somatic testing for single gene genetic variants? Dr. Evan Yu: We pulled this panel together and we met like every single month for like 12 months straight, and part of it was to review the literature. And as part of this literature review, we were able to pull a whole bunch of different trials. I think there was like 1713 papers we identified in the literature search. Eventually, we narrowed it down because with ASCO, we want to present the data with the highest level evidence, level 1 evidence, randomized controlled prospective data. And after reviewing 1713 papers, we narrowed it down to 14 papers. With those 14 papers, if you look at it, there are a lot of things that we think may have implications for treatment or prognosis, but we didn't feel was the highest level of evidence that we could support. So the things that have the highest level of evidence that we can support are certain DNA repair gene alterations, especially BRCA2, and treatment with PARP inhibitors because there are many PARP inhibitor prospective trials that show progression-free survival benefit and even overall survival benefit. And so that's the type of study that achieved the level of evidence that we could include. So I would say BRCA1 and BRCA2 highest level of evidence and PARP inhibitor use also is included in that. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you reviewing those therapeutic options. So then, the last clinical question, which you just touched on briefly, but what are the prognostic impacts of germline and/or somatic testing? Dr. Evan Yu: Whenever you do testing, especially if you use panel testing, you find a lot of information. There's a lot of different mutations and some of which are VUSs (variants of unknown significance) where we don't quite know what it means yet, but we can track that, especially if it's germline. But with somatic, we find lots of things that have implications, but maybe just not treatment implications. A perfect example is p53. p53 is one of the most common tumor suppressor gene mutations on all cancers, but in prostate cancer they can occur and they can usually occur late, although there can even be germline inherited p53 alterations. There's no treatment that targets p53 right now, but we know that if you have a p53 mutation that those patients may have more aggressive disease and that prognostic information is important to give to the patient. And I think it's important for future clinical trial design and direction. So we do not recommend making treatment recommendations or changes based on these prognostic only biomarkers at this point in time. But we do recommend that, based on this, we can design intensification trials for those patients who have these poor risk biomarkers and de-intensification trials for patients who may have a good risk biomarker. So for instance, SPOP is a gene where we think these patients may have better outcomes, they might respond better to certain hormonal therapies like abiraterone. I say might because the level of evidence isn't quite there. But what I would say is that these prognostic only biomarkers, we just don't think they cut the mustard yet to be able to make treatment decisions. But we do think that they can drive counseling for the patient and potential selection and trial design for the future to say, “Okay. This is a patient population that has a more aggressive cancer. We need to be more aggressive in treating these patients.” “This patient population might have a less aggressive cancer. Maybe we can de-intensify and say side effects and quality of life may be better for the patients.” Brittany Harvey: Definitely. It's important for thinking through how to personalize care for these patients. So then you've talked about this a little bit in talking through the recommendations, but could you expand on what is the importance of this guideline and how it will impact both clinicians and patients with metastatic prostate cancer? Dr. Evan Yu: Yeah, I think the number one thing is awareness. I think the data's out there and people that are in my field, they know this. But by evidence of the fact that it's not first-line presentation lingo that everyone's talking about things like BRCA status, it means it hasn't necessarily disseminated all the way through. So it's increasing awareness of the fact that both germline and somatic alterations can occur and that these may have impacts on the patient for their treatment and their prognosis, and basically to increase testing for the future. I really think that in the future, there'll be other reasons that we may want to serially even retest and we may find that there may be mutations that develop as mechanisms of resistance that might guide therapy down the road. So we need to get people to start doing this for everyone with metastatic prostate cancer, because someday we might be doing it not just once, but over and over again. Brittany Harvey. Absolutely. We hope this guideline reaches a wide audience and that these recommendations can be put into practice. Finally, you've talked about how not all the data in the field has yet risen to the level of evidence that made it into the guidelines. So what are the outstanding questions in future research areas for both germline and somatic genomic testing for metastatic prostate cancer? Dr. Evan Yu: It was in our discussion, but it clearly- it's not common enough for there to be randomized prospective trials that would reach that level of evidence to make it in this guideline recommendation. But we all know that for any solid tumor, you can get mismatched repair deficiency, microsatellite instability leading to hypermutation or high tumor mutational burden. And that happens in maybe 3 to 5% of patients with metastatic prostate cancer as well. There is evidence and data that these patients can potentially benefit from immunotherapies like pembrolizumab. But again, it's just not common enough for there to be those randomized prospective controlled trials out there. But we mention it because we know it's FDA-approved across all the tumor types, so we felt like we have to mention it because that's something that has treatment implications for the patient. But also, I alluded to this earlier, I think an area of active investigation is the tried and true number one driver of prostate cancer, which is androgen receptor. Testosterone binds to androgen receptors, stimulates it. That's how androgen deprivation therapy works. That's how abiraterone and the amides like enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide, that's how they all work. But even beyond that, we're starting to identify that maybe 15%, 20% of patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer have androgen receptor mutations. And there are newer classes of therapies like androgen receptor degraders like CYP11A1 antagonist that lead to complete adrenal annihilation of other steroid hormones that might promiscuously stimulate these androgen receptor mutants. These things develop as mechanisms of resistance, and in the future, we might want to serially test- and that's an active area of investigation in the future, to say you've been treated, let's say, with androgen deprivation therapy and abiraterone for years. There are certain mutations that might develop as a resistance mechanism. We might need to serially test somebody because you didn't have that mutation earlier on, but later in the disease course you might. And then there might be a new drug X out there that we would want to use. Again, we need the data, we need the randomized prospective controlled trials, but they're happening out there. And somewhere down the road we may rewrite this guideline and have a lot more recommendations to add to it. Brittany Harvey: Yes, we'll look forward to more research in this field to better provide targeted therapies for patients with metastatic prostate cancer across the treatment paradigm. And we'll look forward to report outs from those trials that you mentioned. So I want to thank you so much for your work to develop this guideline and thank you for your time today, Dr. Yu. Dr. Evan Yu: Thank you so much. It's wonderful to be here today. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and his guests Dr. Ann Wu and Dr. Alexa White discuss the article "Air Pollution and Breast Cancer Incidence in the Multiethnic Cohort Study" and the editorial "Growing Evidence for the Role of Air Pollution in Breast Cancer Development"  TRANSCRIPT The guests on this podcast episode have no disclosures to declare.  Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, Medical Oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy.  Today, we are joined by JCO authors Dr. Anna Wu and Dr. Alexander White. Dr. Wu is a professor of Population and Public Health Sciences at the Keck School of Medicine of UCS, while Dr. White is an investigator in the Epidemiology branch of the Environment and Cancer Epidemiology Group at the National Institute of Health.  Today, we will be discussing the article titled, “Air Pollution and Breast Cancer Incidence in the Multiethnic Cohort Study,” and the accompanying editorial.  So, thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Wu, Dr. White. Dr. Anna Wu: Thank you for having us. Dr. Alexandra White: Yes, thank you so much for the invitation to be here. Dr. Davide Soldato: So before going in depth about the results of the study that was published in the JCO, I was wondering if you could give us like a brief introduction and a little bit of background about what was known about air pollution as a risk factor for breast cancer and what was the evidence before this study was conducted. Dr. Alexandra White: Okay. I can start with that question. So, there's been research for decades looking at the relationship between air pollution and breast cancer. And it's been a really challenging question to address for a number of reasons. One being that it can be really difficult to assess exposure to air pollution and many previous studies have had really limited information on people's residences over time. But in general, what we thought leading up to this study was that evidence was most consistent that exposure to traffic related pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide was more consistently related to a higher risk of breast cancer. The evidence for fine particulate matter or PM2.5 was less consistent. More recently, there have been a few large, well conducted studies that have supported a positive association. This new study in the multiethnic cohort led by Dr. Wu is really important because it really demonstrated that, in this large study of over 50,000 women in California, that they also do see an association with PM2.5.  Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much for the introduction. So, Dr. Wu, we just want to hear a little bit more about the results. So, what was the association that was observed for PM2.5? And specifically, the study that you ran was focused on a very diverse population, a multiethnic cohort, and so I was wondering if you observed any type of differences when you consider the different populations that were included in your study. And if you could also give us a little bit of what was the composition of the women that were enrolled in this cohort. Dr. Anna Wu: Thank you for the question. So, the multiethnic cohort study is a cohort of over 200,000 individuals who were enrolled when they lived in Hawaii or California. For the air pollution studies that we've been conducting, we have focused on primarily the California participants. And in this instance for the breast cancer study, it was based on roughly 56,000 individuals out of- there were about 100,000 because half of them were men and they were not included. Of the California participants, 75% of them were African Americans or Latinos and they were self-identified as these racial ethnic groups when they enrolled in the study. And this was a particularly important consideration for us because in most of the studies that have been published so far on-air pollution and breast cancer, as well as other cancer sites, most of those studies were conducted among whites in the US or whites in Europe. And even if they included non-white populations, the numbers tend to be small so that they were not able to conduct racial ethnic specific analysis. So, we were particularly interested in examining these other racial ethnic groups because we know from other studies that racial ethnic minority groups tend to live in communities of low socioeconomic status and those communities also tend to have higher levels of various types of environmental pollutants. And so, it was important for us to actually try to tease apart these various interrelated factors.  So, what we found was that per 10 micrograms per cubic meter, we had a 28% increased risk overall in all participants combined that meet across the racial ethnic groups. We actually did not see any differences or significant differences in the hazard ratios by race ethnicity and they were in general quite compatible with each other. But we did see a stronger finding among the white participants in our study. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you, a lot, Dr. Wu. So, I think it's very interesting the fact that in the end you observed that air pollution is a significant risk factor across all the ethnicities that were included in the study. But I think that one very strong point of the manuscript and one very strong point of the analysis was that in the end you also corrected for a series of different factors because we know that the incidence of breast cancer can be modified, for example, by familial history or BMI or smoking habits or also alcohol consumption. And a lot of these risk factors were included in your analysis. And so, I was wondering if you could tell us a little bit whether you observed any significant differences when you observed or included also these risk factors in your analysis, or whether the association for air pollution as a risk factor stands even when we consider all of these other elements. Dr. Anna Wu: Yes. So, we considered all the well-established breast cancer risk factors. And in this situation, we were particularly interested in considering smoking, alcohol intake, use of menopausal hormones, history of diabetes, body mass index, family history, as well as physical activity, because many of these risk factors, such as, for example, diabetes and body mass index, they are risk factors for breast cancer, and air pollution, have also been found to increase risk of these factors.  So, in our analysis, we first adjusted for all of these potential confounders in a mutually adjusted manner, so all of them were considered. In addition, we also conducted stratify analysis. So as an example, we stratified the analysis to examine whether the hazard ratio associated with PM2.5 provided comparable risk estimate or hazard ratio estimates for never smokers, former smokers, and current smokers. Although we did not see significant heterogeneity by these various subgroups, we did see a significantly stronger effect of PM2.5 among individuals who did not have a family history of breast cancer.  Interestingly, our finding was also stronger among individuals who were never smokers and light alcohol drinkers, even though the results were not significantly different. So, we surmised that maybe individuals who already had a high risk because of other established risk factors for breast cancer, we were less likely to be able to observe the effect of air pollution. But it's important to note that other studies, such as the ones that Dr. White has conducted, have also looked at various subgroups, and I think part of the limitation that all of us have is that once you subdivide the study population, even if you start out with a large sample size, often the sample size gets cut in half or a third. And so, we still lack the statistical power to be able to observe significant differences. But I think it is important to note that, in fact, the hazard ratio estimates are actually quite comparable, but we did see a hint of stronger effects among never smokers, and people who were light alcohol drinkers. So, I think this is an area that we certainly need to continue to investigate since there are other subgroups, such as menopausal status, such as hormone receptor status of breast cancer, that we need to consider in future studies. There's still a lot of work we need to do to sort this out, to actually figure out who are the women who are the most susceptible to the exposures. Dr. Davide Soldato: Dr. White, I would really love a comment from you on this specific area and specifically on what still needs to be done. And related to this, a question actually, for both of you, because I think that from a methodological point of view, there is a lot of work that goes into deciding how we are going to assess the exposure to air pollution. So which type of data are we going to use? Which type of data are we currently using in the epidemiological studies that have been conducted and in the one that we are discussing right now in JCO? And what are the caveats for this data that we are using? Meaning, I think that we use mostly residential addresses, which means that we are looking at the exposure where people actually live, which might not be the place where they spend most of their time. For example, if someone is working, maybe they could be more exposed and have higher exposure when they are at work compared to when they are at home. So, I was wondering if you could give us a little bit of an overview as to what is the methodological standard of care right now in terms of this analysis and what can we do better to refine and understand this specific factor as Dr. Wu was mentioning? Dr. Alexandra White: Yeah, so I'm happy to take a first stab at that question. So, I think it's important to note just how far we've come. I think even a few years ago, air pollution was really not considered a risk factor for breast cancer. And a lot of the work that we've been doing and others have really moved this forward in terms of understanding this as a risk factor. And as I mentioned earlier, there have been a lot of challenges in exposure assessment. And to get to your question, I think that our studies in general are doing better at looking at exposure over more years, residences, more time. We know that cancer takes time to develop, and we can't rely on just a single snapshot of exposure. But as you mentioned, almost all of the studies published have really exclusively focused on residential estimates of exposure. And so, there's a real need to understand the exposures that people are experiencing in other aspects of their life, from their commute to their jobs, to really capture that totality of exposure.  And then I think one of the points that Dr. Wu was alluding to as well as we know that breast cancer is a very heterogeneous disease, so risk factors for breast cancer vary by tumor subtypes, by menopausal status at diagnosis. And a lot of studies have really focused on considering breast cancer as a combined outcome, and that might be missing some really important signals where we might have a stronger effect for certain subtypes due to the fact that there's different biologic pathways that are underlying these subtypes or by menopausal status. And so having large study populations where, as we discussed earlier, would really give us the power to look among these smaller groups of women who might be more susceptible and those with younger women, we know that incidence of cancer is rising in young people, and we need to understand the risk factors for that. And most of our studies are really focused on older individuals, so I think that's one important gap, as well as having the power to really look at different differences by tumor subtypes. Dr. Davide Soldato: I think it's very interesting, and I think one point both of you made in the original article and in the accompanying editorial is also the fact that we tend to look at these risk factors in people who are actually aged, while we maybe should be looking at this in an earlier phase of development and potentially during puberty. Do you think that we should design studies that are more focused on this population even though I think that they will take a lot of time to produce significant results?  Dr. Alexandra White: Yeah. I think that it is really important to consider how exposure during early life is related to breast cancer risk. We know that exposures during pregnancy or even as early as during puberty might be particularly relevant for breast cancer. And I think a lot of our studies have really been up against the challenge of the fact that exposure monitoring for air pollution really didn't start until the 1990s. And so, it's challenging, especially for these older cohorts, to get back at that time period that might be relevant. But I think that's something that definitely newer cohorts are going to be able to address, and I think it's going to be really important, and also will give us some clues to better understand the important windows of exposure, but also that might provide clues for the biologic pathways as well that are relevant. Dr. Davide Soldato: And just a related question, because I'm not aware of this, but are there right now cohorts that are specifically looking at this in the US or in other parts of the world? If you are aware of that, of course.  Dr. Alexandra White: There have been some cohorts that have focused on exposure during these hypothesized windows of susceptibility, but I don't think they've been able to follow those women long enough to develop breast cancer. One of the things that we're working on in the sister study is trying to expand our assessment of air pollution exposure back in time to try to get at these earlier windows of exposure. So, I'm hoping that it's something we'll be able to comment on and at least for some of the women in our cohort who are younger. But I don't know, Dr. Wu, if you're familiar with any other populations that are doing this now?  Dr. Anna Wu: Well, NCI funded several new cohorts in the last couple years that are really focused on trying to get a much more refined exposure assessment. So, I know colleagues at University of Michigan that are peers and also Dr. Wei Zheng at Vanderbilt, they are putting together newer cohorts that are younger and also trying to include a range of exposure, not just air pollution, but really environmental exposures. Those cohorts I think have the potential in the future to try to address some of these questions, but again, it will take at least another number of years before there are a sufficient number of endpoints so that they can actually do these types of studies.  Another possibility is that there are a number of big cohort studies in Asia. The age of diagnosis tends to be earlier in Asia. I know that investigators in China are very interested and concerned with the air pollution effects in China. I think there are potentials that in other countries where the age of breast cancer diagnosis is actually younger than in the US and if they establish in a manner that allows them to assess air pollution that they may have opportunities.  And I think the other way to try to address this question, whether there are studies where you can actually tap into either biomarkers or pathology samples so you won't be actually studying air pollution in a large population, but you're actually narrowing it down to try to see if you see any signals in a way that would give you some additional clues and insights as to the mechanism. So I think we're going to have to piece together various types of study to try to answer the questions because one type of study like these observational air pollution studies, will allow us to address one slice of the questions that we have and then we need to put together other studies so that we can address other aspects that we're interested in to put it together. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much both of you. That was very interesting.  Coming back to the results of the manuscript, we really focused up until now on PM2.5. But it's true that inside of the study you evaluated different pollutants. So, I was wondering whether you saw a similar association for other pollutants that were included in the study or whether the association for higher risk was observed only for PM2.5. Dr. Anna Wu: The results for NO2, NOx, PM10, and carbon monoxide were actually very compatible with the risk estimates that other studies have published as well as from the meta-analysis. So, I would say that our results from the other pollutants are actually very consistent with other results. I think one difference is that our PM2.5 estimates were based on the satellite-based PM2.5 estimates, whereas all the other pollutants were based on monitoring station estimates from EPA sponsored air monitoring stations. So, they are not measured in the same way. And I think different studies over time have used either monitoring station type measures for other pollutants. And I think we were particularly interested in PM2.5 because the measurement of PM2.5 in the monitoring world didn't start until around 2000. So, studies up until that time were less able to actually provide the assessment of PM2.5 as good as we can for air pollution. There's always misclassification. So, I think it's a matter of how much misclassification in the assessment. But, again, we are really limited in really just having exposure over one part of adult life.  Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. And one potentially related question. We are speaking in general about air pollution, but I think that since we are considering residential addresses, probably we are capturing more either traffic pollution or pollution that comes from probably industries or stuff like that, which is mostly related to residential areas or the place where people live. But I think that in the end we also think about air pollution as something that can come from different forms. And one very interesting point, Dr. White, that you made in your editorial is also that there is a global change also in the way we are faced with air pollution. For example, you made the example of wildfires in your editorial and how this might potentially change exposure to air pollution, maybe for limited times, but with concentrations that are fairly higher compared to what we generally observed. So, I was wondering if you could comment a little bit on that and also, if there is potentially a way to also consider this in future epidemiological studies. Dr. Alexandra White: Yeah, so when we talk about exposure to fine particulate matter, PM2.5, we're assessing exposure to particles that are based on the size of the particle, and we're really not evaluating the types of particles that people are experiencing exposure to. And we know that, in general, that PM2.5 composition really varies geographically due to differing sources of exposure. So, like you were saying, there might be a stronger contribution to industry or from agriculture or from traffic. And so that could really change the PM2.5 exposure profile that individuals experience. And so it could be that this is another really important area that this research needs to consider, which could really help us identify what sources of exposure are most relevant.   Wildfires are a really important growing concern. We know that wildfires are increasing in both intensity and duration and frequency, and we really don't understand the long-term health impacts of wildfires. But we know that wildfire associated PM2.5 might be one of the most dominant contributors to PM2.5 moving forward. And although we've seen historic declines in PM2.5 in the US after the Clean Air Act, those declines have really stalled. PM2.5 itself is projected to increase over the next few decades, so understanding different PM2.5 composition profiles and the sources that drive them can really help us identify the most important targets for any potential interventions. And wildfire PM2.5 in particular may be of concern because it's a combustion byproduct, and so it's thought to have more of the components that might, we hypothesize, are most relevant for breast cancer, such as PAHs or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or metals. And so, these components are thought to act as endocrine disruptors, which may be particularly relevant for breast cancer. So, I think understanding this changing landscape of PM2.5 moving forward is going to be really important in understanding how PM2.5 contributes to cancers beyond just breast, but as well as other female hormone driven cancers and all of the cancers really.  Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. So, one closing remark, because I think that in general, we have been really in a field of primary prevention for breast cancer where we were focusing on individual behaviors, for example, smoking cessation, reduction in alcohol intake, reduction of BMI, increase of physical activity. But I think that the evidence that is accumulating in the last three years or so is telling us more and more that we also need to shift the perspective on prevention going not only on individuals, but also as including environmental risk. So, I was wondering, how can we include this new evidence in the policies that we implement and how policymakers should act on the data that we have available right now? Dr. Anna Wu: I think it's really important that this new information is communicated to all the stakeholders, including our policymakers, so that they are, first of all, really aware that any changes and not actually adhering to current guidelines can have long lasting consequences, deleterious consequences. And I think it's important to also note that over 90% of the world actually live in areas where PM2.5 exceeds the limit. We have observed increases in breast cancer in many middle- and low-income countries, so I think it's particularly important to emphasize that this is really not just a western country issue, it is really a global issue. Dr. Alexandra White: I agree. And I would just add to that that air pollution is not something that an individual can really change on their own. There are things you can do, you can monitor air quality, you can try to live in a home that's far away from traffic. But really these are large scale problems that really require large scale solutions. And we know that policy changes can be effective here and that this is something that, in my opinion, is not something that we leave to the individual to change. This is something that we as a society should encourage change for the health of everyone. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, thank you very much again, Dr. Wu, Dr. White, for joining us today on the podcast. Dr. Anna Wu: Thank you. Dr. Alexandra White: Thank you so much for having us.  Dr. Davide Soldato: So we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article and accompanying editorial titled, “Air Pollution and Breast Cancer Incidents in the Multiethnic Cohort Study.”  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.      

