Podcasts about clinical oncology

Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev and Dr. Manish Shah join the podcast to discuss the updated guideline on immunotherapy and targeted therapy in unresectable locally advanced, advanced, or metastatic gastroesophageal cancer. They share first-line and subsequent-line recommendations for both gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma based on actionable biomarkers including PD-L1 expression, MMR and/or MSI, CLDN18.2 expression, and HER2 status. They note the importance of the algorithms and tables in the guidelines that provide visual illustrations and quick reference guides of the evidence-based recommendations. They also comment on ongoing and recently presented trials that may impact future guidelines in this space. Read the full guideline, "Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update" at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines" TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools and resources are available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology,  https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-25-02958      Timestamps ·       00:00 – 02:15 Introduction and Overview ·       02:16 - 08:20 First-line treatment for patients with pMMR/MSS, HER2-negative gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma ·       08:21 –10:29 First-line treatment for patients with pMMR/MSS, HER2-positive gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma ·       10:30 – 14:39 First-line treatment for patients with dMMR/MSI-H, gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma ·       14:40 – 18:03 First-line treatment for ESCC ·       18:04 – 22:04 Second- and third-line therapy for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma and ESCC ·       22:05 – 24:38 Importance of guideline ·       24:39 – 27:45 Outstanding questions and future research   Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts.   My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I am interviewing Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Dr. Manish Shah from Weill Cornell Medicine, co-chairs on "Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Rajdev and Dr. Shah. Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev: Thank you. Dr. Manish Shah: Thank you for having us. It is wonderful. Brittany Harvey: And then just before we discuss this guideline, I would like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Rajdev and Dr. Shah, who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then to dive into what we are here today to talk about, Dr. Shah, I would like to start first with what prompted the update to this guideline, which was previously published in 2023, and what is the scope of this updated guideline? Dr. Manish Shah: Yes, terrific. So even in the last few years, the pace of drug development in gastroesophageal cancers has just been astounding. So, what prompted this guideline is actually the practice-changing results for a new biomarker, CLDN18.2 hat was based on the GLOW and SPOTLIGHT studies, as well as a practice-changing study in HER2-positive disease where we added pembrolizumab to trastuzumab and chemotherapy for tumors that are HER2-positive and PD-L1 CPS 1 or greater. And then there were also new studies and new approvals in esophageal squamous cell cancer that you will hear about as well. So there were several studies, overall more than 5,000 patients were reported on, and that led to several new therapies, new indications, and it really necessitated this guideline. Brittany Harvey: Excellent. It is great to hear about all of these exciting updates in this space. So then to next review the key recommendations of this guideline by clinical question that the expert panel addressed. So, Dr. Rajdev, what is the recommended first-line treatment for patients with proficient mismatch repair, microsatellite stable, HER2-negative gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma? Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev: Thank you for that question. So historically, we have sort of used fluoropyrimidine and platinum doublets, which yielded a survival of about one year. More recently, immunotherapy and targeted therapy options have improved outcomes in patients with advanced esophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma, as well as squamous cell carcinoma. Patients with gastric and GE junction adenocarcinoma have a high rate of actionable alterations, so it is imperative that physicians test the following biomarkers upfront so that it can help guide therapy. The markers recommended by the ASCO panel are HER2, MMR or MSI, CLDN18.2, and PD-L1. And also, it was recommended to use NGS if feasible in this patient population. HER2, as we know, is expressed in about 15% to 25% of patients; PD-L1 expression occurs in about 80% of patients; MSI-high, deficient MMR is present in about 5% to 8% of patients; and CLDN18.2 expression is present in about 40% of patients. There is, of course, biomarker overlap. About 13% to 22% of CLDN18.2 patients are also PD-L1 positive. For patients with pMMR or microsatellite stable HER2-negative disease with PD-L1 expression greater than 1 and absence of CLDN18.2, the panel recommended a first-line therapy with fluoropyrimidine and platinum-based therapy in combination with immunotherapy. These recommendations stem from large phase 3 trials, and the agents approved in the United States are pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and tislelizumab. It has been shown that immunotherapy benefit is greater in patients with higher PD-L1 expression, and it is not possible to comment on the individual PD-L1 cutoff scores and sort of identify the optimal PD-L1 cutoff score that sort of balances benefits and harms. But what is recommended is that immunotherapy-based treatments can be offered in patients with a CPS score of greater than 1. With regard to the choice of immunotherapy agents, that is pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or tislelizumab, these agents are considered to have similar efficacy, and the selection of an agent could be based on dosing schedule, cost considerations, toxicity, and the method of administration. Typically, clinicians should avoid withholding the start of chemotherapy while awaiting biomarker testing, depending on the clinical scenario. Now, for patients with pMMR microsatellite stable disease that is HER2-negative with PD-L1 expression less than 1 and positive CLDN18.2 expression, zolbetuximab-based treatments or in combination with chemotherapy is recommended, and this is based on two global phase III randomized controlled trials, the GLOW and the SPOTLIGHT. And across both studies, the hazard ratio for the overall survival was 0.78, and similarly, there was also an improvement in progression-free survival favoring the zolbetuximab group compared to the chemotherapy group alone. An important note is that nausea, vomiting is commonly associated with zolbetuximab-based treatments, and the panel recommended prophylactic antiemetics, adjusting zolbetuximab infusion rates, pausing infusion temporarily, using non-prophylactic antiemetics, and hydration intravenously prior to discontinuation of zolbetuximab-based chemotherapy. So effective handling of the GI-related symptoms with zolbetuximab is recommended prior to discontinuation of therapy. Now, for patients with pMMR microsatellite stable HER2-negative gastric, GE junction adenocarcinoma with PD-L1 expression greater than 1 and CLDN18.2 positivity, the ones with the dual expression with CLDN18.2 as well as PD-L1 chemotherapy, the choice of therapy can be based on the degree of PD-L1 expression, the toxicity profile, the burden of symptoms, and the anticipated improvement in symptoms associated with response to treatment, the patient comorbidities, the prior medical and treatment history. So this decision needs to be made on a case-by-case basis, and these are some of the factors that we suggested that could potentially influence the choice of therapy. For patients with pMMR microsatellite stable disease that is HER2-negative and a PD-L1 expression less than 1 and an absence of CLDN18.2 expression, first-line therapy with fluoropyrimidine and platinum-based chemotherapy is recommended. So you can see we have segmented out patients based on PD-L1 expression, pMMR and microsatellite stable disease expression, and also based on CLDN expression. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And that first point you noted, I think is really important, that biomarker testing is really critical for treatment decision-making in this space. So then the next subgroup of patients that the panel looked at, Dr. Shah, what first-line therapy is recommended for patients with proficient mismatch repair, microsatellite stable, HER2-positive gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma? Dr. Manish Shah: So this was an update from a few years ago. So we have known for 15 years now that if you are HER2-positive, you should get trastuzumab plus chemotherapy. That was based on the ToGA trial. And the update now is based on a trial called KEYNOTE-811, where it examined the addition of pembrolizumab to trastuzumab and chemotherapy versus trastuzumab and chemotherapy, and there was a progression-free and overall survival benefit. And again, here, the biomarkers are important. If your CPS PD-L1 is less than 1, we would not recommend Pembrolizumab in that setting, so you would still get trastuzumab and chemotherapy. But if it is 1 or greater, the PD-L1 CPS score, then we do recommend pembrolizumab unless there is a contraindication to immunotherapy. The take-home message really is from the onset of diagnosis, please check your biomarkers. And I will just, it is worth repeating, it is important to check your PD-L1 status, HER2 status, mismatch repair status, and CLDN18.2 status. And then the optimal therapy, and it is outlined in the publication, is really biomarker-driven. We know that if we are able to hit the target that is overexpressed, we are going to have a better outcome. And Dr. Rajdev did mention where there is overlap, there can be a lack of data, and that is where we are with both PD-L1 positive and CLDN positive. Here we do have data in HER2-positive cases where if you are both HER2-positive and PD-L1 positive, you would combine trastuzumab and pembrolizumab for the best outcomes. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I really appreciate you detailing what is most important for each individual biomarker combination that patients may have. So then following that, Dr. Rajdev, what does the expert panel recommend for first-line treatment for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma that is not amenable to definitive chemoradiation? Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev: There are three phase III randomized clinical trials that have influenced practice in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma examining the benefit of immunotherapy in this patient population. The RATIONALE-306 was a randomized trial of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy with platinum and fluoropyrimidine or paclitaxel versus placebo with chemotherapy. And then you have the KEYNOTE-590, which compared pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. And then you have CheckMate-648, which included comparisons of nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus nivolumab plus ipilimumab or chemotherapy. And the primary endpoints for these studies were overall survival, and they did look at subgroups with PD-L1 expression. They used TPS score greater than 1% in CheckMate-648 and PD-L1 CPS greater than 10 in KEYNOTE-590. The bottom line is that the overall hazard ratio for overall survival across this patient population was 0.72. So clearly, there is benefit in patients that express PD-L1 CPS greater than 1 for benefit for the addition of immunotherapy. Now, the benefit again in patients with a PD-L1 expression less than 1 remains limited, and so the panel has made a recommendation for using immunotherapy in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with a PD-L1 greater than 1. Again, we know that it is hard to make recommendations on what PD-L1 cutoffs are recommended in this patient population, meaning that should it be limited to patients with a PD-L1 of 1 to 4 or greater than 10? I think that the general consensus that has been gleaned from the data is that the higher the PD-L1 expression, the greater the benefit. I do want to comment on another option that is available in patients with squamous cell carcinoma compared to adenocarcinoma, and that is the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab. Now, in CheckMate-648, nivolumab with ipilimumab was also recommended as a treatment option in patients that have a PD-L1 score of greater than 1. There was a survival benefit demonstrated with this combination compared to chemotherapy alone. And an important observation in this study is that, although there was a slightly increased rate in early death, but there was really no significant difference in PFS and OS compared to chemotherapy alone. Importantly, the treatment appeared to be pretty well tolerated by the study population. There was a notable difference in the objective response rate, which was 35% in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group compared to patients receiving nivolumab and chemotherapy, where it was 53%. So superiority is, so the importance of chemotherapy in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is to be noted. However, there is no difference in overall survival and progression-free survival when using the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab, and thus it affords a chemotherapy-free option for this patient population with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and a CPS with a score of greater than 1. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you reviewing the evidence underpinning those recommendations as well. So then the next patient population that the guideline panel addressed, what first-line therapy is recommended for patients with deficient mismatch repair, microsatellite instability-high, gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma or esophageal squamous cell carcinoma? Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev: The rate of MSI-high expression is about 3% to 7% across different studies. Now, the KEYNOTE-158 was a tumor-agnostic study in patients with non-colorectal cancers, and again, the problem with the MSI-high population, given that it is so rare, the numbers in the individual studies are fairly small. But consistent outcomes do emerge, indicating high response to immunotherapy. So in KEYNOTE-158, a response rate of about 46% was noted. The number of patients was small, it was about 24. In CheckMate-649, which is a study of chemotherapy plus or minus nivolumab in patients with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma, there was again a very small number of patients, and patients that were MSI-high or deficient MMR did experience substantial benefits with the addition of immunotherapy, with hazard ratios in the order of about 0.38. In KEYNOTE-062, again, it was a very small number of patients, again about 6% or so, and similar to CheckMate-649, a substantial benefit was noted in combination with chemotherapy, but also there were benefits noted with pembrolizumab alone. The RATIONALE-305 again was a study of tislelizumab in combination with chemotherapy and similarly showed benefits to the combination of chemotherapy plus immunotherapy in this patient population. I think that we are all aware of the dramatic benefits of immunotherapy in this particular subset of patients, deficient MMR MSI-high, and also we have seen in CheckMate-649 they did have a subset of patients that received nivolumab and ipilimumab. And in this patient population, they noted unstratified hazard ratio of 0.28. So I think that the overall consensus is that immunotherapy is a very important treatment modality in patients with deficient MMR MSI-high disease, given that a lot of the trials in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma have utilized chemotherapy-based options, that is certainly a recommendation of the panel to use chemotherapy in combination with immunotherapy. However, on a case-by-case basis, the panel recommended immunotherapy alone as well, and given the high response rates noted in trials across different diseases as well as noted in this disease as well. Brittany Harvey: Certainly. And I appreciate you both for reviewing these first-line recommendations. So moving to later lines of therapy, Dr. Rajdev, what recommendations did the expert panel make for second or third-line therapy for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma? Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev: So, I think that the RAINBOW trial that investigated the utility of the addition of ramucirumab as second-line therapy has been around since 2014, and those results have led to the addition of ramucirumab to taxane-based therapy in the second-line setting. Based on the utilization of oxaliplatin and platinum-based therapy in the front-line setting, there may be patients that have an underlying neuropathy, and so we wanted to really include treatment options for this patient population so that an agent that is less neurotoxic could also be recommended in combination with ramucirumab. The RAMIRIS trial is one such trial where ramucirumab was combined with FOLFIRI, and it demonstrated benefit in combination with ramucirumab. So we have listed that as a potential treatment option for patients in the second-line setting who may have an underlying neuropathy or even for whatever reason that based on the toxicity profile, that needs to be the preferred option by a physician, that recommendation is new from the older guidelines that we have. With regard to the utility of PD-1 inhibitors, there really has been no benefit noted in the second-line setting with regard to overall survival or progression-free survival, so no recommendation is made for that option. I think an important study that has been recently presented is the DESTINY-Gastric04 trial, which really has been practice-changing and has led to the recommendation for trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients that have HER2-positive metastatic gastric or GE junction adenocarcinoma. Now, this is a phase III trial in patients who retained HER2-positive disease after progressing on front-line trastuzumab-based treatments, and the comparator for this trial was trastuzumab deruxtecan versus ramucirumab plus paclitaxel. There was significant improvement and progression-free survival in patients that received trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patients that were excluded from the trial are patients that have pulmonary problems, interstitial lung disease; that is one of the toxicities of this particular agent, and close monitoring and prompt initiation of therapy such as glucocorticoid treatment in patients who develop this toxicity was also highlighted by the panel. So to summarize, the new guidelines highlight the possibility of FOLFIRI plus ramucirumab as a second-line option and then trastuzumab deruxtecan as a later-line option in patients that still retain HER2 expression. And that is very important because the trial did retest patients whether they expressed HER2. As we know, in a substantial number of patients, there is downregulation of HER2, and there is emerging data that the benefit for subsequent HER2-directed therapies is best noted in patients that still retain HER2 expression. Brittany Harvey: Great. So as our listeners have heard, there are many recommendations and new treatment options for advanced gastroesophageal cancer. Dr. Shah, earlier you highlighted the importance of biomarker testing, but I would like to hear in your view, what is the importance of this guideline and how will it impact both clinicians and patients with gastroesophageal carcinoma? Dr. Manish Shah: So as we have discussed throughout this podcast, the treatment for gastroesophageal cancer, both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer, is increasingly complex, increasingly biomarker-driven. And I think the value of the guideline is to place all of that into context. So it provides the data for why certain biomarkers are important, what therapies should be indicated. Not only that, but if you are able to review the guideline, it provides the details of each of these studies and summarizes them in a meta-analysis fashion to sort of give you the context, because sometimes the individual studies can be maybe a little bit discordant or confusing and the guideline attempts to harmonize all that. And then also, I think the tables are very, very interesting because they give you actual numbers in terms of how many patients over a thousand would this benefit or how many patients over a thousand would this cause harm in terms of nausea, vomiting, or other things like that. So it gives you context for helping clinicians and patients weigh the potential benefits of the novel treatment strategies against the potential adverse events. And then finally, the guideline does also provide an algorithm that you are able to follow based on the biomarkers, and those are in figures 4 and 5. So I think overall, it is a very comprehensive guideline. It intends to make more manageable a very complex subject, and you know, I really encourage our listeners to review it after listening to the podcast. Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev: If I can add to that, I think that what is also really good about the guidelines is there are quick summaries. So if someone is busy in the clinic, of course, there is the opportunity to review the data supporting the guidelines in great depth in the manuscript, but what is also really good is that there are good summaries. In the event that you are very busy, you can easily identify what the recommendations should be for that particular patient based on these summaries. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Listeners are encouraged to review the full guideline, including those tables and figures that may be more helpful when they are looking for something quick to look at in the clinic as well. So, as you both mentioned, there have been a number of recent practice-changing trials in this area. So I imagine there is still a lot of ongoing research as well. So Dr. Shah, what are the outstanding questions regarding treatment options for patients with locally advanced unresectable, advanced, or metastatic gastroesophageal carcinoma? Dr. Manish Shah: I think we touched upon it a little bit. The guidelines are based on the data available, and they are primarily examining one novel therapy with chemotherapy in a specific biomarker population. But as you know, the biomarkers are not either/or; you are not either CLDN18.2 positive or PD-L1 positive. A portion of patients could have dual biomarkers, and you know, I think that we are generating data on how to manage those patients. At the recent GI Symposium in January this year, the ILUSTRO trial was presented by Dr. Shitara, which looked at combining zolbetuximab and chemotherapy with immunotherapy for dual-positive biomarkers, and that is leading to a phase III study that has begun to enroll. So unanswered questions are: how do we manage dual-positive biomarkers? The other thing that was mentioned is that the current data for mismatch repair deficiency involve chemotherapy plus immunotherapy. Only squamous cell cancer is there a study with a positive non-chemotherapy kind of backbone, that is CheckMate-648 that Dr. Rajdev mentioned. As we move forward, it will be good to get data on non-chemotherapy options in certain biomarker-positive populations. And then finally, another update, which is likely to be practice-changing, is the HERIZON-GEA-01 study that looked at zanidatamab, which is another biparatopic antibody that targets HER2, and that is likely to change practice. And as that data gets published, we may look to even do a rapid update for the current immunotherapy and targeted therapy guideline that is just being published. Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev: So, if I can add to that, there are numerous ADCs that look very interesting. There are bispecific antibodies; in fact, the zanidatamab is a bispecific antibody showing improved activity in patients with HER2-positive disease. So I think there are studies from Asia looking at CLDN CAR T-based therapies. So, I think that there are a lot of novel agents and a lot of excitement in the field. We know that the bemarituzumab study, unfortunately, the FGFR2 inhibitor failed to demonstrate any benefit, but I think that there are other agents that are being explored, so there are newer targets, newer agents, ADCs, bispecifics that could potentially change the field in the future. Brittany Harvey: Yes, we will look forward to the data to address these unanswered questions and new agents and inform future guideline updates. So, I would like to thank you both for all of your work to review the evidence here and update this important guideline, and for your time today, Dr. Rajdev and Dr. Shah. Dr. Lakshmi Rajdev: Thank you. Dr. Manish Shah: Thank you. Brittany Harvey: And finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you have heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Dr. Bishal Gyawali and Dr. Tessa Cigler share the new, comprehensive, evidence-based update of the ASCO guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors in patients with cancer. They discuss recommendations on primary prophylaxis, secondary prophylaxis, and treatment of febrile neutropenia along with stem cell mobilization, efficacy, safety, duration, dosing, and administration of CSFs – including biosimilars. They highlight where it is appropriate to use a CSF, and importantly, when not to use a CSF. They touch on the significance of individual patient considerations and cost implications, and future work to refine the risk factors for the development of complications of febrile neutropenia. Read the full guideline, "White Blood Cell Growth Factors: ASCO Guideline Update" at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools and resources are available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology,  https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-25-02938     Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Bishal Gyawali from Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and Dr. Tessa Cigler from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, New York, co-chairs on "White Blood Cell Growth Factors: ASCO Guideline Update." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Gyawali and Dr. Cigler. Dr. Bishal Gyawali: Thank you very much for having me. It's a pleasure. Dr. Tessa Cigler: Hi there. Nice to be here as well. Brittany Harvey: Great. And then before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Cigler and Dr. Gyawali, who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then I'd like to dive into the guideline that we're here today to talk about. So first, what prompted an update to this guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors in patients with cancer, and what is the scope of this updated guideline? Dr. Bishal Gyawali: The last version of the guidelines from ASCO on this topic was back in 2015, so it has been more than a decade since ASCO had a guideline on the use of G-CSF in patients with cancer receiving treatment. So it was due for an update because there has been a lot more evidence based on not necessarily new drugs, but evidence for proper timing of these agents and the duration of these agents, as well as there have been a lot of new biosimilars, and there are questions about are these biosimilars equivalent or how do we choose among these different options. One is that content of the evidence that has evolved over time in the last decade, but also I think the last time we had these guidelines, the ASCO guidelines were not incorporated to have those evidence GRADE tables. So the quality of the ASCO guidelines itself has evolved over the years, so we wanted to have a new version of the guideline that includes not only the new evidence, but also contains those evidence GRADE tables that will help to quantify the benefits. And so I think it was high time, and even more than that, the newer ASCO guidelines for any guideline, they also include considerations of cost, access, equity, and all these factors that were not included in the previous version of the guideline. So I think it's only natural that with time the guideline should also evolve. Dr. Tessa Cigler: I agree completely, and just as a framework, as we all know, neutropenia and its complications, including febrile neutropenia and infections, are still an important toxicity of many myelosuppressive chemotherapies. And these neutropenic complications do require prompt evaluation and treatment and often hospitalization, and we know that hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors, which I'm going to refer to as growth factors, can reduce the duration and severity of neutropenia and the risk of febrile neutropenia, so it remains an important topic in the practice of clinical oncology. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's an important topic for both clinicians and for patients who are receiving treatment for their cancer. And as you said, there was a substantial amount of literature to review here and updating everything to be in line with the GRADE evidence rating system, so there was a lot of work that you both put into this. So then next, I'd like to review the key recommendations of this guideline by clinical question. So first, what factors did the expert panel identify that should influence the decision to administer primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with a CSF? Dr. Bishal Gyawali: Yeah, so I think that constitutes one of the most important recommendations in our guidelines about primary prophylaxis with G-CSF. And this is important because not only it's about when to use it, it's also about when not to use it, as in the ASCO "Choosing Wisely" campaign has also made some recommendations about this. So our guideline recommendations are also aligned with that. So first of all, we recommend that primary prophylaxis with G-CSF is recommended when the risk of febrile neutropenia because of the chemotherapy regimen is equal to or more than 20% unless an alternative chemotherapy regimen with comparable efficacy and safety that does not need G-CSF is available. And the quality of evidence to make this recommendation is high, so we give a strong strength of recommendation for this. Having said that, even for patients where the risk of febrile neutropenia is not necessarily 20%, it's a little lower, but because of other patient-related factors, the patient is at a higher risk of complications from febrile neutropenia, such as age, comorbidities, and other factors, in such case primary prophylaxis with G-CSF should be offered. And we also make a recommendation that if G-CSF is not affordable or available, then antibiotic prophylaxis can also be offered, but the evidence quality for this is low, and the strength of recommendation is very conditional. A couple of things to highlight here would be that, I think Dr. Cigler can attest to that, we ran into lots of problems about finding the data for the evidence base to say what are the patient-related factors that actually make them at a higher risk of febrile neutropenia, you know, like how did that 20% benchmark come about? Why 20%? Or when we say even if it's less than 20%, if based on other comorbidities, if the risk is higher, we tried to dig into that evidence. For example, we're talking about our "Box 1" in the guideline, what is the evidence for each item we have included under that "Box 1"? And we tried to do a lot of search to find the evidence for that, and some of them do have strong evidence, and that will tie into our future research ideas as well. And some of them actually don't have such solid evidence too, so that was one of the reasons why we ran into lots of problems about how do we quantify whether someone is at a high risk of febrile neutropenia and where that 20% benchmark comes from. Dr. Tessa Cigler: And definitely, because there's not very clear data, our guidelines definitely leave room for physician discretion in all these situations. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I find that in a lot of these guidelines the key point is that there's a lot of shared decision-making with patients after talking through what risk factors they may have and what is best for them in their individual clinical scenario. So then moving on to secondary prophylaxis, what factors did the expert panel identify that should influence the decision to administer secondary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia with a CSF? Dr. Tessa Cigler: So for patients who've already experienced a neutropenic complication from a previous cycle of chemotherapy, the question is which patients should then receive prophylactic G-CSF for subsequent cycles of chemotherapy. And without a lot of evidence again to guide us, the panel really felt strongly that secondary prophylaxis should be used when a treatment delay or when a reduced dose of chemotherapy would be thought to compromise cure rates or survival outcomes. We do note that in many situations, certainly a dose reduction or a delay would be a very reasonable alternative or an additional strategy to G-CSF administration. Dr. Bishal Gyawali: Yeah, I think it's more like if there is going to be compromise in outcomes without using G-CSF, as in if we can't maintain the dose intensity and that's going to lead to inferior outcomes, then we should. But if we can reduce the dose intensity and treatment frequency and still have the same outcomes, then I guess in simple words, we're just trying to say use it when it's absolutely needed, or you can also look into other alternatives that might not need G-CSF but you could maintain the same outcomes. Brittany Harvey: Understood. It's helpful to review those options for clinicians and showing that there's not just one way to address potential neutropenic complications for later cycles of chemotherapy. So then following those recommendations for prophylaxis, what does the expert panel recommend regarding CSFs for the treatment of febrile neutropenia? Dr. Bishal Gyawali: This is an important question because this ties strongly with the "Choosing Wisely" campaign. In other words, primary and secondary prophylaxis we talked about when CSF should be used; here we make a sort of negative recommendation in that we say when CSF should not be used, because this is where we see most overuse or overtreatment with G-CSF. So first, we say that we should not be using a CSF routinely simply because a patient has neutropenia. If they are afebrile but they only have neutropenia, we recommend against using CSF just to boost neutrophil counts; that's not a meaningful metric. Then the second recommendation we make is CSF should not be routinely used as an adjunctive treatment with antibiotic therapy for patients with fever and neutropenia. So the first one was neutropenia, no fever, don't use it. The second one is okay, there is neutropenia and fever, but the treatment for that is use of antibiotic therapy, and so in such situations routinely we should not be using G-CSF just to boost the neutrophil count. And that is tied on to the third recommendation where if the patient has fever and neutropenia but is also at a very high risk for infection-related complications or who have other prognostic factors that we think will lead to poor outcomes for the patient, then in such situations, a CSF can be used as an adjunctive treatment. But we talk about the data in the manuscript, but the data show that the most that this will do is reduce the days of hospitalization by a couple of days. It actually does not have any data that it's going to improve the mortality rates. So as of now, we use the word "may be offered," it's not "should be offered," it's "may be offered" if there are other factors that we think will make the patient at the very poor risk of mortality outcomes, and the evidence quality here therefore is low and our strength of recommendation is conditional. And we also have a box that lists those items that we think might be associated with poor prognosis for the patients, but again the data for those, are they really hard evidence? No. And that is also tied with our future research recommendation that we should study more about these factors that might lead to these poor outcomes. Dr. Tessa Cigler: And again, allowing for discretion of the treating physician. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's just as important to know when not to use CSFs routinely, and those risk factor boxes that you mentioned are available in the full manuscript along with the full list of recommendations, and our listeners can refer to that; a link will be in the show notes of the episode . Dr. Tessa Cigler: Just so you know, the panel, we really discussed those criteria a lot and agonized over them and gave you our best recommendations. Brittany Harvey: Definitely, and it sounds like there was varying degrees of evidence to support a lot of those risk factors, and so it's really important that the evidence supports those, but also there was expert consensus of the panel in reviewing each of those factors individually to come up with recommendations that can be applicable for all clinicians. Dr. Bishal Gyawali: If I may add, we're proud of our panel because I think our panel is quite inclusive of people representing different specialties within cancer care, as in we had radiation oncologist, we had infectious disease expert, pharmacists, and most importantly, we also had patient partners. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Having a multidisciplinary panel is really important for each and every guideline. So then, this is probably relevant now, but addressing a few more specific sections addressed in the guideline, what is the role of CSFs as adjuncts to progenitor cell transplantation? Dr. Tessa Sigler: Great question, and so, as solid tumor oncologists, Dr. Gyawali and I really leaned heavily on our hematology experts within the panel. The panel decided that a CSF should be used alone after chemotherapy or in combination with a CXCR4 inhibitor to mobilize peripheral blood progenitor cells. Clearly the choice of mobilization strategy depends on the type of cancer and the type of transplantation. The panel noted that a CSF should be routinely administered after autologous stem cell transplantation to reduce the risk of severe neutropenia, and that a CSF may be administered after allogeneic stem cell transplant to reduce the duration of severe neutropenia. Again, this last recommendation has not a lot of evidence to support it, and so we kind of tempered our language that it may be administered or can be considered based on clinical judgment of the physician and the clinical status of the patient. Brittany Harvey: And that really highlights the need for a multidisciplinary panel, because as you are solid tumor oncologists, you need the hematologists to make recommendations for all sorts of patients and make sure that these guidelines are comprehensive.   So then moving on to another smaller subset population, for patients receiving concomitant chemotherapy and radiation therapy, are CSFs recommended? Dr. Bishal Gyawali: I think there is very little evidence for patients who are receiving radiation therapy alone, so there is no evidence to suggest the use of CSF in patients with radiation therapy alone. The bigger question is in patients who are receiving both chemo and radiation together, chemoradiotherapy. In those patients, up until now, the classical recommendation has been to avoid G-CSF use. I think in our updated guidelines we discuss a couple newer trials that are trying to address this issue, but in the totality of evidence, we still stick with the same recommendation as before, which is CSFs are not recommended in patients receiving concomitant chemotherapy and radiation therapy, especially those involving the mediastinum because the biggest evidence of harm is for these patients. Dr. Tessa Cigler: I agree completely. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. It's important to recognize when that balance of benefits and harms leans more towards harms, and so that this should not be recommended for those patients. So there are several different CSFs that are recommended in the guideline, including biosimilars. So do the recommended CSFs differ in efficacy or safety? Dr. Tessa Cigler: So as supported by evidence, and the panel all agreed, that the various forms of CSFs, including the biosimilars, really have the same evidence for efficacy and for safety, and that the choice of agent really should depend on cost, availability, accessibility, patient convenience, and sometimes disease subtypes and treatment regimens. But, in essence, these can be used interchangeably without concern for efficacy or toxicity differences. Dr. Bishal Gyawali: I completely agree. I think in terms of efficacy outcomes, I don't think there is anything to choose between these agents. The choice between these agents would largely depend on different patient and treatment-related factors: cost, availability, affordability, feasibility. We even discuss things like where does the patient live, as in how frequently the patient can commit to the cancer center, and we also discussed things like even for the daily shots of filgrastim, patients can be taught and they can get it by themselves at home. So we discussed all these factors, but in a nutshell, the choice within these agents primarily depends not on efficacy factors, but simply based on all these other factors that are equally important but which can lead to informed decision-making about what is best for a given patient. But we mention it explicitly that the biosimilars, there is nothing to choose between them, especially the biosimilars; it's about price competition and what you can get at an affordable rate. Brittany Harvey: Understood. It's great to have many different options for patients so that there's something that can work for them based off access, cost, and all these factors that you listed. As you mentioned, it may be easier for some patients to get their treatment at home rather than in clinic, and so having different options and reviewing those with patients is very important. Dr. Bishal Gyawali: As we are having this conversation, I'm thinking that we might be a very unique guideline in that I don't think in many other settings you have this many options that you are asking about, you know, choices between equally good options and making decisions based on cost. I don't think there are any other areas in oncology where we have the privilege of making these decisions based on cost and convenience and all these factors, as well as we might be one of those guidelines where we have, as discussed before, so many recommendations about when not to do things and trying to promote judicial use of treatments. Dr. Tessa Cigler: As you might imagine, our panel discussions were very lively. Dr. Bishal Gyawali: Yes. But Dr. Cigler, do you recall any other guideline where there is so much discussion about when not to use things and how we have so many biosimilar options and we can choose the one that's most appropriate? I don't recall any other. Dr. Tessa Cigler: I agree with you. Brittany Harvey: It's certainly a unique guideline in that regard. So we'll move into the last clinical question that the expert panel addressed. But what does the expert panel recommend for the initiation, duration, dosing, and administration of CSFs? Dr. Bishal Gyawali: Yeah, I think there has been some new data in this regard that were not available in the previous guideline. For example, we have new trials testing a shorter duration of filgrastim injections compared to the standard of care. So we have some data, we call this 'de-escalation of treatment'. So we have more data supporting de-escalation of treatment. We have some data for lower dose of pegfilgrastim, we have data for lower duration of filgrastim, we have also some new data about timing of treatment, as in there has been some newer data presented about the relationship of timing of the drug and the frequency of adverse events from G-CSF such as bone pain. There is also the question about, for patients who don't live near the cancer center, can they get their pegfilgrastim shot on the day of chemo while they are in the cancer center? So all these questions that are very pragmatic and important questions, but were not answered before, we're glad that we had more evidence to talk about all these factors and give a more solid recommendation to our users of the guideline. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And listeners can review the full list of dosing and administration recommendations in Table 2 in the guideline, and that will be linked in the show notes of the episode. So then I really want to thank you both for reviewing all of these recommendations. There's certainly a large amount of clinical questions and recommendations that you went through. I'd like to next ask, in your view, what is the importance of this updated guideline and how will it impact both clinicians and patients? Dr. Bishal Gyawali: I think the importance of this updated guideline is that, as mentioned before, we talk about newer data that have come up with regards to not just the most important two questions as in when to use it as primary prophylaxis and when to use it as secondary prophylaxis and when to use it as treatment, but also with regards to the duration and timing and dosing and multiple options and how these all factors as well as patient-related factors should be combined to make an informed decision, the most appropriate decision for the patient. And as mentioned before, we have the GRADE tables that were not in the previous version of this guideline. So I think even those users that are familiar with the 2015 guideline, I think they will find very novel content in this new updated guideline, and they will find it useful for their practice. I would encourage the readers to not only read the headlines of the box recommendations, but also read the full text of these guidelines because we have worked really hard to incorporate the latest evidence and also interpret them contextually. The discussion regarding de-escalation, patient considerations, cost implications; usually, people just skip these portions when they read a guideline. But I think these are also one of the most important paragraphs in our guideline, so they have been written with very careful thought, and I think reading the whole guideline is very much worth your time. Dr. Tessa Cigler: As you can imagine, I agree completely, having just spent several months thinking about these guidelines and all their nuances. Brittany Harvey: Certainly, this guideline is definitely a very comprehensive update, and that nuance in the manuscript is really important for clinicians to understand and read through and understand when it's appropriate to make certain decisions. So then to wrap us up, I'd like to ask, what are the outstanding questions and active research areas regarding the use of white blood cell growth factors in patients with cancer? Dr. Tessa Cigler: As you all know from clinical practice and that we've said several times already in this podcast is that the risk factors for the development of complications of febrile neutropenia are still not clearly worked out. And one of the things that is, I think, really needed in clinical practice is the development of predictive algorithms or biomarkers to really allow us to understand who might be more at risk and to allow for the clinician to be able to tailor the use of G-CSF as needed. Brittany Harvey: Yes, and so we'll look forward to future updates in this space to inform new recommendations and an updated guideline in the future. So I want to thank you both so much for your work to develop this comprehensive guideline. It was certainly a lot of effort, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Gyawali and Dr. Cigler. Dr. Tessa Cigler: Oh, my pleasure. It's nice to be here and to speak with you all. Dr. Bishal Gyawali: Yeah, it was great to speak with both of you but also through you to the audience, and we had a great time. Thank you. Brittany Harvey: And then finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