Dr. Hedy Kindler joins us on the podcast to discuss the latest update to the treatment of pleural mesothelioma guideline. She discusses the latest changes to the updated recommendations across topics including surgery, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, pathology, and germline testing. Dr. Kindler describes the impact of this guideline and the need for ongoing research in the field. Read the full guideline update, “Treatment of Pleural Mesothelioma: ASCO Guideline Update” at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.   TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-24-02425 Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Hedy Kindler from the University of Chicago, lead author on “Treatment of Pleural Mesothelioma: ASCO Guideline Update.” Thank you for being here today, Dr. Kindler. Dr. Hedy Kindler: Thank you so much. Brittany Harvey: Then, before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines in 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. Kindler, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then, to jump into the content of this podcast episode, first, Dr. Kindler, can you provide an overview of the purpose and scope of this guideline update on pleural mesothelioma? Dr. Hedy Kindler: The initial ASCO practice guideline on mesothelioma, which we published in 2018, was quite comprehensive, but since that time incredible progress has been made which has truly transformed the management of this disease. So we felt it was really important to update the guideline now, focusing on four key areas: the role of surgery, new systemic treatments, pathologic insights, and germline testing. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for highlighting those key areas of the guideline. And so I'd like to next review the key updated recommendations for our listeners. So starting with what are the new updates for surgery? Dr. Hedy Kindler: So surgery has always been controversial in meso, with significant geographic variation in its use. Now, it's even more controversial. Recent randomized data from the MARS 2 trial, placed in the context of other data we also reviewed in this update, suggest that surgical cytoreduction should not be routinely offered to all patients based solely on anatomic resectability. Surgery should only be offered to highly selected patients with favorable prognostic characteristics. This includes comprehensively staged patients with early-stage epithelioid tumors. Patients should preferably be treated at centers of excellence which have documented low morbidity and mortality, and this should also be done in the context of multimodality therapy and preferably within clinical trials. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you reviewing those recommendations for who surgery should be offered to. So following those, what are the main recommendations for immunotherapy for treating pleural mesothelioma? Dr. Hedy Kindler: So for a disease in which for 16 years there was only one FDA-approved regimen, pemetrexed and platinum, the pace of recent changes in systemic therapy has been a welcome change with the FDA approval of doublet immunotherapy in October of 2020 and the approval of chemo immunotherapy just a few months ago in September of 2024. Now that we have choices, we've tried to help clinicians determine the optimal treatment regimen for the individual patient. Doublet immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab should be offered as a first-line systemic option to any mesothelioma patient. For patients with non-epithelioid histology, doublet immunotherapy is hands down the recommended regimen based on the dramatic improvement in survival from 8.8 to 18.1 months for immunotherapy compared with chemo. For patients with previously untreated epithelioid mesothelioma, either ipilimumab-nivolumab immunotherapy or platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy are reasonable options. Therapy can be individualized based on the patient's comorbidities, acceptance of differing toxicities. and treatment goals. Chemoimmunotherapy with pembrolizumab, pemetrexed, and carboplatin is a newer treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed pleural mesothelioma. This regimen is noteworthy for its very high objective response rate of 62%. Brittany Harvey: It's great to have those new options to improve outcomes for patients. Beyond the chemoimmunotherapy recommendation that you just described, what are the highlights for chemotherapy recommendations? Dr. Hedy Kindler: So pemetrexed platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab still plays a role in this disease and should be offered as a first-line treatment option in patients with epithelioid histology. This regimen is not recommended in patients with non-epithelioid disease unless they have medical contraindications to immunotherapy. Pemetrexed maintenance chemotherapy following pemetrexed-platinum chemotherapy is not recommended. Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing those recommendations as well. So then next, what are the important changes regarding pathology? Dr. Hedy Kindler: Well, one fun fact is that we've changed the name of the disease. It's no longer malignant mesothelioma. Now it's just mesothelioma. Since the non-malignant mesothelial entities have been renamed, all mesos are now considered malignant, so there's no need to use the prefix malignant in the disease name. Mesothelioma should be reported as epithelioid, sarcomatoid, or biphasic because these subtypes have a clear prognostic and predictive value. Knowing the subtype helps us decide on whether chemotherapy or immunotherapy is the optimal treatment for a patient, so it must be reported. Additionally, within the epithelioid subtype, histologic features, including nuclear grade, some cytologic features, and architectural patterns should be reported by pathology because they have prognostic significance. Pathologists have recently identified a premalignant entity, mesothelioma in situ, which can be found in patients with long standing pleural effusions and should be considered in the differential diagnosis. In the appropriate clinical setting, additional testing, including BAP1 and MTAP IHC should be performed. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. These pathologic recommendations are important for treatment selection. So in that same vein, in the final section of the recommendations, what are the updated recommendations from the panel regarding germline testing? Dr. Hedy Kindler: This is one of our most important recommendations, that universal germline testing should be offered to all mesothelioma patients. The proportion of patients with mesothelioma who have pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants is similar to other diseases in which universal germline genetic testing and counseling are now the standard of care. This is most commonly observed in the tumor suppressor gene BAP1 and this not only affects cancer risk in patients and their family members, but also has key prognostic significance. For example, pleural mesothelioma patients with BAP1 germline mutations who receive platinum-based chemotherapy live significantly longer, 7.9 years compared to 2.4 years for those without these mutations. Thus, we recommend that all patients with mesothelioma should be offered universal germline genetic counseling and/or germline testing. Brittany Harvey: So there were a large amount of new and updated recommendations in this update. So in your view Dr. Kindler, what is the both importance of this update and how will it impact both clinicians and patients with pleural mesothelioma? Dr. Hedy Kindler: Even as we were researching and writing this update, new data kept emerging which we needed to include. So it's clearly a time of great progress in the management of this disease. We've comprehensively reviewed and analyzed the extensive emerging data and provided clinicians with a roadmap for how to incorporate these new advances into their management of this disease. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely, that is key for optimal patient care. So you've just mentioned emerging data and rapid evidence generation, so what future research developments are being monitored for changes in the treatment of pleural mesothelioma? Dr. Hedy Kindler: Despite these recent advances in disease management, mesothelioma continues to be a lethal cancer, and there's clearly a need to develop better treatments. This includes ongoing studies of novel immunotherapeutic agents such as bispecific antibodies, cell therapy using chimeric antigen receptors targeting mesothelioma tumor antigens, and precision medicine approaches to target tumor suppressor genes. Finally, strategies for early cancer detection and prevention are vital for individuals predisposed to develop mesothelioma due to BAP1 and other germline mutations, as well as for those who are occupationally or environmentally exposed to asbestos. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. We'll look forward to these new updates to continue development in the field. So thank you so much for this mountain of work to update this guideline, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Kindler. Dr. Hedy Kindler: Thank you so much. It's been a pleasure. Thank you for asking me to do this. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline update, go to www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.      

In this JCO Article Insights episode, Giselle de Souza Carvalho provides a summary on  "Navigating Treatment Pathways in Metastatic Hormone Receptor–Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer: Optimizing Second-Line Endocrine and Targeted Therapies" by Bhardwarj, et al and "US Food and Drug Administration Approval Summary: Capivasertib With Fulvestrant for Hormone Receptor–Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Negative Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer With PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN Alterations" by Dilawari et al published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.  TRANSCRIPT Giselle Carvalho: Hello and welcome to JCO Article Insights episode for the December issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I'm your host Giselle Carvalho, Medical Oncologist in Brazil focusing on breast cancer and melanoma skin cancers and one of the ASCO Editorial Fellows at JCO this year. Today, I will be discussing two articles. The first one is “Navigating Treatment Pathways in Metastatic Hormone Receptor–Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer: Optimizing Second-Line Endocrine and Targeted Therapies,” and the second one is the “US FDA Approval Summary on Capivasertib with Fulvestrant  for HR-positive HER2-negative Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN Alteration.”  As we know, 65% to 70% of all breast cancers are HR-positive HER2-negative and this is also the most common subtype of metastatic breast cancer. The current standard of care for frontline therapy of patients with luminal metastatic disease is a CDK4/6 inhibitor in combination with endocrine therapy. However, as new endocrine and targeted therapies gain approval, choosing the best systemic therapy upon disease progression after frontline therapy is a topic of ongoing debate. Nearly 40 to 50% of HR-positive breast cancers have actionable genomic alterations and molecular testing should be a routine recommendation for patients with metastatic HR-positive HER2-negative disease. This can be performed repeating tissue biopsy at the time of progression or from archival tissue. Treatment options after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitors include alpelisib in combination with fulvestrant in patients with PIK3CA mutant tumors as seen in the SOLAR-1 trial, or capivasertib with fulvestrant in patients with a tumor mutation in (PI3K)–AKT–PTEN pathway as seen in the CAPItello-291 study, which will be discussed further.  In approximately 30% of patients, progression on frontline endocrine plus CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment is caused by endocrine resistance, frequently involving activating mutations in ESR1. For those tumors, elacestrant, an oral SERD is an option as demonstrated in the EMERALD trial. For patients with a BRCA mutation, PARP inhibitors represent another option. If no mutations are detected, everolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, can be used based on the BOLERO-2 results. The phase 2 MAINTAIN and PACE trials, along with the phase 3 postMONARCH trial support changing the endocrine therapy backbone with or without switching the CDK4/6 inhibitor. In less resourced areas, fulvestrant monotherapy is still an option to delay cytotoxic chemotherapy, though its efficacy is limited when used as a single agent. Finally, after progression on at least one line of chemotherapy, antibody drug conjugates including sacituzumab govitecan or trastuzumab deruxtecan may be an option.  Now focusing on the PI3K AKT PTEN signaling pathway, activating mutations in PIK3CA and AKT1 and inactivating alterations in PTEN occur in approximately half of luminal breast cancers. In June 2023, the CAPItello-291 trial was published and treatment with fulvestrant plus capivasertib, a PTEN AKT inhibitor, demonstrated a 3.6 month PFS benefit compared to fulvestrant alone, regardless of the presence of AKT pathway alterations. However, for those with tumors without AKT pathway alteration, an exploratory analysis showed that although there was a numerical improvement in PFS, it did not meet statistical significance, indicating that the biomarker positive population primarily drove the positive results noted in the overall population. Therefore, capivasertib plus fulvestrant was approved by the US FDA in November 2023 exclusively for patients with PI3K/AKT1/PTEN tumor alterations after progression on an aromatized inhibitor with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor. The approved schedule of capivasertib is slightly different from that of other agents used in breast cancer. It is 400 milligrams taken orally twice a day for four days per week every week in a 28-day cycle in combination with fulvestrant. Diarrhea, rash and hyperglycemia were the most commonly reported grade three or four adverse events in the interventional group. I would like to highlight that even though the CAPItello trial excluded patients with glycosylated hemoglobin levels higher than 8% or those diagnosed with diabetes who required insulin, hyperglycemia occurred in 19% of biomarker positive patients treated with capivasertib, with nearly 2% of this population experiencing grade 3 or 4 hyperglycemia and some patients experiencing life threatening outcomes such as diabetic ketoacidosis.  By way of comparison, hyperglycemia of any grade was three times higher with alpelisib therapy in the SOLAR-1 trial, occurring in 64% of the patients and grade three or higher hyperglycemia was seen in 37% of the patients. Diarrhea was the most common treatment related adverse event experienced by 77% of the biomarker positive population. Prompt use of the antidiarrheal drugs when needed, such as loperamide must be encouraged as untreated diarrhea can lead to dehydration and renal injury. Cutaneous rash occurred in 56% of the biomarker positive population in the interventional group and 15% experienced a grade 3 or 4 rash. Nearly half of the patients with cutaneous adverse reactions required treatment and this was the leading reason for dose reduction of capivasertib.  In the biomarker positive population, the improvement in medium PFS were 4.3 months by investigator assessment. Overall survival data from the CAPItello-291 trial is still immature, but quality of life data was recently published in September this year and was assessed by the 30 item QLQ C30 questionnaire and the QLQ BR23, the breast module. According to Oliveira et al, global health status and quality of life were maintained for a longer period with capivasertib fulvestrant than with placebo fulvestrant except for symptoms of diarrhea which were significantly worse in the capivasertib group. The median time of deterioration of global health status and quality of life was twice as long in the capivasertib group being almost 25 months versus 12 months in the placebo fulvestrant group. These data reinforced the use of capivasertib in combination with fulvestrant for the treatment of HR-positive HER2-negative advanced breast cancer patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN tumor alterations who have progressed after an aromatase inhibitor-based therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor.  Thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. This is Giselle Carvalho. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. See you next time.   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.  

Two studies published in the same week reveal how seed oils like canola, corn, soy and cottonseed may increase inflammation, creating a pathway for cancer to thrive. On the flip side, omega-3-rich fish oils show promise in reducing inflammation and bolstering the immune system. Listen in this week as Dee discusses the science behind these findings and their potential impact on your health.References:Aronson, W. J., Grogan, T., Liang, P., Jardack, P., Liddell, A. R., Perez, C., Elashoff, D., Said, J., Cohen, P., Marks, L. S., & Henning, S. M. (2024). High omega-3, low omega-6 diet with fish oil for men with prostate cancer on active surveillance: The CAPFISH-3 randomized clinical trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, JCO2400608. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.24.00608Soundararajan, R., Maurin, M. M., Rodriguez-Silva, J., Upadhyay, G., Alden, A. J., Gowda, S. G. B., Schell, M. J., Yang, M., Levine, N. J., Gowda, D., Sundaraswamy, P. M., Hui, S., Pflieger, L., Wang, H., Marcet, J., Martinez, C., Bennett, R. D., Chudzinski, A., Karachristos, A., . . . Yeatman, T. J. (2024). Integration of lipidomics with targeted, single cell, and spatial transcriptomics defines an unresolved pro-inflammatory state in colon cancer. Gut, gutjnl-332535. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2024-332535