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

Changing regulations are reshaping the practice of oncology. Issues such as prior authorization, shifting coverage policies, reporting mandates, and reimbursement certainty all affect how clinics must operate to provide the best care. In this episode, CANCER BUZZ speaks with 3 oncology professionals, representing different roles and regions of the country, about their experiences of how policy impacts care delivery. Martin Palmeri, MD, MBA, FASCO, medical oncologist at Messino Cancer Centers, Patricia Serna, MHS, PA-C, CGRA, APP area manager at Texas Oncology, and Gretchen Van Dyck, financial counselor at Green Bay Oncology, connect the dots between legislative intents and clinical realities. "When my patients see that their options for clinical trials are diminishing, or some of these clinical trials are shutting down, they lose hope." - Martin Palmeri, MD, MBA, FASCO "Being able to work with the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology has given me that behind-the-scenes background of if we don't speak up, our patients are going to suffer." Patricia Serna, MHS, PA-C, CGRA Guests: Patricia Serna, MHS, PA-C, CGRA  APP Area Manager – APP Services Texas Oncology Dallas, TX Gretchen Van Dyck Financial Counselor II Green Bay Oncology Green Bay, WI  Martin Palmeri, MD, MBA, FASCO  Medical Oncologist Messino Cancer Centers Asheville, NC This podcast is part of the Oncology State Societies (OSS) Advocacy Engagement program, made possible with support from Johnson & Johnson. Resources: ACCC Advocacy Resources Access, Payment & Reimbursement Reform ACCC Community Oncology Research Institute (ACORI)  

As part of IASLC's ongoing series of Lung Cancer Considered podcasts in world languages, Dr. Molly Li moderates a discussion in Cantonese with two expert cardiothoracic surgeons, Dr. Ben Li, Professor from The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University and, and Dr. Calvin Ng, Professor from the Chinese University of Hong Kong. The discussion: reviews surgical management of early-stage NSCLC, including VATS, and lobar versus sublobar resection; and explores novel technologies including endobronchial therapy and tubeless anesthesia. Host: Molly Li, MD Clinical Assistant Professor Department of Clinical Oncology, CUHK, Hong Kong Guests: Shuben Li, MD, PhD Professor, Department of Thoracic Surgery National Center for Respiratory Medicine The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University Calvin S.H. Ng, BSc MBBS, MD Environmental Foundation Professor of Thoracic Surgery Department of Surgery The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK)

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

Olufunmilayo “Funmi” Olopade, director for the Center for Clinical Cancer Genetics and Global Health at the University of Chicago, credits her Nigerian upbringing for her focus on global cancer genetics.“My Yoruba culture really worships our ancestors and the people before us,” Olopade said on the Cancer History Project podcast. “And so that's why I was able to really say, ‘Okay, let's lay the foundation for genetics. Let's go to Nigeria.'”Olopade appears on this special Black History Month episode of the Cancer History Project Podcast in conversation with Robert A. Winn, director and Lipman Chair in Oncology at VCU Massey Comprehensive Cancer Center and guest editor for The Cancer Letter for Black History Month highlighting some of the giants in the field of cancer research.This episode is sponsored by City of Hope, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.Olopade is certainly a giant in cancer genetics and global health.“For those of you who don't know, Dr. Olopade is not only the director of the Center for Clinical Cancer Genetics and Global Health at the University of Chicago, but she is really a giant in the field and internationally renowned in the context of her expertise in breast cancer,” Winn said on the podcast. “By the way, for those of you who thought you knew Dr. Olopade, remember that she is a really rare, not only National Academy, but in that top 1% of 1% of the 2025 MacArthur Fellowship, also known as the Genius Grant.”On this episode of the Cancer History Project Podcast, Olopade shares her story of immigrating to the U.S. from Nigeria to pursue medicine, and finding her way to becoming a leading expert in oncology.“For us to honor Black History Month, we have to honor all the people who mentored us, who were ahead of us,” Olopade said. “For me, my father was a pastor, and my parents really wanted a doctor. I had big brothers and sisters, I was number 5 of 6 children, and there was just one last chance to find a doctor in the family. Because in those days, growing up in Nigeria, you were either a teacher or a pastor, or and then in his generation he became a pastor.”Growing up in Nigeria, Olopade was deeply influenced by the health disparities she saw due to lack of healthcare access, which initially sparked an interest in cardiology.Explore related articles and read the full transcript: https://cancerhistoryproject.com/article/funmi-olopade-podcast/ 

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

En este episodio especial de Código Tumoral, la Dra. Julieta Gómez, oncóloga médica de México, conversa con el Dr. Diego Ballén, oncólogo médico de Colombia y el Dr. Jorge Gallardo, oncólogo médico de la Clínica Las Condes y miembro del grupo de trabajo SLAGO, en Santiago de Chile. Juntos presentan un análisis de los avances más relevantes del Congreso Anual de la Sociedad Americana de Oncología Clínica sobre tumores gastrointestinales del 2026, llevado a cabo en San Francisco, California (EE. UU.), del 8 al 10 de enero.Cáncer gástrico o de la unión gastroesofágicaNEOSUMMIT-01MATTERHORNILUSTROLUCERNACáncer colorrectalAgonista del receptor GLP-1 frente a aspirina para la prevención primaria del cáncer colorrectal: evidencia de una comparación directa en el mundo real, en la cual los agonistas del receptor GLP-1 se asociaron con una reducción relativa del 26% en la incidencia de cáncer colorrectal en comparación con la aspirina. Estos hallazgos, junto con su perfil de seguridad favorable, sugieren un potencial impacto en salud pública y respaldan la necesidad de validación prospectiva en ensayos clínicos aleatorizados.[5]Análisis de las diferencias moleculares, clinicopatológicas y en los resultados entre el cáncer colorrectal (CCR) con dMMR/MSI-H de inicio temprano (

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

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

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

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

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

Listen to JCO's Art of Oncology article, "The Quiet Work of Clarity" by Dr. Henry Bair, who is an ophthalmology resident physician at Wills Eye Hospital. The article is followed by an interview with Bair and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr. Bair explores how vision care can honor end-of-life goals and helps a patient with failing sight write to his children. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: The Quiet Work of Clarity, Henry, Bair, MD  Mikkael Sekeres: Welcome back to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. This ASCO podcast features intimate narratives and perspectives from authors exploring their experiences in oncology. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm professor of medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. What a pleasure it is to have joining us today Dr. Henry Bair, an ophthalmology resident physician at Wills Eye Hospital, to discuss his Journal of Clinical Oncology Art of Oncology article, "Quiet Work of Clarity". At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. Dr. Bair and I have agreed to call each other by first names. Henry, thank you for contributing to the Journal of Clinical Oncology and for joining us to discuss your article. Henry Bair: Thank you very much for having me. Mikkael Sekeres: I love starting off by getting a little bit of background about our guests. I know a little bit about you, but I'm not sure all of our listeners do. Can you tell us about yourself and how you reached this stage of your training? Henry Bair: Sure thing. Happy to start there. I was born and raised in Taiwan. I came to the United States when I was 18 for college. I was at Rice University. I was drawn to it because the Texas Medical Center was right over there, but the university had a small liberal arts feel and the university did not box me into any specific discipline. I went there and we didn't have to declare anything and we could take any class from any school over there. And I actually fell in love with medieval studies of all things. I just came upon it in one of the survey courses and I went deeper and deeper and deeper and eventually wrote my thesis on medieval Irish manuscripts. That was really interesting. At the same time I was doing some clinical work and I realized that medicine might be a way to combine my interest in storytelling and the humanities with making a tangible difference in people's lives. Then I was in medical school at Stanford University, which was, in a similar way, I found a place that really let me explore what it meant to be a physician because the medical school let me take classes from all across the university: so the law school, the school of humanities, school of engineering, the business school. I got a chance to do a little bit of a lot of different things to try to figure out what I actually wanted to do with life. And I spent a lot of time actually doing a little bit of palliative care, a little bit of oncology, some medical education, some medical humanities. I had a lot of time thinking about, "Okay, what kind of specialty do I want to do?" I found myself really enjoying procedural specialties, but also really liking the kinds of patient interactions and conversations I had in palliative care and oncology, and eventually found ophthalmology, interestingly. I often have to remind myself or explain myself how those two connect. And to me, the way they connect is that ophthalmology lets me do very fascinating, intellectually challenging things in terms of working with my hands, very rewarding surgical procedural work. But at the same time, the conversations that I get to have with patients about seeing well, I saw so many parallels between that and living well. To me it was so much about quality of life. And that's how I knew that ophthalmology was the right move for me. And so now I'm an ophthalmology resident. Mikkael Sekeres: Fascinating. When I was an undergrad, the person who had the most influence on me was an English professor who was also a medievalist. There must be something about the personality and pouring over these old texts and trying to read things in Middle English that appeals to some character trait in those of us who eventually become physicians. I also remember when I was in medical school, we could also take classes throughout the university. So I wound up taking some writing classes with undergrads and with graduate students. It adds to this holistic education that we bring to medicine because it's not all about the science, is it? Henry Bair: Yeah, it's also different ways of thinking and seeing the world and just hearing people's different stories. It's the people I've met in a lot of those different settings outside of medical school that I think really enhanced my formative years in medical education. Mikkael Sekeres: You certainly bring it all together in this essay, which was just lovely. And I wonder if we could dive into some of the aspects of this essay. I'm dying to know, when you went to see this man, the main character of your essay, did you have any idea what the consult would be about? Henry Bair: No. So when we're in the hospital and as the ophthalmology resident on consult, we get notifications. These pop up whenever a primary team puts in a consult and it's usually fairly vague. It's usually no more than "blurry vision, please evaluate," "eye pain, please evaluate." As an ophthalmologist, getting a consult for blurry vision is kind of like a cardiologist getting consulted for chest pain. You're like, "Okay, but it could be something, it could be nothing, it could be something terrifying, it could be dry eyes, or it could be end-stage glaucoma, or it could be, who knows?" You really genuinely never know what you're getting yourself into until you actually go in there and talk to the patient, which can be frustrating, but also kind of an interesting experience. Mikkael Sekeres: I worry I'm guilty of submitting some of those consults to ophthalmology. Henry Bair: I didn't realize this fully until I started working on the ophthalmology side. I think non-ophthalmologists get so little exposure and training in ophthalmology. Of course, when I think about it, I didn't get any ophthalmology in medical school. So it's understandable. Mikkael Sekeres: In your essay, you write, and I'm going to quote you to you, "I am still learning what we can treat and what we can only tend. My training has taught me well how to assess visual acuity, intraocular pressures, and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, but standing at his bedside, the index that mattered was none of these, but whether we could help him read for one more day." "What we can treat and what we can only tend." That's such a beautiful line. Is that something that only comes with years of experience, determining what we can treat and what we can only tend, or is it a dawning sense as we get to know our patients when we are trying to stop the inevitable from happening? Henry Bair: That is an interesting question because I think of it more almost as a fundamental shift in mindset. And I'm coming from someone who I think had the benefit of having had mentors, having had clinical experiences in palliative care in medical school. As I mentioned earlier, I was drawn to a lot of those patient conversations. So I think in some ways, starting in residency, I had long been primed to think about tending to a patient's concerns. And yet, even having been primed, even having the benefit of all those experiences and those conversations with amazing clinicians and with patients, maybe it's subject matter specific. I mean, ophthalmology tends to be a specialty, in my experience, my limited experience, ophthalmology tends to be one of those specialties that focuses so much on fixing things and treating things and reversing things. And in fact, that's one of the beautiful things of ophthalmology: how often you can reverse things or completely stop the progression of disease. And so I think in some ways, I am having to relearn what it means to see something not always as, "Okay, what's a problem here? What is the fix? How do I reverse this?" and go back and reach back to those experiences, those conversations I had with patients about trying to figure out, "Okay, the things that we can't fix, what can we still do?" To most people who have come across palliative care, this sentiment is by no means novel, the sentiment that there is always something we can do. You often hear about people talking about, "Oh, there's nothing more we can do." And I sort of try to bring that approach into the clinical encounters that I have. It's very reflexive to think that, "Okay, a person has lost vision from end-stage glaucoma or they have a blind painful eye. Well, there's nothing more we can do. You know, we've done all the conventional surgeries, we've done all the therapies, the medications," but I always have to pull myself back and say, "But there's always something we can do here." Mikkael Sekeres: It's so interesting how you frame that. We're problem solvers. We're trained to solve problems. A patient presents with X, a problem, we have to be clever enough to figure out how to solve it. I wonder if what you're saying indirectly is sometimes we're identifying the wrong problem. Henry Bair: I think so, yeah. Mikkael Sekeres: There may be a problem that we can't solve. Someone is actively dying from cancer. We can't solve the problem of curing them of their cancer. But there are other problems that we can potentially solve, and maybe that's where we have to be clever in identifying the problem. Henry Bair: I think so. And it's also what's in our textbooks and what's not. So we spend hundreds of hours in lecture and we pour over so many textbooks, and I do question banks now for board exams preparation. It's all on the textbook presentations, the textbook solutions. The problems are, you know, the retinal artery occlusions, it's about the really bad diabetic retinopathy. And then the answers to those things would be a stroke workup, would be some kind of injection into the eye. But like the problem that I encountered in this story that I talked about was this patient trying to write letters to his kids. That's not going to show up on any exam. We don't have lectures about talking about those things. Mikkael Sekeres: So, as I think you know, I wrote an essay in 2010 for Art of Oncology and for a book that I wrote about a woman who inspired me to go into oncology. She was a woman in her 40s who was a pediatric attending who had advanced ovarian cancer. The story I wrote about her was how she spent her final night on this earth in the intensive care unit writing cards for her children, too. It's fascinating how history repeats itself in how we care for people who have cancer. You have a really a beautiful way of saying this. You talk about, "an ordinary father sharing ordinary advice for an ordinary day. Illness had made that ordinariness remarkable. Our work that day was to protect the ordinary." Can you talk a little bit, I mean given the woman I wrote about and the man you wrote about, about this need to communicate with your family after you're gone? Henry Bair: To me, one of the biggest lessons I've learned working in healthcare is that what defines most of our lives, what defines the most meaningful, the most purposeful, the most rewarding aspects of our lives is our relationships. You can explore this from myriad perspectives. You can explore this from like a psychosocial perspective and look at all those studies showing that people who have better social connections and better ties with their families live longer lives and actually healthier lives, have decreased rates of mental health problems. Or we can just approach this from like a more humanistic perspective and explore it and think and listen in on the conversations people have with people around them, that patients have, the conversations patients have during the most difficult times of their lives. They don't talk about their work, they don't talk about their accomplishments, they talk about their relationships with their kids, with their spouses, with their parents. In my experience when people are at critical junctures of big life changes, whether it's people about to go into major surgery, people grappling with the idea of losing their vision or losing their lives, any sort of big pivotal change, they want to talk to their families and explore gratitude and regret and all these things. These are the themes that come up over and over and over again. In some ways it does not surprise me at all, this need to communicate with the family at the end of life. In some ways that's how you live on, that's how we feel, that's how patients feel their lives are defined by is that lasting relationship, that lasting impact at the end, or even transcending the end. Mikkael Sekeres: This is going beyond the end, isn't it? Henry Bair: Yeah. Mikkael Sekeres: These are letters and notes being written to children to be handed to them after death. And I think one of the reasons, in my case, the woman I encountered when I was in training who inspired me to go into oncology, I've been thinking about her for 25 years off and on. Both the incredible spirit to be able to do that on your last night on this earth, but also the flip side to it: there are potential downsides to doing this, aren't there? That, you know, I think about it from the perspective of her kids who at the time were 8 and 10 years old in my case. And I wonder what it was like for them to open up that birthday card when they were 17 or 18. And I wonder if you've kind of wondered the same about your patient and his children. Henry Bair: Yeah, I think when we think about these letter-writing projects, legacy-type projects, I hear about in hospitals around the country, there are teams that try to implement legacy-type things: whether it's doing video messages, whether it's stitching together short documentary film for patients who are in hospice. I feel like I see these things popping up a lot. You raise a very important point, and I actually didn't think about this until I was writing the essay. It's not an unambiguous good because it's the impact is variable, and it's really hard to predict that. How did you grapple with that in your essay? How did you make sense of it all at the end? Mikkael Sekeres: I don't think I did. I don't think I still have, which is why I think I still reflect back 25 years later on this episode and thinking about her children and how they're now, maybe they're still continuing to receive these cards from her and whether that's something they really appreciate and are like, "Boy, this is great, I get a little piece of mom still even now," or do they look at her unsteady hand as she's writing these cards and say, "That's not the mom I want to remember." Henry Bair: Yeah, that's a really good point. In the essay, I talk about that moment when the patient recognizes these are very imperfect letters, imperfectly written. We talked a little bit about that. And the patient makes a point, very wisely. I had suggested, "Oh, what if you want me to correct things?" And he's like, "No, no, no, the mistakes are part of it. It's part of the message. The message is that this was me at a difficult time in my life. I cannot control my hands the way that I used to, but that's still part of me. That makes it more genuine and authentic, mistakes and all built in." He wanted his children to see him for who he fully was in that moment. Mikkael Sekeres: And that was such a poignant part of your essay and probably the one that jumped out at me the most. Like as a dad, you want your kids to see you for who you are, right? You're not a superhero. In this case, this is somebody who was going to succumb to his illness, who did, but he was their dad and wanted them to remember him for all of who he was at that moment. Before I let you go, Henry, because I feel like we could probably talk for hours about this, before we started this podcast, I noticed you had better podcast equipment than I do, and sure enough, you copped to the fact that you do host your own podcast. You want to tell us a little bit about that? Because it touches on so many themes we touched on here in Cancer Stories. Henry Bair: Yeah, well thanks for asking me about that. Yeah, don't mind if I plug a little bit. Yes, so in medical school, this was 2021, around 2022, we were emerging from the COVID pandemic, and one of the things I was seeing around me as a medical student were physicians and nurses leaving the profession in droves. Like, there were so many reports and surveys coming out of the AMA discussing how more than half of all physicians are burned out, a third of physicians can't find meaning in their work anymore. And that was really scary. As a clinical trainee, what was I getting myself into? These weren't just some clinicians somewhere. These were often times- I was hearing these kinds of conversations about losing sight of why they even come in in the first place to work. I was hearing these conversations from professors that I thought were well-accomplished. These were people who had gone to the right residencies, the right fellowships. They had the right publications. These are people who I aspired to be, I suppose, and they were talking about leaving clinical practice. A wonderful mentor of mine who is an oncologist, still an oncologist at Stanford, we started talking about these things. And I asked him, "You seem to love your job." He was a GI oncologist dealing with very, very sick patients day in and day out. I've seen him in clinic. And I asked him, "What's your secret? What keeps you coming back over and over and over again?" And so that led to a conversation. And then we realized, "Wait a second, there are people, a third of physicians losing meaning in their work meant that two thirds of physicians have meaning in their work. Okay, let's talk about that." So we started exploring, we started just asking clinicians who have found true purpose in their work. And then we asked them to share their stories. And that's how the podcast was born. It's called The Doctor's Art, and at this point, we've expanded and we interview nurses and patients and caregivers. We interview philosophers and filmmakers, journalists. We interview ethicists and religious leaders, really anyone who might have some insight about what living well means either from the clinician perspective or from the patient perspective. And guess what? Everyone is going to be either a caregiver or a care recipient at some point in their lives. It's still ongoing and it's ended up being something where we explore very universal themes. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, it sounds great, Henry, and it sounds like a perfect complement to what we're doing here in Cancer Stories. It has been such a pleasure to have Dr. Henry Bair, who is an ophthalmology resident at Wills Eye Hospital, to discuss his essay, "The Quiet Work of Clarity". Henry, thank you so much for submitting your article to the Journal of Clinical Oncology and for joining us today. Henry Bair: Thank you very much, Mikail, for letting me share my insights and my story. It was a wonderful opportunity. Mikkael Sekeres: If you've enjoyed this episode, consider sharing it with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review. Your feedback and support helps us continue to have these important conversations. If you're looking for more episodes and content, follow our show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen, and explore more from ASCO at asco.org/podcasts. Until next time, this has been Mikkael Sekeres for Cancer Stories. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Show notes:Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr Henry Bair is a ophthalmology resident physician at Wills Eye Hospital and podcast host of The Doctor's Art.

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guests Dr. Kerin Adelson and Dr. Maureen Canavan discuss JCO article "Association Between Systemic Anticancer Therapy Administration Near the End of Life with Health Care and Hospice Utilization in Older Adults: A SEER Medicare Analysis of End-of-Life Care Quality," highlighting adverse outcomes for patients who receive any type of systemic anticancer therapy(SACT) at EOL (end of life) and the need for better communication between oncologists and patients regarding expected risk and benefits of such treatments to properly align goals-of-care. TRANSCRIPT 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. Maureen Canavan, epidemiologist and associate research scientist at Yale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research Center; and by Dr. Kerin Adelson, Chief Quality and Value Officer, medical oncologist, and clinical researcher on health services and clinical care delivery at MD Anderson Cancer Center. In the manuscript "Association Between Systemic Anticancer Therapy Administration Near the End of Life With Health Care and Hospice Utilization in Older Adults: A SEER-Medicare Analysis of End-of-Life Care Quality." that you recently published in the JCO, you performed an analysis that included more than 30,000 older adults in the SEER-Medicare database, and you observed that 7.6% of these patients received any systemic anticancer medication within 30 days of death. So, I wanted you to explain why you thought that this was a priority right now, and whether there was any previous data that was published in the literature, and if you think that there was any significant gap in the literature that led you to the research you just published. Dr. Kerin Adelson: We have published a series of articles looking at real-world trends  in patterns of care, particularly related to systemic anticancer therapy at the end of life. This has been gaining increasing focus in recent years because of the understanding that when patients stay on systemic anticancer therapy, that is often a surrogate for a lack of goal-concordant care. So, patients who continue to receive systemic therapy have worse quality of life, are more likely generally to have a medicalized death, and less likely to use hospice. And what our prior work has shown is that more and more we are seeing patients using immunotherapies and targeted therapies towards the end of life. No prior work had really comprehensively examined whether these novel therapies were associated with those same patterns of care increases in acute care utilization and decreases in hospice. Dr. Davide Soldato: So basically, the data that we had up until that point was mostly with cytotoxic chemotherapy, and the emergence of this new treatment, which frequently are thought to be less toxic and so less problematic also in the end of life, led to this research. Is that correct? Dr. Kerin Adelson: Correct. Dr. Maureen Canavan: I would also build on that. I think that as the landscape of cancer care changes, it is important to really understand the availability of treatments, but then also, as Kerin noted, it is important to focus on goal-concordant care. We have established literature, studies we have done and some other studies that have looked at cytotoxic chemotherapy, but with the emergence of these targeted therapies, we really did not know a few things. We did not know the rates of utilization in a large national population, and how that was associated with these elements of medicalized death like ED use, hospitalizations, acute care use. So this was really a question that we had going into it. How can we expand the knowledge base so that both patients and providers can be more cognizant when thinking about goals of care conversations and ensuring that that is in place? Dr. Kerin Adelson: And our work has kind of evolved to answer some critical questions. So, one of our early papers looked at different rates of systemic anticancer therapy at the end of life, and that is where we showed that we were seeing a lot more immunotherapy and targeted therapy. And then we asked the question, well, oncologists generally when they give these treatments, they are hoping that those treatments are going to work and help the patients live longer. So we did another paper where we actually looked at practices who were more aggressive near the end of life and whether they had better overall survival than practices that were less aggressive, accounting for the fact that there could be populations of patients who benefited. And in fact, we showed there was no survival difference. So then this paper sort of answered the question: Well, if it is not having benefit, is this treatment actually doing harm? And this study gets at that question: What are the harms of continuing patients on therapy past the point of benefit? Dr. Maureen Canavan: And I think building off of that, the use of the SEER-Medicare database is a quite robust database. So in this, we have very specific data we can track. We can track the exact type of treatment they had, you know, was it a targeted therapy? Was it immunotherapy? So looking at those subclasses of therapy. We were also able to directly link it within that time frame to the acute care utilization, a limitation that we had in some of our previous work that that data was not always available. So it is more focused in the sense that we were looking at older adults, so patients 66 years of age and older, but we were able to get those individual metrics. So to Kerin's point, we did not see the survival benefit. What do we see then for these medicalized death elements? So the higher rates of all of them across the board. Dr. Davide Soldato: So coming back to the cohort and to the data that you utilized, Dr. Canavan mentioned the use of the SEER system to analyze these data. You already mentioned that you included mostly older adults, so those aged 66 and more. And also there was a little bit of restriction regarding the fact that the patient needed to be covered by Medicare in the last year of death concerning Part A and Part B, and the last 30 days from death concerning Part D. So I just wanted to ask a little bit of a question regarding these findings and whether you think that we also need additional work, especially in the younger population because I think it is something that all of us who work in oncology have seen. The aggressiveness, and this is also something that you showed in your data, tends to increase as the age of the patient tends to decrease. So we tend to be more aggressive towards younger patients. So just a comment on that on the population and generalizability of the findings. Dr. Maureen Canavan: Yeah, I will start with the data question element. Thank you. I think there are a few things to point out for that. So in terms of the restriction to ensure that they had continuous Part D coverage, that was necessary for us to track their oral medication use during that time. So kind of an easy response. The Part A, Part B requirement, it is actually pretty widely used in studies of SEER-Medicare data, and that is you want to establish the patient population, that they are not getting treated with another insurance provider in some way that you are not able to track. So that ensures that we can track not only their systemic anticancer therapy use but also when we are trying to make sure that we are controlling for confounders like chronic conditions and stuff, we are able to track the presence of chronic conditions. So we wanted to make sure we were not biasing the data, so I think that was an important consideration. You do point out very wisely that there are then limitations with the generalizability, and I think we would be lacking if we did not account for that. But I think it is important to establish this baseline relationship association, and then you can step out, we will say, to more diverse populations. So I think we could potentially maybe try to relax the timeline to see if people that might have influx in and out of the Medicare system are still seeing those same rates. I think it is likely they would. But I think to the bigger point that you bring up is that establishing this within the older adults where, you know, we do see as they get older maybe less rates of systemic therapy, extending it to the younger population. There is a challenge with that in that just that data is not available to the robust level that SEER-Medicare is. Both Kerin and I have noted that there is the possibility to look within one specific insurance provider type. Again, recognizing the limitations of the generalizability, but always slowly pushing the needle, finding out more about younger adult populations. And I think this is maybe in an ideal world, but setting the precedent that we really do need to track this on a national scale within younger adults because they do have the need. We do see these higher rates of utilization, and really making sure again with the mindset always of the best interest of patients and the most informative to providers in how we are looking at care. So I think generalizability is definitely a goal. However, there are limitations of the availability of data for younger populations and I think that they are a necessary restraint that all researchers should acknowledge. Dr. Kerin Adelson: Yeah, I think it is important for our audience to understand that health services research and large database research is really limited by what databases are available and what are the characteristics of those databases. So we have done a lot of work in an electronic health record database, and there you can get certain kinds of granularity that you may not be able to get in a payer or a claims-based database. But what you do not get is that comprehensive look at, say, what happens if a patient goes to another practice. Claims-based databases offer you that, but research on US populations is limited by our payment system. So when you look at younger patients, there are so many different insurance companies that when you are trying to get that comprehensive view, it can be hard or very expensive actually. These commercial insurers will sell their data to different databases. So for us, the largest single payer in the United States is the US government, and that is for patients who are over age 65, and that is why you see lots of US-based studies done in the Medicare population. Interestingly, a recent paper by a Canadian group showed very, very similar patterns. It was a significantly smaller study but, right, Canada is a single-payer system and so they were able to really look at all ages, and we did see the same patterns of care in a different payment system. Dr. Davide Soldato: Going back a little bit to the type of treatments that were observed in your manuscript, so we start from a 7.6% of patients who received any type of systemic anticancer therapy within 30 days from death. And when we split the different categories that you analyzed, which I think is a very strong aspect of your manuscript, we see that more or less 50% of the patients received chemotherapy, 20% more or less received immunotherapy, more or less 20% targeted therapy, and then there is a combination of those agents. So just wanted to have a little bit of your opinion compared also to the data that you already published and that you mentioned before. Was this in line with previous data? Was there anything surprising about this? We saw a little bit of a raise in the use of immunotherapy and targeted therapy as you were saying, but still, there is a very high proportion of chemotherapy, 50%. Dr. Kerin Adelson: So I think that really, really reflects the time period in which we studied where immunotherapies were gaining ground. There was tons of excitement and we were seeing this shift. I bet if we do the same study in five years that chemotherapy percent may even go down to half, and we are going to see more and more targeted and immunotherapies, and that is just reflecting the pattern of drug discovery that we are seeing. Dr. Davide Soldato: Coming to the real question that you wanted to answer with this manuscript, so is systemic anticancer therapy associated with worse outcomes in terms of healthcare utilization and use of hospice resources? Was there any hint that for example immunotherapy was related to less of these adverse outcomes? Dr. Kerin Adelson: So I will be honest, I was a little bit surprised that the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy was that much more strongly correlated with acute care use at the end of life. You know, I had really thought most likely that what we would see were similar rates. And we did. Each different type of systemic anticancer therapy was associated with significantly higher odds of ending up in the hospital, going to the ICU, dying in the hospital, going to the ED. But that group that got dual therapy was that much higher, you know, over three times the risk. And that surprised me because what it suggested is that there is likely a component of treatment toxicity that is leading to some of the acute care use. It is not simply just a constellation of patients who have not yet transitioned towards hospice or palliative care or end-of-life care who are then more likely to end up in the hospital. But the fact that we see a difference between, say, single-agent immunotherapy and dual combination with chemotherapy does suggest that the treatments are actually contributing to some of what we are seeing. Dr. Davide Soldato: But still, all of the treatments that you evaluated were still associated with higher healthcare utilization. Like there was no signal that, for example, giving immunotherapy at the end of life was not associated with these adverse outcomes. Correct? Dr. Kerin Adelson: Correct. And you will find oncologists out there who will say, actually, these treatments are so good that they might actually lower rates of hospitalization because they keep patients healthy. And certainly, that may be true upstream or earlier in the course of disease, but at the end of life, any form of systemic anticancer therapy is really a surrogate marker for lack of transition towards what is likely appropriate end-of-life therapy. And I just want to point out that time spent in the hospital, going back and forth to invasive procedures, going to the intensive care unit, even going back and forth to an infusion center, that is time that is not spent at home with loved ones for people who have very little time left to live. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. That was exactly the point that I wanted you to stress because I think it is really the most important message that we can get as oncologists from this manuscript. Like there is no treatment that is not associated with potentially harming our patient and, as you were saying, taking off time with loved ones in a critical period of the life of these individuals who have been diagnosed and treated for cancer. So, basically what we saw in the paper was a 7.65% utilization of systemic anticancer therapy. And I might imagine that for some oncologists or for some hematologists that might not actually be that much. Like they could potentially say, "Okay, but it is like 7%, it is not that high. I would have expected something higher." So I just wanted a little bit of perspective regarding also quality metrics that we have available for these types of indicators at end-of-life care. What would be the appropriate percentage of people receiving any type of treatment within 30 days from death? Dr. Maureen Canavan: A couple caveats, as a data person I always like to give those. This was among all cancer patients, so not necessarily patients that had been on active treatment. So I think that number was actually quite lower than when we looked in another study about patients that had chemo within the last year, so on, you know, active treatment. So I think that is an element to take into consideration is that those numbers will vary based on who your denominator population is. So that is important to consider. Additionally, the National Quality Forum, they call for reducing rates of systemic therapy at end of life. But I think they, similar to how I would be, are cautious to point out this is the exact number, or it should be zero. Because there are cases where you have to go in line with patient preferences. And if a patient is very adamant that they want to continue treatment, that needs to be a decision that comes between them and their provider. So, you know, the zero, though sounding ideal to us who want to encourage transitions and encourage goals of care conversation is a nice number, it is not a realistic. So, to evade your question completely, I do not think there is a set number. But the goal is to make sure that both patients, providers, everyone is informed and is making the best holistic decision. So there is this natural tendency, I think, to keep fighting both for the patient and the provider to try to beat something, but recognizing the point at which we are beyond a benefit of treatment and what would be most beneficial to the patient in terms of getting back to that idea of, you know, the time with their families and whatnot. So is the number zero? No. Could it probably be lower than we have? I think yes, definitely. Dr. Kerin Adelson: I completely agree with everything Dr. Canavan said. I think one of the other challenges is that this data isn't being tracked and publicly reported across the world. And so what that optimal rate is, is a little unclear. We see different rates also depending on the population included. So one of the things Dr. Canavan said is our database included patients who were likely treated long ago for cancer and cured of their cancer. So they were less likely to die on systemic therapy. But until everybody starts tracking and reporting, it is really hard to know where we are as a country or really as a global population, and then what are the bars that we want to achieve in driving down the rates. I think some data shows that probably something in the range of 10% or below, you know, for patients who have more active cancer is probably where we should be going and driving towards. But until we have more public reporting of these metrics and consistency in how we measure them, it is really hard to come up with a single number. Dr. Davide Soldato: I have the impression that sometimes there is also a little bit of difficulty for the oncologist or the hematologist to really understand who are the patients who are approaching end of life. So there has been some data and you also report some of them in the discussion of the manuscript regarding, for example, prompts inside of the electronic health records or the use of artificial intelligence to try to predict what is the disease course. So just wanted a little bit of perspective if you think that these tools could potentially be helpful and if you think that we will be able at a certain point to implement them in routine clinical care. Dr. Kerin Adelson: I have been working on trying to do this actually at MD Anderson and coming up with a really reliable data tool that will tell us who are the patients who are going to die in short order after receiving systemic anticancer therapy. And it is not that easy, I will say. So, you know, I think we all want this amazing machine learning model that is incredibly reliable. But like any statistical test, there are problems, right? So a very sensitive test that is going to identify high, high risk of dying at the end of life is going to be compromised by false positives. And when an oncologist knows that the test might be a false positive, it becomes very hard for them to take action on it. Similarly, you know, a very, very specific test is going to be compromised by false negatives. So in that case, you could end up having patients who are at risk for dying and still treating them with chemotherapy. And so, you know, I think in the end we need some tools. It will be great if machine learning becomes very reliable and we have the right structured data elements in our electronic health records to give these reliable prediction tools. But I think there are some basic things that we all know, and those are the markers of chronicity of cancer. So patients who have had multiple lines of therapy already, right? Past the point of clinical trial benefit. Patients who have lost significant amounts of weight. Patients who are not getting out of bed and have worse performance status. Patients who are increasingly confused, right? And not mentally engaging the way they did previously. Those markers have been shown in numerous publications by a colleague of mine, David Hui and others, to really be pretty strong predictors, and they resonate with clinicians more than a machine learning score might. You know, I think when clinicians do not understand what the elements in a machine learning tool are, they are less likely to trust it and more likely to say, "Oh, it is a false positive or a false negative." But very few clinicians can argue against the fact that the patient who hasn't gotten out of bed in two weeks is somebody who is less likely to benefit. Dr. Davide Soldato: Dr. Adelson, I would like to close this podcast and I would like to thank you again for joining us today. Dr. Maureen Canavan: Thank you so much. Dr. Kerin Adelson: Thank you so much for having us. Dr. Davide Soldato: Dr. Canavan, Dr. Adelson, we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled "Association Between Systemic Anticancer Therapy Administration Near the End of Life With Health Care and Hospice Utilization in Older Adults: A SEER-Medicare Analysis of End-of-Life Care Quality." If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can f ind 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.    Disclosures Kerin AdelsonStock and Other Ownership Interests: Carrum Health Consulting or Advisory Role: Abbvie, Quantum Health, Gilead SciencesPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Genentech Other Relationship: Genentech/Roche Employment: Emilio Health/Brightline Health(An Immediate Family Member) Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Emilio Health/Brightline Health, Lyra Health (An Immediate Family Member)

Dr. Lisa Hicks and Dr. Joseph Mikhael discuss the updated guideline from ASCO and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) on the treatment of multiple myeloma. They cover recommendations for therapeutic options across smoldering multiple myeloma, transplant eligible multiple myeloma, transplant ineligible multiple myeloma, and relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. They highlight the importance of shared decision making and patient-centric care. They comment on the explosion of new treatment options in this space and the impetus for this guideline becoming a living guideline, which will be updated on an ongoing, regular basis. Read the full guideline, "Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: ASCO-Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Living Guideline" at www.asco.org/hematologic-malignancies-guidelines. TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools and resources are available at www.asco.org/hematologic-malignancies-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology,  https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-25-02587   Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I am interviewing Dr. Lisa Hicks from St. Michael's Hospital and University of Toronto, and Dr. Joseph Mikhael from the Translational Genomics Research Institute, an affiliate of City of Hope Cancer Center, co-chairs on "Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: American Society of Clinical Oncology-Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) Living Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Hicks and Dr. Mikhael. Dr. Lisa Hicks: Thanks so much. Dr. Joseph Mikhael: It is a pleasure to be with you, Brittany. Thank you. Brittany Harvey: Before we discuss this guideline, I would like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Hicks and Dr. Mikhael who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then to dive into what we are here today to talk about, Dr. Mikhael, I would like to start by recognizing that this guideline updates the 2019 ASCO-CCO Guideline on the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma. So what prompted this update and what is the scope of this updated guideline? Dr. Joseph Mikhael: It is amazing when we think back in myeloma years, 2019 actually seems a very, very long time ago because really so much has changed in myeloma over these last six to seven years. Indeed, there have been over 150 randomized controlled trials that we didn't have at the prior guideline that we reviewed for this. Myeloma is a disease that has really changed so dramatically over these last several years. Multiple new agents have been introduced. We now have CAR-T cell therapy, bispecific antibodies, and multiple other agents that were not available at the time. Furthermore, with this growing complexity, it is becoming more important than ever to be able to provide practical advice and guidelines to the oncology community. For most oncologists, they have less than 5% of their time dedicated to multiple myeloma. It is important to bring a clarity to them that allows them to care for their patients. And the scope of these guidelines, furthermore, really cover the whole spectrum of myeloma. They go further than our prior guideline where now we have included smoldering multiple myeloma along with frontline therapy and relapsed multiple myeloma. So, we have really tried to provide the full spectrum to our colleagues in oncology to ensure that they have the tools they need to provide the best care possible for their patients. Dr. Lisa Hicks: That is a really terrific summary. And maybe one thing I will just add is it is really unique to have this much literature. I can't think of another guideline that I have ever been involved with that has seen a field move so quickly and develop so many advancements in a period of just over four or five years. Brittany Harvey: Certainly, there is a large volume of evidence that you all had to review for this guideline update. I think to your point probably one of the greater volumes of literature for a guideline update that you both mentioned. Based on that, I would like to review the key recommendations that are updated in this guideline. So Dr. Hicks, that new patient population that Dr. Mikhael mentioned earlier, what are the key recommendations for patients with smoldering multiple myeloma? Dr. Lisa Hicks: So this is the first time that an ASCO guideline is addressing this branch of multiple myeloma care. It is an area where I think some guidance is needed, and smoldering myeloma is not an active cancer. And so one thing that I really want to highlight is that the panel felt very strongly that to recommend any therapy in this space we needed a higher level of evidentiary certainty, of evidentiary confidence, to make recommendations for active therapy. The panel really made two very important recommendations. First of all, the panel did not recommend treatment for low or intermediate risk smoldering myeloma. That is important. And then the area where I think for the first time we have recommended consideration of treatment is patients with high risk smoldering myeloma. And for patients with high risk smoldering myeloma, the panel recommended that it was appropriate to consider either treatment with daratumumab or careful observation. Dr. Joseph Mikhael: And I think that move forward as you have mentioned, Dr. Hicks, is particularly important because it is an area to some degree still of equipoise and many trials are going on in the area. But we do now have a strong phase III trial that supports the use of daratumumab monotherapy for three years when compared to close observation. But of course, that is not for everyone. And one of the key themes of all of our recommendations are going to be now that more and more choices are available, that we have discussions with our patients to ensure that we match the right treatment with the preference of the patient. And I think that is particularly important here in smoldering myeloma. Dr. Lisa Hicks: Multiple myeloma care and the multiple myeloma evidence is really so nuanced, and one of the nuances that readers will appreciate if they read the guideline is that how smoldering myeloma is risk stratified has been different across different trials. And that really adds to the complexity of this recommendation and is one of the reasons that the panel felt that it was appropriate to recommend either observation or treatment. Brittany Harvey: It is great to have these new recommendations for this unique patient population. And as you both mentioned, that individualized patient care is really important across this entire guideline. So then following those recommendations, Dr. Mikhael, what is recommended for initial therapy, autologous stem cell transplantation, post transplant therapy, and measurement of response for patients with transplant eligible multiple myeloma? Dr. Joseph Mikhael: Well, that is an area that has really considerably also grown since the last guideline. Obviously one would have to consult the guidelines to get every last detail, but in essence, we want to assess whether or not patients are transplant eligible or ineligible. And that assessment is not based on age or renal function alone, but indeed on a careful assessment of that patient. When that assessment is made and deemed that a patient is transplant eligible, our recommendation is that a patient typically would receive a quadruplet. That is to say, a monoclonal antibody directed against CD38, a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and dexamethasone to be given for approximately four to six cycles followed by the stem cell transplant, followed by potentially another two cycles of consolidation, and then maintenance therapy. A couple of important caveats. One, we do have two different CD38 antibodies that can be used, either daratumumab or isatuximab. Although typically bortezomib is the preferred proteasome inhibitor, consideration can be given to carfilzomib by virtue of the potential toxicity from bortezomib. And then lastly in the maintenance setting, we are typically recommending at least lenalidomide alone, but consideration can be given to dual maintenance therapy as the data is emerging to either add to that daratumumab or carfilzomib. All the while using the IMWG criteria for response. The goal of course is to achieve the deepest response possible and to maintain that response until such time as patients would relapse. Finally, the length of maintenance therapy continues to be an area of equipoise and study in multiple myeloma. And so at minimum, patients would receive two to three years of maintenance therapy, and based on risk status and depth of response it can be considered that patients would potentially come off maintenance therapy, of course always with the caveat that toxicity would influence length of therapy as well. Brittany Harvey: Yes, as you mentioned, evaluating which patients are eligible is extremely important for considering what is recommended in the guideline for both transplant eligible and transplant ineligible patients. So then Dr. Hicks, following those recommendations for transplant eligible multiple myeloma, what are the recommended treatments, goals of therapy, and measurement of response for patients with transplant ineligible multiple myeloma? Dr. Lisa Hicks: You know, I really can't emphasize enough how important an individualized patient assessment is. When we are thinking about the range of patients that are included in this category of transplant ineligible patients, it is a huge range. You may have fairly fit patients in their late 70s all the way to patients in their 90s. And we really want to see that treatments are tailored both to the fitness of the patient, their individual circumstances, and their preferences. And it is a wonderful thing to have lots of options for patients in this circumstance. What the guidelines have recommended for most patients who are transplant ineligible but fit enough for a stronger therapy is quadruplet therapy. So actually therapy that is very similar to what is being recommended in the transplant eligible population but for a longer period of time. And then for those patients who for whatever reason, be it their fitness or their preference, are not appropriate for that quadruplet therapy, the recommendation is for triplet therapy with a combination of lenalidomide, bortezomib, dexamethasone, or very often, more often in most cases, an antibody based approach with an anti-CD38 plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone. Dr. Joseph Mikhael: The only thing I would add to that, I think we have to also, as we do mention in our recommendations, be particularly cautious with the dosing of these medications. Because even though we think of them as a single agent or a particular class, there can be quite a variation within the dosing regimen that can affect a patient's side effects and their quality of life. And so being very careful with dose modifications, and particularly in the transplant ineligible patient, is an important part of the recommendation as well. Dr. Lisa Hicks: Yeah, this is a podcast so no one can see me nodding vigorously that dose modification is so important particularly with those older and frailer patients, and with particular attention to trying to reduce dexamethasone doses and favoring weekly administration of bortezomib when that drug is used. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Considering the risks and benefits and patient preferences is really key to selecting therapy for these patients. So then Dr. Mikhael, for the final overarching patient population addressed in this guideline, for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, what treatment options are recommended? Dr. Joseph Mikhael: This of course is, if you will, the biggest part of the guideline because there has been so much done in the relapse setting. And I think we start the guideline by saying a decision has to be made as to when to institute therapy. That there may be some patients with slow biochemical relapse that may be monitored for a period of time. But when the decision is made to initiate treatment, instead of a simple algorithm, the guideline emphasizes the fact that there are multiple choices that can be given to a patient that are going to match what comorbidities the patient has, what they have been treated with before, and of course what their preferences are. I think we highlight two particular areas. That now that CAR-T cell therapy is available as early as first relapse, it should be a consideration by virtue of the fact that it has resulted in such deep and durable responses. But that triplets should also be considered in that earlier relapse setting because we do have multiple classes of agents that can be used. We know that in later relapse options exist including bispecific antibodies for which we have four different choices. And that in general, patients will ultimately receive either a triplet or CAR-T cell therapy in earlier relapse, but there are some patients who may be eligible only for a doublet by virtue of their comorbidities and of their prior therapies. Lastly, it really does emphasize the point as we have mentioned a few times in this podcast, and I am so glad it keeps coming up, is that as I often say we don't treat myeloma, we treat people. And engaging the patient in that conversation to ensure that the right treatment gets matched to the right patients is particularly important because with all the new classes that we have with antibody drug conjugates, with XPO1 inhibitors, the traditional three classes of proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, monoclonal antibodies, along with as we have already mentioned CAR-T and bispecific antibodies, it really is an incredible laundry list of choice. And making that choice specific to the patient becomes absolutely critical. I should also lastly note that there are patients who may defer their initial transplant. There may be patients who may be eligible for a second transplant. So autologous stem cell transplant, although primarily used in the frontline setting, may still be a consideration for a smaller subset of patients in the relapse setting. Dr. Lisa Hicks: I think maybe one thing that I would add is an overarching principle which is actually similar to a principle in the first guideline, and that is that in the relapsed or refractory setting, there are many different treatment options. And in fact, the number of treatment options feels like it is evolving every day. But an overarching principle for clinicians to consider is to try and choose combinations of drugs that the patient has either not been exposed to in the past or certainly that they are not refractory to. We really want to be pulling new options out of the toolbox as much as we can. Dr. Joseph Mikhael: Very often we do see where someone may be on a triplet and they are progressing on it and someone just changes out one drug. We have suggested not to take that approach but to take the approach of completely introducing a new therapy when someone is progressing on their current therapy. I think that point is particularly important and the consensus panel was very clear. Brittany Harvey: Understood. That is very helpful when thinking about what options to offer to patients in the relapsed and refractory setting. And as you mentioned earlier, the figures in this guideline provide an outline of options and then the tables really go into some of the details and outcomes of the trials, and those are very helpful for clinicians to refer to. So then Dr. Hicks, we have talked a little bit about some of the nuances of the guideline, but what should clinicians know as they implement these new and updated recommendations? Dr. Lisa Hicks: I think they should feel comfortable that these are trustworthy guidelines. So these are evidence-based guidelines that have been rigorously developed after a very thorough evidence review and put together by a panel of experts who were extremely thoughtful in their review of the evidence. And so all of this contributes to the trustworthiness of the guidance. And then I would also encourage people to take a deep look at the guidelines because of the importance of nuance that is addressed in them, and then to also explore some of the tools that ASCO is developing that helps with implementation including the flow charts that are contained within the guidelines and some additional tools that are available online. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. The tools and resources for this guideline are available online with the publication and we will provide links to that in the show notes of the episode. So then following that, Dr. Mikhael, how does this guideline update affect patients with multiple myeloma? Dr. Joseph Mikhael: As we sort of intimated earlier, I like to say I don't treat myeloma, I treat people. I think we should always be patient-centric and patient-focused. And I think in the discussion we always were. We always wanted to ensure that multiple factors go into a decision-making process. We are not just looking at the biology of the disease, we are looking at patient factors. Those patient factors include their frailty as we commented in a frailty assessment, their preferences, their comorbidities. And I think, in a day where we have so many choices, we emphasize in the guideline the importance of that conversation with the patient. That, if you will, shared decision-making model where options are laid out and based on the patient factors and the treatment factors they can then be meshed together in the best way so that patients can make the right choice. And of course in conjunction with the guidelines, we have patient friendly summaries of them. And we involved, of course, patients in the development of these guidelines. And I think that is one of the greatest strengths of the ASCO guidelines is that there is a patient with us at the table who is giving their perspective on the guideline as we go forward. So I am very thankful that we have created a product that is, if you will, not only for the providers, the practitioners that are prescribing these agents and that are directly giving the care, but indeed for the very patients who of course have the most at stake here. Dr. Lisa Hicks: Yeah Joe, I am so glad you called out the participation of patient partners in the guideline. It is such an important part and they were really- the patient partner was such an important part of this panel in helping us understand the patient perspective as we developed this guidance. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. It is a hugely important role for the panel and for all of the panel including the patient partners and the experts in the disease to review the evidence and come up with comprehensive recommendations. And yes, as you mentioned, the individualized treatment and the shared decision-making is really paramount to this guideline. Finally, Dr. Hicks, you alluded to earlier the vast number of treatment options that is really exploding in multiple myeloma. And so this guideline is becoming a living guideline continuously updated by ASCO. So what are the outstanding questions regarding this topic and what evidence is the panel looking forward to for future updates? Dr. Lisa Hicks: I am really excited about this. This is one of the first guidelines that will be a living guideline for ASCO and it is such a good fit. You have heard Joe and I say a few times how quickly this field is moving, how complex the field is. I think everyone on the panel knew that no matter how quickly we did it and how deeply we reviewed the evidence, it was inevitable that more evidence would be generated as we were putting out the guideline. In a field like that, it is really important that we find a way to provide evidence-based guidelines quickly to the community. You know, waiting another five years, letting another 150 trials accrue before we do another guideline is not what the community needs. And so ASCO has really risen to this challenge and is committed to living guidelines. And so a living guideline is a guideline that commits to reviewing the evolving evidence on an ongoing basis, watching for practice changing trials, and having a standing panel that will review evidence and update recommendations on a regularly scheduled basis. So that is what a living guideline is, and that is what this guideline is becoming. That is just the first thing in terms of what a living guideline is. And then what are we watching? Well, honestly what aren't we watching? There is so much happening in multiple myeloma. We knew as we put the guideline out that there were trials in process, some trials that had been released at conferences but not yet published. We will be waiting for those and if they are practice changing they will be addressed in upcoming updates. There is new evidence just recently presented around combined anti-CD38 and bispecific antibodies. I don't know yet whether that will be addressed but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. There are so many things coming down the pipeline and it is just wonderful that there is going to be a way to try and address them in a robust fashion. Dr. Joseph Mikhael: Yeah I agree with you, Lisa. I can't think of another disease that would be more relevant for a living guideline. I mean we had difficulty because new data kept coming in as we were making recommendations. And so at some point we had to draw a line and say this is where we will stop and produce this guideline and have it ongoing. And I really look forward to seeing the updates because we know as you mentioned that there are so many things that are on the verge of approval and on the verge of changing the way we manage this terrible disease. And before I close, I would love to remind all of our listeners that as we commented from the start, patient engagement is critical at ASCO and in our guidelines process. Unfortunately we lost a very dear patient during the guidelines process, and that is Jack Aiello. Jack Aiello had been a patient and a patient advocate for many, many years in the myeloma community. And indeed we have actually dedicated these guidelines to his honor. And so I thought it would be valuable for us to mention that today. And we miss you Jack, but we are very grateful that we have been able to dedicate this excellent body of work to your memory. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. This guideline and your dedication to him is an honor to his memory and we really recognize him in thinking about this guideline. We will look forward to those future trial results that you mentioned, Dr. Hicks, to update this guideline and continue to provide options for patients with multiple myeloma and improve upon those options and shared decision-making with patients. So I want to thank you both for all of your work to develop this guideline and for your time today, Dr. Hicks and Dr. Mikhael. Dr. Lisa Hicks: You are so welcome. Thanks for featuring this guideline. Dr. Joseph Mikhael: Thank you so much, Brittany. It has been a privilege. Brittany Harvey: Finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/hematologic-malignancies-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines App, which is available in the  Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you have heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Listen to JCO's Art of Oncology article, "Final Silence" by Dr. Ju Won Kim, who is an Assistant Professor at Korea University College of Medicine, Medical Oncology. The article is followed by an interview with Kim and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr Kim explores the burden of silence when caring for dying patients. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: Final Silence, by Ju Won Kim  Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Welcome back to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. This ASCO podcast features intimate narratives and perspectives from authors exploring their experiences in oncology. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I am a Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. We are so thrilled to have joining us today, Dr. Ju Won Kim. She is Assistant Professor at Korea University College of Medicine, and she is here to discuss her Journal of Clinical Oncology article, "Final Silence." Ju Won, thank you for contributing to the Journal of Clinical Oncology and for joining us today to discuss your article. Dr. Ju Won Kim: Hello, Mikkael. It's really nice to be here. Thanks so much for inviting me. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It's so nice to have you here today also. Thank you for also taking time so late in the evening because our time difference is so huge. Dr. Ju Won Kim: Yeah, it's not that late. It's 9 o'clock in Seoul. 9:00 PM. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I wonder if I could start by asking you if you can tell us about yourself. Could you walk us through your career so far? Dr. Ju Won Kim: Yes. I am Ju Won Kim from Korea University in Seoul. I was born and also raised here and never really left from Seoul. I did my residency in internal medicine and fellowship in oncology at the same hospital, and now I'm an assistant professor there. So you could say I've spent my whole life on the same campus, just moving from one side of the hallway to another. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: That's a beautiful way of describing it. Is that common in Korea for somebody to remain at the same institution for training and then to continue through your career? Dr. Ju Won Kim: It used to be common about a decade ago, but nowadays it is not that common. Most of my colleagues are from another campus or another hospital. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, I'm so curious, what is a typical week like for you? How many days do you spend seeing patients and how much time do you spend doing research or writing or have other responsibilities? Dr. Ju Won Kim: Usually, I spend four times for my outpatient clinic, but in Korea, there are so many cancer patients and so little number of medical oncologists. I usually treat so many patients in one clinic, like maybe 20 to 30 in one time. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Wow. Dr. Ju Won Kim: Yeah, that's a burden. Most of the time I spend treating my patients, and rest of them I use to spend for my research with my lab students, and maybe with my colleagues, and I have to write something like documents or some kind of medical articles. That is about 10 or 20% of my working time, I think. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Okay, okay. That makes sense. So, and do you specialize within oncology, or do you see any person who has cancer? Dr. Ju Won Kim: I'm a medical oncologist, and I used to treat breast cancer or biliary pancreatic cancer or some kind of liver cancer or rare cancer, maybe, also. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Okay, okay. It's such a long trip. Are you able to make it to the ASCO Annual Meeting in Chicago? Dr. Ju Won Kim: Actually, I've been Chicago for ASCO meeting just one time in this year. Actually, I gave birth to my son in March, and I was in the long vacation for my birth, and the last part of my birth vacation, I went to Chicago to participate in ASCO. It was a really good time. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Oh, fantastic. That's great. How about your own story as a writer? How long have you been writing narrative pieces and when did you start? Dr. Ju Won Kim: Actually, I've always thought of myself more as a reader than a writer. Reading was my comfort zone from childhood. Then I started a small book club with friends about 10 years ago, and we began writing short reflections after each meeting. That's how writing slowly became part of my routine. When reading feels heavy, I write. When writing feels tiring, I read. It's a rhythm that keeps me balanced. At first, it was only academic writing like medical articles, but a few years ago, I challenged myself to post one short reflection a month on my Instagram, usually a quote from a book and a few sentences on why it mattered to me. It was my life about writing. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: That is really remarkable. So, did you take any formal writing classes at university? Dr. Ju Won Kim: Not really. It was just a hobby of my own. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It always impresses me when people come into writing organically like this, where they just discover it and start and don't have formal teaching because your writing is very, very good. Dr. Ju Won Kim: Oh, thank you. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: And how do you find the time to read and write when you have a busy career, academic career, and you have a child? Dr. Ju Won Kim: It was my old routine that I used to read it before going to bed, from my bedside with a small light, I used to read some novels and get to sleep easily. But after I started to work as a medical oncologist, it was a very busy job as you know. I used to sleep more and not have time for reading. I try to read more when I get some free time. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I love how you talk about alternating reading and writing and how when one gets too heavy, you go to the other, and then you switch back. One of the most common pieces of advice I've heard from writers is to read more. Dr. Ju Won Kim: Yeah. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: You can see how other people put thoughts together and the cadence of their writing, and also it inspires your mind to develop new ideas for writing. Dr. Ju Won Kim: Actually, the new idea also comes from the book, I think, when I came into a new book and the idea bangs up with me, so I started to write and that's an easy way to have some idea about writing. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I'm always impressed by people who are facile with languages and bilingual or trilingual. I think I'm unfortunately a hopeless monoglot. Dr. Ju Won Kim: Maybe you can try Korean. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I'd be embarrassed to even attempt it. When you read, do you read in Korean or do you read in English or other languages? Dr. Ju Won Kim: Definitely in Korean. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Okay, okay. And when do you find the space to write? Do you need to be alone at home in a special room or at a special desk, or do you write at work, or do you just find any time to write? Dr. Ju Won Kim: I usually don't have much time on my own because I have my baby now and some family gathers frequently. So, I always write every free time I'm trying to, any short free time in my work maybe. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: If you feel comfortable doing so - this is a very heavy piece, and a lot of us have dealt with deaths of our own patients, of course, we see this unfortunately commonly in oncology, but many of us, myself included, have also dealt with patients or their family members who've committed suicide - can you tell us what prompted you to write this piece? Dr. Ju Won Kim: As an oncologist treating biliary and pancreatic cancers, I've witnessed many deaths, as you know. Most fade with time because I treat so many patients, but just one family stayed with me, I think. It was early in my career, just months after I started this specialty, and even 5 years later, I still think about them, the family I wrote about in the "Final Silence." The story eventually became the piece I wrote. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: And what is it about them that caused you to think about them so much even years later? Dr. Ju Won Kim: I'm not sure. That's the only experience I came into someone's suicide so closely in my life, I think, and also it happened in my very early career. That's the impact. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It is amazing how certain patients stick with us even years or decades later, particularly when they're tied to an emotional response to illness, and that can be our patients' emotional response or our own. Can you talk some about Korean culture and how cancer is viewed? Is it discussed openly? Dr. Ju Won Kim: In Korea, death is still a quiet topic. Cancer equals death in many people's minds, and death equals grief. Even today, some families ask doctors not to tell their patients about the diagnosis, but Korea is aging so fast, so I see more older patients now, but culturally, we are still learning how to talk about dying openly. That's the big problem as a medical oncologist, especially treating biliary and pancreatic cancers. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I can just imagine. When you first meet a patient and their family is in the room, do you tell them that they have cancer, or do you need to check in with the family and with the patient how much they know about their diagnosis first? Dr. Ju Won Kim: Actually, I usually try to tell them there is a cancer, which can never be treated perfectly, because I used to treat patients with stage four, which is incurable, but I'm not sure is it okay to tell them that your life is about 3 months or 6 months or 1 year. It is not that okay for the Korean patients, especially the first time when they meet me in the clinic. I try to tell them about the truth just a few times later. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I think that's common. I think we do that in the United States also. We may not mention a number to patients during that very first meeting because when you're talking to somebody and once you mention that number, often people will shut down. They won't hear anything else that you say. And you need to build up a relationship and some trust with somebody and also get the sense how much they want to know about their cancer and their prognosis before entering that conversation. I've certainly had instances when I'm in a room with a patient, and that patient's spouse or children, and someone else in the room will say, "How long does Dad have to live?" And I've turned to my patient, "Dad", and said, "Is this a number that you want to know?" And the patient has said, "No, I don't." Dr. Ju Won Kim: Yeah, that happens. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: So sometimes we have to be careful and check in and remind ourselves in the high emotions around a cancer diagnosis that our first responsibility is always to our patient and what they want to know about their diagnosis and their prognosis. Dr. Ju Won Kim: Do you have any opposite cases where patients really want to know the numbers? Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah, I do. And, you know, you can almost predict who that's going to be depending on what they did during their lives. Dr. Ju Won Kim: Yes. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: So I have patients who are engineers or who have a math-based career like they're accountants and they'll come in and they write every number down and they want to know the number about their prognosis. I have other patients who are English professors and they want descriptively to know what the prognosis is but maybe don't want a number. So... Dr. Ju Won Kim: I think most Koreans want the number, the specific number. Yeah. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I'm curious, is cancer in a father or a son dealt with differently than cancer in a mother or a daughter? Dr. Ju Won Kim: I don't think there's much difference between sons and daughters, or maybe moms and dad, because every child is very precious in Korea now, but between husband and wives, I think the dynamic stands out. People often say when a husband gets cancer, the wife becomes his main caregiver, but when the wife gets cancer, sometimes the husband disappears. I've heard that from my colleagues, though not often in my own clinic. Now, what I do see is many middle-aged women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer, women coming to treatment alone, strong and very independent. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Interesting. So I was going to follow up by asking if you've seen that in your own clinic. Have you seen- is it more likely that your female patients who have a cancer diagnosis come to clinic alone but the male patients come with their spouse and with family support? Dr. Ju Won Kim: Yeah, it is not just because of their sex, but most of the breast cancer patients who are female are in good condition, but biliary pancreatic cancer male patients have very poor condition, so... Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Ah... Dr. Ju Won Kim: Maybe, I think that's the problem. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Interesting. The part of your essay in which you describe the attempted suicide of your patient's daughter is absolutely chilling. How did that affect you? Have you ever had a patient attempt suicide before? Dr. Ju Won Kim: Yes, the event I wrote in my essay was extremely shocking for me, but it's the only experience I have. It wasn't my patient, but I've heard a few cases where someone in the hospital tried to take their own life. I haven't had that happen directly, but I've seen patients fall into deep depression or break down in tears. In those moments, I always suggest psychiatry nowadays. That used to be taboo in here, but the stigma is fading, and many patients actually feel better afterwards. I also check in with close family members because their mental state affects the patients, too. It's something I hope never to experience again. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It's so unsettling when that happens, and as I mentioned, I've had a patient who took his own life, and you go back and back and back to it to wonder if there's something you could have done to intervene quicker or to get that psychosocial support in place to help that patient so that you avoid it in the future. And, you know, you protect your patients and yourself. Dr. Ju Won Kim: Yeah, I try to. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Speaking of protecting, you write, and I'm going to quote you to you, "I told myself I was protecting her, that to burden her in her final hours with such unthinkable news would be cruel. But a deeper truth is that I was protecting myself. I didn't know how to say it. I didn't know how to bear the weight of her devastation on top of my own shock and helplessness, so I avoided it." Do we owe it to ourselves sometimes to protect ourselves from the pain we sometimes impart to our patients? Dr. Ju Won Kim: That reflection came from realizing how doctors sometimes say we are protecting patients from pain, but really, we are protecting ourselves, I think. It's human. We can't hold every piece of suffering we see. Setting emotional boundaries isn't weakness. It's survival. What matters is recognizing when it's self-protection and being honest about it later. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, I think something that really helps with that is being able to talk to our colleagues about times when this happens and recognize we're in a shared experience and that we have the support of our colleagues, and they recognize how hard it is to be the bearer of bad news to other people and to bring pain to them sometimes. Dr. Ju Won Kim: That really works. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Dr. Ju Won Kim, it has been such a pleasure having you on this show. Dr. Kim has written just a fabulous essay called "Final Silence" for JCO Art of Oncology. Thank you so much for sharing your article with us and for joining us today. Dr. Ju Won Kim: Yeah, thank you so much for the conversation. It was a pleasure talking with you. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: If you've enjoyed this episode, consider sharing it with a friend or a colleague or leave us a review. Your feedback and support helps us continue to have these important conversations. If you're looking for more episodes and context, follow our show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen and explore more from ASCO at asco.org/podcasts. Until next time, this has been Mikkael Sekeres for Cancer Stories. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Show Notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio:Dr Ju Won Kim is an Assistant Professor at Korea University College of Medicine, Medical Oncology.