Dr. Van Morris presents the new evidence-based guideline on systemic therapy for localized anal squamous cell carcinoma. Dr. Morris discusses the key recommendations from the Expert Panel, including recommended radiosensitizing chemotherapy agents, dosing and schedule recommendations, the role of induction chemotherapy and ongoing adjuvant chemotherapy, and considerations for special populations. He emphasizes the importance of this first guideline from ASCO on anal squamous cell carcinoma for both clinicians and patients with stage I-III anal cancer, and ongoing research the panel is looking to for the future. Read the full guideline, “Systemic Therapy for Stage I-III Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline” at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-24-02120 Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts, delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Van Morris from MD Anderson Cancer Center, co-chair on “Systemic Therapy for Stage I-III Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline.” Thank you for being here today, Dr. Morris. Dr. Van Morris: Thank you for having me. On behalf of our committee who put together the guidelines, I'm really excited to be here and talk with you today. Brittany Harvey: Great. Then, before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Morris, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then, to jump into the content of this guideline, Dr. Morris, can you provide an overview of both the purpose and the scope of this guideline on stage I to III anal squamous cell carcinoma? Dr. Van Morris: So anal cancer is considered a rare malignancy for patients in the United States and across the world as well. Even though it's not something we see as commonly, for example, as the adjacent colorectal cancer, this still is a cancer that is rising in incidence every year in the United States. And really, despite the presence of the preventative HPV vaccines, which we hope will ultimately prevent and eradicate this cancer, we still expect the incidence to continue to rise in the coming decades before we really start seeing numbers begin to decrease as a result of the vaccine. So this is an alarming trend for which oncologists will continue to see likely more and more cases and new diagnoses every year. So we wanted to review the most recent literature and provide oncologists up to date recommendations for how they can best take care of patients with a new diagnosis of localized anal cancer. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I appreciate that background and context to set the stage for this guideline. So then next I'd like to review the key recommendations of this guideline. So starting from the first clinical question, what are the recommended radiosensitizing, doublet or single chemotherapy agents for patients with stage I to III anal cancer? Dr. Van Morris: It's true that really the standard treatment for patients with localized anal cancer has not changed over the last literally half century. When the Nigro regimen was first reported back in 1974, 50 years ago, the standard of care for patients with a new diagnosis of localized anal cancer centers around concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy. And we looked at the various randomized control trials and the highest level of evidence which has been reported over the past decades, and really for most patients, the standard of care continues to remain doublet cytotoxic chemotherapy in combination with radiation. We reported that the most commonly, and I think most accepted, regimen here is a combination regimen of 5-FU, intravenous 5-fluorouracil with mitomycin C. And this most commonly is given on a week 1 to 5 regimen. The 5-FU, we recommended a dose of 1000 milligrams per meter squared per day on days 1 to 4 and then on days 29 to 32 of the radiation treatment. And then the mitomycin C, looking at various trials, has been given at a dose of 10 milligrams per meter squared on day 1 and day 29, or alternatively a single dose of mitomycin C at 12 milligrams per meter squared on day 1. I think that the thing that's important for clinicians and patients alike to remember is that this chemotherapy can be very toxic in patients who are undergoing a curative-intent therapy for this diagnosis of localized anal cancer. I think it's just important for oncologists to be watching closely the blood counts for the patients to make sure that the myelosuppression doesn't get too bad. And then in select cases, if that is the case, when the oncologist opts to go for the day 1 and day 29 dosing, it may be prudent, if the myelosuppression is too excessive, to consider withholding that day 29 dose. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for providing those recommendations along with some of those dosing and the schedule recommendations from the expert panel. So are there any other alternate dose or schedule recommendations from the expert panel? Dr. Van Morris: Yeah, but I think that we saw with the ACT II data that was a randomized trial that was done out of the UK that compared 5-FU mitomycin with 5-FU cisplatin as two different doublet cytotoxic regimens, that overall outcomes were very similar between the two regimens in terms of curative outcomes for patients treated whether 5-FU mitomycin or 5-FU cisplatin. So certainly there is evidence supporting the use of cisplatin as a second cytotoxic agent with 5-fluorouracil. In the ACT II study that was given at a dose of 60 milligrams per meter squared on days 1 and 29 along with the 5-FU at the regimen I talked about previously. There is other lower level of evidence data suggesting that even the 5-FU and cisplatin can be given on a weekly schedule and that that can be safe. Actually, at my institution at MD Anderson, that is our standard practice pattern as well. There's also the option when we're thinking about giving pelvic radiation for patients with lower GI cancers, many oncologists in the treatment of localized rectal adenocarcinoma are accustomed to using capecitabine as a chemosensitizer in patients with localized rectal cancer. If I'm giving chemoradiation for a patient with localized anal cancer, can I substitute the intravenous 5-FU with oral capecitabine? And although the evidence is not as strong in terms of available data with regards to randomized controlled trials, there certainly is data that suggests that capecitabine may be an acceptable alternative in lieu of intravenous 5-fluorouracil that would be given at a dose of 825 milligrams per meter squared on days of radiation. But certainly, I think that that's a feasible approach as well and maybe even associated with less hematologic toxicity than intravenous 5-FU would be. Brittany Harvey: Great. It's important to understand all the options that are out there for patients with early-stage anal squamous cell carcinoma. So in addition to those chemoradiation recommendations, what is recommended from the expert panel regarding induction chemotherapy or ongoing adjuvant chemotherapy for this patient population? Dr. Van Morris: When we think about treating patients with lower GI cancers with curative intent therapies, when we think about the more common rectal adenocarcinoma, oncologists may be used to giving chemoradiation followed by subsequent cytotoxic chemotherapy. But actually when you look at the data for anal cancer, really there's not any data that strongly supports the use of either induction chemotherapy prior to chemoradiation or adjuvant post-chemoradiation chemotherapy. The RTOG 98-11 study was a trial which evaluated the role of induction 5-fluorouracil prior to chemoradiation and did not show any survival benefit or improved outcomes with the use of induction chemotherapy in a randomized control trial setting. The ACT II trial, which I referenced earlier, was a 2 x 2 design where patients were either randomized to concurrent chemoradiation with 5-FU mitomycin C or concurrent chemoradiation with 5-FU cisplatin. But then there was a second randomization after chemoradiation where half of the study participants received adjuvant cisplatin 5-fluorouracil after completion of their chemo radiation, or the other half were randomized to the standard of care, which of course would be observation. And what that trial showed was that there was no added benefit with the addition of post-chemoradiation cytotoxic chemotherapy. So we look at these data and say that in general, for the general population of patients with localized stages I to III anal cancer, there really is no supporting data suggesting benefit of either induction chemotherapy or adjuvant chemotherapy. And to that end, really it's concurrent chemoradiation remains the standard of care at this time for patients with a new diagnosis of localized anal cancer. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's just as important to know what is not recommended as it is to know what is recommended for these patients. And so I thank you for explaining the evidence behind that decision from the panel as well. So then, are there any other considerations for special populations that oncologists should consider? Dr. Van Morris: I think so. I think that anal cancer is a disease where we don't see that many patients being diagnosed earlier at a younger age, especially in relation to the alarming trend of early onset colorectal cancer that we're currently seeing right now. So there may be patients who come with a new diagnosis of localized anal cancer who are an octogenarian at an advanced age or may have other significant medical comorbidities. And if that is the case, we get called about this quite frequently from outside institutions. I have an 85 year old who is coming to my clinic with this diagnosis. I don't feel comfortable giving this patient doublet cytotoxics, what options do I have? Especially given other organ dysfunction that may precede this diagnosis. And I think that in that case, there are times when it's okay safely to drop the mitomycin C and opt for single agent 5-fluorouracil as a single cytotoxic agent. So I think that that would be something that we've certainly incorporated into our practice at our institution. There's also an association between various autoimmune disorders, patients on immunosuppression, even persons living with HIV being at higher risk for this virally associated cancer. So I think that, again, if the patient is coming with baseline immunosuppression for these reasons prior to treatment, certainly kind of being in tune to the potential for hematologic toxicity. And watching these patients very closely as they're getting chemoradiation remains really important. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. So, you've just discussed some of those comorbidities and patient characteristics that are important for clinicians to consider when deciding which regimens to offer. So in addition to those, in your view, what is the importance of this guideline and how will it impact clinical practice for clinicians who are reading this guideline. Dr. Van Morris: Chemoradiation remains a very effective option and most patients will be cured with this diagnosis and with this treatment. So it's important to make sure that these patients are able to safely get through their treatment, minimizing treatment delays due to toxicities which may come about because of the treatment, and really help to carry them over the finish line so that they have the best likelihood for achieving cure. So we really hope that these data will provide oncologists with a readily available summary of the existing data that they can refer to and continue to help as many patients as possible achieve and experience a cure. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. So then to build on that, it's great to have this first guideline from ASCO on anal squamous cell carcinoma. But how will these new recommendations affect patients with stage I to III anal cancer? Dr. Van Morris: I certainly hope it will allow patients and oncologists to know what their options are. It certainly is not a one size fits all treatment approach with regards to the options which are available. Depending on the patient, depending on the various medical conditions that may accompany them, these treatments may need to be tailored to most safely get them through their treatment. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you describing the importance of this guideline for both clinicians and patients. So what other outstanding questions and future research do you anticipate seeing in this field? Dr. Van Morris: It's a really good question and I think that there is a lot coming on the horizon. Even though the standard treatment has really not changed over the last half century, I think it still remains true that not all patients will achieve cure with a chemoradiation treatment. So a recent trial has completed enrollment in the United States, this is the EA2165 trial led by one of our committee members, Dr. Rajdev and Dr. Eng as well, that's looking at the use of nivolumab anti PD-1 immunotherapy after completion of concurrent chemo adiation. So in that trial, patients were randomized to concurrent chemoradiation followed by either observation or six months of adjuvant anti PD-1 therapy. We're really awaiting the results of that. Hopefully if we see an improvement with the addition of nivolumab following concurrent chemoradiation, our hope would be that more patients would be able to achieve a cure. So we're certainly looking forward to the outcomes of that EA2165 study. And then I think one question that we often get from our patients in the clinics is, “What is the role of circulating tumor DNA in the management of my disease?” And really, to date there have been some series which have shown that we can assess patients or circulating tumor DNA after completion of their concurrent chemo radiation that may need to start about three months after to give time for the radiation to wear off and most accurately prognosticate that. But I think that this will be a powerful tool moving forward, hopefully, not only in the surveillance to identify patients who may be at high risk for recurrence, but ultimately to translate that into next generation clinical trials which would treat patients at higher risk for recurrence by virtue of a detectable circulating tumor DNA result. In doing so, hopefully cure even more patients with this diagnosis. Brittany Harvey: Yes, we'll look forward to these developments and hope to add more options for potential treatment and surveillance for patients with anal cancer. So, I want to thank you so much for your work to develop these guidelines and share these recommendations with us and everything that the expert panel did to put this guideline together. Thank you for your time today, Dr. Morris. Dr. Van Morris: Thank you. And thank you to ASCO for helping to keep this information out there and ready for oncologists for this rare cancer. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    

Verlust, Trauer, Abschied - Themen, die uns allen im Leben immer wieder begegnen und die uns beschäftigen. Sinja und Boris sprechen über die Bedeutung und erklären, was bei uns passiert, wenn wir trauern - sowohl psychologisch als auch körperlich.Umfrage: Wie gefällt dir Verstehen, fühlen, glücklich sein? Erzähle es uns hier. Hintergründe und Studien: Simon, N. (2013). Treating complicated grief… JAMA, 310 4, 416-23. Link zur StudieMiller, M. D. (2012). Complicated grief in late life. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 14(2), 195-202. Link zur StudieForschungsarbeiten von Mary-Frances O'connor Link zur WebsiteO'connor, M. F., & Seeley, S. H. (2022). Grieving as a form of learning: Insights from neuroscience applied to grief and loss. Current opinion in psychology, 43, 317-322. Link zur StudieO'Connor, M. F., Wellisch, D. K., Stanton, A. L., Eisenberger, N. I., Irwin, M. R., & Lieberman, M. D. (2008). Craving love? Enduring grief activates brain's reward center. Neuroimage, 42(2), 969-972. Link zur StudieO'Connor, M. F. (2019). Grief: A brief history of research on how body, mind, and brain adapt. Psychosomatic medicine, 81(8), 731-738. Link zur StudieKakarala, S. E., Roberts, K. E., Rogers, M., Coats, T., Falzarano, F., Gang, J., … & Prigerson, H. G. (2020). The neurobiological reward system in Prolonged Grief Disorder (PGD): A systematic review. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 303, 111135. Link zur StudieMcConnell, M., Killgore, W., & O'Connor, M. (2018). Yearning predicts subgenual anterior cingulate activity in bereaved individuals. Heliyon, 4. Link zur StudieVara, H., & Thimm, J. C. (2020). Associations between self-compassion and complicated grief symptoms in bereaved individuals: An exploratory study. Nordic Psychology, 72(3), 235-247. Link zur StudieKreicbergs, U., Lannen, P., Onelov, E., & Wolfe, J. (2007). Parental grief after losing a child to cancer: impact of professional and social support on long-term outcomes… Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 25 22, 3307-12. Link zur StudieFurnes, B., & Dysvik, E. (2011). Results from a systematic writing program in grief process: part 2. Patient preference and adherence, 5, 15 - 21. Link zur StudieUnsere allgemeinen Datenschutzrichtlinien finden Sie unter https://art19.com/privacy. Die Datenschutzrichtlinien für Kalifornien sind unter https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info abrufbar.