My conversation with Dr Emanuel begins at about 34 minutes Subscribe and Watch Interviews LIVE : On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous soul In Eat Your Ice Cream, renowned health expert Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel argues that life is not a competition to live the longest, and that "wellness" shouldn't be difficult; it should be an invisible part of one's lifestyle that yields maximum health benefits with the least work Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, is the Vice Provost for Global Initiatives, the Co-Director of the Healthcare Transformation Institute, and the Diane v.S. Levy and Robert M. Levy University Professor at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. Emanuel is an oncologist and world leader in health policy and bioethics. He is a Special Advisor to the Director General of the World Health Organization, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, and member of the Council on Foreign Relations.  He was the founding chair of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health and held that position until August of 2011. From 2009 to 2011, he served as a Special Advisor on Health Policy to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and National Economic Council. In this role, he was instrumental in drafting the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Emanuel also served on the Biden-Harris Transition Covid Advisory Board. Dr. Emanuel is the most widely cited bioethicist in history.  He has over 350 publications and has authored or edited 15 books. His recent publications include the books Which Country Has the World's Best Health Care (2020), Prescription for the Future (2017), Reinventing American Health Care: How the Affordable Care Act Will Improve our Terribly Complex, Blatantly Unjust, Outrageously Expensive, Grossly Inefficient, Error Prone System (2014) and Brothers Emanuel: A Memoir of an American Family (2013). In 2008, he published Healthcare, Guaranteed: A Simple, Secure Solution for America, which included his own recommendations for health care reform. Dr. Emanuel regularly contributes to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and often appears on BBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC and other media outlets. He has received numerous awards including election to the National Academy of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Association of American Physicians, and the Royal College of Medicine (UK). He has been named a Dan David Prize Laureate in Bioethics, and is a recipient of the AMA-Burroughs Wellcome Leadership Award, the Public Service Award from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation David E. Rogers Award, President's Medal for Social Justice Roosevelt University, and the John Mendelsohn Award from the MD Anderson Cancer Center. Dr. Emanuel has received honorary degrees from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Union Graduate College, the Medical College of Wisconsin, and Macalester College. In 2023, he became a Guggenheim Fellow. Dr. Emanuel is a graduate of Amherst College. He holds a M.Sc. from Oxford University in Biochemistry, and received his M.D. from Harvard Medical School and his Ph.D. in political philosophy from Harvard University. On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete   Listen rate and review on Apple Podcasts Listen rate and review on Spotify Pete On Instagram Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on Twitter Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Gift a Subscription https://www.patreon.com/PeteDominick/gift Send Pete $ Directly on Venmo  

Send us a textMeghan Gutierrez is the Chief Executive Officer of the Lymphoma Research Foundation ( https://lymphoma.org/ ), the nation's largest nonprofit organization devoted to funding lymphoma research and education, advancing both the study of new cancer therapies and improved patient care.An expert in government relations and health care policy, Meghan has pursued an array of public policy issues during her career, ranging from mental health parity and rare disease awareness to medical technology and the treatment of chronic disease. Following her work as a Congressional staff member for Dr. Greg Ganske, one of the U.S. House of Representatives' foremost leaders on health care policy, she served as a health policy and communications advisor for several national nonprofit and educational institutions, including Columbia University and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.Meghan joined the Lymphoma Research Foundation in 2008 as its chief program, policy and communications officer. She was a driving force behind programs such as the country's only Adolescent and Young Adult Lymphoma Initiative and development of the first mobile app for people with lymphoma. She became Chief Executive Officer in 2014. In this role Meghan represents the Foundation before several audiences, including the U.S. Congress, Department of Defense, Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health. She has written and lectured extensively about the needs of lymphoma patients and served on committees and panels of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Hematology, Institute of Medicine, and National Cancer Institute, among others.Jennifer Branstetter is Executive Director, North America Corporate Affairs & Patient Advocacy Lead at BeOne Medicines USA ( https://beonemedicines.com/ ), a global oncology company that is discovering and developing innovative treatments that are more affordable and accessible to cancer patients worldwide. With a portfolio spanning hematology and solid tumors, BeOne is expediting development of its diverse pipeline of novel therapeutics through its internal capabilities and collaborations.Jennifer has a demonstrated 25+ year history of working with Fortune 500 pharmaceutical companies, in government, and with nonprofits and the media, and has been a strategist for multi-faceted state and federal public affairs and patient advocacy campaigns.Previously, Jennifer was a Senior Director, Corporate Affairs (North America) at BeOne and also held positions at Cullari Communications Global, Branstetter Consulting, as Director of Policy and Planning in the Commonwealth of PA, Governor's Office, for Governor Tom Corbett, as Director of Education and Outreach for Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, as Communications Manager for the Pennsylvania Bar Association, and as Deputy Press Secretary in the Pennsylvania Office of the Lieutenant Governor during the administration of Governor Tom Ridge.#MeghanGutierrez #JenniferBranstetter #BeOneMedicines #LymphomaResearchFoundation #PatientAdvocacy #PatientCentricAI #PatientNavigation #ClinicalTrialEligibility #FinancialToxicityDetection #PatientDistress #AutomatedInsuranceNavigation #EquityRadar #RegulatoryAdvocacy  #STEM #Innovation #Science #Technology #Research #ProgressPotentialAndPossibilities #IraPastor #Podcast #Podcaster #Podcasting #ViralPodcastSupport the show

Dr. Alison Loren and Dr. Ann Partridge share the latest guideline from ASCO on the management of cancer during pregnancy. They highlight the importance of this multidisciplinary, evidence-based guideline and overarching principles for the management of cancer during pregnancy. Drs. Loren and Partridge discuss key recommendations from each section of the guideline, including diagnostic evaluation, oncologic management, obstetrical management, and psychological and social support. They also touch on the importance of this guideline and accompanying tools for clinicians and how this serves as a framework for pregnant patients with cancer. The conversation wraps up with a discussion on the unanswered questions and how future evidence will inform guideline updates.  Read the full guideline, "Management of Cancer During Pregnancy: ASCO Guideline" at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-25-02115   Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I am interviewing Dr. Alison Loren from the Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania and Dr. Ann Partridge from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, co-chairs on "Management of Cancer During Pregnancy: ASCO Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Loren and Dr. Partridge. Dr. Alison Loren: Thanks for having us. Dr. Ann Partridge: It's a pleasure. Brittany Harvey: And then just before we discuss this guideline, I would like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Partridge 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 dive into the meat of this guideline, to start us off, Dr. Loren, could you provide an overview of the scope and purpose of this new guideline on the optimal management of cancer during pregnancy? Dr. Alison Loren: Sure, thanks, Brittany. So this was really born out of I think a lot of passion and concern for this really vulnerable patient population. We have observed, and I am sure it is not any surprise to your audience, that the incidence of cancer in young people is increasing. And simultaneously, people are choosing to become pregnant at older ages, and so we are seeing more and more people with a cancer diagnosis during their pregnancy. And for probably obvious reasons, there is really no way to do randomized clinical trials in this population. And so really trying to assemble and articulate the best evidence for safely managing the diagnosis of cancer, the management of cancer once it is confirmed, being thoughtful about obviously the health of the mom, but also attending to potential risks to the developing fetus, and really just trying to be really comprehensive and balanced about all the choices for these patients when they are facing some really challenging decisions in a very emotionally fraught environment. And I think it is really emotionally fraught for the providers, too. You know, this is obviously an extremely intense, very emotional set of decisions, and so trying to provide a rudder essentially to sort of help people frame the questions and trying to make as evidence-based a set of recommendations as possible. Dr. Ann Partridge: And I would just add that "evidence-based" is a strong word here because typically our, as you just heard, our gold standard evidence is a randomized trial, but you can't do that in this setting, in general. And so, what we were able to do with the support of the phenomenal ASCO staff was to pull together kind of the world's literature on the safety and outcomes of treatments during pregnancy, as well as consensus opinion. And I think that is a really, really critical difference about this particular guideline compared to many of the other ones that ASCO does, where consensus and good judgment needed to kind of rule the day when evidence is not available. So, there is a lot of that in our recommendations. Dr. Alison Loren: That is such a good point. And I just, before we move forward, I just want to reflect that the composition of the panel was really broad and wide-ranging. We had maternal medicine specialists, we had legal and ethical experts, we had representatives who understand pharmaceutical industries' perspectives, and then medical oncologists representing the full spectrum of oncology diagnoses. And so it was a really diverse, in terms of expertise, panel, internationally composed to try to really get the best consensus that we could in the absence of gold standard evidence. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. That multidisciplinary panel is really key to developing this guideline and, as you said, looking at the evidence and even though it does not reach the level of randomized trials, still critically evaluating it and reviewing that along with consensus to come up with optimal management for diagnosis and management of cancer during pregnancy. So then to follow that up, I would like to next review the key recommendations of the guideline across the main sections that the expert panel provided. First, I will throw this out to either of you, but what are the important general principles for the management of cancer during pregnancy? Dr. Ann Partridge: I think there were three major principles that we hammer home in the guidelines. One is that this is a team sport. It is multidisciplinary care that is necessary in order to optimize outcomes for the patient and potentially for the fetus. And that you really need to, from the beginning, bring in a coordinated team, including not just oncologists but obstetricians, maternal-fetal medicine specialists, neonatologists, ethics consultants, and obviously the patient and potentially her family. So that, I think, is one of the most important things. Second would be that obviously in a pregnancy, there are two potential patients and that the nuances of safety and risk from treatment is really wrapped up in where in the trimester of the pregnancy the patient is diagnosed, along with the kind of cancer that it is, both the urgency of treatment and the risk of the cancer, as well as the potential risks of any given intervention across the cancer continuum. It is a broad guideline in that regard. And then finally, and this is particularly timely given what is going on from a sociopolitical standpoint in the U.S., really thinking about informed consent and potential ethical as well as legal implications of some of the choices that patients might have when they are thinking about, in particular, continuing a pregnancy or potential termination. Dr. Alison Loren: And I will just add that I think that the key to all of this guidance is nuance and individualization and also making sure that patients and their care providers understand all the choices that are available to them and also the consequences of those choices. You know, nobody would choose to receive chemotherapy during pregnancy if that wasn't necessary. So there are risks to treatment, but there are also risks to not treatment. And making sure that in a suboptimal situation where you do not have a lot of evidence, trying to weigh, the best you can, the risks and benefits of all of the choices so that the patient can come to a decision about the treatment plan that is right for her. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And those core concepts really set the stage for individualized care on what is necessary for appropriate multidisciplinary care, prioritizing both patient autonomy and informed decision making. With those core concepts and key principles in mind, I would like to move into the recommendations section of the guideline. So what are the key recommendations regarding diagnostic evaluation for pregnant patients with signs or symptoms of cancer? Dr. Alison Loren: I think the most important thing is to not delay, that there are very careful and well-thought-out recommendations for how to evaluate a potential cancer. And while there are certain things that we know can be harmful, particularly when certain dose thresholds are exceeded - for instance, abdominal imaging, there are certain radiographic thresholds that you don't want to exceed because of risk of harm to the embryo or fetus - there are still lots of options for diagnosing cancer during pregnancy. And again, thinking about the costs of not doing versus the cost of doing, right? It is really important to make the diagnosis of cancer if that is a consideration or a concern. And sometimes going directly to biopsies or getting definitive studies, even if there is a small risk to the developing fetus, is really essential because if the mom does not survive, of course, the fetus is also not going to survive. And so we need to be thinking first about the patient who is sitting in front of us, the woman who needs to know what is going on in her body so she can make good decisions about her health. So, I think that is a key principle in thinking about this. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. So, following that diagnosis of a new or recurrent cancer, what is recommended for oncologic management of patients who are diagnosed with cancer during their pregnancy? Dr. Ann Partridge: So, I think the general principle is, again, cancer is such a wide number of diseases and even within diseases, a range of stages and risks and associated opportunities for risk reduction and/or treatment depending on the type of cancer. Just by example, in the work that I do, which is breast cancer, once someone has had a surgery in the early-stage setting, a lot of our treatment is about risk reduction. And that is very different than from what Alison does, which is treating people with leukemia, where it is kind of binary. If you do not treat, including with cytotoxic drugs, the patient and an unborn fetus will die, especially early in the pregnancy, obviously. So this is where cancers are very, very different. So I think taking the approach of what would you do if the patient were not pregnant? And what is the best treatment for that particular patient with that particular kind of cancer? And then applying the pregnancy and where the patient is in that pregnancy in terms of the trimester of the pregnancy, and what is safe and what is unsafe from the options that you would give her if she were not pregnant. And then if the patient is choosing to keep the pregnancy, which in my practice, many people come and they come to me because they want to hold onto their pregnancy and want to figure out how to make it work, coming up with a regimen that tries to give them kind of the best bang for the buck, the best possible breast cancer therapy with the least harm, when possible, to the fetus. It is a bit of a balance, right? And then we cannot always give people the best approach. And sometimes it comes down to making a decision to give up something that may improve their survival so as not to harm the fetus. And sometimes it goes the opposite direction where a patient will say, "Oh, that is going to improve my survival by 5% and you can't give it to me now? I am going to choose to terminate." Even though that is obviously a very, very difficult and challenging decision to make in this setting because they want to optimize their survival and ideally live on to potentially have another pregnancy in the future if that is something that is of interest to her. So these are really, really hard conversations as you can imagine, but that is kind of where we go. Dr. Alison Loren: Yeah, and I think this is where the need for more research and understanding is really key because sometimes questions come up. I guess I am thinking about like HER2-directed agents, which we know are contraindicated in pregnancy. But what about sequencing? Does it matter when you get it? Can you get it later? I think that is something that we don't really fully understand. And similarly, again, this is obviously like a breast cancer and blood cancer focused discussion because that is what we do, but thinking about managing blood cancers, certainly with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, there is actually a lot of options now that, you know, you could potentially use to temporize or sort of get somebody through a pregnancy relatively safely. I am focusing on the word "relatively" because we do not know what the long-term impact might be of potentially not optimal therapy in the long run. And then thinking about other things like timing of a bone marrow transplant relative to either delivery or termination. I mean, again, we really do not know what are the right sets of sort of timing considerations for those. So there are just a lot of unknowns. And I think trying to be sort of self-aware and humble and honest about those unknowns so that the patient can engage in the conversation in a way that is meaningful to her and make the decisions that make the most sense for her. I think the most important thing is to make sure that the patient feels supported and safe to make those decisions with as little regret as possible. Brittany Harvey: Yes, I think it is really important that you mentioned that there is a wide range of cancers here, and that means that care really needs to be individualized for each patient. I will also note, just in this section, that I found really informative while reading through the guideline the list of oncologic agents that may be offered in each individual trimester, whether it is contraindicated or it can be used with caution, or if there is relatively good safety data on it for prioritizing maternal treatment needs and balancing fetal safety at the same time. I think that is, that is really key. And I think readers will really like that section of the guideline to provide concrete information for them and their patients. Dr. Alison Loren: Thank you. We actually spent a lot of time on that table and just thinking about what it should look like, what the format ought to be, what the language ought to be. Because of course, at the end of the day, everything should be used with caution. So what does that actually mean? And we sort of tried to explicate that a little bit in like the footnotes. We really tried to leverage what we know from clinical experience, from package labels, from mechanism of action to try to be as clear and definitive as we could be without overstating or understating what we know. Dr. Ann Partridge: Yeah, and I think we are focusing on breast and leukemia because that is what we do. But the truth is much of the data comes from those two areas. Leukemia, not because it is so common, but because you do not really have choices to treat or not treat. And so for decades, they have been treating and saying, "We hope the progeny comes out okay." And for many agents it does. The babies are okay. And so, we have reasonable observational data. And then in breast cancer, there have been actually some prospective registry-type studies where people have been followed and treated when pregnant, and the progeny have been accounted for, and so we have some good experience in that way too. Again, not randomized trials, but at least data that suggests certain agents are safe. And increasingly, because of that, when we have had to treat patients, we have said, "Okay, let us do it on this registry so that we can at least learn from every patient that comes in in this situation." And so, I think we will have more and more data given the growing number of young adults with cancer and the delays in childbearing that are happening around the world, and particularly in Westernized countries. I wish we did not. We wish we did not see this problem, but of course, when we do, we have to make sure that we learn from it and try and get patients enrolled in these registries and any kinds of studies that are available. Dr. Alison Loren: Yeah, I will just underscore that to say that, you know, there is outcomes of pregnancy and then there is outcomes of pregnancy, right? So there is like, "Okay, the baby was born with 10 fingers and 10 toes, and they passed their Apgar, and they are doing all their developmental processes along the way." But what happens when they are 10 or 15 or 20? Are they maturing normally? Are they cognitively intact? And then, of course, it is really inseparable from what is the impact on a family of having the mom with cancer? And how does that impact childhood development and intellectual development? And so these are really, really important questions that are very difficult to answer given the longitudinal information that you need, but it is a really critical question that, you know, patients ask and we do not know the answer. Dr. Ann Partridge: Yeah, that actually leads me to one of the important principles in the guideline that is a little bit of a change from when I first started practicing, which is we have learned from the wider neonatology literature, as they have followed up on the children that were born prematurely, that it is actually better not to be premature and to keep the baby in utero as long as it is safe for the fetus and the mother as long as possible, ideally to term rather than delivering early and then giving the chemo after that or separating the chemo from before and after. We used to try and deliver early and then give agents, but now we typically will give agents that are safe to be given at the end of pregnancy, ideally close to term, a couple weeks out, to allow for the ability of count recovery, and you do not want to go into preterm labor with chemotherapy on board, but we used to go much earlier and have an argument with our maternal-fetal medicine doctors. "How early can you get them out?" And they would say, "How long can they stay in?" And increasingly, we have been able to try and compromise to go even later and allow the fetus to go to term because of the neonatal outcomes that in longer term there is a suggestion that the children are developing better in the long run if they are kept in utero for as long as possible. Dr. Alison Loren: Yeah, that is such a great point. I think that is probably the most important thing for people to take away. For anyone who sort of does this, I mean, no one does this regularly because it is a rare event, although I think it is increasing as I mentioned. But this idea that the third trimester is, most of us know, is primarily a time for growth. Most of the critical development has already occurred, and so administering most chemotherapy agents towards the end of the third trimester seems to be preferable long term than delivering them early. So that is a really big change. I think we used to try to sort of, "Oh, get them to 30 or 32 weeks and then deliver," but we really are trying to get them closer to term, 37 weeks or more, and then coordinating the treatment so that they are not nadiring, as Ann said, at the time of planned delivery. Brittany Harvey: Yes, and that is a really important point related to evidence-based care and why we have changed that practice. And so then that actually leads nicely into my next question. But as you both mentioned, this is an important collaboration between oncologists and obstetricians. So the next section of the guideline addresses obstetrical practice. And so beyond what is standard, what additional recommendations are there in obstetrical management for pregnant patients with cancer? Dr. Alison Loren: That is a great question. So I will say we were really struggling with like how much do we cover? Like this is an oncology guideline. We are not obstetricians. We certainly had great representation from our maternal-fetal medicine colleagues on the panel. But really trying to sort of give useful information without overstepping. And so I think that the main recommendations are to increase the frequency of fetal monitoring, make sure that there is close attention to blood counts in the patient. But I think there is really still a gap in terms of what we know about optimal management of a pregnant person who is receiving therapy and how to handle the pregnancy itself. The delivery should be a usual delivery. Our colleagues did not recommend a planned C-section. They recommended usual care in terms of planning for the delivery. Obviously, if a C-section is indicated, then it should be done, but it should not be planned this way because of the cancer diagnosis. And I guess the other thing that we mentioned in the guideline, although we were reluctant to push it too hard because of access to these specialized services, was evaluating the placenta after birth to ensure that there were no metastases in the placenta itself. Dr. Ann Partridge: Those are the main things, and judicious and prudent obstetrical care, as I think, you know, is trying to be practiced regularly with MFM. Typically these patients should be followed not by your average OB/GYN, but a maternal-fetal medicine specialist because these patients will have special concerns, especially if they are sick. So oftentimes, especially Alison's patients, are actually sick with leukemia. And so you are monitoring them a lot, whereas, you know, a breast cancer patient typically isn't sick, although they could get sick with their chemotherapy. And so we really want to hand-in-hand manage these patients with our MFM colleagues. Dr. Alison Loren: I think we also highlighted in the guideline just for the refresher purposes of the oncology community, generally which drugs that would be given in a normal oncology setting are safe to be given to a pregnant person. So we talked a little bit about what kinds of steroids are recommended, antiemetics, DVT prophylaxis, peripartum. These are things that we think about a lot in oncology, but just want to make sure that it sort of intersected appropriately with the care of a pregnant patient. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. That specialized care is really important for patients who are pregnant and have cancer. And then the last section of the recommendations addresses psychological and social support. As you both mentioned before, this is a highly emotional time and it can be difficult and challenging to make decisions. So what is recommended for the psychological and social support of pregnant patients with cancer? Dr. Ann Partridge: Well, as I said, it is really something that needs to be considered at the beginning, through the diagnostic period, all the way into survivorship. Ironically, even though it is a highly fraught, emotional situation, I find that my pregnant patients actually are extraordinarily resilient, and what they are really focused on often is the safety of the fetus, because again, many of the people that come to me, it is a highly wanted pregnancy. They are also focused on their own health, of course, and often you need to bring in social work, sometimes a psychologist, professionals who are there just to help manage their emotions while we are focusing on what do they need medically to be as healthy as possible, both for the again, the mother, the patient, and the fetus. It is very tricky, and I will say also bringing in sometimes people on the ethics team in the hospital to help, both from the "Are you recommending and giving something that is safe?" That is number one. And then number two, sometimes patients want to be treated with drugs that we do not have any safety data for in pregnancy. What are our obligations? I think most of us would say we would not treat someone if we do not have safety data and there is suspicion for concern. But where is that line in terms of the right thing to do by that patient? And so we are all beholden to our ethics colleagues to help us when we make decisions like that. You know, we all want to do right by the patient, but we have to uphold our oaths and legal obligations. I don't know if you have to add on that because it's very tricky. Dr. Alison Loren: It is, it is very hard. I mean, I think, you know, there is a lot of emotion, obviously any cancer diagnosis is extremely charged and people are already at sort of a heightened, you know, they are anticipating a new baby and planning around that. And so it is just an extremely disruptive is the smallest word I can think of to describe it. And I think that often there is a co-parent, there might be parents and in-laws and other siblings, and then there is care after delivery. And so it is just a very complex set of dynamics. And having both our ethics colleagues and our psychology and social work colleagues to sort of just pitch in and make sure that the patient is being supported. I think there are sometimes really difficult situations where maybe what the patient wants is different from what the father of the baby wants or what the rest of the family wants. And so that can be really challenging. And you never really know where those landmines are going to pop up. So it is good to have the team on board early and often. Dr. Ann Partridge: Yeah, I would add to that, the other thing here that I think is really important, like in all of medicine but especially in situations like this, this is where we have to be very careful as professionals not to impose our own ethical, moral, emotional, personal views on the patient and to try to reserve judgment as much as possible. We are their navigator with the most important evidence and information that we can provide in the current situation. And that is where this guideline is extraordinarily helpful, we hope, for clinicians in the years to come. And at the same time, we cannot necessarily impose our own views and what we would do on a patient or what we tell our daughters, sisters, friends, family members. It is very tricky in that way. And so sometimes not just support for the patient, but support for the care team may be warranted in some of these very fraught situations. Dr. Alison Loren: Yeah, that is such a great point. And I was sort of thinking that too. I mean, it is, of course, the patient is front and center, but these are really difficult situations to navigate. And I will just add also that a lot of times these patients end up in academic centers, which I think is that's where the expertise or even just the experience may be. But the downside of that is that, you know, the teams are constantly changing. You have a new resident, you have a new intern, you have a new attending, a new fellow. And so, you know, the patients may be subjected to lots of different ways of communicating and sometimes those perceived differences can be really challenging. So sort of team huddles to sort of make sure that everybody is reading from the same script and everyone is comfortable with how the information is being presented so that the patient does not feel more confused or more overwhelmed, that they are kind of getting a consistent message from the whole team that, "This is what we know, this is what we are recommending, here are your other choices, and here are the pros and cons of each of these options." Brittany Harvey: Yes, I think you have both touched on this and that bringing in appropriate experts to support both clinicians and patients and their decision-making and their mental health is really important for this section of the guideline. We have already discussed this a fair bit throughout our conversation, but in your view, what is the importance of this guideline and how will it impact both clinicians and pregnant patients diagnosed with cancer? Dr. Ann Partridge: I could start with that. We just talked about experts and having them all around, but the fact is most people do not have the experts all around when they are dealing with this. And I think this is, you know, an expert-based, evidence-based guideline where having this in one's back pocket, whether you are in rural Montana or at a major cancer center on either coast, you will be armed with the latest and the greatest in terms of what we know and what we do not know, and some very helpful algorithms for how to think through the process of dealing with a patient who is diagnosed during pregnancy, whichever type of cancer it is. We could not cover every single specific thing about every cancer, although it is a pretty long guideline and there is a lot of nuance in there. So you might find a lot about specific cancers. And I think that that will be very, very helpful for people who are faced with this situation in the clinics just to frame it out, think through. Sometimes there is no answer that is the perfect answer and then, you know, using this as kind of a scaffolding and phoning a friend who may have more experience to help guide you and guide the patient, most importantly. I think it will be very helpful in that regard. Dr. Alison Loren: Yeah, I think so too. And I have talked about that we are working on this guideline and the anecdotal feedback has been, "This is so helpful." Like there really has not been, I think, an all-in-one place, diagnostic considerations, radiographic considerations, staging, treatment, all the modalities, surgical, radiation, systemic chemotherapy. We tried to include, when we could, novel agents including targeted agents and monoclonal antibodies and bispecifics and cellular immunotherapies and non-cellular immunotherapies. We really, really tried to cover in 2025 what are people using to treat cancer and to try to give the most balanced view of what we think is is safe or reasonably safe and what we think is either unproven or known to be risky, really to have it be kind of a go-to, like all-in-one, as much information as we have about these really challenging cases. We tried to include, Ann mentioned, you know, specific cancers, and I think when there were specific things to shout out with specific cancers, we really tried to highlight that. Like, "Okay, lots of young patients with cancer have Hodgkin's lymphoma, so what is safe and what is not for that specific case?" Or, "What is safe or what is not when you are thinking about colon cancers?" And we have a shout-out in here about considering checking for DPD deficiencies in patients who are pregnant. And I know it is generally recommended nowadays, but certainly for people who are pregnant, you know, you really want to avoid excess toxicity. So I think just really trying to be attentive to specifics about certain cancers in young patients and what would be valuable for a practicing oncologist and obstetrician to know when you are faced with this situation. Dr. Ann Partridge: Yeah, and I think the other critical thing that is great about this guideline is it's a starting place. And I anticipate that we will be building on this guideline for many years to come. And remember that when first, I was not around then, but probably three or four decades ago, when chemotherapy was just coming out and patients were coming in pregnant, there was a feeling I am sure that was, "We cannot give this to this person because it is purposefully going to destroy cells. And when you destroy cells in a growing fetus, you are going to destroy or harm that fetus." And yet, people did not have great choices. It was get treated or die, especially with things like leukemia early on. And bold patients along with their oncologist said, "Bring it on." And that is how some of this literature has been born. And so moving forward, there will be either purposeful exposures or inadvertent exposures of some of our therapies where we will learn ultimately. And this is a place where we can update these guidelines. That is the beautiful thing about the ASCO guidelines is that they are constantly being thought about to be updated. And then when there is enough of a change in practice, they will be updated such that they will continue to inform how we do this in the years to come for patients who come in pregnant. Dr. Allison Loren: Yeah, and I will say I have been doing this long enough now, we were just talking about a different guideline, the fertility guideline earlier today, and over the 20 years that the fertility guidelines have been out, just the amount of research has really skyrocketed. And you can see as you look at each guideline how much we have learned, what we can say, "Yes, this is working," "No, this is not working." Like, it is stuff that we used to say, "Oh, we do not really know," and now we have answers.  I think I speak for both of us when I say that we are hopeful that this will serve as, as Ann said, as a starting off point and really inspire people to ask the questions and do the research so that we can give better guidance moving forward, really trying to think about, you know, mechanisms and leaning on our colleagues in pharma and in the government who sort of think about safety and efficacy, to sort of make sure that they are contemplating not just non-pregnant patients, but also pregnant patients or as they are thinking about marking the package inserts with safety guidelines around this. Brittany Harvey: Yes, this is a critically important first guideline on the management of cancer during pregnancy, and we will look forward to continuing to build on that. I think as you mentioned, this guideline is far-reaching and has a lot of recommendations in it. And so both the full text of the guideline and those at-a-glance algorithms, figures, and tables will be really useful for clinicians in their clinic. Finally, to wrap us up, we have just been discussing this a little bit, but specifically, what are the outstanding questions on the management of pregnant patients with cancer, and where is this further research needed? Dr. Alison Loren: There are lots and lots and lots of unanswered questions. And I think if you look at the table, most of what we say is, "We are pretty sure this is okay, we are not so sure about this." I am paraphrasing, but we really just are operating in a paucity of what we would normally consider gold-standard evidence. It is hard to imagine, of course, there would ever be, as we mentioned in the beginning, randomized trials. But I think that preclinical data, mechanistic data, trying to think about including as we go through animal data, making sure that we are looking at female animals and pregnant animals so that we can sort of fully understand what the impact may be. And then I think thinking about more localized therapies around sort of radiation, you know, we are now moving into really hyper-focused radiation treatments like protons. Is that better because there is less scatter? Like I think those are real considerations that we just do not know the answer to. What do you think? Dr. Ann Partridge: I think so many unanswered questions, and this is a call to action to continue to and increase the documentation of the experiences and outcomes for patients diagnosed during pregnancy. Dr. Alison Loren: Yeah, and I think the long-term outcomes too are really going to be critical. Brittany Harvey: Yes, we will look forward to learning about more evidence across the spectrum of care to inform future updates to this guideline. So I want to thank you both so much for your work to develop this guideline, to review the extensive amounts of literature that you did, and work to create this guideline. And thank you also for your time today, Dr. Loren and Dr. Partridge. Dr. Alison Loren: Thanks. It was fun. Dr. Ann Partridge: Yeah, thank you. Brittany Harvey: And 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/survivorship-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you have heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. 