In this episode of Lung Cancer Considered, host Dr. Stephen Liu leads a discussion on the FDA approval of perioperative nivolumab based on the Phase III CheckMate 77T study. Perioperative therapy has improved outcomes in patients with resectable NSCLC and is emerging as best practice but there is nuance to the delivery of this therapy. Guest: Dr. Tina Cascone is a Physician-Scientist and Associate Professor in the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas and lead author of the CheckMate 77T manuscript in the New England Journal of Medicine Guest: Dr. Shun Lu is the Chief of Shanghai Lung Cancer Center and Shanghai Chest Hospital and Professor at Shanghai Jiaotong University. He is an executive board member of the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology and past chair of Chinese Lung Cancer Association

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guests Dr. Suzanne George and Liz Salmi discuss their JCO article "Overcoming Systemic Barriers to Make Patient-Partnered Research a Reality" TRANSCRIPT TO COME Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello and welcome to JCO's After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, Medical Oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by JCO authors Liz Salmi, Researcher and Patient Advocate, and by Dr. Suzanne George, who works as a Medical Oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute where she acts as the Chief of the Division of Sarcoma. She is also Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Today, we are going to discuss with Suzanne and with Liz the article titled, “Overcoming Systemic Barriers to Make Patient-Partnered Research a Reality.” So thank you for speaking with us, Suzanne, Liz. Liz Salmi: Thanks for having us. Dr. Suzanne George: Yes, thanks. Dr. Davide Soldato: I just want to make a brief introduction because I think that the concept of patient partner research is very wide and I'm not sure that all of the readers of JCO really have a deep understanding because I imagine that there are a lot of ways we can involve patient and patient advocates in the research process. And so I was wondering if you could give us a little bit of an introduction about the concept. Dr. Suzanne George: Sure. I think the point that you raise is really important because there are many terms that are used, patient-partnered research, patient advocacy, but I don't think that there's a single definition as to what that actually means. In the context of our work, we've sort of summarized our experience through something called the PE-CGS or the Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing network. And in that project, which is a Moonshot funded network, the intention is to have participants in research be true partners working with traditional academic research teams in order to develop networks specifically focused on cancer genomics. So what we've done, every center is a little bit different in the network, but we're really having research participants not just act, but really work on the research team from the beginning of the project inception all the way through the research project. Liz Salmi: What brings me to the PE-CGS network is my 17 years experience as a person living with a low grade glioma, brain tumor or brain cancer and involving patients in the co-design of research is super critical because patients bring unique lived experiences that can shape research questions, study designs and outcome measures in ways researchers might not anticipate. And we're finding this through our network. So through my work, including my patient experience and brain tumor focused study designs, I've seen firsthand that patient insights can drive more practical implementations that ultimately benefit both patients and the researchers. And so the particular project I work on in the network, we've got like five different arms and different groups of cancer types that are being represented, so I'm basically focusing on the OPTIMUM study around how brain tumor patients can help in this study design. So in this project I serve as not just a participant in the research, but also as a patient co-investigator. Dr. Davide Soldato: That is very interesting. And I think that we really captured the essence of patient-partnered research by having both of you here talking with us about the PE-CGS. And the second question that I wanted to ask is: I really think that the network focuses on something that is quite important right now and currently in medical oncology - so cancer genome sequencing, access to novel therapies - and I think that it's really challenging to imagine a way in which we can really get our patient and get patient advocates to help us designing new trials who are looking into this. And I just wanted to know, do you think that there is something that is particularly challenging when we are speaking specifically about cancer genomics and access to this type of drugs that are targeting specific molecular alteration? Because I think that in general it might be a little bit easier, maybe I'm biased on this, so you can also tell me if I'm wrong, but I think that it's a little bit easier when we are trying to design, for example, behavioral intervention or things that are more commonly found in oncology and a little bit more complicated when we are speaking about genomics. Dr. Suzanne George: So I think that's part of what this network is trying to address, which is really what are the barriers and the opportunities around cancer genomics from the patient perspective and how do we make sure that that perspective is included as we're thinking about study design and inclusion? As Liz mentioned, this network has five different networks within the network, five different centers, and each center is slightly different with the population that it engages with. And so there's diversity there in terms of reaching out to different patient communities and partner communities around potential barriers for genomics research. I think one of the things though that we're finding across the network is that people want to be part of this work. People that have a lived experience of cancer want to help move the field forward. And what we ended up writing about was some of the barriers that get in the way of that. It's awesome to have people like Liz that are like all in and then there's people who are on the other end of the spectrum that want to share their information to help move the field forward around genomics, but then there's all these barriers at the systems level that get in the way of that. So I think that that's one of the challenges we're trying to overcome and learn about across the network. Liz Salmi: Yeah, I think I bring this really interesting, I can't say I'm really interesting, but I think I bring this really niche perspective. Not only am I a person living with a brain tumor and I'm a co-investigator but also like a participant in this study. I also, in my day job, I'm an investigator as part of the director of communications and patient initiatives on the OpenNotes lab at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. And our lab really focuses on how open, transparent communication between doctors and patients improves care. And that's been going on for longer than I've been around on our team. But what I bring to that lab is I focus on engaging both patients and clinicians in spreading the awareness about the power of how easy access and transparent communication, access to information across healthcare settings helps patients feel more involved and informed in their care.   And I work specifically, it's a really niche area. I work on projects that aim to expand access to notes and test results in diverse care settings, really helping tailoring initiatives so that various patient communities can understand how they can be involved in these types of research projects. Ultimately that's what brought me into this space. I might be one of the first generation of patients that actually starts helping co-design studies on things like this. And I think that across a lot of healthcare settings cancer is really what we're focused on. But patients are now increasingly being involved as research collaborators. And there's many different funding institutions such as the NCI but also PCORI they now mandate that funders reflect a shift towards more patient centered research frameworks. So it's like the PE-CGS network isn't the only group that's being funded to do research in this way. And I think other investigators, even outside of the cancer space, but specifically in cancer, need to learn how to do research in this way. Dr. Suzanne George: Yeah, I agree. And I think the other thing that we need to do is if people want to participate and that participation in many of these networks has to do with record sharing and data sharing, the system needs to accommodate that. If people want to share their information in order to allow research to be performed, then we need to make sure that that can happen, and that it's not that the institution systems don't connect with someone else's systems or that you to pay X, Y and Z dollars for the data to go A, B and C, or that some places are on this EHR and some places are on that EHR and so, sure, you can share it, but you have to go through all of these hurdles in order to make it happen. When a patient signs a consent form that says, “I want my data to be used,” we as an investigator community, we owe it to that patient to make sure that their information is being part of the data set that will be used for learnings. And that's part of what we wrote about, is the lots of behind the scenes things that just get in the way and that we need to work towards improving. Liz Salmi: Both Suzanne and I are really passionate about this stuff. And as a person living with a brain tumor for the last 17 years, I'm a chronic research participant. I always, always, am really curious. I'm like, “Yes, let me contribute my data. Whether that's electronic health record data or maybe I'm being interviewed about certain aspects of the cancer care experience.” And the one thing that bummed me out for like the first 10 years of being this chronic research participant is I would enroll in things, I'd be interviewed for things, I'd fill out these surveys and then I never heard anything about what happened with that information and that time I spent. And people would send me like a $10 gift card to Amazon, like, “Thanks for participating,” but really what I wanted to know is like, did you do anything with that? How did that inform things? So that really annoyed me to the point where I was like, I'm just going to be part of the research process and really figure out how we share that information back to everybody who had spent so much time. And so my participation in this space is like, “Let's change it. Let's give people information back.” And now I know it takes a really long time to have a finding that could be published somewhere that we then get it back. But closing the loop on the communications gap is something I'm really passionate about. Dr. Davide Soldato: Do you think that we are changing a little bit this perspective? I feel like we are getting a little bit better in creating patient communities of patients who are included in specific clinical trials. And then we do the effort of creating a community, of keeping people really involved with the research that they are participating in. I think that we are not quite there yet, but I think that we are making some kind of steps in that direction. For example, trying also to inform patients to participate in the study when the publication that is related to that specific study comes out. What is the benefit? What have we discovered? I think that we are not quite there yet. There is a lot of room for improvement, particularly in the way I think we communicate these to patients who participated in research. But I have the impression that we are making some steps forward. So I don't know. Do you share the same thoughts? Liz Salmi: So Dr. George talked about the PE-CGS network and then there's five different cancer types being studied. So the thing I can reflect on is what we've done in the, this is a really long acronym but, Optimizing Molecular Characterization of Low Grade Glioma. Say that 10 times fast. So our particular group is people who donate tissues about their brain tumors. We're really collecting data from people with multiple brain surgeries over time, which is really complicated and to make that process easier. And then once those tissue samples are stored somewhere, studying that information about what changes in the brain tumors over time and then also giving those results back to people so they can take that research level data and bring it back to their neuro oncology team and say, “Hey. Here's what I found out, “and having a conversation. So, this is a long multi touch point study and in order to do that, to even make that possible is the individual patients need to understand what's in it for them. They're donating precious tissue in order to make the research process work. And so in order to do that, it's not just the investigators saying, “Hey. Give us your brain tissue, peace out.” It is we have a whole research advisory council of people living with these particular tumor types who help us co-design how do we do that outreach, how do we explain why this is important, or how do we message the importance of this work so they understand,“Oh, this is what's in it for me and this is what's in it for other people like me.” And from there then with that process, which again I mentioned, all of these multi-step processes, once we're able to understand how patients want to hear that information, what's in it for them, then we bring it back to like those bench scientists, investigators going, “Okay. And here's how this workflow should work for the patients,” and design everything around the patient experience before we even care about what's happening from the scientist researcher perspective. Dr. Suzanne George: I agree. I think to your point, I think the fact that we're all here today talking about this is just like you said, is that we are making progress, right? Like we're even here having this conversation. Just like you said, I think there's opportunities to improve and further refine the communication and the involvement back in the patient community. When I think- if I put on my clinical investigator hat, I'm very involved in PE-CGS, but my primary research interest historically has been clinical trials and drug development. And I think that our approach in communicating results back has just not been consistent. But I do think that there's opportunities, just like you said, to provide summaries of information to loop back. I don't think that we've completely solved: What do we do? How do we provide information back to loved ones of patients that may no longer be alive that participated? How do we provide information to people who maybe we don't have their contact information? What if we lose track of them? How do we also make sure that we give people the choice to know? Do you want to know about this or would you rather just participate and then give space to that research? Because maybe that's how people's best for them. So I think that you're right, we're making progress, but I think that there's also a lot more that we can do. So I'm glad we're talking about it. Dr. Davide Soldato: How much do you think that directly involving patients in this process, like asking them directly and co-designing the trial from the very beginning and understanding the level of information? This might also be another question inside of the question. So first, how much co-designing this type of research helps, and then do we also need to further refine at that level of communication, different communication depending on the level of information that different people want to have? Because I think that that's another level of complexity that we need to work towards at a certain point. We need to work on that first level of giving back the information. But then I think that there is also the other point of providing the information and information that should also be probably adapted to the cultural belief of different patients, to the ethnicity or to whatever cultural background or social background or whatever they may place their most interest in. Dr. Suzanne George: So I think that you're 100% right on all of those points. I think those are all topics that need to be considered. We may be able to get to a certain degree of granularity around those communication points, but on the other hand, we also want to be able to communicate broadly and accessibly as possible. One of the interesting things about PE-CGS, as Liz was mentioning, is each of the five centers has a slightly different focus. For example, one of the centers is focused on American Indians and Tribal Nations, and the communication practices coming out of that center are really unique and really very special and something that's been really, I think for me, very fascinating to hear about. Because to your point, like, just the strategy and what's considered appropriate is just different. I think if we hope to build a research world where our research participants and research data come from a broad swath of the population that really represents the population, the only way that we're going to be able to do that is find ways that bring meaning across the population as well. And that may be different based on where people are coming from and where people are at in their own journeys and in their own lives. But it's on us to be open to that and like to hear that, so we can do the right thing. Dr. Davide Soldato: And I think that this is one of the objectives of the PE-CGS, really trying to bring this type of research participation to really diverse and underrepresented populations, not only in terms of cultural background, but I also think about different types of tumors. Like Liz was referring about brain cancer or low grade glioma, which is a very niche population. And I also think about sarcomas, for example, the degree of variability that we have in that specific type of disease is such that we really need to probably find different ways to communicate also inside of this diversity in terms of single patient and experiences, but also in terms of single diseases. You were speaking a little bit before about the fact that the manuscript is really on the barriers that we would need to identify and then to change to make this system a reality. We were talking a little bit about consenting information and consenting the sharing of information, and I think that you make a very interesting point about the consent process when we are designing research. Could you give a little bit of your impressions about giving informed consent? What we need to change, how can we improve? Dr. Suzanne George: The bottom line is the consent process needs to be simple, clear, and transparent. And sometimes I feel, because the traditional way that we've always gone about consent is frequently consent is as it should be in many ways. These consent forms are developed from a regulatory framework. What are we required to do to consent and how do we meet those requirements? Sometimes that becomes directly at odds with how do we do this simply, clearly and transparently? And I think as a research community, we have to be able to find a common ground there. That has to include regulatory requirements, that has to include IRBs. When we think about consents and work with our patient communities on this, everybody agrees the consents need to be more simple, except the IRB or maybe the IRB agrees, but it's this tension between how do we make it simple, clear and transparent and not get so bogged down in the regulatory that we lose that intent. Liz Salmi: It's complicated. As a person, I mentioned, I'm a chronic research participant living with a brain tumor for 17 years. I remember enrolling in studies and seeing things that are just so complicated. I'm like, “Well, I'm just going to sign off.” I imagine somewhere somebody who knew more than me said, “I should just fill out this thing.” And then as I switched to the research world, I spent more time digging into, “Wow, this is a really complicated consent,” versus, “This is a really streamlined consent and I love this.” And throughout my work with Dr. George and others on the PE-CGS network, an example of a good consent that's easy for people to understand is what the NIH All Of Us research project did, where they're trying to get a million people, more than that, signed up to be in this longitudinal study. And their consent is to go to their website and they have a whole bunch of short YouTube videos. There's a kind of like a quiz involved and they're animated, they have multiple languages involved. And I signed up for that study and I was like, “This is a beautiful consent.” And it's a very plain language. And more consents like that. If you're looking for a good example, go there. I have not been paid by them in any way. I'm a participant in their study. I'm not sure if you guys and your listeners are aware, but there was I think, October 19th of this year or 2024, there was a special communication published in JAMA on an update on the Helsinki Principles for Medical Research involving human participants. And what they're saying is an ethical update is patient engagement in research, which emphasizes the need for continuous, meaningful engagement with research participants and their communities throughout the research life cycle, before, during and after studies. And so this is what we're talking about here. And it's now been embedded in these updated principles. Dr. Suzanne George: That's really great and I agree with you. I think the All Of Us consent process is very accessible. It feels like you can understand it. But the other thing is that, again, I also am not directly involved with All Of Us, but the other thing about it is that they also have a high-touch way to consent where they have navigators and people that will go into communities in a very resource intensive way. So there's all different ways to go about it. We need to find a way that we can balance the complexity around regulatory and the simplicity and transparency that we need in cancer research. Dr. Davide Soldato: Do you think that in terms of patient engagement we are doing better in academic sponsored research compared to sponsored research? A little bit of a provocative question maybe. Dr. Suzanne George: I think that's a really interesting question. I think this idea of participant engagement and involvement is being infused across the research community. And in part, the FDA has prioritized it as well. I think the industry sees the FDA prioritizing this as well. And I think that there are many companies that are involving participant and advocacy communities in different ways in the study design, in the study process early on. So I think it's happening. Liz Salmi: I'll be spicy. I've been a participant, I've been an investigator, co-investigator on studies and I have been reached out to often by pharma of, “Hey Liz, brain tumor patient advocate, would you be kind of like the poster child of our study or be involved in that way?” And I personally want to have no work in that space. I have no interest. However, I am approached, and other people living with cancer have been approached, by industry about lending their likeness or being commercials. And I don't think there's enough education to patient advocates of what that necessarily means, pros and cons. But I also can't speak on behalf of all of the patient advocates who might want to see that's a way that they could lend their voice and advance research. I personally think that there needs to be more involvement from the academic side of creating spaces where patients can be involved in the co-design of research and they also get compensated for their time fairly at the same level or some version of it in a way so they don't just jump to the pharma side of things. But that's an opinion that I have. Opinions. Dr. Suzanne George: I think it's really interesting the point that you make about providing more awareness or information about what it even means to do these things from a patient side. I certainly don't know that side as well, but I do see, often, the term patient advocate used very frequently in many different contexts that mean many different things. And I think that there's an opportunity there for understanding more about what that really means and what it can mean. Liz Salmi: Yeah. We want to involve patients, we want to do patient engagement. The BMJ or the British Medical Journal, have this new policy in place for patients as reviewers of research. And what I find interesting with the BMJ is they also ask patients to declare their conflicts of interest. So this is kind of a new space. If you're involved in patient research or perhaps working with pharma, patients, if you're involved at that level, should also be declaring their conflicts of interest if they're getting paid by a pharma. Or do I have a conflict now that I'm doing this cool ASCO podcast? Maybe. But do we want to overburden patients with tracking all this information? So it's a new world. The more we have access to information, the more we share information, the more we can read studies and we co-design, there's a new space I think over the next 5 to 10 years where how do we define this in a transparent way. Dr. Suzanne George: Yeah, I think you're right. I know that we're getting long, but I just want to say one other thing about that, which is that you're right. If we're bringing patients in to be partners, then we have to treat each other that way. We have to acknowledge- I think this issue that you raise about compensation and about paying people for their time or acknowledging people for their time, I think that's really important and very under-discussed. Liz and I were at the annual meeting for the PE-CGS and someone was there giving a talk about- this was a guest speaker that was giving a talk about a very large high impact grant and that included a patient advocacy kind of module, let's say. And they put in a specific funding and budget for that component that included compensation for the people- from the people in the advocacy community that were spending their time. And the PI of this project, again, not to get into the details of it, but they were sharing that they got a fair bit of pushback on that. But the PI pushed back and said, “Listen, we're compensating other people for their time. These guys, we want them to be partners, we need to treat them as such.” And I think that also again, kind of we're in a new space, but if we're going to do it right, then we have to acknowledge that we're partners. Dr. Davide Soldato: But I think that maybe an experience like the PE-CGS probably can be also a network for expanding awareness for patient advocates and also for creating sort of a new culture about what does that mean and how can we also improve on that part. Because in the end, if we want to engage, we also need to provide patients with the instruments to engage in a way that we think it's both useful for them, that can make research better, but can also make them at the exact same level as everyone who is participating in that research, which I think it's the bottom line of all the concepts that we are discussing right now. Liz Salmi: Yep. Dr. Suzanne George: Yes, I agree. Dr. Davide Soldato: So I think we have covered a lot of things. Just wanted to make one last reference to a point that Suzanne mentioned earlier, which is the interoperability of systems. And I think that when we come to the cancer genome, that is very important, being able to share information, especially for those diverse and less common cancer types that we were discussing earlier. There is a lot of work in gaining all that information and we need to be able to gather all of that information in the same place to advance research. You were mentioning before that the process is actually very complicated and I was wondering if in the network you are already working on some potential ways to address this type of issue. Dr. Suzanne George: I think our first step is really just calling it out, acknowledging how hard this is and what the barriers are. Oftentimes I think in research, we don't talk enough about what our methodologic barriers are. We talk more about what our results are, but not like how hard it is. But like in our projects, the Count Me In project, my network that I'm involved with, we're doing rare tumors. We can only do the United States and Canada because of privacy issues. And we're doing a completely web based platform. So we have the technology. But the privacy laws are impeding our ability to involve other parts of the world. And even within the United States, it's not as easy as we would like to get records. For example, despite the fact that people are saying, “Yes, use my records.” But then it's like, “Okay. Well, that's not that easy. How are we going to get them?” We had to hire a third party vendor in order to get the records, in order to manage all the different consents and releases that were needed across all these different hospital systems. So I think the first question is just calling it out and then from there working together as a community to try to see what the solutions can be, because we need to come up with those solutions. Liz Salmi: Yeah, we're in the same camp as Dr. George and the fact that of the five partners, we're not associated with one particular institution. So we can reach out around the country and get access to those records. And we need them at multiple points in time, over time and it takes a lot of effort and work. And it's not like you could just, say, call hospital A and they have all the information. It's like all of the calls to all of the other sites. And it's not just from one surgery, it's from two or more surgeries. But also the way that people stay involved, and, by people, I mean patients and family members, there's this promise that at some point you're going to get some sort of information in response. Like, it's the “what's in it for me?” aspect of it. We do interviews with those who've been enrolled in the study, those who could be potential enrollees in the future because they've only had one surgery. And what we're learning overall is there's this altruistic nature that people have of- they want to participate in the research because they're like, “Here's my horrible cancer experience. I know other people are going to go through this as well.” There's this guiding light of “I want to do something, and I'm not going to be the person that creates the cure, discovers the genome or whatever for this particular cancer type. But my little bit of participation in this multiplied by 20, 30, 100, 1000 people, is what is going to lead us to the next phase in development and is going to move the needle for this particular tumor type or other cancer types.” And so what I think the impact in this space and participant engagement isn't just something we figure out, like a little research method and a little finding for one small tumor type, it's like the methods to do that is the big impact. The method around participant engagement can impact even beyond the cancer community. Dr. Davide Soldato: Yeah. As Suzanne was saying, we need to be in a system that really helps us and allows us to do that. So I think that you really have a lot of things to work on inside of the network. Dr. Suzanne George: I think one thing that I would say is I think that this issue of interoperability is acknowledged as a challenge. We refer to several different initiatives across the US where this is supposed to ideally change over time. I think people want it to change over time. I think investigators at the ERTC want it to change over time. I think different countries are working on this. And I think, again, the first step is getting us at the table talking about it, and then figuring out ways to move it forward. And I think it's there. I think that there is the will. We just have to figure out the how and continue to work on that together, because there's just a tremendous opportunity. I live in the rare tumor space, and between the FDA and the EMA and the regulatory, the national and the international research groups, the patient communities, people want this to be solved and I do hope that we will be able to get there. Dr. Davide Soldato: So I would like to thank Liz and Suzanne for joining us today. Dr. Suzanne George: Thanks for having us. Liz Salmi: Thank you. Dr. Davide Soldato: Suzanne, Liz, we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled, “Overcoming Systemic Barriers to Make Patient-Partnered Research a Reality.” If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and a 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.     DISCLOSURES Liz Salmi Speaking Honoria: Medscape. Research Funding (Inst): Abridge AI, Inc., Yosemite. Dr. Suzanne George Honoraria CStone Pharmaceuticals Consulting or Advisory Role Blueprint Medicines, deciphera, Bayer,  Lilly, UpToDate, Research to Practice, MORE Health, Daiichi, Kayothera, Immunicum, BioAtla   Research Funding Blueprint Medicines, Deciphera, Daiichi Sankyo RD Novare, Merck, Eisai, SpringWorks Therapeutics, TRACON Pharma, Theseus Pharmaceuticals, BioAtla, IDRx, NewBay Pharma, Acrivon Therapeutics   Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property Company name: UptoDate Stock and Other Ownership Interests Abbott Laboratories and Pfizer Recipient: An Immediate Family Member

In this episode of the Patient from Hell podcast, we speak with Dr. Milana Dolezal, an oncologist from Stanford University, and learn about cutting-edge advancements in cancer treatments, particularly antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) and precision medicine. Dr. Dolezal shares her journey from childhood inspiration to a career in oncology, the evolution of cancer therapies, and how recent innovations are transforming metastatic cancer care. The conversation also delves into the intricacies of cancer biology, the impact of emerging treatments on quality of life, and the hope for a future where therapies are tailored not only to the disease but also to managing side effects effectively. Key Highlights: 1. Oncology Advancements: Dr. Dolezal explains the development of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) that deliver chemotherapy directly to cancer cells, reducing side effects compared to traditional treatments. 2.Cancer's Complexity: Using vivid analogies, Dr. Dolezal illustrates how cancer evolves to resist treatments, comparing it to navigating New York's subway system. 3. Managing Side Effects: Dr. Dolezal emphasizes a "go low and go slow" approach in administering treatments to minimize side effects, tailoring doses to individual patients' needs to balance efficacy with maintaining quality of life. About our guest: Dr. Dolezal is a board-certified hematologist-oncologist with Stanford Medicine Cancer Center in Emeryville and a clinical associate professor in the Stanford School of Medicine, Division of Oncology. She strives to work with patients to develop care plans that are comprehensive and personalized to achieve the best possible outcomes and quality of life.  She also has extensive experience in research and drug development. She previously held positions as a clinical scientist, assistant medical director, and associate medical director in the BioOncology Therapeutics unit of the biotechnology company Genentech. She has conducted clinical research into fertility preservation in patients with breast cancer, advanced treatments for triple-negative breast cancer, and patients' adherence to anti-cancer therapy. She has co-authored articles on her research findings that appeared in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Cancer, and other peer-reviewed publications. She also co-authored the chapter “Progression from Hormone-Dependent to Hormone-Independent Breast Cancer” in the textbook Hormones, Genes and Cancer published by Oxford University Press. Disclaimer: All content and information provided in connection with Manta Cares is solely intended for informational and educational purposes only.  This content and information is not intended to be a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition.