Guests Dr. Andrea Necchi, Dr. Ashish Kamat and host Dr. Davide Soldato discuss JCO article "End Points for the Next-Generation Bladder-Sparing Perioperative Trials for Patients With Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer," focusing on the evolving treatment landscape of MIBC (muscle-invasive bladder cancer) and the need to properly design novel trials investigating non-operative management while including the incorporation of biomarkers and patient perspectives in clinical trials. TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. 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 Andrea Necchi, Associate Professor of Medical Oncology at University San Raffaele and Medical Oncology at Ospedale San Raffaele in Milan, Italy, and Ashish Kamat, Professor of Urologic Oncology and Cancer Research at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Both Professor Necchi and Professor Kamat are internationally recognized experts in the field of genitourinary malignancy and particularly in bladder cancer. Today we will be discussing the article titled "Endpoints for the Next Generation Bladder-Sparing Perioperative Trials for Patients with Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer." So thank you for speaking with us, Professor Necchi and Professor Kamat. Dr. Andrea Necchi: Thank you, Davide, and thank you JCO for the opportunity. Dr. Ashish Kamat: Yeah, absolutely. It is a great honor and privilege to be discussing this very important article with you. So thank you for the invitation. Dr. Davide Soldato: The article that you just published in JCO reports the results of a consensus meeting that was held among experts in the field of genitourinary malignancy and particularly for bladder cancer. So the objective was really to define endpoints for a novel generation of trials among patients diagnosed with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. So my first question would be: what is the change in clinical practice and in clinical evidence that we have right now that prompted the start of such consensus in 2025? Dr. Andrea Necchi: So, we are living so many changes in the treatment paradigm of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. In general, patients diagnosed with bladder cancer or urothelial cancer today, thanks to the advent of immunotherapy or immunotherapy combinations, and today thanks to the advent of novel antibody-drug conjugates like enfortumab vedotin in combination with immunotherapy that are actually changing the landscape of treatment of patients with metastatic disease and also are entering quite fast into the treatment paradigm of patients with organ-confined disease with a lot of clinical trials testing these combination therapies, neoadjuvantly or adjuvantly, before or after radical cystectomy. Having said that, by potentiating the efficacy of systemic therapy, an increasing number of patients that receive neoadjuvant therapy of any kind, at a certain point in time, result to have achieved a deep response to systemic therapy, evaluated radiologically with conventional imaging, CT scan or MRI, or with cystoscopy or with other urology-based techniques, urinary cytology, and so. And based on the fact that they achieve a complete response, so no residual viable disease after systemic therapy, they raise concern about the fact that they have to undergo surgery like radical cystectomy that is quite impactful for their quality of life and for the future of their lives after the surgery. So the point that the patients are raising, and the patients are raising this point, is primarily due to the efficacy of systemic therapy. And we have seen so many cases fortunately achieving a deep response. So the question about what to do with the patient that at a certain point, at the start with the commitment to radical cystectomy, but at a certain point in time change their mind towards something else if possible, depending on the fact that they have achieved a deep response, is something that is a question and is a need to which we have to provide data, information, and guidance in general to the patients. Dr. Davide Soldato: If we look at the population that the recommendations were formulated for, we are mainly speaking about patients who would be fit for cystectomy, and this is a very distinct population compared to those who are not fit for cystectomy, both from a medical oncology point of view but also from a urologic point of view in terms of surgery. So, can you explain a little bit to our listeners why you think that this distinction is critical and why you developed this recommendation especially for this population? Dr. Ashish Kamat: That is a very important distinction that you made. To build upon what Professor Necchi mentioned earlier, this question that we get from patients after neoadjuvant therapy or systemic therapy is not a new question. It has been something that they have been asking us for the last 20 or 30 years. "Do I really need to have my bladder taken out?" And patients who are especially not fit for surgery will sometimes say, "Do I need to have my bladder taken out? And if I cannot have my bladder taken out, am I going to just not have anything done?" Because the eligibility for radical cystectomy is also a moving target. Over the years with improvement in surgical technique, improvement in perioperative therapy, ERAS protocols, et cetera, it is really unusual for us to deny a patient the opportunity to have major surgery unless clearly they have very significant comorbid conditions. So I think this endeavor is more broadly encompassing of the patient population than what was evident in previous years. And I really want to give a shout out to Professor Necchi because what we did was, as part of the International Bladder Cancer Group and Professor Necchi is an integral part of the scientific advisory board, we broached this topic broadly during one of our discussions. And of course, Andrea always does this, he picks on a topic and then he says, "Okay, we need to discuss this really in detail," put together a multinational, multicenter collaborative group, but the driving force was our patients. Because our patients are constantly asking, "Do I need to lose my organ? Do I need to have radiation therapy?" which again, also, has a lot of side effects. So this was really to answer the question in today's day and age as to do we need to do local consolidation, and if so, in what way? It is not a new question, but we have newer therapies, newer technology, and better ways to answer this. So it is a much needed question that needs to be answered. And I think the distinction between non-surgical candidates and surgical candidates is a little bit blurred in today's day and age. Dr. Davide Soldato: What about the eligibility, for example, for cisplatin-based chemotherapy? Because I think that that is a very fundamental part of this type of strategy that we apply to patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. So we know that there are some caveats for proposing such treatment. And also this population was specifically defined inside this recommendation. Dr. Andrea Necchi: I think that the focus of our work is just to analyze what is happening after any type of systemic therapy the patient may get neoadjuvantly. So it is not actually a question of treatment eligibility or including cisplatin eligibility. This is an old question of today's practice and clinical trials. But regardless of what the patient received neoadjuvantly, the point that we have addressed in our consensus meeting was what to do next as a further step after systemic therapy or not. So basically we are- the consensus guidance includes all-comers, so patients to get any type of systemic therapy. So really non-selected based on specific features that determine a special eligibility to a special or a particular therapy. But an all-comer approach is always the winning approach for the translation to be in practice, an all-comer approach just focusing on what has happened after treatment and that we are assessing by the use of conventional imaging, MRI or CT, cystoscopy, urinary cytology, and trying to merge all together this information, all these features in a unique, shared, reliable definition of clinical complete response that could be used as a biomarker for the selection of newer therapies instead of pathological response that has been historically used, and maybe surrogate for the outcome, the long-term outcome and survival of these patients. Dr. Davide Soldato: A very specific point of the consensus was actually the definition of clinical complete response. As you were saying, this is actually a combination of several parameters including urinary cytology, the use of cross-sectional imaging, for example CT scan, but also the evaluation in cystoscopy of the bladder. Do you foresee any potential problems when applying this type of recommendation, not inside clinical trials, but in the context of routine clinical practice? Dr. Ashish Kamat: Absolutely. And that was the whole reason we had this consensus meeting. What happens nowadays in daily practice, and we see this every day at our center, we see patients referred to us. This definition or this sort of attempt to define clinical complete response is an ongoing issue. And urologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists are always looking to see, does my patient have a complete response? That definition and those paradigms have changed and evolved over the years. The FDA had a workshop many years ago looking at this very question. And it was to address the proposal that complete clinical response, which is a clinical definition, a clinical state, does this correlate with pathologic response? And with the technology and the systemic therapies we had then, the answer was 'no'. In fact, more patients got recurrent disease than did not get recurrent disease. And that is why, of course in the paper we mention the trials that looked at this question, the trials that evolved around this question. And I think the distinction between a clinical trial and daily practice is extremely important when we are looking at this definition per se. Because essentially what happens with this issue is that if the patient is not appropriately counseled, and if the physician does not do the appropriate clinical complete response assessment as Professor Necchi mentioned, right, cystoscopy, cytology, imaging, use of markers that are still in evolvement, we risk doing harm to the patient. So we caution in the paper too that this definition is not ready for prime time use. It is something that needs to be studied. It is a rigorous definition and currently we are recommending it for clinical trials. I am sure eventually it will trickle down into clinical practice, but that guidance was not the purpose of this consensus meeting. Dr. Davide Soldato: There are several parameters that are potentially evolving and could potentially enter inside of clinical practice. For example, you mentioned pelvic MRI and we have now very specific criteria, the VI-RADS criteria, we're able actually to diagnose and also to provide information. So along with these novel imaging techniques, we also know that there are novel biomarkers that could be explored, for example ctDNA and urinary DNA. So what I was wondering is, why were not these included inside the definition that you provide for clinical complete response? And do you think that, as we are designing these trials to potentially spare cystectomy for this patient, we should include these biomarkers very early so that we can actually provide better stratification for our patients and really propose this type of cystectomy-sparing strategy only to those where we are very confident that we have obtained a clinical complete response? Dr. Andrea Necchi: I would say you have just to wait. So a follow-up is ongoing and hard work is ongoing. At the time we met, at the time we established the meeting in mid-December last year, we had no information on the ctDNA data from major trials, with only a few exceptions. So we were just at the beginning of a story that was more than likely to change but still without numbers and without data from clinical trials. Now in just nine months or 10 months time, we have accumulated important data and newer data will be presented during just a few weeks and a few days regarding the ctDNA, circulating tumor DNA in particular, as a prognostic marker assessed baseline or assessed after neoadjuvant therapy. So the point is certainly well made and ctDNA is certainly well shaped to be incorporated in a future definition of clinical complete response. But you have to consider the fact that most of the data that we are accumulating related to ctDNA are about the post-cystectomy field or the metastatic field. So regarding neoadjuvant therapy, you know, we have neoadjuvant therapy in the context of bladder-sparing approach, basically we have no information. And the point that is emerging in our daily practice when using these biomarkers or in clinical trials, and the impression in general, is that it is a very strong biomarker associated with survival, but we absolutely do not know what is the performance of the test in the prediction of superficial bladder relapses, high-grade pTa relapse in the bladder that is left untouched in the patient. We are considering, and maybe it will be just a matter of further discussion, not just what is happening within the immediate endpoint of clinical CR, but also what is happening later with other survival endpoints. And for example, when looking at the type of events that we may see in this kind of bladder-sparing approaches, most of the events, also in the trials that have been published including the RETAIN study published in JCO, most of the events are related to superficial high-grade superficial non-muscle invasive relapses. So the ability to predict these types of events with ctDNA is completely unknown. Maybe, maybe other liquid biomarkers like urinary tumor DNA, utDNA, could be a bit better shaped in the prediction of this kind of events, you know. But we have still to build the story. So the question is good. The answer is yes, we will likely, more than likely incorporate liquid biomarkers in the definition, but we have to wait at least more data and more robust data in order to translate this information in routine practice, you know. Another consensus meeting is organized by IBCG and the same folks for November. This meeting will be primarily focused on the liquid biomarkers, the interpretation and use and approval and so of liquid biomarkers including bladder cancer. And we will likely be able to address all these, most of these open issues, so most of these points in the next meetings. Dr. Davide Soldato: In the consensus you say that probably clinical complete response is now ready to be included in early phase trials, so actually to test what is the efficacy of the regimens that is being evaluated inside of these trials. But you actually do very in-depth work of defining what are the most appropriate endpoints for later phase trials. So to be very specific, the phase three registrational trials that bring new regimens inside of this space. So I just wanted to hear a little bit about what was the definition for event-free survival, which you define as the most appropriate one for this type of trials. And as you were mentioning before, Professor Necchi, there is a very specific interest on the type of events that we observe, especially when we look at these superficial relapses inside of the bladder. So was this a very urgent matter of debate as we define which type of events should actually trigger event-free survival? And did you make a very thoughtful decision about why using this type of endpoint instead of others, for example metastasis-free survival? Dr. Ashish Kamat: Yeah, this was a matter of intense debate as you might imagine. And again, this is a moving target. So as Professor Necchi mentioned, we tend to partner with each other, our organizations, on having definitions of clinical complete response, biomarker, retreats, and then using that as a marker, and you might imagine this definition of what is appropriate event-free survival, what events matter to the patient, is something we have been talking about for two years. It was not just something that came up at the retreat. But at the retreat there was intense discussion. One of the things that we talked about was bladder-intact event-free survival because we are trying to spare the patient's bladder. And do we count bladder-intact event-free survival as something that is relevant? The patient advocates absolutely liked that, right? They wanted that. But then we also learned from some of the studies, for example from the RETAIN study, that the non-muscle invasive recurrences can actually lead to metastatic disease. It is not as benign when you have a patient with muscle-invasive bladder cancer that then develops a non-invasive tumor because maybe there is cancer growing underneath the surface that we don't detect when we look in the bladder. So a lot of those discussions were held, debated. It was a consensus. I have to say it was not 100% agreement on that particular definition, but it was broad consensus. And Andrea, do you want to clarify a little bit as to how we came about that consensus? Because I think this is a very important point we need to make. Dr. Andrea Necchi: We focused on a bit different definition of BI-EFS, Bladder-Intact Event-Free survival. Just stating EFS as an all-inclusive parameter including all type of high-grade relapse or progression or death that may happen to the patient. So that we were counting high-grade pTa, pT1, CIS relapses to the bladder and of course more deeper involvement in the muscle layer and so, and metastatic disease as a relapse. But the point is that as compared to the classical bladder-intact EFS definition of chemoradiation bladder-sparing approaches that is including muscle-invasive relapses only or death as events, we tried to be as inclusive as possible in order to be as much conservative as possible and to raise as higher the bar as possible for the success. And this is actually what the patients are asking us. So they are asking, "Okay, I can save my bladder, sparing radical cystectomy, but at which cost?" So in order to provide an answer, we have to be very, very cautious and be on the right shape, on the right position to say, "Okay, we have accomplished the most, the safest points, you know, by which you can proceed with the bladder-sparing." This is the first point. The other point is related to the MFS, metastasis-free survival that you have mentioned. For sure, it was recognized as a very important point for sure. But in the discussion was clear that our focus was in saving patients, curing the patient, and saving the bladder. Any single event, superficial event that may occur in the bladder-saving approaches of this kind may expose the patient to an extra risk of developing distant metastases, as it happened for example in the RETAIN study. So EFS defined as we have agreed and published, is actually a way of including or anticipating in a safest position the MFS. Because most or if not the entirety of the events of metastasis development in patients undergoing bladder-sparing after neoadjuvant systemic therapy were preceded by a superficial phase of disease relapse, you know. So I remember very, very few, or we can count just on the finger of one hand, the cases that have been reported in the literature developing de novo metastatic disease in the similar bladder-sparing approaches, in particular when using a maintenance immunotherapy strategy, you know, after they reach TURBT. So this is the reason why with all the limitation that Ashish has mentioned, with all the uncertainties that are still there, the nervousness that is still there, EFS, as defined in the protocol, as put in the paper, is to us at the moment is the safest way to use a primary endpoint in potentially registration trials of this kind with perioperative systemic therapy and response-adapted surgery. Dr. Ashish Kamat: And David, just to be absolutely clear for our listeners, right, so what was the event-free survival that we defined? Essentially it was a very inclusive definition. Event was defined as high-grade tumor persistence, recurrence, or progression during or after perioperative therapy, and receipt of any additional standard of care treatment including radical cystectomy, radiotherapy or even intravesical therapy. So this was done at the behest of our patient advocates because we really wanted to make a very robust definition that could be utilized appropriately as an adequate primary endpoint for both early and late phase bladder preservation trials. Dr. Davide Soldato: I think that it really highlights one of the points that I liked the most about this consensus is that it really incorporated the patient vision and a sort of shared decision making process when we are deciding how we want to design these trials that will explore this bladder-sparing surgery. And Professor Necchi mentioned something that I think will be also a very interesting question for trials that will be developed considering the activity of this combination that we are seeing right now, which is maintenance. Because right now our approach in the few cases where patients do not do any type of treatments after an induction with neoadjuvant treatments is basically represented by observation. So I was wondering if you think that the field will actually evolve to a sort of maintenance strategy even in patients that will achieve a complete clinical response? Dr. Andrea Necchi: We just mentioned briefly in the paper, this is a very important point that was touched during the discussion, and in particular was raised and discussed by FDA people participating in the meeting. And when looking at the data from the trials that were available and are still available thus far, we could provide a suggestion that maintenance immune therapy is the preferred approach in this kind of approach as it currently stands, as the data currently stand. Because the cleanest data towards the successful part of this journey is related to the studies that provided a kind of maintenance therapy, like the study with nivolumab or the RETAIN-2 study with maintenance immune therapy instead of RETAIN study that was just stopping treatment until surgery with MVAC chemotherapy. So in general the impression is that maintenance therapy may help in reducing the type of events, including the events that we incorporate in the EFS definition that we mentioned in the paper. The point that you mentioned is very important because on the other side we have a problem, a big problem of affordability and cost of the treatment. The de-escalation trials are an urgent need and represent a call for the studies. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, this is something that moves beyond the possibilities of this type of consensus because we don't have data and we have to accumulate data from clinical trials prior to saying, "Okay, certain patients could de-escalate therapy and stop therapy and some other not." So we are still at the very beginning. So we can do- we can discuss about this in the radical cystectomy paradigm but not in the bladder-sparing paradigm, you know. But this is for sure a point, a discussion point that will be taken, pretty well taken in one year or two year projection. Dr. Davide Soldato: I was wondering if in the consensus, considering that patient advocates and patient associations were also involved, did you decide to actually suggest the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes or the evaluation of shared decision-making in the development of this trial really as endpoints that should matter as much or as much as possible as event-free survival and clinical complete response? Dr. Ashish Kamat: Oh yeah, absolutely. We had patient advocates, we had the World Bladder Cancer Patient Coalition, Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network, patient representatives. And we always consider this. Shared decision-making is actually the impetus behind why these efforts have been launched, right? So it is the shared decision-making that is very, very important. It is the driving force behind what we do. And it is worth noting, for example, for the design of such studies, regulatory agencies consider response-based endpoints or overall survival as primary endpoints. But the patient advocates consider quality of life to be just as important, if not more important sometimes than overall survival numbers. Because patient advocates will say, "Well if I live longer but I'm miserable living longer, yes that works for regulatory agencies but doesn't work for us." So PROs clearly are very, very important. And, in fact, we just literally had a meeting in Houston, the IBCG meeting where PROs were a main point of what we discussed. So incorporating PROs in everything we do, not just this but everything we do, Dr. Necchi, myself, everybody involved in these fields realizes it is very, very important. So absolutely. Dr. Davide Soldato: I want to thank again Professor Necchi and Professor Kamat for joining us today. Dr. Andrea Necchi: Thank you. Dr. Ashish Kamat: It is our pleasure. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thanks again and we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled "Endpoints for the Next Generation Bladder-Sparing Perioperative Trials for Patients with Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer." If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/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.

Listen to JCO's Art of Oncology article, "Smell," by Dr. Alice Cusick, who is a Hematology Section Chief at Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Health System and Assistant Professor at the University of Michigan Division of Hematology and Oncology. The article is followed by an interview with Cusick and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr Cusick shares a connection to a cancer patient manifested as a scent. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: Smell, by Alice Cusick, MD  Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Welcome back to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. This ASCO podcast features intimate narratives and perspectives from authors exploring their experiences in oncology. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. Joining us today is Alice Cusick, Hematology Section Chief at the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System and Assistant Professor at the University of Michigan, Division of Hematology and Oncology, to discuss her Journal of Clinical Oncology article, "Smell." Alice, thank you for contributing to Journal of Clinical Oncology and for joining us to discuss your article. Dr. Alice Cusick: Thank you so much for having me, Mikkael. I appreciate it. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It's really a pleasure, and as usual, Alice and I discussed this beforehand and agreed to call each other by first names. I always love to hear your story first. Can you tell us about yourself? Where are you from, and walk us through your career, if you could. Dr. Alice Cusick: I'm a Midwesterner. I grew up in Iowa and Illinois and went to a small college in Illinois, played basketball, Division lll, and was an English Literature major. I took one science class and was going to be an English professor. And then my father's a physician. My senior year, I realized I don't think I could spend all my time in a library. I didn't feel like I was helping anyone. And so I talked to my dad, and he said, "Yeah, I think you could be a doctor." So I thought I would help people by being a physician. So I moved to Iowa City and spent two years working in a lab and doing science classes and took the MCAT, which was the first year they had the essay on there, and I rocked that. That was my highest score. I got into the University of Iowa and then went on to residency and fellowship at the University of Wisconsin, just in hematology. I didn't do solid tumors. And then went on, spent a couple years there, worked in Pennsylvania in more of a group practice, and then came back to academics at the University of Michigan about 10 years ago. And then five years ago, I became the Hematology Section Chief at the VA in Ann Arbor. So I work there full time now. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I love that story. I served on the admissions committee at Cleveland Clinic and Case Western when I was also a Midwesterner for 18 years. And I always wondered if instead of searching for science majors, we should be searching for English majors because I think there's a core element of medicine that is actually storytelling. Dr. Alice Cusick: Oh, very much so. My father was a country doctor for many, many years in rural Iowa in the fifties and sixties. So he did house calls, and he talked about how you really got to know people by going to their house. And I'll never forget the first time that I did a full history and physical, I think I was maybe a second-year medical student, and I was telling him, "Oh, I'm so excited. I'm going to do my first history and physical." And he said, "Alice, don't talk to them about medicine right away or about their problems right away. Talk to them about something else. Get to know them because you know about sports, talk about sports." I said, "Dad, that's called establishing rapport." You know, that's what they had taught us. But it was intuitive to him. I'll never forget that he just said their story is important and how they live and where they live and who they live with is so important. It really helps you figure out their medical issues as well. And I've always tried to carry that through. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It's funny what we glean from our parents. My dad was a journalist for the Providence Journal-Bulletin. He was a reporter for a couple of decades, and I almost feel like some of what I'm doing is acting as a reporter. It's my job to get the story and get the story right and solicit enough details from a patient that I really have a sense that I'm with them on the journey of their illness, so I can understand it completely. Dr. Alice Cusick: Oh, very much so. And that's one of the things I really harp about with the fellows because sometimes I remember more of the social history than I do sometimes the medical history when I'm seeing a patient. I remind them, you need to know who they live with and how they live. It helps you take care of them. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, and that must be particularly germane with your patient population. When I was a medical student, my first rotation on internal medicine was at the Philadelphia VA, and it's actually what convinced me to specialize within internal medicine. What is it like caring for veterans? Dr. Alice Cusick: This is the best job I've ever had in my life. And I think because it speaks to my sense of duty that I got from my parents, particularly from my father, and I really feel I got back to my original focus, which is helping people. So that sense of duty and serving those who served, which is our core mission, this job is the most rewarding I've ever had because you really feel like you're helping people. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: How much do you learn about your patients' military history when you first interact with them? Dr. Alice Cusick: It can come up in conversation. It sort of depends on what the context is and how much you ask and how much of that is incorporated into what's going on with their medical history. It comes up a lot in terms of, particularly cancer, because a lot of cancers that veterans develop can be related to their military exposures. So it can come up certainly in that context. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: You write about how your patient and his wife brought in photographs of his younger self. Can you describe some of those photos? Dr. Alice Cusick: So a lot of it was about the sports he was doing at the time. He was kind of almost like a bodybuilder and doing like martial arts. So there were some pictures of him in his shirt and shorts, showing how healthy he was. He was much younger, but it was such a contrast to how he was at that time as he was nearing death. But it really rounded out my understanding of him because, as we all know, when we meet people, we see them when they're at that particular age, and we may not have that context of what they were 20, 30 years ago. But that still informs how they think about themselves. I mean, I still think of myself as an athlete even though I'm much older. So that's important to understand how the patient thinks about himself or herself. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: You know, it's funny you mentioned those two photographs. I- immediately flashed into my mind, I had a patient who also was a martial arts expert, and I remember he was in his early seventies and hospitalized, but he made sure to put up that photo of him when he was in his prime, in his martial arts outfit in a pose. And I've had another patient who was a boxer, and all he wanted to talk about whenever he saw me was his first experience boxing in Madison Square Garden and what that moment felt like of climbing into the ring, squeezing in between the ropes, and facing off in front of what must have been some massive crowd. Dr. Alice Cusick: Yeah. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Why do you think it was important to them to bring in those photos to show you? Dr. Alice Cusick: I think it was to help me understand what he had been. I think it was important for him, and because we had a relationship, it wasn't just transactional in terms of his medical problems. It was really conversations every day about what he was doing and how his life was going. And I think he really wanted me to understand what he had been. And so I felt really honored because I think that was important. It told me that his relationship with me was very important to him. I found that very, very humbling. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah, I find it fascinating the details that patients offer to us about themselves as opposed to the ones that we solicit. I think it speaks to also the closeness of the relationship we have with patients when they want to share that aspect of them. They want to show you who they were before they were ill. And it's not a point of bragging. It's not flexing for them. I think it's really to remind themselves and us of the vitality of the person who's sitting in front of us or lying in front of us in the hospital johnny or sitting on an exam table. Dr. Alice Cusick: Oh, very much so. And I've experienced that even with my own parents as they got older and were in the medical system. I remember vividly, my father had had a stroke, and the people taking care of him didn't understand what he had been. They didn't understand that his voice was very different. We kept asking, you know, "His voice is different." They had no concept of him beforehand. So that also really hit home to me how important it is to understand patients in the whole context of their lives. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: And as a family member, do you think it's equally important to share that story of who somebody was before they were ill as a reminder to yourself and to the people taking care of a relative? Dr. Alice Cusick: Oh, very much so. I think it's very helpful because it also makes you feel like you're supporting the loved one as well by, if they can't speak for themselves, particularly when they're very ill, to help people understand, it may help the physicians or any provider understand their illness better, especially if there's a diagnostic dilemma, thinking about going home, what are they going to need at home, those sorts of things. I think it's always important to try to provide that context. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Patients will often talk about their deaths or transitions to hospice as an abstract future. Do you think they rely on us to make the decision about a concrete transition to hospice, or do you think they know it's time and are looking for us to verbalize it for their family and friends? Dr. Alice Cusick: I think it depends on how much groundwork you've done beforehand. So when you talk about end of life with people well before that transition it's almost mandatory, I think it's very important. It makes the transition much smoother because then they understand what hospice is, and they can prepare themselves. When they're not prepared, I think it's much more of a very clear transition. So it's almost like you're shutting one door, disease treatment, and moving on to, "I'm just going home to die," versus when you're laying the groundwork and you make sure that it's about how you live. I always try to emphasize, it's how you want to spend your time. It's how you want to live. Hospice is helping people live the best they can for as long as they can. And if you haven't prepared people, I think then they think much more you're closing the door and you're just sending me home to die. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It's tricky though, isn't it? Because as an oncologist or hematologist-oncologist, in our case, people look to us for that hope that there's still something to do and there's still life ahead of them. But at a certain point, we all realize that we need to transition our focus. But once we say that out loud, do you ever feel like it almost shuts a door for our patients? Dr. Alice Cusick: Again, it depends on the situation, and it depends on the support they have. It's different when you're dealing with somebody who's out in an outpatient world who has good family support and you've developed a relationship versus the patient who's taken a very sudden turn for the worse, and maybe is in the hospital, and things are more chaotic, and maybe they've been on very active treatment beforehand, but suddenly things have changed. So in my mind, it depends on the context that you're dealing with and what the relationship you have prior to. Maybe you're covering for your colleague, and you don't have a relationship with that particular family or that particular patient, but yet you have to talk to them. Somebody gets transferred from another hospital and you have a very brief relationship. And so I think the relationship kind of dictates sometimes how patients feel. But as long as you can help people understand the process of end of life as best as you can, I think that sometimes helps the transition. Some people are going to be angry no matter what. And that's totally understandable, angry about their family member dying, angry about what's happening to them if they're the patient. I think that's always part of the process, but it's hard to make things smooth all of the time. We do the best we can. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I was going to ask, has anyone ever been shocked when you start to talk about palliative care or hospice and never really did see it coming? Dr. Alice Cusick: Oh, of course. I think, especially if you've been doing this for a while, you sometimes see the future. You know what's, well, I mean, not exactly, but you have a good sense of what's going to happen. And there can be times when you start talking about end of life and palliative care or hospice and people are shocked, particularly family members, family members who may not be there all the time, who may not have seen their loved one frequently and haven't just understood what the disease course has been. And that certainly can be shocking. And again, totally understandable, but it's my responsibility to try to smooth that over and help people understand what's going on and make it a conversation. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It's a nice description of what we do. We make it a conversation. When talking about what you smelled that day when you saw your patient, you write, "Did I suddenly have a gift? Could I float through the hospital wards and smell the future? Or maybe I could only smell inevitability." It's a beautiful sentence. "Could I only smell inevitability?" What do you think it was that led you to know that his time had come? And I wonder, was it a distinct odor or what I refer to as a Malcolm Gladwell "blink" moment, you know, in which your 25 years of experience allowed you to synthesize a hundred different sensory and cognitive inputs in a split second to realize this was the time? Dr. Alice Cusick: I think I knew it was time because I had been seeing him so frequently and I knew him very well. The smell was very real to me. My husband and I disagree because I've talked to my husband about this. He thinks it was a real smell and that I did smell something. I think it was more that amalgamation of my experience and, as I said in the piece, a scent took the place of a thought. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Huh. Dr. Alice Cusick: But it bothered me so much, and that's when I talk about, "Did I have a gift?" You know, there are people who can smell diseases. There's a report of a woman who could smell Parkinson's disease. I thought, "Have I suddenly developed some sort of gift?" But in my mind, I thought, "You know, it was inevitability." I mean, it was inevitable that this gentleman was going to die of this disease. So that was my thought. I don't think I had a gift. I think it was smelling the inevitability that I understood through experience and knowing this patient so well. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Why do you think that smell haunted you so much afterwards? I mean, you really think about it and really dwell on it. I think in a way that any one of us would. Dr. Alice Cusick: I think because I thought there was something wrong with me. As I said in the piece, I thought it made my experience of that patient, my memory of that visit in particular and the whole relationship with him, I was thinking more about myself instead of thinking about him and his experience and his family's experience. And you know, you always grieve for patients, and it was interfering with my normal process. And so it really bothered me. In the end, it was more, "What was wrong with me?" This was weird, and it just sort of played with my usual understanding of how these things were supposed to go. And that's what really bothered me. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It is true. We really feel acutely our patients' loss, and it's so much more, I don't know if "acute" is the right word, or so much more meaningful when it's someone we've gotten to know over years, isn't it? Dr. Alice Cusick: Oh, very much so. You grieve for them, you miss them. At the same time, you also, you know, especially with this patient, his death was how he wanted it. So helping someone with the, quote unquote, "good death", the death surrounded by family, the death where there is no suffering or as minimal suffering as possible, you do find that helps with the grief, I think, instead of thinking, "Oh, what did I do wrong? What did I miss?" You can make it somewhat helpful in processing the grief. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It's perhaps one of the more exquisite aspects of the art of medicine is helping people with that transition in their final days and sharing in the emotions of that. It has been such a pleasure to have Alice Cusick, who is Hematology Section Chief at Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Health System and Assistant Professor at the University of Michigan, Division of Hematology and Oncology to discuss "Smell." Alice, thank you so much for submitting your article and for joining us today. Dr. Alice Cusick: Oh, thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: If you've enjoyed this episode, consider sharing it with a friend or colleague or leave us a review. Your feedback and support helps us continue to have these important conversations. If you're looking for more episodes and context, follow our show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen and explore more from ASCO at asco.org/podcasts. Until next time, this has been Mikkael Sekeres for Cancer Stories. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Show Notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr Alice Cusick is Hematology Section Chief at Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Health System and Assistant Professor at the University of Michigan Division of Hematology and Oncology.

JCO Editor-in-Chief Dr. Jonathan Friedberg is joined by colleagues Dr. Jennifer Woyach, Dr. Wojciech Jurczak, and Dr. Matthew Davids to discuss simultaneous publications presented at ASH 2025 on pertibrutinib, a new upfront treatment option for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: I'm Jonathan Friedberg, editor of Journal of Clinical Oncology, and welcome to JCO After Hours, where we are covering two manuscripts that were presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting 2025 in Orlando, Florida. I am delighted to be joined by colleagues on this call to discuss these pivotal manuscripts which cover the topic of pirtobrutinib, a new upfront treatment option for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. I will first just introduce our guests, Dr. Woyach. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Hi, my name is Jennifer Woyach. I am from the Ohio State University. Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Hello, I am Wojciech Jurczak, working at the National Research Institute of Oncology in Krakow, Poland. Dr. Matthew Davids: Hi, I am Matthew Davids from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: We are going to start by just learning a little bit about these two trials that were both large, randomized phase 3 studies that I think answered some definitive questions. We will start with your study, Jennifer. If you could just describe the design of your study and the patient population. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Absolutely. So this is the BRUIN CLL-314 study, and this is a phase 3 randomized trial of pirtobrutinib versus ibrutinib in patients with CLL or SLL who had not previously been treated with a covalent BTK inhibitor. The patients were both treatment-naive and relapsed/refractory, about one-third of the patients treatment-naive, the rest relapsed/refractory, and they were stratified based upon 17p deletion and the number of prior lines of therapy. The primary objective was looking at non-inferiority of overall response rate over the entire treated population as well as the relapsed/refractory patient population. Key secondary objectives included progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat and the smaller relapsed/refractory and treatment-naive populations. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And just comment a little bit on the risk of the patients. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: This study was fairly typical of this cohort of patients. Within the relapsed/refractory patient population, there was a median of one prior line of therapy in each of the groups, up to nine prior lines of therapy in the patients included on the study. For the overall cohort, about two-thirds of the patients were IGHV unmutated, about 15% had 17p deletion, 30% had TP53 mutations, and about 35% to 40% had a complex karyotype, which is three or more abnormalities. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And what were your findings? Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Regarding the primary outcome, which is the focus of the publication, we did find that pirtobrutinib was indeed non-inferior and actually superior to ibrutinib for overall response rate throughout the entire patient population and in both the relapsed/refractory and treatment-naive cohorts. PFS is a little bit immature at this time but is trending towards also being significantly better in pirtobrutinib-treated patients compared with ibrutinib-treated patients. Probably most significantly, we found this to be the case in the treatment-naive cohort where there was a striking trend to an advantage of pirtobrutinib versus ibrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And the follow-up that you have on that progression-free survival? Dr. Jennifer Woyach: So we have about 18 months follow-up on progression-free survival. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: The second study, Wojciech, can you just go through the design and patient population that you treated? Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Thank you, Dr. Friedberg, for this question. So the BRUIN CLL-313 study was, in fact, the first phase 3 study with pirtobrutinib in exclusively untreated CLL patients. It was a randomized study where we challenged pirtobrutinib versus bendamustine-rituximab. At the time we designed the protocol, bendamustine-rituximab was an option as a standard of care, and Bruton tyrosine kinase monotherapy was used far more commonly than nowadays. The primary target of the study was progression-free survival. We took all untreated patients except for those with 17p deletions. Therefore, it is a good representation for intermediate risk. We had about 60% of the population, 56 to be precise, which was unmutated, evenly distributed into two treatment arms. 17p deleted cases were excluded, but we had about 7% and 8% of TP53 mutated patients as well as about 11% and 7%, respectively, in the pirtobrutinib and bendamustine-rituximab arm of patients with complex karyotype. The progression-free survival was in favor of pirtobrutinib and was assessed by an independent review committee. What is important is that the progression-free survival of the bendamustine-rituximab arm was actually similar to the other studies addressing the same questions, like the comparison with ibrutinib in the ALLIANCE study or zanubrutinib in the SEQUOIA study. What was different was the hazard ratio. In our study, it was 0.20. It was one of the longest effect sizes noted in the frontline BTK study. It represented an 80% reduction in progression-free survival or death. If we compare it to ibrutinib or zanubrutinib, it was 0.39 and 0.42 respectively. Presumably, this great effect contributed towards a trend of overall survival difference. Although survival data are not mature enough, there is a clear trend represented by three patients we lost in the pirtobrutinib arm versus 10 patients lost in the bendamustine-rituximab arm. This trend in overall survival is becoming statistically significant despite the fact that there was a possibility of crossover, and effectively 52.9 patients, which means 18 out of 34 patients relapsing in the bendamustine-rituximab arm, were treated by pirtobrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: I am going to turn it over to Matt. The question is: why study pirtobrutinib in this patient population? And then with these two studies, how do you find the patients that were treated, are they representative of people who you see? And do you see this maybe being approved and more widely available? Dr. Matthew Davids: I think in terms of the first question, why study this in a frontline population, we have seen very impressive data with pirtobrutinib in a very difficult-to-treat population of CLL patients. This was from the original BRUIN phase 1/2 study where most of the patients had at least two or three lines of therapy, often both a covalent BTK inhibitor and the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax, and yet they were still responding to pirtobrutinib. The drug was also very well tolerated in that early phase experience. And actually, we have seen phase 3 data from the BRUIN 321 study comparing pirtobrutinib to bendamustine and rituximab in a relapse population as well. So I think that really motivated these studies to look at pirtobrutinib as a first therapy. You know, often in other cancers of course, we want to use our best therapy first, and I think these studies are an initial step at looking at that. In terms of the second question around the patient population, these are pretty representative patient populations, I would say, for most frontline CLL studies. We see patients who are a bit younger and fitter than sort of the general population of CLL patients who are treated in clinical practice, and I think that is true here as well. Median age in the sort of mid-60s here is a bit younger than the typical patients we are treating in practice. But that is not different from other CLL frontline studies that we have seen recently, so I think it makes it a little bit easier as we kind of think across studies to feel comfortable that these are relatively similar populations. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: How do you see this either getting regulatory approval or potentially being used compared to current standard of care options? Dr. Matthew Davids: So my understanding is that both of these trials were designed with registrational intent in the frontline setting, and they are both positive studies. That is certainly very encouraging in terms of the potential for an approval here. We have seen in terms of the FDA recently some concerns around the proportion of patients who are coming from North America, and my understanding is that is relatively low on these two studies. But nonetheless, the datasets are very impressive, and so I think it is certainly supportive of regulatory approval for frontline pirtobrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: I will ask Jennifer a question. The control arm in your study was ibrutinib, and I think many in the audience may recognize that newer, second-generation BTK inhibitors like acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib are more frequently used now if monotherapy is decided. How do you respond to that, and how would you put your results in your pirtobrutinib arm in context with what has been observed with those agents? Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Yeah, that is a great question. Even though in the United States we are predominantly using acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib when choosing a monotherapy BTK inhibitor, this is actually not the case throughout the entire world where ibrutinib is still used very frequently. The head-to-head studies of both acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib compared to ibrutinib have shown us pretty well what the safety profile and efficacy profile of the second-generation BTK inhibitors is. So even though we do not have a head-to-head study of acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib versus pirtobrutinib, I think, given the entirety of data that we have with all of the covalent BTK inhibitors, I think we can safely look at the pirtobrutinib arm here, how the ibrutinib arm compares or performs in context with those other clinical trials. And though we really can not say anything about pirtobrutinib versus acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib, I think we can still get a good idea of what might be the clinical scenarios in which you might want to choose pirtobrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And Wojciech, do you agree with that? Obviously, I think you have acknowledged that chemoimmunotherapy is rarely used anymore as part of upfront treatment for CLL. So, I guess a similar question. If you were to put the pirtobrutinib result in your study in context with, I guess, more contemporary type controls, would you agree that it is competitive? Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Well, I think that that was the last study ever where bendamustine-rituximab was used as a comparator arm. So we should notice that smashing difference. Because if we look at the progression-free survival at two years, we have 93.4% in pirtobrutinib arm versus 70.7% in bendamustine-rituximab arm. Bendamustine-rituximab arm did the same as in the other trials, like ALLIANCE or SEQUOIA. Pirtobrutinib did exceptionally well, as pirto is not just the very best BTK inhibitor overcoming the resistance, but perhaps even more important for the first line, it is very well tolerated and is a very selective drug. Now, if we look at treatment-related adverse events, the discontinuation rate, they were hardly ever seen. If we compared the adverse events in exposure-adjusted incidence, literally all adverse events were two or three times higher in bendamustine-rituximab arm except for the bleeding tendency, which however was predominantly in CTCAE grade 1 and 2 with just 0.7% of grade 3 hemorrhage. Therefore, I think that we should actually put the best and the safest drugs upfront if we may, and pirtobrutinib is, or should be, the first choice if we choose monotherapy. Now, I understand that we are not presenting you the data of pirtobrutinib in combination with anti-CD20 or with BCL2 inhibitors, but that is to come. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: Matt, how would you envision, were regulatory approval granted and this were an option, using this in the upfront patient population? Is there anybody who you would preferentially use this or start on this treatment? Or would this be something that you would tend to reserve for second line? Dr. Matthew Davids: So I would say that in general for most of my patients who would want to start with a continuous BTK inhibitor, I would still use a covalent BTK inhibitor, and I say that for a couple of reasons despite the very promising data from these studies. The first is that the follow-up for both of these phase 3 trials is still quite short, in the range of a median 18 to 24 months. And we know that CLL is a marathon, not a sprint, and these patients are going to probably be living for a very long time. And we do have much longer follow-up from the covalent BTK inhibitors, median of 10-year follow-up with ibrutinib and five to six years with zanubrutinib and acalabrutinib respectively. And you know, I do not think that the pirtobrutinib is going to fall off a cliff after two years, but on the other hand, I think there is a lot of value to long-term data in this disease, and that is why I think for most of my patients I would stick with covalent BTK inhibitors. But the other important factor that we need to consider is patients who are younger and may have many different CLL treatments over the years. We have to be very careful, I think, about how we sequence these drugs. We know right now that we can start with covalent BTK inhibitors and then subsequently patients will respond well to the non-covalent inhibitor pirtobrutinib in later lines of therapy. But right now we do not have prospective data the other way around. So how will the patients on these studies who progress on pirtobrutinib respond to covalent BTK inhibitors? We do not know yet. There have not been a lot of progression events, which is great, but we would like to see some data in that respect to feel more comfortable with that sequence. Now, I do think that particularly for older patients and those who have significant cardiovascular comorbidities, if they wanted to go on a continuous BTK inhibitor, I do think these data really strongly support using pirtobrutinib as the BTK inhibitor of choice in that population. In particular, the cardiovascular risks with pirtobrutinib seem to be quite low. I was very struck in the comparison with BR that the rate of AFib was equivalent between the two arms of the study. And that is really the first time we have seen that with any of these BTK inhibitors, no elevated risk of AFib in a randomized study. I think that is the population where it will get the most traction first, is the upfront, sort of older patient with significant cardiovascular comorbidities. And as the data from these studies mature, I think that we will start to see more widespread use of pirtobrutinib in the frontline setting. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: Jennifer, I am just curious if you have any personal experience or heard anecdotally about after progression on pirtobrutinib the use of other BTK inhibitors and whether there is a growing experience there. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: I do not think that there is much clinical experience, you know, as Matt alluded to, it certainly has not been tested yet. There has been some data in relapsed CLL suggesting that in people who have resistance mutations to covalent BTK inhibitors after treatment with pirtobrutinib, sometimes those mutations go away. I think most of us are concerned that they are probably not actually gone but maybe in compartments that we just have not sampled, suggesting that sort of approach where you might sequence a covalent inhibitor after a non-covalent in somebody who had already been resistant probably would not work that well. But, you know, in this setting where people had never been exposed to a covalent BTK inhibitor before, we really have no idea what the resistance patterns are going to be like. We assume they will be the same as what we have seen in relapsed CLL, but I think we just need some longer follow-up to know for sure. Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: If I may confront Dr. Davids about the use of covalent BTK inhibitors upfront, well, I think that we should abandon the idea of using the first and the second and the third generation, at least if we don't have medical lines. If we endlessly block the same pathway, it is not going to be effective. So if pirtobrutinib gets approval in first, second line, we do not necessarily have to use it in the first line. I am not here in a position to defend that we should treat patients with pirtobrutinib upfront and not BCL2 time-limited regimen. However, the way I look at CLL patients when choosing therapy is not just how should I treat them now, but what would be the best regimen in 5, 10 years if I have to re-treat them. And in some instances, the idea may be that in this setting we would like to have a BTK inhibitor upfront to have a BCL2 inhibitor later to make it time-limited. Although I understand and I agree with Matthew that if we have an elderly, fragile population, then the charm of having a drug taken once a day in a tablet with literally few cardiovascular adverse events might be an option. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And I will give Matt the last word whether he wants to respond to that, and also just as a forward-looking issue, I know both investigators have implied that there will be future studies looking at combinations with pirtobrutinib, and if you have any sense as to what you would be looking for there. Dr. Matthew Davids: The field really is heading toward time-limited therapy for most patients, I would say. There is a bit of a discrepancy right now in the field between sort of what we are doing in academic practice and what is done sort of more widely in community practice. And so right now we are going to see evolving datasets comparing these approaches. We are already seeing data now from the CLL17 study with ibrutinib comparing continuous to time-limited venetoclax-based therapy, and we are seeing similar efficacy benefits from these time-limited therapies without the need for continuous treatment. And so that is where I think some of the future studies with pirtobrutinib combining it with venetoclax and other partners are so important. Fortunately, several of these studies are already ongoing, including a phase 3 trial called CLL18, which is looking at pirtobrutinib with venetoclax, comparing that to venetoclax and obinutuzumab. So I am optimistic that we are going to be developing these very robust datasets where we can actually use pirtobrutinib in the frontline setting as a time-limited therapy as a component of a multi-drug regimen. So far, those early data are very promising. Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Perhaps last but not least, in a single center we have treated over 300 patients with pirtobrutinib. So eventually some of them relapsed. And I must say that our experience on BCL2 inhibitors, not just venetoclax but including sonrotoclax, are appealingly good. Therefore, by using pirtobrutinib even earlier, we do not block the efficacy of other compounds. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: All right. Well, I want to thank all of our speakers. I also want to congratulate our two guests who presented these very influential papers at the ASH Annual Meeting, and chose to publish them in JCO, so we thank you for that, and Dr. Davids for your commentary - really appreciated. That is this episode of JCO After Hours. Thank you for your attention. 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 Dr. Wojciech Jurczak Consulting or Advisory Role: BeiGene, Lilly, Abbvie/Genentech, Takeda, Roche, AstraZeneca Research Funding: Roche, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Abbvie/Genentech Dr. Jennifer Woyach Consulting or Advisory Role: Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Loxo, Newave Pharmaceutical, Genentech, Abbvie, Merck Research Funding: Company name: Janssen, Schrodinger, beone, Abbvie, Merck, Loxo/Lilly Dr. Matthew Davids Honoraria: Curio Science, Aptitude Health, Bio Ascend, PlatformQ Health, Plexus Consulting or Advisory Role: Genentech, Janssen, Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Ascentage Pharma, BeiGene, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Merck, MEI Pharma, Nuvalent, Inc., Galapagos NV, Schroedinger Research Funding: Ascentage Pharma, Novartis, MEI Pharma, AstraZeneca  

Listen to JCO's Art of Oncology article, "Are You Bereaved?" by Dr. Trisha Paul, who is an Assistant Professor in Pediatric Hematology/ Oncology and Palliative Care at University of Rochester Medical Center. The article is followed by an interview with Paul and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr Paul reflects on a grieving father's question about her own bereavement. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: Are You Bereaved?, by Trisha Paul, MD, MFA  Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Welcome back to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. This ASCO podcast features intimate narratives and perspectives from authors exploring their experience in oncology. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. Joining us today is Trisha Paul, an Assistant Professor in Pediatric Hematology Oncology and Palliative Care at University of Rochester Medical Center to discuss her Journal of Clinical Oncology article, "Are You Bereaved?" At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. Trisha, thank you so much for contributing this terrific essay to the Journal of Clinical Oncology and for joining us to discuss your article. Dr. Trisha Paul: Thank you so much for having me today, Dr. Sekeres. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: So we agreed for everyone listening to call each other by first names, and then Dr. Paul just called me Dr. Sekeres. Dr. Trisha Paul: Still adjusting to being an attending. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: That is fantastic. Dr. Trisha Paul: Thank you so much for having me, Mikkael. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: That was great. Well, you already gave us a little bit of a hint. Can we start off by my asking you if you can tell us about yourself - where are you from - and walk us through your career thus far? Dr. Trisha Paul: Sure. I'm originally from Ann Arbor, Michigan, born and raised there, and I completed my undergraduate medical school education at the University of Michigan. I proceeded to do a general pediatrics residency at the University of Minnesota and then went to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital for a combined fellowship in pediatric hematology oncology and hospice and palliative medicine. What brought me into this area of medicine was early experiences as a high school student volunteering at a children's hospital in my hometown. And that's where I found myself in a playroom, spending time with children with cancer and their families. And these experiences of being with patients and families and getting to know them outside of their illnesses was really what brought me to wanting to be not only a pediatric oncologist, but also a palliative care physician who could care for patients holistically. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Wow. So you were introduced to this field at a preternaturally young age. Dr. Trisha Paul: Yes, it's been more than a decade that I've been aspiring to be a pediatric oncologist and a palliative care physician, and I feel fortunate to be there now. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: That's fantastic. And I should say, given your University of Michigan pedigree, 'Go Blue'. Dr. Trisha Paul: Thank you. Go Blue! Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Although, at the time of this recording, Miami is undefeated in football, so, you know, go us. In your essay, I really love how you draw us as readers into your story. You signed up to volunteer at a writing workshop for bereaved parents of children who died from cancer. Can you set the scene for us? Where did this take place? How many people attended? And why did you sign up for the workshop in the first place? I can imagine this would be an incredibly moving experience. Dr. Trisha Paul: Yes. Day of Remembrance is an annual event hosted at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. Many hospitals have similar events where we honor patients who have passed away and we invite their families back to campus to honor these patients. And I started my fellowship in 2021, and so we were still coming out of the pandemic. This workshop that I attended was the first time that I was having an opportunity to attend the annual Day of Remembrance. And at the time, I had completed my palliative care training, and I was wrapping up my pediatric oncology fellowship. The annual Day of Remembrance this year was hosted at a convention center on the banks of the Mississippi River, nearby and next to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. And it was a large convention center that kind of spans the horizon. And it's one of those spaces where you go for medical conferences typically, and it was interesting to walk into this convention center space and all these conference rooms and instead see poster boards that are sharing the stories and the lives of all these children and adolescents who had died over the past several years. One reason I think the timing of this event occurred for me was that I realized that I also knew several patients and families who might be in attendance at this event. I was several years into my fellowship at the time. And so I think the other reason I chose to volunteer at this event was I had spent a lot of time with patients and families whose child was approaching the end of their life, and I had kind of gotten to be with parents and siblings in that period of time. But what often happens for me as a palliative care physician and as an oncologist is the relationship is different after the child dies. And so for many of the patients I cared for as a palliative care physician, or as an oncologist, I wouldn't necessarily see these parents after the death of a child. There are some times where I've been able to see them at a memorial service, but otherwise we spend all this time with families leading up to a child's death. And often there's kind of this black box around them and their lives afterwards. And so I found myself really wanting to better understand the experiences of families after a child's death, which is what led me to participate and volunteer in the annual Day of Remembrance event. I did not want to just attend, I wanted to be able to do something concrete and actionable with these families to learn more about their grief. And for me, as a writer, volunteering at the writing workshop with bereaved parents seemed like a perfect way for me to be able to spend time with them. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Many of us as oncologists place boundaries between our interactions with patients, confining them to the workplace, but many do not. That you attended this workshop tells me that you may fall into the latter category. Was this a deliberate decision or something that evolved over time? And do you ever worry that erosion of such boundaries could contribute to burnout, or is it actually the opposite, that it reminds us of why we do what we do? Dr. Trisha Paul: Yeah, I think this is a great question that I have been asking myself for years and that I anticipate spending the rest of my career wondering about and rediscovering for myself each time I have a patient and a family before me that I am exploring what I want those boundaries to look like or what I want those relationships to look like. I think that for me, my thinking about this has evolved even throughout the course of my training. And I think I've better understood that these are decisions that are made on a very personal level as well as decisions that have to be reassessed with each patient and with each family that we get to care for during this time. And so I think I'm always asking myself about, beyond being an oncologist and beyond being a person's palliative care physician, how do I want to care for them as another person? Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Really nicely said. Did you recognize any of the parents at the writing workshop you attended or at the larger conference when you were there? Dr. Trisha Paul: I did. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: And what was that like, seeing them out of context? Dr. Trisha Paul: In this specific situation, I think it was a little bit jarring in the sense that it was kind of this surprise, that especially these are patients I had cared for in the past several years, and so there was a little bit of a moment to recognize and place them in where we had seen each other before. And then there was this fleeting wonder about whether they also recognized me. Some of these are patients that I might have met while on service as a palliative care physician for a brief visit or an initial consultation. And so for some of those families that I knew, there was less longevity to the ways in which I had known them. And it was curious to wonder if they remembered me and then to wonder about that memory. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Did any of them? Did any of them come up to you and say, "Oh, Dr. Paul, it's good to see you again," or, "Do you remember me?" Dr. Trisha Paul: No, I did not have that happen. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I think jarring is a really interesting word to use. A lot of our interactions are so contextual, and I find it difficult when I run into a patient or a family member and I'm outside of work and have to remind myself of, not so much who they are, but where they are in their treatment course. And sometimes you forget because it's out of the context of our clinic rooms. Dr. Trisha Paul: Mm hmm. I think that's exactly right. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: The author and grieving father who led the workshop in your essay writes in your copy of his book that he thanks you for your work. The way you describe that and isolate that phrase in your essay is to the reader, I will use your word again, jarring. Why was that so jarring to you? Dr. Trisha Paul: It definitely felt jarring when I read those words in my book. There is something about the word work and kind of the connotations of work that separate it from a humanity of caring. It feels a little bit like an obligation or a task or a livelihood. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: You think of what we do as a calling? Dr. Trisha Paul: I don't think the phrase of it being a calling resonates with me personally that much. But it is more than just a thing I do. I think that's the problem with work. I think it's undermining why a lot of us choose to do this. Which I think for many people, kind of this idea of a calling is how they think of it. I think the calling implies there's a lot more choice than I actually feel. Ever since some of the first patients and families that I met within this space, I understood that these are the people I wanted to spend the rest of my life caring for. And I guess that kind of sounds like a calling. But... Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I was not going to say it, but it sounds like a calling. You know that word, and I love how you reflect on semantics in this essay. The notion of a calling sounds so highfalutin and almost religious and as if we're being spoken to. But I don't know. I think you could define it as something that just feels right to you and something that you should be doing and that you fall into and you do not have as much deliberate choice in going into this field, but everything just feels right about it. Dr. Trisha Paul: I think that's exactly it. So I think it's just that you do not really question- for people who choose to do this work and to be with these patients and families, a lot of us from the time we arrive at the realization that this is what we want to do, we don't find ourselves really questioning it in a concrete sense because we understand it. It makes sense to us. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I think that's a great summary of that. It just makes sense to us. Dr. Trisha Paul: I think it's a mysterious idea to so many other people who don't do this work. And that's part of why it's interesting to a lot of people who just respond and say, "Oh, I can't imagine how you do this." Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, it just feels as if we're contributing something so substantive to humanity by focusing on hematology, oncology, and particularly palliative care. I don't know about you, I do not know if you have children. I have certainly tried to impart to my children to do something meaningful, to do something that makes other people's lives better with whatever career they choose, because it's so meaningful not just to ourselves, but to other people. Dr. Trisha Paul: Mm hmm. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: We are talking about semantics. In your essay, you reflect on the notion of bereavement. Should we, as medical caregivers, cop to being bereaved, or are we misappropriating a word that really wholly belongs to close family members and friends of a person with cancer? Dr. Trisha Paul: Yes. And I think that this essay was me kind of struggling to wrap my mind around what this question means and kind of what my own reactions to this idea of what it would look like and feel like to call ourselves bereaved. And I don't have an answer to this question. I think it's a question that everyone in this work should consider and think about and what it means for them as an individual. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Are there patients you have lost whom you think about even one, two, three years later on a regular basis? Dr. Trisha Paul: Yes, I would definitely say so. I am early in my career, but I anticipate that that is kind of an essential way in which I do this work. It's part of my own practice, and it's dependent on each patient, but I find ways that I keep their legacy alive in my life. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah. I thought a lot about your essay since I first read it, and I think it's okay to say that we grieve the loss of our patients. I think that is a form of bereavement. Dr. Trisha Paul: I think so too. I think that it was interesting to realize my own hesitation about specifically calling ourselves bereaved when we do, as clinicians, talk about grief and secondary grief and something about using the language of grief and grieving feels more appropriate and within our purview as clinicians. But something about specifically identifying as bereaved felt like a different step. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: It's closer, isn't it? I don't know, it feels like more of a personal relationship rather than a professional relationship to be bereaved. Dr. Trisha Paul: And I think that that's simultaneously terrifying and empowering as a way of acknowledging what the loss of a patient can do to us and also honoring the affection we have for people we care for. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: I hope it's okay that we end on that phrase that you just said: It's both terrifying and empowering to admit to being bereaved and to feel that closeness to one of our patients. It has been such a pleasure to have Trisha Paul, who is an Assistant Professor in Pediatric Hematology, Oncology, and Palliative Care at the University of Rochester Medical Center to discuss her essay, "Are You Bereaved?" Trisha, thank you so much for submitting your article and for joining us today for this enlightening conversation. Dr. Trisha Paul: Thank you so much. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres: If you have enjoyed this episode, consider sharing it with a friend or colleague or leave us a review. Your feedback and support helps us continue to have these important conversations. If you are looking for more episodes and context, follow our show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen, and explore more from ASCO at asco.org/podcasts. Until next time, this has been Mikkael Sekeres for Cancer Stories. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Show notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr Trisha Paul is an Assistant Professor in Pediatric Hematology/ Oncology and Palliative Care at University of Rochester Medical Center.

Guest Dr. Rusha Bhandari and host Dr. Davide Soldato discuss JCO article "Health Outcomes Beyond Age 50 Years in Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Report From the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, " with a particular focus on mortality data, development of secondary malignancies and the importance of education for both patients and healthcare providers regarding long-term follow-up and care. 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 Policlinico San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by JCO author, Dr. Rusha Bhandari, a Pediatric Hematologist-Oncologist and Assistant Professor in the Department of Pediatrics and Population Science at City of Hope, California. Today, we will be discussing the article titled "Health Outcomes Beyond Age 50 Years in Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Report From the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study." So, thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Bhandari. Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Thanks so much for having me. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, I just want to go straight ahead in the paper and start from the title. So, we heard that you included in this study childhood survivors of pediatric cancer that were aged 50 years or higher. So, this is a very critical life stage when we know that there are a lot of aging-related comorbidities that can happen, also in the general population but potentially specifically in childhood cancer survivors. So, first of all, I wanted to ask you, why this specific study in this very specific population? Because I think that we had already some data in younger survivors, but now we are focusing specifically on patients aged 50 or more. Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Absolutely. So, to answer that question, I'll take a little bit of a step back in terms of where we are now and where we came from in terms of treatment for childhood cancers. So, thankfully, we now have great curative therapies and survival rates for many childhood cancers, including the most common ones. But this was not necessarily the case 50 or more years ago. So, we essentially are now seeing the first generation of older survivors who are 30, 40, or more years from completion of their cancer treatment. As you pointed out, we know from younger survivors that they have a markedly higher risk of malignancies and health conditions than the general population. You don't typically expect to see things like heart disease or diabetes, for example, in a young adult. But the question that remained was what the health status and risk of these conditions are in survivors who are entering this critical age, as you mentioned, 50 or older, when you do start to see these aging-related changes in the general population. And the question is whether we're still observing increased risks related to cancer treatment that was delivered 30 or more years ago in these survivors who are now entering ages 50 and beyond. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thanks so much. You used the data from a study that is called the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. So, just a little bit of explanation for our listeners. How is the study conducted? What type of data are you collecting? And specifically for the interest of the study that was reported in this manuscript, which outcomes were really important for you and were so evaluated in the manuscript? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Yes. So, the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study is a really excellent resource that combines information from children who were treated across North America at various different centers and sites. So it gives us a really good understanding of how different survivors are doing as they do progress through their survivorship journey. The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study includes a baseline questionnaire when participants are first eligible or first enter the study, and then includes a series of follow-up questionnaires to really understand how they're doing, like I mentioned, as they progress throughout their survivorship journey. And so for this study, we really wanted to take a global look at how these patients were doing as they entered that older age range. And so we wanted to look at outcomes ranging from mortality through the health conditions that we've seen from other survivorship studies, including subsequent malignant neoplasms, other health conditions, I mentioned earlier heart disease and other comorbidities we know survivors can be at increased risk for, and also things like frailty, which we know is, you know, the most widely recognized phenotype of aging. And we see that earlier on in our younger survivors. We want to see how this translated to these older survivors and then also other health outcomes like their health status. What is their self-report of their physical health, their mental health? Things like that. So we wanted a very comprehensive understanding of their health. Dr. Davide Soldato: This is a very comprehensive study. Right now it includes more than 30,000 patients that have been treated for childhood cancer, but specifically looking at the question of survivors aged 50 years or higher, you included more than 7,000 patients inside of this study. So, looking at the first outcome that you mentioned, which I think it's also one of the most important, you look specifically at mortality, and in this specific population, you saw a striking three-fold increase in mortality when comparing these survivors with the general population. I just wanted to dive in this result and ask you: What do you see as the main driver for this excess mortality in this population of survivors? And as you were mentioning, the study also collects information about the treatment received. So, was there any association with a specific kind of treatment that was received for curing these childhood cancers? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: I agree. I would say it's striking to see that mortality risk among the survivors relative to the general population. And we do know, again from prior studies, that survivors of childhood cancer do have an increased risk of mortality compared to the general population, but I think looking at those curves of the cumulative mortality risk was really quite striking as they diverge, and that's, you know, just so long past their initial diagnosis and treatment. We know that subsequent malignant neoplasms or secondary cancers are a really an important contributor to mortality among survivors. And I think it was important to note that even in these older survivors, it's still such an important contributor to mortality, and I think this really highlights the need for us to better understand what is driving specific secondary cancers and what are the differences in the biology and treatment approaches for some of these cancers? And how might that then be contributing to the mortality risk? Dr. Davide Soldato: Related to the treatment mortalities - because I think that one of the main forces of the study, as it is conducted, is that it contains a lot of information regarding radiotherapy, allogeneic transplant, surgery, type of chemotherapy received by these survivors - so, are we able right now with the data that we have to pinpoint which of these treatments can potentially lead to such increased risk of mortality? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: So, we weren't able to look at the comprehensive treatment exposures and mortality risk for this paper. So that might be one of the questions I would put on the side. We were able to look at that in relation to subsequent malignant neoplasms and health conditions though, as you mentioned. Dr. Davide Soldato: Another thing that I think is very important is that you were able to look at specific causes for mortality. So for example, you mentioned the increased rate of neoplasm in this population and specifically, more or less 7.6% of the patients that were included in the study developed another neoplasm after the ones they were cured for in the childhood period. So, you saw a wide range of cancer, for example, bone and soft tissue sarcomas, breast cancer, genitourinary cancer. And as you were mentioning, there were some associations for treatment modalities that were associated with a higher risk of developing this type of cancer. Can you expand a little bit on this? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Absolutely. And so the key part here was that we really looked at any of these outcomes that occurred beyond age 50. What we found was there is still an increased risk of secondary cancers beyond that initial childhood cancer diagnosis, but when we really looked at that data, it was specifically among survivors who had a history of receiving radiation. And we did not necessarily see an association between different chemotherapy exposures and secondary cancers. And I think this speaks to what we're now learning in terms of the very long-term effects of radiation and how that impacts ongoing health risk even in patients who are 30 or more years out from their treatment. And I think it really highlights the importance of these- the efforts that have been made in the more recent decades to really try and reduce or eliminate radiation where possible, you know, as we've come to understand more about these long-term effects from it. Dr. Davide Soldato: A clear association with radiation therapy but no association when we look at specific types of chemotherapy that were used for curing this childhood cancer. Another thing that I think it's very interesting and you briefly mentioned before is that potentially when we look at these secondary malignant neoplasm that develop in this situation, we might also see some outcomes that are not comparable to the one of the general population, meaning that we managed to cure less this type of cancer when they develop in these childhood survivors. So, I just wanted to understand if you could provide us with a little bit of perspective also from a clinical standpoint being a pediatric hematologist-oncologist as to why this might be happening and how can we potentially increase the cure rate also in this population of childhood cancer survivors? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Absolutely. While that was not the focus of this study, it was something that we were certainly interested in is understanding how even once a childhood cancer survivor, for example, develops a health condition or a secondary cancer further into survivorship, how does that outcome then differ from someone in the general population? And there's a lot of interest in ongoing studies actually evaluating that and understanding what are the differences from the initial presentation, biology, the characteristics of that cancer, through how they're treated. So I don't know if we have all of the answers for that quite yet, but you can imagine if someone hypothetically had a history of receiving a lot of anthracycline chemotherapy or already having received a lot of radiation, that might impact what treatment they might receive for that secondary cancer or if they already have other existing comorbidities that need to be taken into consideration. Dr. Davide Soldato: Speaking about comorbidities, you were mentioning in the beginning that one of the focuses of this scientific work was really to try and see whether also this type of adverse health outcomes that can be potentially related to treatments were more frequent among these childhood cancer survivors. So I think that it's very interesting that for this comparison, you were able to use the data from the siblings of the patients who were included inside of the study. So, just a little bit of a comment on why you decided to use this specific methodology, which I think has a very nice touch to it when we look at these outcomes like, for example, diabetes or cardiovascular disease, and in general, do we see an increased number of chronic health conditions among survivors who were treated for childhood cancers? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Yes, so this is a really excellent strength of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study is that they have information, longitudinal information, on survivors as well as their siblings. So, you know, when we were discussing the design of the study, I mentioned that we have initial baseline questionnaires as well as multiple follow-up questionnaires, and that is for both the survivors and the siblings. And so we're able to really understand their health course over time. We chose to evaluate sibling data because then you're really able to look at people who have similar characteristics, right? Similar environmental exposures in theory, potentially similar genetic predispositions and makeups and things like that. And so you can really try and have as good of a comparison as possible. Dr. Davide Soldato: Did we see any increase in chronic health condition when looking at survivors compared to the siblings? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: We did. And while that's been reported before, again, I think it's important to demonstrate that in this older population when you would expect that these siblings would now also be starting to develop different health conditions. Dr. Davide Soldato: One thing that was very interesting is that when we look at the coexistence of multiple comorbid conditions and chronic condition in this population, we also see that for some of these survivors, they basically have the same rates of comorbidities as compared to siblings who are potentially 20 years older than them. So I think that there is really that striking point, as you were mentioning before, of accumulation of changes, also physiological changes that can potentially drive a higher frailty index, which was also higher when looking at these survivors compared to their siblings. One outcome that was really not that worse when we look at survivors of childhood cancer was actually mental health. And as I read the paper, it was something that really surprised me a little bit because you would imagine that going through such a harsh diagnosis, such very complex treatment, very early in their life could potentially lead to some worse health outcomes also in terms of mental health over time. But this was not seen. And just a comment on this, because I think it's a very surprising data. Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Yes, I appreciate that question. So, as you mentioned, mental health is such an important issue for patients, both those undergoing treatment as well as those in long-term survivorship. And in our study, we found that survivors were not more likely, as you mentioned, to report poor mental health compared to their siblings. And I think there's a few possible reasons for this. You know, again, this is self-reported data amongst siblings and survivors who survived to at least 50 years of age and completed a questionnaire. And so that is the group of individuals that we were able to evaluate this in, so we have to keep that in mind. But I think our findings may also reflect the resilience of this particular cohort of aging survivors that we included. This finding has been reported in other studies of survivors as well, and so I think it very well may speak to the resilience of the cohort that we're looking at. Dr. Davide Soldato: Going back just a little bit, you mentioned that the majority potentially of these survivors who were included in the current analysis were treated between 1970s and 1980s. So, as you were mentioning before, radiotherapy was seen as a significant contributor to second neoplasm and also to the increase of this chronic health condition. So, do you believe that there is still a role for these survivorship studies as we are approaching treatment modalities where radiotherapy is administered less frequently or with lower doses or omitted at all in the treatment course of these survivors? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Absolutely. I think you mentioned a very important point, which is these findings are most applicable to the patients who were included in this cohort or similar cohorts, those who were treated in the 1970s and 80s who now are 50 years or older at this point in time. And as you know, treatment modalities have really changed. You know, as you mentioned, we'll use less radiation in many cases whenever possible, but there are so many new modalities, so many different chemotherapeutic agents, immunotherapy. There's so much more we need to learn about the long-term effects of some of these newer treatment modalities. And also, we've been able to really intensify our treatment regimens with improvements in both treatment approaches and supportive care. And so I think we have a lot to learn about those late effects, and ongoing studies are certainly needed as we continue to have this growing population of older survivors. Dr. Davide Soldato: And now a more general question which builds on the results of the study but goes a little bit beyond what was the scope of the research. So we have just discussed that there is an excess mortality in general, there is a higher risk for secondary malignancies in this population, we see higher accumulation of chronic comorbid conditions that need to be treated. So building on these results, in your opinion, what would be the best framework to follow up these patients over time? Because I imagine that for some of these patients who have been treated 30, 40 years before the moment where we see this type of events, they can be potentially also discharged from more specialistic medical care. So what is the best course of action? Should we keep all of these patients under observation in a very specialistic environment under the care of the oncologist or the pediatric oncologist? Should we create a stronger bond with general practitioners so they know that there is this problem? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Yes, I mean, I think you're reading my mind. We thankfully do have evidence-based guidelines. We utilize the Children's Oncology Group Long-Term Follow-Up Guidelines, which include screening recommendations for secondary cancers, chronic health conditions, everything based on the underlying diagnosis and treatment that these patients received. But we recognize that a large proportion of these survivors do not continue to have lifelong follow-up at a survivorship center, but really do need that specialized screening based on their treatment that they received. And I think for that reason, it's so important that we continue to build relationships with their primary care providers and really make sure that both patients and their providers have this information at hand regarding what their treatment is and what the screening is that they need and that we be able to have this community whereby we are able to help inform the screening in our own survivorship clinics, but also help guide some of the primary care providers who are going to be seeing these patients in the long run. Dr. Davide Soldato: Do we have any data showing what is the adherence rate of these patients to this type of continuous screening and monitoring over time? Because I imagine that that might also be a point for improvement in terms of quality of care. Can we retain as much childhood cancer survivors as we want as we are learning that there are all these potential negative health outcomes over time? Dr. Rusha Bhandari: We definitely within the survivorship community do want to help make sure as many survivors as possible are being engaged, again, whether it's at their specific cancer center or whether it's in the community, recognizing that for many reasons, it's not feasible to always return to that cancer center for your regular survivorship care. I think there's a lot we can do. Going a little bit outside the scope of your question, but I think there's a lot that we can do nowadays in terms of telehealth and being able to communicate with patients and their providers even if they're geographically not located right near us. But we do have data that shows that the further out many patients get from their initial diagnosis and treatment, the less often they might follow up with a survivorship provider. Some of this varies by different treatment. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, basically the final question is that we need more education and potentially more resources for survivorship clinics and in general to better inform patients and providers about these potential long-term outcomes. Dr. Rusha Bhandari: That's certainly a focus of our survivorship program, for example, is to make sure that we're able to educate patients, inform them of their risks, and why certain screening tests are recommended at certain times in their survivorship journey. And then I think again, thankfully nowadays with all of the electronic medical records and different methods for us to communicate, there's a lot of opportunity for us to continue building these relationships with those primary care providers and making sure they have the information at their fingertips as well as to be able to work in conjunction with these patients to continue to formulate their plans and carry out these screenings and then again, like I was saying, have an easy open line of communication with the oncology centers if they do have any questions. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thanks so much. This brings us to the end of this episode. I would like to thank again Dr. Bhandari for joining us today. Dr. Rusha Bhandari: Thank you so much. It's been a real pleasure speaking with you. Dr. Davide Soldato: And we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled "Health Outcomes Beyond Age 50 Years in Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Report From the Childhood Cancer Survivor 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.  