Dr. Greg Kalemkerian reviews the latest evidence-based rapid update from the Expert Panel on systemic therapy for small cell lung cancer. He discusses the updated recommendations for patients with limited-stage SCLC based on the ADRIATIC trial, and for patients with relapsed SCLC based on the DeLLphi-301 trial. Dr. Kalemkerian shares insights on what these changes mean for clinicians and patients, and highlights new trials in progress to provide more options for patients diagnosed with SCLC. Read the full rapid update, “Systemic Therapy for Small Cell Lung Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update” at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-24-02245   Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Greg Kalemkerian from the University of Michigan, lead author on, “Systemic Therapy for Small Cell Lung Cancer: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update”. Thank you for being here today, Dr. Kalemkerian. Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: Thank you. Thank you for the invitation. Brittany Harvey: Great. Then, before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Kalemkerian, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the update in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then, to dive into the content of this rapid update, Dr. Kalemkerian, what prompted this update to the Systemic Therapy for Small Cell Lung Cancer Guideline, which was previously published in 2023? Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: So even though the original guideline only came out a year ago, the past year we've seen two significant advances in small cell lung cancer with two reports, one in limited stage with the addition of immunotherapy, the other in the addition of a new immunotherapeutic agent in relapsed small cell lung cancer. Brittany Harvey: It's great to have this new data in the small cell lung cancer space. So based on these new changes, what are the updated recommendations from the expert panel? Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: So the first recommendations have to do with patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer based on the ADRIATIC trial which added consolidation durvalumab for patients who had not had progression after standard chemotherapy and radiotherapy. And this study demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival with about a 10% improvement in both 2- and 3-year overall survival, up to a 57% overall survival at 3 years for the patients receiving consolidation durvalumab. And based on those findings, we updated the recommendation for the standard treatment for limited-stage small cell lung cancer such that it included the use of consolidation immunotherapy with durvalumab for up to two years in patients who had had no disease progression, and completion of concurrent chemoradiotherapy for limited-stage small cell lung cancer. Of course, those patients would be those who do not have contraindications to the use of immunotherapy. As a corollary to that recommendation, for patients who have poorer performance status, so performance status of 3 or 4, who had had initial treatment perhaps with sequential chemotherapy and radiotherapy, if their performance status improves with their initial treatment, then it would also be reasonable to add consolidation immunotherapy for those patients as long as their performance status maintains improvement and they have no evidence of progression. The other update of the guidelines had to do with patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer and that was based on the DeLLphi-301 trial which was a phase II study looking at the use of tarlatamab, a bispecific T cell engager, binds to both DLL3 and CD3 in order to increase the immune killing of small cell lung cancer cells. So what this study did was it treated patients who had had at least two prior regimens. So this is third-line or beyond was what the population that this study looked at. And the majority of these patients had already had some immune checkpoint therapy. They all had good performance status and it did allow patients with brain metastases to be included in the study. When we look at the patients who received the approved 10 milligram dose of the drug, the response rate was about 40%. Responses were seen in both patients with sensitive and refractory based on the time since their prior treatment and the median duration of response was 10 months, which is much better than anything we've seen before with relapsed small cell lung cancer patients, remembering that all these patients were also third-line or beyond. So based on the results of the DeLLphi-301 trial, we updated two of the recommendations regarding relapsed small cell lung cancer. In the first one, we stated that in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer with a chemotherapy free interval of less than 90 days, single agent systemic therapy would be considered standard of care, and that the preferred agents would include topotecan, lurbinectedin, or, now, tarlatamab. We did mention as a qualifying statement that single-agent chemotherapy is preferred over multi-agent chemotherapy. And the second recommendation was that, in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer with a chemotherapy interval longer than 90 days, the rechallenge with a platinum-based regimen or single-agent chemotherapy was considered standard and the preferred agents for single agent therapy would be topotecan, lurbinectedin, or tarlatamab being added in the recent study. Tarlatamab was approved by the FDA for use in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer with no stipulations with regard to the treatment. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you describing those updated recommendations along with the supporting data for both limited stage small cell lung cancer and relapsed small cell lung cancer. So then, what should clinicians know as they implement these new and updated recommendations into practice? Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: So with regard to the ADRIATIC trial or the consolidation durvalumab being added for limite- stage small cell lung cancer patients, I think the important considerations are that this was done after patients had demonstrated no progression of disease after chemotherapy and radiotherapy, so the initial treatment does not change with platinum-etoposide plus definitive radiotherapy being recommended. The addition of durvalumab is going to be potentially useful in patients generally with good performance status, so performance statuses 0 to 1, and we still have to pay attention to the patients who may have contraindications to immunotherapy, things like interstitial lung disease, autoimmune problems that do occur in patients with small cell lung cancer where they develop paraneoplastic autoimmune syndromes such as Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome. Those patients with those types of preexisting conditions would not be good candidates for immunotherapy use. So still having the tailored treatment to the individual patient is what's most important. The duration of the durvalumab was up to two years and not beyond that, so following those specific guidelines for the use of durvalumab in patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. With regard to tarlatamab, tarlatamab is an immunotherapy treatment. So we still do have the exclusions of people who have had prior severe immune-related adverse events, people who have pneumonitis, people who have interstitial lung disease, people with autoimmune neurologic problems we can see with small cell lung cancer, these patients should not be considered good candidates for the use of tarlatamab. The study did include patients who had had treated and asymptomatic brain metastases and there is some evidence that tarlatamab can have some control of brain metastases. So that's not necessarily an exclusion. Tarlatamab does have some other specific considerations to it in that 51% of patients had some evidence of cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Only 1% of those patients had grade 3 CRS. So even though they had frequent fevers and hypotension and hypoxia, it was generally not severe. But this concern for CRS and also for neurologic complications after treatment does require that patients be admitted to the hospital for a 24-hour observation period during the first and second doses. Subsequent to that, patients can be observed for some time after the infusion in the outpatient setting. But they also need to have very clear and strict guidance for when they go home about what things to look for. Looking for fevers, looking for shortness of breath, looking for any neurologic changes. It's a good idea for them to have a caregiver with them in order to observe them during that time. Most of these complications occur during the first or second cycles, but it is a drug that is going to require significant education not only of our staff, but also of the patients in order to ensure that the drug's used safely. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. For these new options, it's important to tailor cancer treatment to the individual patient and the factors that you mentioned and be mindful of these potential toxicities. So, it's always great to learn of new options for patients. But in your view, how will this update impact patients with small cell lung cancer? Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: Well, clearly we need longer term follow up. So, with regard to the limited-stage small cell lung cancer situation, that's a curative situation. We have been curing patients with limited-stage disease with chemotherapy and radiotherapy for several decades now, but the cure rates were relatively low with about 25%, 30% of people becoming long term survivors. Now the hope is with the durvalumab being added on, that we can increase that number. Thus far, we have three-year survival data with a three-year survival of 57% overall survival and we're hoping that that is maintained over time and that we're not just delaying recurrences, but that we're actually preventing recurrences and helping people live longer, as has been seen with non-small cell lung cancer in stage III disease with the addition of durvalumab to chemoradiotherapy. So hopefully, we will be improving the cure rate of people with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. There are several other trials with immunotherapy in this space coming down the line and we're anxiously awaiting not only long term follow up from ADRIATIC, but also initial data from studies such as KEYLYNK and ACHILLES and NRG-LU005. So all of these studies in the next few years are hopefully going to guide treatment for limited-stage small cell lung cancer and hopefully improve the long term survival outcomes. With regard to tarlatamab, unclear at this point what the long term outcomes are going to be. Is a 40% response rate substantially better than what we've seen before? Well, lurbinectedin also had about a 40% response rate in patients who had sensitive disease, but the duration of response does look longer. And there are some patients now who have been on this study that are doing very well for quite long periods of time with the drug. So, the hope here also is that we will have some small subset of patients who continue to do better for long periods of time. Whether that'll translate into a cure or not, way too early to know, clearly hoping to add another brick in the wall so that we can keep the disease at bay, at least for a longer period of time for these patients. How we will integrate tarlatamab into the regimens is a bit unclear. Whether most of us will start using it as second-line therapy or whether we will use perhaps lurbinectedin or topotecan as second-line and tarlatamab as third-line, we're all going to have to work that out based on the potential toxicities, the logistical complications of using the drug at this point in time. But I do think that it's nice to have more options to add to our armamentarium to treat this very, very challenging and difficult disease. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. So, you've just discussed the need for both longer term follow up here along with some important ongoing trials in this space. So we'll look forward to future readouts of those trials to learn more about caring for patients in small cell lung cancer. So, I want to thank you so much for your work to rapidly update this guideline and thank you for your time today, Dr. Kalemkerian. Dr. Greg Kalemkerian: Okay. Again, thank you for the invitation, Brittany, and thanks to ASCO for developing the whole guideline structure to help all of us take better care of our patients. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And also thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full update, go to www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.  You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines App available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Dr. Trisha Larkin is the Director of Pediatric Neuro-Oncology at St. Joseph's Children's Hospital. She is dual-board certified in pediatrics and pediatric hematology-oncology. Dr. Larkin earned her medical degree from Florida International University College of Medicine, followed by a Master of Business Administration in healthcare. She completed her postdoctoral training at Nicklaus Children's Hospital and at the University of Florida Shands Children's Hospital, where she completed a fellowship in pediatric hematology-oncology and bone marrow transplantation. She went on to complete a prestigious advanced fellowship in neuro-oncology at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Tennessee. While at St. Jude, she worked on a team of world-renowned physicians to care for children diagnosed with complex brain and spinal tumors. Dr. Larkin is passionate about discovering innovative strategies to improve the care of children with brain tumors and serves as a lead investigator for the Sunshine Project consortium through the National Pediatric Cancer Foundation.  She has been awarded numerous grants for her research in early-phase clinical trials and has authored several peer-reviewed publications in leading oncology journals such as the Journal of Clinical Oncology and Neuro-Oncology. Dr. Larkin has been invited to present her research around the world, including in Germany and Japan.  She serves as associate editor for Neuro-Oncology on the MedNet, an interactive platform for physicians around the world to gather insight about treating complex oncologic diagnoses.  Dr. Larkin is deeply involved in the pediatric cancer community and enjoys volunteering her time to support childhood cancer.for more information on how to be involved go to noraswarriors.com or nationalpcf.org

Love the episode? Send us a text!Dr. Abram reshapes the common perception of palliative care, emphasizing that it should not be viewed solely as end-of-life support, but rather as an essential form of supportive care that can significantly improve patient outcomes and quality of life when integrated early. With over 20 years of experience at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Dr. Abram is a leading expert in the palliative care needs of cancer patients and the author of the Comprehensive Guide to Supportive and Palliative Care for Patients with Cancer. She has been recognized with the prestigious Walther Cancer Foundation Supportive Oncology Award from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Tune in to hear valuable insights from Dr. Abram about the importance of palliative care in the journey of cancer patients and their families.Support the show

HealthLeaders CMO Editor Christopher Cheney discusses key issues related to cell and gene therapy with Carina Dolan, Associate Vice President of Clinical Oncology, Pharmacoeconomics and Market Insights at Vizient.

In this episode, Dr Camidge sits down with Duncan McLaren, MBBS, BSc, FRCR, FRCP, a consultant clinical oncologist at Spire Edinburgh Hospitals Murrayfield and Shawfair Park, as well as a professor at the Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre at The University of Edinburgh in Scotland. Drs Camidge and McLaren discuss Dr McLaren's unconventional journey to medical school, his experience as a clinical oncologist with expertise across oncology disciplines, and how his clinical research focus works to change the course of radiation therapy for genitourinary cancers.