Guest Dr. Sundar Jagannath and host Dr. Davide Soldato discuss JCO article "Long-Term (≥5-Year) Remission and Survival After Treatment With Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma," and the efficacy of CAR-T cell therapy in patients with heavily pretreated RRMM (relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma). TRANSCRIPT 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, Professor Sundar Jagannath, Professor of Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Tisch Cancer Institute. He also serves as Network Director for the Center of Excellence for Multiple Myeloma, and he is an internationally recognized expert in the field of multiple myeloma. Today, we will be discussing the article titled, "Long-Term Remission and Survival After Treatment With Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma." Thank you for speaking with us, Professor Jagannath. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: Thank you for having me, Dr. Davide Soldato. It is a pleasure to be here. JCO is a highly recognized journal among the oncologists, so I am very happy and privileged to be here today. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you so much for being with us. So, I wanted to start a little bit with the rationale of the study and the population that was included in the study. So, the trial that we are discussing, CARTITUDE-1, was already published before, and we observed very good results with a single infusion of cilta-cel. So we had previously reported a median progression-free survival of 30 months, and median overall survival was not reached. So, I just wanted to ask you if you could guide us a little bit into the population that was included in the study and also explain a little bit to our listeners what is the drug that we are discussing, cilta-cel. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: It is a CAR T-cell. This is a patient's own lymphocytes, which goes through apheresis and is sent to the company, where they modify it and introduce the B cell receptor. In this case, you know, there is a heavy chain gene receptor for the BCMA, and in cilta-cel, there are actually two receptor sites on each molecule, or there are two binding domains on each receptor molecule. So, it is considered to be quite efficacious. As you reported, the earlier results that the patients who participated, 97% of the patient responded. Now, you asked about the patients who participated in the clinical trial. This clinical trial was conducted between July of 2018 and October of 2019. At that time, this was a phase 1b/phase 2 trial, and the whole idea was to take patients who had relapsed all the available treatment regimen so that these patients were considered to have, in the unmet medical need situation. So, what does that entail? That means the patient should have been exposed to a proteasome inhibitor, to an immunomodulatory molecule, and to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody and should have received at least three or more prior lines of therapy and should be actually progressing on their last line of therapy. So with that requirement, if you look at it, the median number of prior therapy on the patients who participated was actually six. So patients were heavily pretreated. They had exhausted all available treatment options. So, they can participate in this clinical trial. And if not, there have been real-world evidence, such as LocoMMotion, which had reported what is the outcome for such a patient if they were treated outside of this clinical trial, if they were treated with the then available regimen. Their median progression free survival would have been only 3 months, and most patients would have lost their life within a year. So, this was truly an unmet medical need with patients in a very difficult clinical situation. Let's put it that way. So, those were the patients who participated in this particular trial. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. And as we mentioned before, the results that were obtained in this clinical trial were really very interesting. And now, in this issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, you are reporting data with a longer follow up. So we are actually at more than 5 years of follow up for the patients included in this trial. So, I just wanted a little bit of insight into why you decided to report these long-term outcomes and what type of information do you think you could provide with this study to the medical community? Dr. Sundar Jagannath: This is very important because this was a clinical trial that was done in patients who were, as I said, in unmet medical need. Most of the patients had prior stem cell transplantation, had gone through a proteasome inhibitor. Many of them have had both Velcade and carfilzomib treatment. Most of them had been exposed to lenalidomide and pomalidomide. And as required, all of the patients had to have had prior exposure to anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody or daratumumab. So, the patients were heavily pretreated. Typically, TIL CAR T-cells came into the field at this particular moment, until then, we were developing small molecules, and they usually would have a PFS of 3 months and median life expectancy of a year, the overall response rate of 30%, and that is how, if you look back, that is how carfilzomib was approved, that is how pomalidomide was approved. So, the drugs which were approved, including daratumumab, you know, the response rate was in the same ballpark. So you would see that most agents, single agents, would have had a response rate in the neighborhood of 30%, the progression-free survival would have been between 3 to 5 months or 6 months at the most, and the life expectancy was short. And here comes a drug, and when I was following the patients at Mount Sinai, I found that there were a subset of patients, they got one-time treatment and they were in complete remission, no trace of cancer with annual evaluation with PET CT and bone marrow evaluation for MRD. So, I said this is remarkable, and this needs to be reported. And I went to the Janssen and company, and they agreed to review the entire experience. This is remarkable that 32 of the 97 patients, or one third of the patients, were alive and progression-free. This is unheard of for any clinical trial until now, that the patient will be progression-free, one third of the patients on a clinical trial will be progression-free, in the late stage of their disease. So that is the most important impact. And that is why this 5-year follow-up results were presented. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. That was very clear. And as you said, we are speaking about a population that was heavily pretreated, that had exhausted all type of treatment options outside of a clinical trial. And as you said, one third of the patients was alive and progression-free after 5 years from being included and infused inside of the study. So, considering this population that, as we said, had received all treatment options, I was wondering if you observed any kind of differences in terms of disease characteristics when looking at these patients that had exceptional response, so, alive and progression-free at 5 years, and the patients that sadly had developed a progression after the infusion in the study. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: This is very important because we wanted to see who are the patients who are having this exceptional outcome. And we looked at all the 97 patients. If we look at all the patients, we saw that there were initially, out of the 97, 17 patients died earlier in the disease course due to treatment related complications, etc. But there were about 46 patients who had progression of disease and 32 patients, or one third, were alive without progression of disease. Then we looked at the 46 patients who had progression of disease. Of them, we found that 30 had disease progression and its complication, and there were actually 13 patients who were still alive even after progression of disease. So we decided to compare these 46 patients who had progression of disease versus 32 patients who had no progression of disease to see what is the difference. To our surprise, the age was similar, male, female distribution was similar. High-risk cytogenetics, which we would have thought, you know, that is why we say high-risk disease, the term, high-risk cytogenetics was equally distributed. That was really a surprise. Number of lines of prior therapy, number of exposure to drugs, all of that was the same. So that was also interesting. But a theme did emerge. Patients, in general, tend to have lower burden of disease who had the exceptional outcome. But there is one which we considered as bad, the extramedullary disease. Multiple myeloma being a blood cancer, it is usually in the bone marrow. When it starts growing outside of the bone marrow, the extramedullary disease, usually it portends poor prognosis. But we were surprised that actually there were an equal number of extramedullary disease patients even in the long-term survivor as those who had progressed of disease. So the most important takeaway was patients who had lower burden of disease, they had less number of myeloma cells in their bone marrow, percentage wise, and the soluble BCMA level was lower. Soluble BCMA is an indirect measure of the amount of plasma cells in the patient's body. It is like a tumor burden. So they were low. So, this was an important finding because it has future ramification, as you can understand. If this treatment is made available earlier in the disease course of the patients, where we are able to control the disease better, then more patients are likely to have such wonderful outcomes as one third of the patient experience in the late stage of the disease. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, you already mentioned soluble BCMA as a marker of potentially better prognosis as being correlated to a lower volume of disease. I was wondering if you could give us some more information about the biomarkers that you evaluated in the study. For example, you evaluated a little bit the CAR T expansion kinetics and also some others that I think could be interesting and could point to some population that experienced such important benefit. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: That is a very important point because CAR T-cell, it is a live cell and its efficacy depends upon how well the CAR T-cell is going to function. And then, you know, the patient undergoes apheresis. This is a patient's own lymphocyte. So first and foremost is who would generate good CAR T-cell. Those who have plenty of lymphocytes at the time they are coming for apheresis. This is likely to happen earlier in the course of the disease than in patients who have gone through numerous lines of therapy and exhausted. So, in this particular trial, of course this was in late stage of the disease, and so we were able to show patients who had lower number of T cell in circulation, and the way to measure is if they had more neutrophils and less lymphocytes. So that is what is called as a higher T cell over neutrophil, they did better. If they have more neutrophil than T cells, then they did not do well. So, procurement. The second one is also whether the T cells are more naive, you know, not exhausted T cells. So more naive T cells, if you are able to procure from the patient, they did very well. Now, after the CAR T-cell manufacture, then the expansion, when you put it back into the patient, if the T cells expand very well, so that the effector, that is the CAR T-cells to the tumor ratio is good, so there are more effector cells, the CAR T was able to expand and the amount of tumor was less, then the efficacy was very, very good. As I said, the patients in this group, those who had a lower burden of disease, they did better, and that is because of the CAR T-cell expansion, so the effector to the target ratio was favorable. So that is another important. And then there are also the type of CAR T-cells, having CD4 T cells with central memory phenotype at the peak expansion also makes a difference. So all of that matters. But this is important because the efficacy of the CAR T-cell, it is persistent, long persistent and keeping the cancer down. Its ability to get rid of the cancer completely at the first go around because usually we are not able to detect the CAR T-cells beyond 6 months in the majority of patients and very rarely after a year or two. So it is very uncommon to find the CAR T-cells in circulation or even in the regular bone marrow evaluation. So, efficacy, the expansion, having naive T cells, having good effector to target ratio and more central memory kind of T cell, because if it is all effector T cell, they will get quickly utilized and get exhausted, whereas the central memory cells can expand more and give more effective CAR T-cells. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. I was wondering if you could guide us a little bit into what is your opinion regarding the positioning of CAR T-cells given all of these logistics that is necessary compared, for example, with bispecific antibodies against BCMA, which have the same target, but they do not have all of these logistics before being administered to the patient. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: That is a very important question, how to sequence these treatments now that we have two BCMA-directed CAR T-cells available. We have three BCMA-directed bispecific and one GPRC5D-directed bispecific antibodies are available. And so the question comes in for at least the currently approved CAR T-cell therapy, there is an obligatory time. You have to go through apheresis and you have to ship to the company, and there is a manufacturing time, roughly about 2 months before they can receive it. During that time, you want to make sure the patient's disease is under control. So that is a given. There are several ways to look at it when we evaluate the patient and talk to the patient. One good thing is now the two CAR T-cells which are approved, one is cilta-cel we talked about, and the other one is ide-cel. Ide-cel is approved in earlier line of therapy, two or more prior lines of therapy, and cilta-cel is approved in patients who have failed one line of therapy and who are lenalidomide refractory. So, the treatment of CAR T-cell is available earlier. And as I said, when you administer CAR T-cell earlier, you are able to keep the disease burden down, and it is a one and done deal. There is a better quality of life for the patient, and you are able to produce long, durable remission and potentially a cure. Now coming to the bispecific, they are currently available in later lines of therapy. So if you look at it from a patient's perspective, you can use the CAR T-cell earlier and then go through the bispecific therapy. But if the patient comes with relapsed refractory myeloma and has not used the CAR T-cell therapy and has not used the bispecific therapy, then the physicians have to decide which one they want to use. If somebody's disease is rapidly progressing and they need immediate tumor reduction and they have already exhausted all available therapy, then going through BCMA bispecific therapy is quite appropriate. And secondly, CAR T-cell therapy is generally given to somewhat physically more fit patients, whereas bispecific therapy, because you are giving antibody at step-wise dosing in this patient, and you have the ability to stop at any particular dose and then come back and redose, whereas CAR T is, you just give it to them one time, you have a lot more control. So intermediate frail or even frail patients can go through bispecific therapy, whereas it would not be in the best interest of the patient to go through a CAR T-cell therapy when they are frail. So that is another important point. But from the information available, when the patient goes on a BCMA bispecific therapy and they start progressing on treatment, usually it is their T cells are exhausted or the BCMA is no longer expressed on the tumor cells. So coming with CAR T-cell later on is usually not effective, whereas giving CAR T-cell earlier, if the patient relapses later, they have good T-cell function and most of the time the BCMA is still expressed. So you are able to give the BCMA to the maximum benefit by using the CAR T first and BCMA later. So if somebody asked me how to sequence this, just off the bat, you will say CAR T first, BCMA bispecific second. But as I said, there are unique situations. Then there is another potential that is happening. You can change the target. You can use a BCMA against GPRC5D to reduce the tumor, and then go ahead and consolidate it with a CAR T-cell therapy. That is also possible. You are changing the target from GPRC5D to BCMA, the tumor is already down, so the patient is likely to benefit. So these are all newer treatment options which have become available to the physician. So they will have to look at individual patients and decide what is the best course of action for that patient. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, I just wanted to close a little bit with your opinion about how these results translate into clinical practice. So considering this outstanding 5-year data that we have seen, one third of the patients who are alive and progression-free after a single infusion of cilta-cel, do you think that we could start to think about functional cure even in patients who have a diagnosis of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma? Dr. Sundar Jagannath: My feeling is this is important because in this particular study which is published, 12 patients who were followed at Mount Sinai out of the 32 patients who are alive and progression-free, 12 were followed at Mount Sinai. And they were evaluated every year with bone marrow MRD testing by clonoSEQ in 11 of the 12 patients, and one was by multiparametric flow cytometry. So most of them were 10 to the minus 6, not even one in a million cancer cells, and all of them had functional imaging, which is called PET CT every year. So these were patients who had no evidence of disease that we could detect with the technology available today, serologically, in the bone marrow, or anywhere else in the body with a PET CT. They were found to be disease free after a single infusion of cilta-cel. So, that would be almost to the definition of a cure because if you look at cure as a definition for any cancer, cure is defined as a state of complete remission with no trace of cancer that persists over a period of 5 years or longer without maintenance. And that will be applicable for breast cancer, lymphoma, leukemia. So it is a general statement. And if we use that in myeloma too, then I could say that these 12 patients from my center, we proved that they are cured of their myeloma. They are not functionally cured. You've got to remember, there is only cure. That was the definition across all diseases. So there is nothing like a functional cure. They are cured of myeloma. So is myeloma curable? This is the first time we are looking at that. We do know, every physician treating myeloma that there are patients out there, 10 year and beyond, without evidence of disease. This has been published by University of Arkansas, Bart Barlogie's group, who has been saying that myeloma is a curable disease for a long time. And many others have shown long-term follow up. But this one in a late stage disease, we were able to show that they were one treatment with no maintenance. All other studies have been in newly diagnosed myeloma patients. Nobody has shown in late relapse patients on a clinical trial a third of the patient will be progression-free. And 12 of them who were studied were actually disease free. So they were cured of the disease. So if we accept that, then the next question is, first step towards cure is achieving complete remission. They should have no monoclonal protein by any technology you want to use, no measurable residual disease using next gen sequencing or clonoSEQ, and functional imaging whole body PET CT or whole body MRI. So that is important, definition of the complete remission. And then it has to be sustained. That is something the IMWG and IMS, International Myeloma Society, they will have to come together for a consensus. How many years should they be followed and should be in this kind of status with no trace of cancer? Is it, 3 years are enough? 4 years enough? 5 years is enough? For me, I said in this paper, 5 years is a good definition for achieving a potential cure. Then you use the term 'functionally cured'. I have a problem with functionally cured and operationally cured or whatever. Functionally cured was originally put out by Paiva from Spain. There were 8% of newly diagnosed myeloma patients who have, after they go get treated, they will have an MGUS like phenomenon, a small amount of paraprotein detectable, and they are only 8%. And he said that these patients could be off treatment and the disease does not progress. But the problem is when you are giving treatment like maintenance therapy continuously until progression, you do not know exactly who is in the MGUS situation. So you have to have done sophisticated flow cytometry like Paiva did, and it is not quite clinically applicable. So functionally cured applies only for 8% of the people, so it should go out of the vocabulary. Then you can say 'operationally cured'. These are the patients traditionally Bart Barlogie and others showed that they have a large number of patients who have been followed for 10 years with no recurrence of disease, not on treatment. But in those days, they did not have MRD PET CT and all of them done systematically. So that is why they had to come up with a situation where they said they were operationally cured. So yes, myeloma patients have been cured since auto transplant was introduced. I completely agree. It is not new to the CAR T-cell therapy. But the beauty of the CAR T-cell therapy was it was in relapsed refractory myeloma, unmet medical need, number one. Number two, they were studied systematically. It was a clinical trial adjudicated by FDA and EMA for drug approval, cilta-cel was approved. So these patients were carefully followed, and it was a multi-center study. And in that group of patients, we were able to show patients- So, I think this would indicate cure is a reality in myeloma, and as these kind of treatments, immunologic treatment, either it is a CAR T-cell therapy or BCMA bispecific or whatever, there is a chance more patients are likely to be cured, and these treatments have to move forward and so that we are looking towards a cure. That is the beauty of it, and I just thank you for asking and also throwing in this so-called functionally cured, which people like to use casually, and I say it is time to talk more cure and not stuck with functionally cured because that does not allow the field to progress. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. That was very interesting. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: And provocative. Dr. Davide Soldato: A little bit, but I think that we needed to close the podcast with this kind of reflection coming from someone who is an expert in the field, as you are. So, I really wanted to thank you for joining us today and for sharing more on your article, which is titled, "Long-Term Remission and Survival After Treatment With Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel in CARTITUDE-1 Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma." 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. Dr. Sundar Jagannath: Thank you. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.      

Listen to JCO's Art of Oncology article, "The Man at the Bow" by Dr. Alexis Drutchas, who is a palliative care physician at Dana Farber Cancer Institute. The article is followed by an interview with Drutchas and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr. Drutchas shares the deep connection she had with a patient, a former barge captain, who often sailed the same route that her family's shipping container did when they moved overseas many times while she was growing up. She reflects on the nature of loss and dignity, and how oncologists might hold patients' humanity with more tenderness and care, especially at the end of life. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: The Man at the Bow, by Alexis Drutchas, MD  It was the kind of day that almost seemed made up—a clear, cerulean sky with sunlight bouncing off the gold dome of the State House. The contrast between this view and the drab hospital walls as I walked into my patient's room was jarring. My patient, whom I will call Suresh, sat in a recliner by the window. His lymphoma had relapsed, and palliative care was consulted to help with symptom management. The first thing I remember is that despite the havoc cancer had wreaked—sunken temples and a hospital gown slipping off his chest—Suresh had a warm, peaceful quality about him. Our conversation began with a discussion about his pain. Suresh told me how his bones ached and how his fatigue left him feeling hollow—a fraction of his former self. The way this drastic change in his physicality affected his sense of identity was palpable. There was loss, even if it was unspoken. After establishing a plan to help with his symptoms, I pivoted and asked Suresh how he used to spend his days. His face immediately lit up. He had been a barge captain—a dangerous and thrilling profession that took him across international waters to transport goods. Suresh's eyes glistened as he described his joy at sea. I was completely enraptured. He shared stories about mornings when he stood alone on the bow, feeling the salted breeze as the barge moved through Atlantic waves. He spoke of calm nights on the deck, looking at the stars through stunning darkness. He traveled all over the globe and witnessed Earth's topography from a perspective most of us will never see. The freedom Suresh exuded was profound. He loved these voyages so much that one summer, despite the hazards, he brought his wife and son to experience the journey with him. Having spent many years of my childhood living in Japan and Hong Kong, my family's entire home—every bed, sheet, towel, and kitchen utensil—was packed up and crossed the Atlantic on cargo ships four times. Maybe Suresh had captained one, I thought. Every winter, we hosted US Navy sailors docked in Hong Kong for the holidays. I have such fond memories of everyone going around the table and sharing stories of their adventures—who saw or ate what and where. I loved those times: the wild abandon of travel, the freedom of being somewhere new, and the way identity can shift and expand as experiences grow. When Suresh shared stories of the ocean, I was back there too, holding the multitude of my identity alongside him. I asked Suresh to tell me more about his voyages: what was it like to be out in severe weather, to ride over enormous swells? Did he ever get seasick, and did his crew always get along? But Suresh did not want to swim into these perilous stories with me. Although he worked a difficult and physically taxing job, this is not what he wanted to focus on. Instead, he always came back to the beauty and vitality he felt at sea—what it was like to stare out at the vastness of the open ocean. He often closed his eyes and motioned with his hands as he spoke as if he was not confined to these hospital walls. Instead, he was swaying on the water feeling the lightness of physical freedom, and the way a body can move with such ease that it is barely perceptible, like water flowing over sand. The resonances of Suresh's stories contained both the power and challenges laden in this work. Although I sat at his bedside, healthy, my body too contained memories of freedom that in all likelihood will one day dissipate with age or illness. The question of how I will be seen, compared to how I hoped to be seen, lingered in my mind. Years ago, before going to medical school, I moved to Vail, Colorado. I worked four different jobs just to make ends meet, but making it work meant that on my days off, I was only a chairlift ride away from Vail's backcountry. I have a picture of this vigor in my mind—my snowboard carving into fresh powder, the utter silence of the wilderness at that altitude, and the way it felt to graze the powdery snow against my glove. My face was windburned, and my body was sore, but my heart had never felt so buoyant. While talking with Suresh, I could so vividly picture him as the robust man he once was, standing tall on the bow of his ship. I could feel the freedom and joy he described—it echoed in my own body. In that moment, the full weight of what Suresh had lost hit me as forcefully as a cresting wave—not just the physical decline, but the profound shift in his identity. What is more, we all live, myself included, so precariously at this threshold. In this work, it is impossible not to wonder: what will it be like when it is me? Will I be seen as someone who has lived a full life, who explored and adventured, or will my personhood be whittled down to my illness? How can I hold these questions and not be swallowed by them? "I know who you are now is not the person you've been," I said to Suresh. With that, he reached out for my hand and started to cry. We looked at each other with a new understanding. I saw Suresh—not just as a frail patient but as someone who lived a full life. As someone strong enough to cross the Atlantic for decades. In that moment, I was reminded of the Polish poet, Wislawa Szymborska's words, "As far as you've come, can't be undone." This, I believe, is what it means to honor the dignity of our patients, to reflect back the person they are despite or alongside their illness…all of their parts that can't be undone. Sometimes, this occurs because we see our own personhood reflected in theirs and theirs in ours. Sometimes, to protect ourselves, we shield ourselves from this echo. Other times, this resonance becomes the most beautiful and meaningful part of our work. It has been years now since I took care of Suresh. When the weather is nice, my wife and I like to take our young son to the harbor in South Boston to watch the planes take off and the barges leave the shore, loaded with colorful metal containers. We usually pack a picnic and sit in the trunk as enormous planes fly overhead and tugboats work to bring large ships out to the open water. Once, as a container ship was leaving the port, we waved so furiously at those working on board that they all started to wave back, and the captain honked the ships booming horn. Every single time we are there, I think of Suresh, and I picture him sailing out on thewaves—as free as he will ever be. Mikkael Sekeres: Welcome back to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. This ASCO podcast features intimate narratives and perspectives from authors exploring their experiences in oncology. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. What a treat we have today. We're joined by Dr. Alexis Drutchas, a Palliative Care Physician and the Director of the Core Communication Program at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Assistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School to discuss her article, "The Man at the Bow." Alexis, thank you so much for contributing to Journal of Clinical Oncology and for joining us to discuss your article. Dr. Alexis Drutchas: Thank you. I'm thrilled and excited to be here. Mikkael Sekeres: I wonder if we can start by asking you about yourself. Where are you from, and can you walk us a bit through your career? Dr. Alexis Drutchas: The easiest way to say it would be that I'm from the Detroit area. My dad worked in automotive car parts and so we moved around a lot when I was growing up. I was born in Michigan, then we moved to Japan, then back to Michigan, then to Hong Kong, then back to Michigan. Then I spent my undergrad years in Wisconsin and moved out to Colorado to teach snowboarding before medical school, and then ended up back in Michigan for that, and then on the east coast at Brown for my family medicine training, and then in Boston for work and training. So, I definitely have a more global experience in my background, but also very Midwestern at heart as well. In terms of my professional career trajectory, I trained in family medicine because I really loved taking care of the whole person. I love taking care of kids and adults, and I loved OB, and at the time I felt like it was impossible to choose which one I wanted to pursue the most, and so family medicine was a great fit. And at the core of that, there's just so much advocacy and social justice work, especially in the community health centers where many family medicine residents train. During that time, I got very interested in LGBTQ healthcare and founded the Rhode Island Trans Health Conference, which led me to work as a PCP at Fenway Health in Boston after that. And so I worked there for many years. And then through a course of being a hospitalist at BI during that work, I worked with many patients with serious illness, making decisions about discontinuing dialysis, about pursuing hospice care in the setting of ILD. I also had a significant amount of family illness and started to recognize this underlying interest I had always had in palliative care, but I think was a bit scared to pursue. But those really kind of tipped me over to say I really wanted to access a different level of communication skills and be able to really go into depth with patients in a way I just didn't feel like I had the language for. And so I applied to the Harvard Palliative Care Fellowship and luckily and with so much gratitude got in years ago, and so trained in palliative care and stayed at MGH after that. So my Dana-Farber position is newer for me and I'm very excited about it. Mikkael Sekeres: Sounds like you've had an amazing career already and you're just getting started on it. I grew up in tiny little Rhode Island and, you know, we would joke you have to pack an overnight bag if you travel more than 45 minutes. So, our boundaries were much tighter than yours. What was it like growing up where you're going from the Midwest to Asia, back to the Midwest, you wind up settling on the east coast? You must have an incredible worldly view on how people live and how they view their health. Dr. Alexis Drutchas: I think you just named much of the sides of it. I think I realize now, in looking back, that in many ways it was living two lives, because at the time it was rare from where we lived in the Detroit area in terms of the other kids around us to move overseas. And so it really did feel like that part of me and my family that during the summers we would have home leave tickets and my parents would often turn them in to just travel since we didn't really have a home base to come back to. And so it did give me an incredible global perspective and a sense of all the ways in which people develop community, access healthcare, and live. And then coming back to the Midwest, not to say that it's not cosmopolitan or diverse in its own way, but it was very different, especially in the 80s and 90s to come back to the Midwest. So it did feel like I carried these two lenses in the world, and it's been incredibly meaningful over time to meet other friends and adults and patients who have lived these other lives as well. I think for me those are some of my most connecting friendships and experiences with patients for people who have had a similar experience in living with sort of a duality in their everyday lives with that. Mikkael Sekeres: You know, you write about the main character of your essay, Suresh, who's a barge captain, and you mention in the essay that your family crossed the Atlantic on cargo ships four times when you were growing up. What was that experience like? How much of it do you remember? Dr. Alexis Drutchas: Our house, like our things, crossed the Atlantic four times on barge ships such as his. We didn't, I mean we crossed on airplanes. Mikkael Sekeres: Oh, okay, okay. Dr. Alexis Drutchas: We flew over many times, but every single thing we owned got packed up into containers on large trucks in our house and were brought over to ports to be sent over. So, I'm not sure how they do it now, but at the time that's sort of how we moved, and we would often go live in a hotel or a furnished apartment for the month's wait of all of our house to get there, which felt also like a surreal experience in that, you know, you're in a totally different country and then have these creature comforts of your bedroom back in Metro Detroit. And I remember thinking a lot about who was crossing over with all of that stuff and where was it going, and who else was moving, and that was pretty incredible. And when I met Suresh, just thinking about the fact that at some point our home could have been on his ship was a really fun connection in my mind to make, just given where he always traveled in his work. Mikkael Sekeres: It's really neat. I remember when we moved from the east coast also to the Midwest, I was in Cleveland for 18 years. The very first thing we did was mark which of the boxes had the kids' toys in it, because that of course was the first one we let them close it up and then we let them open it as soon as we arrived. Did your family do something like that as well so that you can, you know, immediately feel an attachment to your stuff when they arrived? Dr. Alexis Drutchas: Yeah, I remember what felt most important to our mom was our bedrooms. I don't remember the toys. I remember sort of our comforters and our pillowcases and things like that, yeah, being opened and it feeling really settling to think, "Okay, you know, we're in a completely different place and country away from most everything we know, but our bedroom is the same." That always felt like a really important point that she made to make home feel like home again in a new place. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah, yeah. One of the sentences you wrote in your essay really caught my eye. You wrote about when you were younger and say, "I loved those times, the wild abandon of travel, the freedom of being somewhere new, the way identity can shift and expand as experiences grow." It's a lovely sentiment. Do you think those are emotions that we experience only as children, or can they continue through adulthood? And if they can, how do we make that happen, that sense of excitement and experience? Dr. Alexis Drutchas: I think that's such a good question and one I honestly think about a lot. I think that we can access those all the time. There's something about the newness of travel and moving, you know, I have a 3-year-old right now, and so I think many parents would connect to that sense that there is wonderment around being with someone experiencing something for the first time. Even watching my son, Oliver, see a plane take off for the first time felt joyous in a completely new way, that even makes me smile a lot now. But I think what is such a great connection here is when something is new, our eyes are so open to it. You know, we're constantly witnessing and observing and are excited about that. And I think the connection that I've realized is important for me in my work and also in just life in general to hold on to that wonderment is that idea of sort of witnessing or having a writer's eye, many would call it, in that you're keeping your eye open for the small beautiful things. Often with travel, you might be eating ramen. It might not be the first time you're eating it, but you're eating it for the first time in Tokyo, and it's the first time you've had this particular ingredient on it, and then you remember that. But there's something that we're attuned to in those moments, like the difference or the taste, that makes it special and we hold on to it. And I think about that a lot as a writer, but also in patient care and having my son with my wife, it's what are the special small moments to hold on to and allowing them to be new and beautiful, even if they're not as large as moving across the country or flying to Rome or whichever. I think there are ways that that excitement can still be alive if we attune ourselves to some of the more beautiful small moments around us. Mikkael Sekeres: And how do we do that as doctors? We're trained to go into a room and there's almost a formula for how we approach patients. But how do you open your mind in that way to that sense of wonderment and discovery with the person you're sitting across from, and it doesn't necessarily have to be medical? One of the true treats of what we do is we get to meet people from all backgrounds and all walks of life, and we have the opportunity to explore their lives as part of our interaction. Dr. Alexis Drutchas: Yeah, I think that is such a great question. And I would love to hear your thoughts on this too. I think for me in that sentence that you mentioned, sitting at that table with sort of people in the Navy from all over the world, I was that person to them in the room, too. There was some identity there that I brought to the table that was different than just being a kid in school or something like that. To answer your question, I wonder if so much of the challenge is actually allowing ourselves to bring ourselves into the room, because so much of the formula is, you know, we have these white coats on, we have learners, we want to do it right, we want to give excellent care. There's there's so many sort of guards I think that we put up to make sure that we're asking the right questions, we don't want to miss anything, we don't want to say the wrong thing, and all of that is true. And at the same time, I find that when I actually allow myself into the room, that is when it is the most special. And that doesn't mean that there's complete countertransference or it's so permeable that it's not in service of the patient. It just means that I think when we allow bits of our own selves to come in, it really does allow for new connections to form, and then we are able to learn about our patients more, too. With every patient, I think often we're called in for goals of care or symptom management, and of course I prioritize that, but when I can, I usually just try to ask a more open-ended question, like, "Tell me about life before you came to the hospital or before you were diagnosed. What do you love to do? What did you do for work?" Or if it's someone's family member who is ill, I'll ask the kids or family in the room, "Like, what kind of mom was she? You know, what special memory you had?" Just, I get really curious when there's time to really understand the person. And I know that that's not at all new language. Of course, we're always trying to understand the person, but I just often think understanding them is couched within their illness. And I'm often very curious about how we can just get to know them as people, and how humanizing ourselves to them helps humanize them to us, and that back and forth I think is like really lovely and wonderful and allows things to come up that were totally unexpected, and those are usually the special moments that you come home with and want to tell your family about or want to process and think about. What about you? How do you think about that question? Mikkael Sekeres: Well, it's interesting you ask. I like to do projects around the house. I hate to say this out loud because of course one day I'll do something terrible and everyone will remember this podcast, but I fancy myself an amateur electrician and plumber and carpenter and do these sorts of projects. So I go into interactions with patients wanting to learn about their lives and how they live their lives to see what I can pick up on as well, how I can take something out of that interaction and actually use it practically. My father-in-law has this phrase he always says to me when a worker comes to your house, he goes, he says to me, "Remember to steal with your eyes." Right? Watch what they do, learn how they fix something so you can fix it yourself and you don't have to call them next time. So, for me it's kind of fun to hear how people have lived their lives both within their professions, and when I practiced medicine in Cleveland, there were a lot of farmers and factory workers I saw. So I learned a lot about how things are made. But also about how they interact with their families, and I've learned a lot from people I've seen who were just terrific dads and terrific moms or siblings or spouses. And I've tried to take those nuggets away from those interactions. But I think you can only do it if you open yourself up and also allow yourself to see that person's humanity. And I wonder if I can quote you to you again from your essay. There's another part that I just loved, and it's about how you write about how a person's identity changes when they become a patient. You write, "And in that moment the full weight of what he had lost hit me as forcefully as a cresting wave. Not just the physical decline, but the profound shift in identity. What is more, we all live, me included, so precariously at this threshold. In this work, it's impossible not to wonder, what will it be like when it's me? Will I be seen as someone who's lived many lives, or whittled down only to someone who's sick?" Can you talk a little bit more about that? Have you been a patient whose identity has changed without asking you to reveal too much? Or what about your identity as a doctor? Is that something we have to undo a little bit when we walk in the room with the stethoscope or wearing a white coat? Dr. Alexis Drutchas: That was really powerful to hear you read that back to me. So, thank you. Yeah, I think my answer here can't be separated from the illness I faced with my family. And I think this unanimously filters into the way in which I see every patient because I really do think about the patient's dignity and the way medicine generally, not always, really does strip them of that and makes them the patient. Even the way we write about "the patient said this," "the patient said that," "the patient refused." So I generally very much try to have a one-liner like, "Suresh is a X-year-old man who's a barge captain from X, Y, and Z and is a loving father with a," you know, "period. He comes to the hospital with X, Y, and Z." So I always try to do that and humanize patients. I always try to write their name rather than just "patient." I can't separate that out from my experience with my family. My sister six years ago now went into sudden heart failure after having a spontaneous coronary artery dissection, and so immediately within minutes she was in the cath lab at 35 years old, coding three times and came out sort of with an Impella and intubated, and very much, you know, all of a sudden went from my sister who had just been traveling in Mexico to a patient in the CCU. And I remember desperately wanting her team to see who she was, like see the person that we loved, that was fighting for her life, see how much her life meant to us. And that's not to say that they weren't giving her great care, but there was something so important to me in wanting them to see how much we wanted her to live, you know, and who she was. It felt like there's some important core to me there. We brought pictures in, we talked about what she was living for. It felt really important. And I can't separate that out from the way in which I see patients now or I feel in my own way in a certain way what it is to lose yourself, to lose the ability to be a Captain of the ship, to lose the ability to do electric work around the house. So much of our identity is wrapped up in our professions and our craft. And I think for me that has really become forefront in the work of palliative care and in and in the teaching I do and in the writing I do is how to really bring them forefront and not feel like in doing that we're losing our ability to remain objective or solid in our own professional identities as clinicians and physicians. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, I think that's a beautiful place to end here. I can only imagine what an outstanding physician and caregiver you are also based on your writing and how you speak about it. You just genuinely come across as caring about your patients and your family and the people you have interactions with and getting to know them as people. It has been again such a treat to have Dr. Alexis Drutchas here. She is Director of the Core Communication Program at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Assistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School to discuss her article, "The Man at the Bow." Alexis, thank you so much for joining us. Dr. Alexis Drutchas: Thank you. This has been a real joy. Mikkael Sekeres: If you've enjoyed this episode, consider sharing it with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review. Your feedback and support helps us continue to save these important conversations. If you're looking for more episodes and context, follow our show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen, and explore more from ASCO at ASCO.org/podcasts. Until next time, this has been Mikkael Sekeres for the ASCO podcast Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Show notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr. Alexis Drutchas is a palliative care physician at Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