Dr. Lyudmila Bazheova share the latest updates to the ASCO living guideline on therapy for stage IV non-small cell lung cancer with driver alterations. She discusses changes for patients with EGFR driver alterations in both the first- and second-line setting, and reviews the evidence supporting these updated recommendations, from trials such as MARIPOSA, MARIPOSA-2, CheckMate 722, and KEYNOTE-789. Stay tuned for future updates to this continuously updated guideline. Read the full update, “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2024.2.” at www.asco.org/living-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/living-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-24-02133   Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts.   My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova from University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center, lead author on “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2024.2.” Thank you for being here, Dr. Bazhenova. Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: It is my pleasure. Brittany Harvey: Then, before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Bazhenova, who has joined us on this episode today, are available online with the publication of the guideline update in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then, to kick us off on the content here, Dr. Bazhenova, this living clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer with driver alterations is being updated routinely as a living guideline. So what prompted the update to the recommendations in this latest version? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: Living ASCO Guidelines are developed to keep up with rapidly changing evidence which affect treatment of our patients with lung cancer. In this recently published guideline, we reviewed new evidence for patients with metastatic lung cancer harboring driver alterations. We reviewed evidence from four published studies, MARIPOSA, MARIPOSA-2, CheckMate 722 and KEYNOTE-789 that resulted in updated guidelines. Brittany Harvey: Great. And then based off those four trials that you just mentioned, what are the updated recommendations for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer and an EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: In the previous guideline, we detailed FLAURA 2 study which was presented and published in the past. In this guideline, we specifically highlighted a phase 3 MARIPOSA trial which took patients with untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer which harbored classical EGFR mutations such as EGFR deletion 19 and L858R. In this study, patients were randomly assigned to receive amivantamab plus lazertinib or osimertinib or lazertinib alone. And the study showed that the primary endpoint which was progression-free survival was longer with amivantamab plus lazertinib compared to osimertinib, and numerically the progression free survival was 23.7 months with ami-lazertinib versus 16.6 months with osimertinib which was statistically significant. The challenge that we have to face when discussing that option with our patients is increased toxicity with amivantamab and lazertinib combination. For example grade 3 treatment adverse events were 75% with amivantamab and lazertinib and 43% with osimertinib. So this will require shared decision making between our patients and ourselves. We also noticed in the guidelines that there was a subgroup analysis of that study showing that the patients with a higher disease burden, central nervous metastasis or brain metastasis as well as disease which considered to be a higher risk such as commutation, for example, p53 and liver metastasis, they might benefit from intensified therapy. However, another thing that we are highlighting in the guideline is that at this point we do not know how the intensification of therapy will change overall survival of our patients. So one needs to take into account increased toxicity with that combination. Brittany Harvey: So then Dr. Bazhenova, in addition to those updates for first line therapy, what are the updated recommendations for second line therapy? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: For patients who have progressive disease on osimertinib or other EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, we also updated our guidelines highlighting MARIPOSA 2 study. In the MARIPOSA 2 study, patients were assigned to chemotherapy versus amivantamab plus lazertinib plus chemotherapy versus amivantamab plus chemotherapy. And both of the amivantamab arms showed superiority in progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone arm and therefore this becomes an additional treatment option for our patients who develop resistance to osimertinib. In addition, we also updated the results which highlight the lack of efficacy of immunotherapy in the patients who progressed on osimertinib. There were two studies that we highlighted. One of them was a CheckMate 722 which randomly assigned patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer whose cancer has progressed on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor to receive either chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus nivolumab which is an immune checkpoint inhibitor. And the second study was KEYNOTE-789 which had a very similar study design. Again, patients who progressed on EGFR TKI also were assigned to receive chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab or chemotherapy alone and in both of those studies there was no improvement in progression-free survival when adding immunotherapy to chemotherapy. So for all your patients who are progressing on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and you're thinking if additional immunotherapy is necessary, we now have two randomized phase 3 studies telling us that immunotherapy should not be used in addition to chemotherapy for patients who develop progression on osimertinib. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you talking about the evidence that supports these latest recommendations from the expert panel. So then you've already touched on this a little bit in mentioning shared decision making and discussing toxicity with these new therapies, but what should clinicians know as they implement these new recommendations and how do these new recommendations fit into the previous recommendations made by the panel? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: Our previous recommendations did not include a MARIPOSA trial, so did not include amivantamab and lazertinib. So in our current guidelines for patients with newly diagnosed treatment-naive EGFR classical mutations, we have three options. Number one is osimertinib, number two is osimertinib plus chemotherapy based on the FLAURA study that we highlighted in the prior version of the guidelines. And the third is amivantamab plus lazertinib. At this point, we do not have any randomized head-to-head studies of those combinations with an exception of FLAURA 2 which is osimertinib plus chemo versus osimertinib. And so the decisions will have to be made on a cross-trial comparison, taking into account patient wishes if they would like to receive chemotherapy or amivantamab plus lazertinib, understanding that this combination will result in increased toxicity. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I appreciate you detailing those considerations. So then finally, what do these new options mean for patients with non-small cell lung cancer and an EGFR alteration? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: As a patient, it is important to also be aware of what options we have and have a direct dialogue with the physician, with the treating physician, trying to understand what option will fit with each individual patient's goals, life goals, as well as toxicity concerns. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. It's always great to have more options for patients and it's also important to discuss all of those options with their clinician as well. So I want to thank you so much for your work on this update and thank you for your time today, Dr. Bazhenova. Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: My pleasure. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/living-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app which is available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.      

Kathryn H Schmitz, Ph.D., M.P.H., FACSM, FSBM, FTOS, FNAK, FSEM, is aProfessor in the division of Hematology and Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. She serves as the Associate Director of Population Science, Co-leader of the Biobehavioral Cancer Control program, Co-leader of the UPMC Hillman Survivorship program and Director of the Moving Through Cancer Exercise Oncology Program for the UPMC Hillman Cancer Center.  Dr. Schmitz's research focuses on people living with and beyond cancer andinvestigates the role of exercise in improving physiologic and psychosocial outcomes, including symptoms, treatment tolerance, and other chronic diseases. In addition, Dr. Schmitz studies technology based supportive care interventions (that include physical activity) to improve outcomes among advanced cancer patients. She has held NCI funding consistently since 2001. She has published over 350 scientific peer reviewed papers, some in prestigious journals such as JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, and Journal of Clinical Oncology. Her well regarded research on resistance exercise and breast cancer related lymphedema has been translated into a physical therapy delivered program called ‘Strength After Breast Cancer' that is available in over 1000 locations across the United States and beyond. Dr. Schmitz was the moving force behind two American College of Sports Medicine development processes for exercise and cancer guidelines for patients in 2010 and 2018. She founded the Moving Through Cancer initiative of the American College ofSports Medicine, which has a bold goal of making exercise standard of care in oncology by 2029. She has written a popular press book to raise awareness about exercise for cancer patients and survivors entitled ‘Moving Through Cancer' that was released by Chronicle Books in October 2021. She is the winner of numerous awards, most notably the Distinguished Scientist Award from the Society of Behavioral Medicine, the Citation Award from the American College of Sports Medicine, and the Clinical Research Professorship from the American Cancer Society. In fall 2023, she was inducted as an Honorary Fellow at the Royal College of Surgeons in Edinburgh, Scotland. She is the past president of the American College of Sports Medicine.Support the show

In this episode, Amy sits down with Ted Talk speaker, blogger, and activist, Dave deBronkhart. They delve into Dave's extraordinary journey of surviving stage 4 cancer and how his proactive approach in healthcare led to his survival and empowerment advocacy. Amy, who lives with cystic fibrosis, shares how Dave's work inspired her to take agency over her health. Together, they discuss the importance of patient empowerment, collaboration between patients and healthcare providers, and defining personal abundance beyond material success.  Tune in to learn how Dave is actively changing the culture of healthcare, creating an inspiring  patient-doctor partnership. More about Dave: Dave deBronkart, known on the internet as e-Patient Dave, is the author of the highly rated Let Patients Help: A Patient Engagement Handbook and one of the world's leading advocates for patient engagement. After beating stage IV kidney cancer in 2007 he became a blogger, health policy advisor and international keynote speaker. An accomplished speaker in his professional life before cancer, he is today the best-known spokesman for the patient engagement movement, attending over 650 conferences and policy meetings in 26 countries, including testifying in Washington for patient access to the medical record under Meaningful Use. A co-founder and chair emeritus of the Society for Participatory Medicine, e-Patient Dave has appeared in Time, U.S. News, USA Today, Wired, MIT Technology Review, and the HealthLeaders cover story “Patient of the Future.” His writings have been published in the British Medical Journal, the Patient Experience Journal,  iHealthBeat, and the conference journal of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. In 2009 HealthLeaders named him and his doctor to their annual list of “20 People Who Make Healthcare Better,” and he's appeared on the cover of Healthcare IT News and the Australian GP magazine Good Practice. Dave's TED Talk Let Patients Help went viral, and for years was in the top half of the most viewed TED Talks of all time with over a half million views; volunteers have added subtitles in 26 languages, indicating the global appeal of his message. In 2012 the National Library of Medicine announced that it's capturing his blog in its History of Medicine Division, and he was the Mayo Clinic's 2015 Visiting Professor in Internal Medicine. Connect with Dave: https://www.epatientdave.com/ https://www.ted.com/talks/dave_debronkart_meet_e_patient_dave Connect with Amy Sylvis: ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/amysylvis Contact Us: https://www.sylviscapital.com https://www.sylviscapital.com/webinar

Today on Integrative Cancer Solution Dr. Karlfeldt is joined by Dr. Andre Williams as he shares his journey from when he started in medical oncology and hematology, fields he seemed destined to succeed given his academic achievements and early recognition, including an award from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. However, despite the accolades and opportunities, he grew increasingly disillusioned with the impact he was making, particularly in his home country of Jamaica. Many patients could not afford or trust the chemotherapy treatments they prescribed, leaving Dr. Williams feeling like he was offering a solution that was both financially and emotionally taxing for patients, with questionable outcomes. This realization made him question the conventional path he was on, sparking an internal conflict about whether they were truly helping people in the best way.The doctor faced a challenging decision early in their career, choosing to stop administering chemotherapy directly in order to focus on supporting patients who had either refused chemotherapy or were not eligible for it. To maintain transparency, they sent letters to their oncology colleagues asking to only refer patients in such situations, though the response was limited. This decision led to difficult conversations with patients who presented with conditions that urgently required chemotherapy or surgery, despite their reluctance, as the doctor felt a responsibility to direct them toward the best possible treatment options.Dr. Williams also shared a poignant experience about a patient with a large breast tumor who initially resisted chemotherapy due to personal turmoil. After advising the patient to leave her abusive relationship, she returned a changed person, ready to undergo treatment, which underscored the importance of addressing underlying life stressors for effective healing. The story highlighted his belief that true healing requires a holistic approach, one that not only treats the body but also brings the patient's life into balance to support recovery.The shift in treatment strategy involved halting the automatic administration of chemotherapy, allowing for more personalized patient care where only those who either opted out or were ineligible for the treatment would be considered. Despite facing opposition, the focus remained on providing tailored recommendations that balanced patient preferences with medical responsibility, ensuring the best course of action for each individual.The transition from a traditional oncology career to alternative therapies was driven by the desire to make a more meaningful impact on patients' lives, particularly in underserved communities.After discovering the Gerson Therapy, shifted focus to holistic cancer treatments, emphasizing the importance of nutrition, detoxification, and emotional well-being in patient care.The decision to stop administering chemotherapy allowed for a more transparent and personalized approach to patient care, ensuring that only those who opted out or were ineligible for chemotherapy would be treated.Despite opposition from both sides, the focus remained on recommending the best course of action for each patient, balancing individual preferences with medical integrity and responsibility.Check out Teshuva Wellness https://www.teshuvawellnessja.com/----Grab my book A Better Way to Treat Cancer: A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding, Preventing and Most Effectively Treating Our Biggest Health Threat - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CM1KKD9X?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860 ----Integrative Cancer Solutions was created to instill hope and empowerment. Other people have been where you are right now and have already done the research for you. Listen to their stories and journeys and apply what they learned to achieve similar outcomes as they have, cancer remission and an even more fullness of life than before the diagnosis. Guests will discuss what therapies, supplements, and practitioners they relied on to beat cancer. Once diagnosed, time is of the essence. This podcast will dramatically reduce your learning curve as you search for your own solution to cancer. To learn more about the cutting-edge integrative cancer therapies Dr. Karlfeldt offer at his center, please visit www.TheKarlfeldtCenter.com

On today's episode, we are thrilled to discuss an important and often misunderstood area of oncology: Biosimilars and their increasing use in cancer care.You might be curious, what exactly are biosimilars? How are they developed and approved? And most importantly, how are they transforming the lives of patients diagnosed with cancer? We will break down these questions and more with an overview from Dr. Julie Gralow, a breast medical oncologist and chief medical officer at the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

For a profession like medicine in which suffering — be it physical, psychological, existential, or spiritual — is so commonly encountered and experienced, we have developed remarkably little shared vocabulary about what suffering means. That is, if we even have the conversations at all.In early June 2024, during the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual conference in Chicago, we hosted a live podcast event at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, gathering Sunita Puri, MD and Jay Wellons, MD, MSPH to explore the great problem of suffering. Dr. Puri, a palliative care physician and author of the best selling book That Good Night: Life and Medicine in the 11th Hour (2019), last joined us on Episode 74: The Beauty of Impermanence. Dr. Wellons, a pediatric neurosurgeon at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and author of the memoir All That Moves Us: A pediatric neurosurgeon, His Young Patients and Their Stories of Grace and Resilience (2022), last joined us on Episode 28: The Brain and All That Moves Us. The four of us, the guests and co-hosts, start by sharing our personal encounters with suffering, both in our patients and in ourselves, before discussing our philosophical approaches to and practical strategies for accompanying patients through suffering, managing spiritual distress, contextualizing our own humanity in these encounters, maintaining our own well-being, and searching for meaning amid these tragic moments, if it is possible. After our main discussion, we also answer audience questions about managing the sometimes unrealistic and complicated expectations patients have of clinicians, and the role of interfaith discussions among healthcare professionals.We thank Kelly Michelson, MD, MPH and the Center for Bioethics and Medical Humanities at Northwestern University for making this event possible.In this episode, you'll hear about: 3:58 - Stories of confronting suffering, both in professional and personal contexts29:02 - Practical tips for coping with suffering and uncertainty as a physician31:53 - The importance of psychological safety in feeling and expressing your emotions as a physician 36:52 - Being present in the moment while accompanying patients through difficult times40:00 - Helping doctors re-connect with the deeper reason of why they feel called to medicine 42:24 - The inexplicable relationship between love and loss 52:04 - The deep sense of meaning inherent in the work of a physician and what makes it “real” 54:41 - Q&A: How physicians can better navigate the challenging expectations patients have as well as medical skepticism1:04:05 - Q&A: How we can better incorporate interfaith dialogue into medical training and practiceDr. Jay Wellons is the author of All That Moves Us (2022) and can be found on Twitter/X at @JayWellons5.Dr. Sunita Puri is the author of That Good Night (2019) and can be found on Twitter/X at @SunitaPuriMD.