Listen to JCO's Art of Oncology article, "Reflection" by Dr. Jamie Riches, who is an Assistant Professor at Columbia University and Director of the Hematology Oncology Hospitalist Service. The article is followed by an interview with Riches and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr Riches shares a deeply personal narrative, reflecting on the profound personal and professional impact of losing her young family member to cancer, illuminating the intimate intersection of grief, loss, and healing. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: Reflection, by Jaime C. Riches, DO If I stand this way, with my shoulders back, my chin lifted, if I hold my breath for a moment, my skin fits my bones just right. Each subtle motion is an effort to make my clavicle more prominent, to manifest my ribs. I feel so ignorant about beauty. I was at the side of her hospital bed as she uncovered herself and asked me to look away. Her eyes, glassy and hollow, met mine. "I'm so ugly right now." It's an interesting piece of practicing medicine, to be an observer of bodies, their look, their feel, and their function. Which lines are strength and which are fatigue…which ones are scars and how they have healed. My words were soft and aching, "You are beautiful" I said, knowing that her skin fits her bones too tight. They are almost all that's left. My 38-year-old cousin's oncologist is my colleague, my friend. When she was diagnosed, he reminded me that there were excellent treatments available. I reminded him that none of them would allow her to see her children start kindergarten. Redefining excellence, I thought, sounded like a cancer center's marketing strategy that just missed the mark. As I looked away, a piece of me splintered. It isn't the same when it's someone you know, when it's someone you love. Maybe I feel shame for underappreciating my own fertile marrow, my fat and muscle, and my own existence. Maybe it's guilt for dedicating my whole life to work that can't save her, for being the one to look her mother in the eye and say she can't be saved. Maybe, just sadness. This lonely world, that only exists right at the bedside, is like a magically devastating song and I am humming the rhythmic asynchrony of being a doctor, and just being. "From where do we yearn?," I wonder. It's from within these little spaces we look to fill the absence of something beautiful. The moments that we're longing to be a part of. We are all mothers—the seven of us now in her room, aunts and cousins united by a last name—by the successes and losses we previously thought unimaginable. We've known the brittle anticipation of a new life, the longing, the joy of spending time, and the sense of simply existing in these spaces. We are the daughters and sisters of firefighters. We are women who know the low bellow of the bagpipes, women who own "funeral clothes." We've tried to disinherit the same shades of blue, and all of our distance has brought us right here, where they're making her comfortable. She knows that her time has been spent. Her eyes are the color of her favorite flower, a yellow rose, and her once sterile room appears almost sunlight by the garden of bouquets. Her mother is sitting by her side, gently moving her fingers across what would be a hairline, the way you would touch a newborn in those moments when you're just realizing you didn't know you could love someone so much. There's a song running through my head, "Golden Slumbers" (The Beatles, Abbey Road, 1969). Even playing in my memory, it gives me chills, starting right beneath my jaw and circulating through my limbs. Once, there was a way To get back homeward Once, there was a way To get back home Sleep, pretty darling, do not cry And I will sing a lullaby Nothing illustrates the frailty of existence like a mother preparing for her inevitable goodbye. Once you see it, you can be certain that biology is imperfect. We're convinced that we're grieving throughout the whole of motherhood, as our babies become grown people of their own, as they live their lives. But it isn't grief. We're simply living a life that is singular, in a series of moments that are final. "Golden Slumbers" doesn't actually seem to end. It just subtly transforms into the next track as if they were one, and before the chills are fully absorbed, you're struck by something totally new…triumphant trumpets. When her breath stopped, it wasn't held. I don't think she realized the bravery it took to leave this world with such grace, to be unlonely. I've been witness to so many punctuated pulseless yawns, but not this one. I wish I knew by which of these wounds am I softened and by which I am hardened, but I don't. They heal, with secondary intention, naturally and slowly, from the inside out. Mikkael Sekeres: Welcome back to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. This ASCO podcast features intimate narratives and perspectives from authors exploring their experiences in oncology. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. Today, I am so thrilled to be joined by Jamie Riches, who is Assistant Professor at Columbia University and Director of the Hematology Oncology Hospitalist Service. We'll be discussing her absolutely gorgeous article, "Reflection." At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. Jamie, I want to thank you so much for contributing your essay to the Journal of Clinical Oncology, and welcome you to discuss your article. Jamie Riches: Thank you so much for having me. Mikkael Sekeres: I have to say, I was so moved by this and just loved the writing. I don't drop the 'G word', gorgeous, very often when describing pieces, but this was truly moving and truly lovely. Jamie Riches: Thank you. Thank you so much. It was a really deeply personal story to me. Mikkael Sekeres: So I wonder if you can tell us a little bit about yourself. Where are you from, and walk us through your career? For example, where did you do your training? Jamie Riches: Well, I am from Brooklyn, New York, and I did my training at an osteopathic medical school in Harlem called Touro, and my residency training at what used to be called St. Luke's-Roosevelt, and now is Mount Sinai West after many of the New York City mergers. I did a chief resident year at Memorial Sloan Kettering and started my oncology hospitalist career there for many years and have been at Columbia now for three years. Mikkael Sekeres: Wonderful. Isn't it interesting how the institutions of our youth are no longer, and that seems to happen at a faster and faster pace? Jamie Riches: I know. I feel the need to reference the old name sometimes when I'm discussing it. Mikkael Sekeres: Can you tell us a little bit about your own story as a writer? How long have you been writing reflective or narrative pieces? Jamie Riches: I have probably always been a jotter. I think that's for as long as I can remember, and I've enjoyed that process. And I think once I was an undergrad, I studied chemistry, I majored in chemistry, but I really filled up a bunch of elective time with writing classes and learning what I could about the processes of writing. And I guess almost 10 years ago now, I enrolled in the graduate certificate program in Narrative Medicine at Columbia. And that program helped me explore a little bit in terms of form and function and in terms of really relating my writing to my own personal experience as a physician. Mikkael Sekeres: And if I'm not mistaken, the field of narrative medicine was really in part born at Columbia, wasn't it? Jamie Riches: It was. Yeah. Rita Charon was the founder of the practice as a field, yeah. Mikkael Sekeres: And what was it that that experience- what did the formal training teach you that you couldn't have figured out on your own by the iterative process of reading and writing? Jamie Riches: I think there's something to having a group of people critiquing you that really allows you to become better in any field, in any practice. And I think there's something to having a, you know, a relatively safe space to explore different ways of doing something. For example, writing poetry, which I really hadn't done much of before and have done a bit of since. I think having a space where there are both educated critics and experts being able to look at your work and say, "This is working and this isn't," was really helpful for me. Mikkael Sekeres: You know, I've heard with writing, the notion that your first critics should be people you trust and feel as if you're in a safe space with because you're so vulnerable with writing. Even exposing it to relative strangers in a formal course can be, I don't want to use the word damaging, but I guess damaging, or at least get you out of a safe space that you need for writing. Do you have an inner circle that you trust for your writing? Jamie Riches: I do. I do. Mikkael Sekeres: If you feel comfortable doing so, can you tell us what prompted you to write this piece? Jamie Riches: This piece just sort of came out. This piece is real, and it's a real experience, and the processing of this experience has happened on so many different planes for me, and writing is really one of them. And once I sat down and said, "Let me write some of this down," it just kind of poured out. Mikkael Sekeres: Sometimes we write to process. I once heard somebody say that writing is the only time in life when you get a free redo, right, or a do over. We say something or we post something on social, and it's out there in the universe. But with writing, it's very personal, and we can look at a paragraph or a sentence and say, "Gee, that just doesn't feel right," and rework it if it's not communicating exactly what I was hoping it would. The other aspect of writing, of course, is that it allows us to ruminate on something that's just occurred and to try to make sense of it. Do you think that was some basis for writing this? Jamie Riches: I think so. And I think maybe just relating one really specific experience into the greater realm of the work that we do every day, and how that experience both stood on its own, but also is woven into so many other patient encounters and encounters with families. And that's a form of processing, I think, for sure. Mikkael Sekeres: Can you tell us in your own words about the main character in this piece and what was going on? Because you write it in a lovely way that allows the reader to discover what's transpiring gradually, but if you could tell us in your own words, who is this person? Jamie Riches: Yeah. So the person that I'm talking to in some parts of the story and talking about in much of the story is my cousin, Patrice, who was diagnosed with bladder cancer at 38 years old and who has had interactions with the medical field as a patient but is not a physician, is not a medical professional, and so had a lot of questions and a lot of trust and reliance on those of us in the family who had some medical knowledge and experience. And so I wound up being pretty intimately involved in her care as a family member, and that was really a fine line in a lot of ways because my friends and colleagues were the care team, and I was the family member. And many of us have been in that position in many different ways, but it's always a fine line. And she was young, and she was very positive throughout really the course of her illness. She had twins who were two years old at the time of her diagnosis. And I think, I'm a little bit speechless now, as you can see, I think she just was so incredibly graceful, and I think I used this word in the story, throughout the entirety of her illness, which included multiple lengthy hospitalizations where she had spent time away from her children. And I still don't know how she did it with the patience and the thoughtfulness and the love for everyone else that she did. Mikkael Sekeres: You really honor her in this piece and paint such a beautiful portrait of her. In the essay, you write, "It's an interesting piece of practicing medicine to be an observer of bodies, their look, their feel, their function. Which lines are strength and which are fatigue, which ones are scars and how they've healed." It's a beautiful couple of sentences. In this case, you aren't really playing the role of doctor, are you? Can you talk a little bit more about when that line's blurred between being a family member and and the practice of medicine when people are relying on you to help out with their medical care? Jamie Riches: Yeah, I think most of us know this gray area fairly well, and the gravity of the situation really dictates how blurry the line is. And it's true, I wasn't the doctor in this situation, and I had as much information about the scans and the clinical picture and the day to day trajectory and the lab results and the toxicity profiles and the data from the studies that the regimens were approved based on. And that made it impossible to step out of the doctor role or mentality, and I also wasn't making the formal recommendations by any means, but I think it's hard to sort of exempt yourself from that space once you're in it. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah. I think we also sometimes don't realize how even the smallest contribution we have in advising somebody about their medical care becomes very, very meaningful and how much those words can have an effect on somebody. I recall my uncle was diagnosed with acute leukemia, so that's right in my bailiwick, of course. And I remember talking with him about transplant and being as neutral as humanly possible about whether he should proceed with the transplant given the characteristics of his leukemia. And months later, after he had gone through the transplant, he said, "You know, I went through this even though you really advised me not to." So as neutral and trying not to sway someone and giving advice as we are, people hear us differently. Did you find that also with your cousin? Jamie Riches: I did. I phoned into one of her oncologist appointments, and her oncologist, who I have to say is wonderful and who I have the utmost respect and really love for, who took great care in taking care of her, went through in detail everything they could about her disease and about treatment options and really explained everything, and took a minute and said, "Okay, do you have any questions?" And my cousin said, "No, whatever Jamie thinks." So I said, "Okay, well, we'll chat a little bit later." But that made me realize, which I think I just hadn't before, how much having an opinion matters. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah, and that it's a gift to people when they can cede some of that decision making or some of that knowledge to somebody else and feel as if they don't have to take it on themselves. Jamie Riches: Yeah. Mikkael Sekeres: I want to read one other quote from your piece. I could just reread the whole piece, I enjoyed it so much and keep quoting it. You write, "We've known the brittle anticipation of a new life, the longing, the joy of spending time, the sense of simply existing in these spaces. We are the daughters and sisters of firefighters. We are women who know the low bellow of the bagpipes. Women who own funeral clothes." There's a lot that swims beneath the surface, I think, in that quote, that family members get together at births and deaths, that these become the occasions for the family to get together, that we put on uniforms for them, and that they happen frequently enough that we actually own the uniform to be part of them. Is that what defines us as families? Is that what we've come to? Or how about us as physicians? We own uniforms as physicians also. Are the gatherings, the only gatherings we have with our colleagues at tumor boards when we discuss successes and failures of our patients? Jamie Riches: That's a great question and a great reading, and thank you for these questions. I think every family is different, obviously, and I won't speak for the masses here, but there is a bit of a structure to the events that you're expected to attend and that you're expected to not be absent for, to sort of show up for. And those events are sort- you're right, you know, births and funerals and weddings, and they have a bit of a code to them. And as physicians, it's interesting to think about things like tumor board as the gathering spaces, because although as colleagues we're not families, we are the closest thing to going through some of these moments together. And I think these moments at the bedside, and I use that term so often because I work in the hospital, and I am literally often sitting in a hospital bed holding someone's hand, talking to them. Those are the moments that we feel. We feel them in our bodies. I can feel it right here, and I'm touching my chest when I say that. I don't get that same visceral feeling from looking at most scans, looking at most lab reports, or even having academic conversations with people. And I think that you're right, things like tumor board or even other academic conferences really are the gathering spaces for physicians, but that makes me question if those are the spaces that matter most. Mikkael Sekeres: I think that's a great point also to end our time together. It has been such a true, true pleasure to have Jamie Riches on our JCO Cancer Stories podcast to talk about her gorgeous piece, "Reflection." Dr. Riches is Assistant Professor at Columbia University and Director of the Hematology Oncology Hospitalist Service. Thank you so much again for submitting your piece to us. Jamie Riches: Thank you so much. Mikkael Sekeres: And thank you to our listeners for choosing JCO Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. If you've enjoyed this episode, consider sharing it with a friend or colleague or leave us a review. Your feedback and support helps us continue to have these important conversations. If you're looking for more episodes and context, follow our show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen and explore more from ASCO at asco.org/podcasts. Until next time, this has been Mikkael Sekeres. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Show notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr Jamie Riches is an Assistant Professor at Columbia University and Director of the Hematology Oncology Hospitalist Service.

The Bonds We Make: Choosing the Right Healthcare Professional The Bonds We Make: Choosing the right healthcare professional is such a critical part of any experience. Hear from our guests, Dr. Elisa Port of the Dubin Breast Center at Mt. Sinai and The Today Show's Jill Martin about the power of a successful doctor and patient team, and the lessons they have learned in their careers, along this journey, and how they embrace life to the fullest. Jill Martin is an Emmy Award–winning television personality, New York Times Best Selling Author, entrepreneur, and the longtime Lifestyle & Commerce Correspondent on NBC's TODAY show, where she has inspired audiences for more than 20 years. She has built a successful lifestyle brand on QVC for nearly two decades, known for bringing consumers accessible elegance. Following her breast cancer diagnosis, Jill launched a new apparel line, jillmartin.com, designed to blend style with comfort while championing early health testing and advocating for women's health. Beyond television and business, Jill serves on the board of the Garden of Dreams Foundation, part of the Madison Square Garden family, dedicated to improving the lives of children facing challenges. Over the course of her career, Jill has earned twelve Emmys for her reporting, particularly with the New York Knicks. She is a graduate of the University of Michigan with a degree in communications. Her career reflects a commitment to entrepreneurship, philanthropy, and purpose-driven storytelling — blending personal experience with professional passion to empower and uplift others. Elisa Port, MD, FACS is the Chief of Breast Surgery and the Director of the Dubin Breast Center at Mount Sinai Hospital. She is also the Associate Attending Physician in the Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount-Sinai School of Medicine. After receiving her medical degree from Mount Sinai School of Medicine in 1992, Dr. Port was a general surgery resident at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. She then joined Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center for a breast cancer surgery research fellowship and later completed a general surgery residency at Long Island Jewish Medical Center. She is currently working on developing research protocols for investigating the use of avatar models in triple negative breast cancer. Her clinical research work involves investigating and characterizing the role of MRI, 3D mammography, and patient decision making in breast cancer screening and surgery. Dr. Port has an active practice and performs hundreds of operations each year. She is an expert in sentinel-node biopsy, nipple sparing mastectomy, as well as the use of breast MRI in high-risk patients. She is also a member of several professional associations, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Society of Breast Diseases, the Society of Surgical Oncology, and is a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons.  Find Yonni & Heather here https://www.herhealthcompass.com/

Listen to JCO's Art of Oncology article, "A Fight Bigger Than Myeloma” by Dr. Adeel Khan, an Assistant Professor of Medicine and Public Health at UT Southwestern. The article is followed by an interview with Dr. Adeel Khan and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr. Khan shares the story of a patient whose multiple myeloma diagnosis and treatment serves as a reminder of the civil liberties progress we've made and that we have more to go. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: A Fighter Bigger Than Myeloma, by Adeel M. Khan, MD, MPH, MS  I met her during the early part of my clinical training in hematology/oncology. She was in her late 70s, dressed in a rust-colored cardigan and a headwrap with patterns that reminded me of Ghanaian kente cloth. Her eyes were sharp, her tone polite but direct. You could tell from the moment she spoke that she had lived a life where she had to advocate—for herself, for her family, for her place in rooms that were not always welcoming.  Her chart said “multiple myeloma, R-ISS II,” but it did not say that she had first come to an emergency room at least a year earlier complaining of back pain and fatigue and had been told it was probably arthritis or old age. It did not mention that she had seen three different doctors before someone ordered the laboratory tests that finally began to work up her anemia and increasingly compromised kidney function. It would take another trio of doctors to eventually order a magnetic resonance imaging whose ghostly lytic lesions led down the path to a bone marrow biopsy and her cancer diagnosis. When I brought this up gently during one of our early appointments, she looked at me and said, “They don't hear pain the same when it comes from someone like me.” As a Black woman from the Deep South, she had grown up learning how to navigate a health care system that did not always believe her. She told me stories about being dismissed, misdiagnosed, and interrupted. She was born into an era of structural violence where she would be ignored at best and mistreated at worst. She carried the weight of those moments, but she also carried strength, and clarity, and the kind of dignity that made people sit up straighter in their leather chairs when she entered the room. She was one of the most quietly revolutionary people I have ever known, having grown up during a time of civil rights activism. She had even taken part in bending Dr King's long arc of the moral universe toward justice and could share story upon story from her glory days. Her myeloma treatments were not easy. Chemotherapy rarely is. She shared that there were days when her body was tired of fighting, when her bones ached, her blood counts dropped, and her neuropathic pain throbbed. In the back of my mind, I thought how tragic it was that her delayed diagnosis added unnecessary complications and whether she too thought of that. She was fully mindful of the issues people with her skin color faced in our American healthcare system and society as a whole and revealed how that motivated her to carry forward. “If I don't take up space here,” she told me once, “then someone else like me won't either.” Over the course of our visits, I came to understand that she did not see her myeloma as the hardest fight of her life. Not by a long shot. Her primary struggle was centered on life in Birmingham in the 1950s where separate but equal was still the law of the land; her mother cleaned houses, her father worked odd jobs, and her own prospects were uncertain. She admired the writings of Richard Wright and Jean Toomer and was not shy in sharing her passions. One day, during a particularly tough visit—her disease had progressed and we were down to limited options—I found myself meandering. We went through the usual workup and discussions: laboratory test results, symptoms, and treatment options. I offered the prospect of clinical trials, but she shook her head gently and said, “I've done my time in experiments—I can't give myself to a system that gave my people so little.” I paused. It was the first hint of what would become a larger conversation—not just about medicine, but about history. She was well aware of the atrocities of the Tuskegee syphilis trials in her home state, the Kligman experiments on incarcerated Black men, and the forced sterilization of women of color. As dependent upon medicine as she was in her old age, it carried a bloody stain of dehumanizing racism that soured her against it. Outwardly, I had little in common with her. As a young South Asian man growing up in times more conscious of racial injustice, I was far removed from these historical crimes. Although I learned of them during my education, I did not internalize their impact on the patients in front of me in clinic. But through her I came to comprehend just how scarring and enduring these events can be and how they can rob someone of trust. And the truth is the health care system had not treated her well. She had personal stories of doctors who did not believe her pain, nurses who assumed she was uneducated,  and being passed over for better options, better care, and better answers. “But I kept showing up,” she said. “Because that's what we do. We show up even when we're not wanted.” Her stories to me were revelations. In her younger years, she had helped organize teachers at her school when they tried to fire a fellow Black teacher who seemingly spoke too loud in a meeting. She had lived through redlining, through the crack epidemic, through watching young Black men vanish into prisons, and still she rose every day and worked as a public school teacher for decades. She worked for a system that largely did not work for her. I came to admire that about her—that in simply living day-to-day life with plain dignity and acute awareness of society's issues, she promoted change by living it. “You want to talk about cancer?” she once said, half laughing. “Try walking into a bank in 1972 with a good credit score and a Black face. That's a disease this country still hasn't cured.” Curiously, she did not say these things with bitterness. Not even anger, really. Just clarity. Like someone who had long ago made peace with the truth, even if it was sharp. In clinic, she challenged my every assumption—about treatment tolerance, about compliance, about who is difficult, and who is “advocating.” And she taught me to look differently at the ways bias lingers in medicine. Not just in data or policies, but in subtle moments: the tone we use when explaining options, the hesitations in our tests and referrals, and the assumptions we may not even realize we are making. And she did not just expect good care—she demanded it. She told me early on, “Don't you treat me like I'm anything other than your mother.” That landed. And in seeing patients before me now, I remind myself to wonder who they were in their past lives, what baggage burdens them, and how it all shapes their perspectives. So from my view, she fought multiple myeloma with everything she had, but from hers, she fought something bigger: an entire system shaped by inequality. And ultimately, she made me better to realize that, not just as a doctor, but as a human being. In my years since knowing her, completing my training, and beginning my practice, I reflect on her grace. I think not just about her life, but what it means to practice medicine in a world that often forgets what patients carry with them into the clinic—generations of weight, of injustice, of strength. Mikkael Sekeres: Welcome back to JCO's Cancer Stories, The Art of Oncology. This ASCO podcast features intimate narratives and perspectives from authors exploring their experiences in oncology. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. I am so happy that today we are joined by Adeel Khan, who's Assistant Professor of Medicine and Public Health at UT Southwestern in Dallas to talk about his Journal of Clinical Oncology article, “A Fight Bigger than Myeloma.” Our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Adeel, thank you so much for contributing to JCO and for joining us to discuss your article. Adeel Khan: Thank you so much for having me. It's a pleasure to be here. Mikkael Sekeres: Adeel, I don't want to be disingenuous to our readers by acting as if we've just met. You and I have known each other for a decade since you were still in your training. I wonder if for our listeners you can tell us a little bit about yourself, where are you from and and walk us through your career so far. Adeel Khan: More than happy to. So, I grew up mostly in Oklahoma, but I've sort of lived around in the Northeast and here in the Southwest where I am currently. I did college at the University of Oklahoma. I did medical school at the University of Michigan. I did residency with good fortune at the Cleveland Clinic where I happened to get to know you and have continued to know you since. I did my fellowship then in hematology oncology at Beth Israel Deaconess in the Harvard system and along the way of all that I did a Masters of Public Health at Harvard and a Masters of Science and Epidemiology at Columbia, and that pinball finally settled here to UT Southwestern here in Dallas which I am very happy to make my second home. Mikkael Sekeres: That's great. I will say just for our listeners you've been a superstar since the moment you were a resident. It's been a real treat for me to get to know you over the years. Adeel Khan: Thank you so much. Mikkael Sekeres: Can you tell us a little bit about your own story as a writer? You're a good writer. We get submissions from some really good writers every single week. It's a real privilege to be an editor for the Art of Oncology section and it's always reinvigorating to me to see how many good writers there are in medicine. How did you start your journey as a writer and how long have you been writing reflective narrative pieces? Adeel Khan: I would say if I went back to let's say high school, you know, people tend to be divided into kind of like the sciency types versus the literary arts types and you're kind of an either/or, you know, you didn't really have as much crossover then. But you know, I actually didn't mind when we had an essay due and I liked writing back then, and when I entered college I did a minor in English because I actually did enjoy that and I just liked the idea of being able to put your thoughts on paper in a way immortalizing them. Adeel Khan: And then as I sort of pursuing medicine more and more, publishing is really- it has all kinds of flavors to it and scientific publishing is obviously what has been emphasized, but you know, there's so many things to talk about within medicine. There's the science and the art of the field, and as I've moved along, I've written different pieces focusing really on patient stories and interactions. And I think my motivation has always been that as I have gotten particularly nowadays increasingly busy, I've had the fortune and misfortune of becoming more and more busy, it's easy to lose the opportunity to really connect with people that makes what we do meaningful. And so in those times when you know, and they can be rare, but when you really get to connect with someone in front of you who you're helping to care for, it's really refreshing and it's rejuvenating and I've tried to keep that with me as long as I can as I've gone through my journey. Mikkael Sekeres: There's a lot of jumping off points from what you just said, Adeel. I wonder if I can start with do you consider yourself an English major who's good at science or do you consider yourself a scientist who's a good writer? Adeel Khan: I think I'm too humble to say either. I think I was really a science major who just happened to like writing and reading and kept that as a part of myself. Mikkael Sekeres: Because I think there are a cadre of doctors who are actually English majors and have learned to turn science into storytelling and that's their entrée into science and medicine. I remember I talked for a while with David Scadden about this. He's a brilliant translational scientist who's based at Mass General who also teaches a writing course to the Harvard undergrads and who was an English major when he was an undergrad at Case Western. We've talked about this, about how there are people, I'll include myself in this, who just think different, who probably have these liberal arts brains and they figured out a way to convert science into a way a liberal arts person can understand it. Adeel Khan: Yeah, I mean narrative medicine has been I think around all along and it has only kind of been recently named as a field, but I mean it very much speaks to that that there's so much more than just G proteins in medicine. Mikkael Sekeres: I'm thrilled to hear that by the way. You mentioned you were an English minor. Are there particular writers who are an influence on you or can you talk about what's the most recent book or article you've read? Adeel Khan: Oh, that is a great question. Paulo Coelho is someone I've liked for a long time, The Alchemist. I really liked it because I read it after I had lived in Egypt. I lived in Egypt between college and med school as a study abroad program, and I had actually been to the Faiyum Oasis where the protagonist in that story ends up. And so it was just a fascinating story to me that I could trace some of the steps that are discussed in the book and it's so much- it's a story about self discovery which at that phase of life that I was in was you know, very much a theme of my own life. And so that's one that definitely stands out in my head. Mikkael Sekeres: Do you think reading pieces outside of medicine makes you a better scientist? Adeel Khan: I think absolutely. I think it makes you a better human being. In some ways I lament that so much of what I do reading now is so much just about what's in the field, what's new in myeloma, what's new in hematology oncology and I sort of miss the escape to reading other things and being able to pursue it. And even broader than just what a novel really offers. I mean, I grew up reading comic books too and I've always loved superheroes and fiction whether it's Star Wars and other things. And really they're just stories and the medium- there might be connotations whether it's a comic book or a or a novel, but they're just different mediums, but the fact that they're just stories is fundamental. I actually think to myself that it's so fascinating that the earliest piece of writing that we've really retained as human beings is we believe, the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is really a story of a superhero when you think about it, you know, and it's it's fiction, it's phantasmic in so many ways. But it speaks to how stories are just vital as people. Mikkael Sekeres: And what is it about graphic novels or my kids now of course call them graphic novels. We're not allowed to call them comic books. Adeel Khan: As they've been renamed, yeah. Mikkael Sekeres: What is it about graphic novels or comic books or the story of a hero that appeals to us in medicine? Adeel Khan: I think it's in some ways a parable of what we're doing. There's something so powerful and fundamental about this idea of good-evil and we can rename it in different ways, but that you're trying to overcome something that's an issue, an obstacle. And when you think about what we do in- particularly in oncology, that's very much what we're trying to do. We're trying to overcome an illness, a disease, to try to help the person in front of us. And it has different aspects to it. It could be someone pursuing something in a lab, it can be treating someone in front of you in clinic, but that simple dichotomy of there's something good about what you're doing because there's something bad in front of you is just the fundamental that runs through it all. Mikkael Sekeres: It's fascinating. I wonder if 30, 40, 50 years ago people would have said, “Oh, it's because the doctor is the hero,” but we don't view ourselves that way anymore. The patient is the hero. I love how you posit this as a good versus evil, the evil of course being cancer and the good everything that our patients do and that we try to to help to do to overcome that. Adeel Khan: For sure. Mikkael Sekeres: You wrote a really great essay about a woman who was a patient of yours. Can you tell me a little bit about what inspired you this time to make this connection and to write about this woman? Adeel Khan: Within the past year or so as I had been just really- the fortune and misfortune of getting busier, I lamented that I just wasn't able to spend as much time with patients in the way that I used to. One of the beauties of medical school and you know, to some degree residency and certainly fellowship is that you just have a little bit more time as a trainee, student and trainee where you can really bond with your patients I think a little bit more. And so in trying to kind of refresh my motivation, I was thinking about just kind of randomly some stories that I've kept in the back of my mind and this patient's story is one that stood out to me as I was recalling things. It was so fascinating to me because she had the disease which I now focus on. And the way that she viewed it and the way that she viewed it as a part of her life was just so different than what I think most people think of. And in that way it was very revitalizing that her focus in her life was part of a broader theme of the way that I think she viewed society. And this was just one piece of her own part of that much, much larger puzzle. Mikkael Sekeres: You really write lovingly about her and about how meaningful her context was in how you cared for her and what her experience was in the medical system. I wonder if I can read a little bit of what you wrote because it really did grab me as well. I'm going to start out by quoting you where you say, “Outwardly, I had little in common with her. As a young South Asian man growing up in times more conscious of racial injustice, I was far removed from these historical crimes. Though I learned of them during my education, I did not internalize their impact on the patients in front of me in clinic. But through her, I came to comprehend just how scarring and enduring these events can be and how they can rob someone of trust.” Wow, there's a lot there. Could you start with what was your perspective as a young South Asian man growing up in Oklahoma and what your view was of racial injustice compared to what her experience was of racial injustice? Adeel Khan: Yeah, I have to admit I don't know that I thought that much of it back then and I think that that's part of what it is. You know, being someone who was South Asian, I'm Pakistani, I have Indian roots, and coming into American history and as we learned about it there's so much about slavery and the theme of slavery unfortunately and and the struggles that enslaved peoples have. And you know, as a relatively recent immigrant, I didn't see myself in that narrative. I didn't see myself in that historical reality. But I knew about it intellectually, you know, I knew about the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, you know, I learned about all these things and and you learned about how atrocious so much of it is. But again, not being so directly connected, I did not put myself in that same role as someone to view it so close to myself. I will say it hit a little bit more after 9/11 when you know, I was randomly stopped at airport security a little bit more often in those days and again, I think that speaks to racial injustices, you know, I was certainly profiled looking back then, I've been held by TSA in the past, but even that is very minor compared to what African Americans have dealt with here. And this patient in just kind of sharing her tidbits during our time together, I was not directly asking her so much of this. She was really offering a lot of it to me as we would talk and she would be very generous in sharing parts of her story. And over time I kind of understood the broader narrative of her life. You know, it was clear how much of all that was actually in the forefront of her head. Adeel Khan: And I think she might have been a little bit more unique in the way that she kept it there, but she was hyper vigilant of issues of society and the roots that brought a given society to where it is here. I kind of got to know her, this is during the COVID pandemic and this was after the injustice of what happened to George Floyd and so it was a theme that I think people were talking about more and so I think she felt comfortable in saying really what was quite a bit that was stewing in the back of her head seemingly at all times. Mikkael Sekeres: It's so interesting you talk about what you endured after 9/11 as being, I'm going to quote you now, “minor” compared to what she's been through, but even a minor affront like that can really compromise your trust. You write about her, “As a Black woman from the deep South, she had grown up learning how to navigate a healthcare system that did not always believe her.” Can you expand on that a little bit? How is it that the healthcare system didn't believe her and what can we do going into interactions with patients from different backgrounds where we're incorporating that there's a compromise of trust and we have to make up for that? Adeel Khan: Yeah, and I think you know, it's so unfortunate that so many people have stories like this where, in her case really it was back pain that was her presenting symptom. This is long before she knew me. And she'd had the back pain for quite some time, but being an older woman, she was in her 70s at that time, she was not in phenomenal health for other reasons. It sounds like she was just kind of ignored, told that it was old age, tendon changes, she did not have meaningful imaging for some time. When she finally did after seeing a slew of different providers, that's when it was revealed like there's something more significant here. And then when you kind of piece that a little bit retrospectively and I think she certainly sensed this and I did when I- hindsight's always 20/20, when I looked through things, it's like, well, this probably could have been caught much earlier. It's just that no one really I think listened to what she was speaking to with her pain and the gravity that was actually behind it. And it just speaks to the fact that I think we have to be more thoughtful in what we take away from patients and not to ignore even small comments because they might be revealing of something much bigger behind them. Mikkael Sekeres: You quote her, you have some really great quotes in your essay where you just listen to what she says and transcribe it because what she says is very meaningful. And one of the quotes you provide from her is, “They don't hear pain the same when it comes from someone like me.” Wow. “When it comes from someone like me,” someone like her, how was it that people weren't hearing her description of pain, something that was different that was going on in her body and how can we be more attentive to people when they complain about things like pain? Adeel Khan: It's unfortunate that there's even known data to show how depending upon a patient's melanin content in their skin, how likely they are to get pain medications and what happens to them is different and this is an unfortunate example of that where I think she just wasn't heard properly. And so it wasn't addressed properly and she was not shy about saying that. I mean I think she sensed that. She was very clear in feeling that herself and in wanting to have better care, she was still prevented and hence why she had to go from provider to provider. Mikkael Sekeres: You've lived in a bunch of different places in the country. I mean, following your path, you've been in Oklahoma, you've been in Michigan, Ohio, Massachusetts, and now Texas. Do you think that we as providers have to have different levels of sensitivity depending on where in the country we're practicing and how some of our patients' trust in healthcare may have been compromised in those different parts of the country? Adeel Khan: I think absolutely. I mean this particular patient was from Alabama which has a heavy history that she was again very aware of and for those of us reading history books are also very aware of too. And it's interesting how, while the U.S. is in some ways- has some aspects that are monolithic, but it's very much not so. It's very patchy and people are different, you know, if I take one theme that we're talking about here is obviously racial injustice, but if you take something like obesity, you know, prevalence rates are very different throughout the country and attitudes surrounding it are also very different. And I think we do- ought to be mindful that in treating the patient in front of us, it's not done without context. And so how they view their illness and their situation is going to be different depending upon the state, depending upon the city, depending upon actually even the era that they grew up in. So I would say now, if you took actually a similar patient, but you put her in a very modern context post-year 2000, she's likely to have different feelings of the situation around her than someone who was born in this case in the 1940s. And that just speaks to the fact that circumstances change and we should be recognizing that as providers, even though it's not always easy to. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, it just emphasizes how very important it is to know the history of the place where we practice and how it's affected our patients' perceptions of healthcare and trust and being cared for, particularly now as there's such a movement to whitewash that history and eliminate it from major institutions like the Smithsonian. It has been such a pleasure to have Adeel Khan here. He is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Public Health at UT Southwestern in Dallas and wrote just a great JCO article called “A Fight Bigger Than Myeloma.” Adeel, thank you so much for submitting your article and for joining us today. Dr. Adeel Khan: Thank you so much for having me. It's been a pleasure. Mikkael Sekeres: If you've enjoyed this episode, consider sharing it with a friend or colleague or leave us a review. Your feedback and support helps us continue to have these important conversations. If you're looking for more episodes and context, follow our show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen and explore more from ASCO at ASCO.org/podcasts. Until next time, this has been Mikkael Sekeres for JCO Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Show Notes Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review.  Guest Bio: Dr Adeel Khan is an Assistant Professor of Medicine and Public Health at UT Southwestern.

Host Dr. Shannon Westin and guest Dr. Giancarlo Di Guiseppe discuss the JCO article "Long-Term Dynamic Financial Impacts Among Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: A Longitudinal Matched-Cohort Study" TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Shannon Westin: Hi everybody and welcome to another episode of JCO After Hours, the podcast where we go in depth on manuscripts that are published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Shannon Westin, social media editor of JCO and gynecologic oncologist extraordinaire. I'm so very excited to talk to you today. We're going to speak about "Long-Term Dynamic Financial Impacts Among Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: A Longitudinal Matched-Cohort Study." And I'm joined today by Dr. Giancarlo Di Giuseppe. He has a PhD in epidemiology that he actually just defended with this very work you're going to hear about today at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto. He is now a research fellow at the Hospital for Sick Children.  Welcome, Dr. Di Giuseppe. It's so exciting to have you. Dr. Di Giuseppe: Thank you so much for having me. Dr. Shannon Westin: So we'll get right to it. Let's level set. Can you talk a little bit about the financial impact of cancer on survivors in general? I think this has been a growing area of interest and research, certainly. Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, and I think that's a very important question, and I'm so happy that this research is now becoming more popular in the research world because it really addresses a critical issue that cancer survivors and their families must face. You know, you're diagnosed with cancer, and now you need to take time off work because you're hospitalized for chemotherapy. You're going back and forth to the hospital, and that all requires time away from your employment, and as a result of that, that has a significant financial strain, both on you and your family. And that's during therapy. Now, in survivorship, in the years after you've survived your cancer, you still need to deal with all the late effects associated with your treatment and your disease, and that can be psychological, physical, and that impacts your workability as well. So, it's not just exclusive to individuals undergoing treatment but also in survivorship afterwards. It really gets the financial strait that you face as a cancer survivor because you're time away from work and your lost productivity. Dr. Shannon Westin: Yeah, that makes sense. Then I think it would be great to talk a little bit specifically about the patient population that you studied in this particular manuscript. Can you talk a little bit about the adolescent young adult cohort, you know, why you singled out this particular group of people? Dr. Di Giuseppe: Absolutely. Adolescents and young adults, or AYAs, which I'll now refer to them as - I'm one of them - we're at a unique crossroads of our life and in our developmental stage of life. We are finishing our post-secondary education. We're entering the workforce. We're forming romantic relationships, and we're really achieving financial autonomy. It's because of this unique developmental stage in life where we've become quite susceptible to health shocks such as cancer. Really, does a cancer and the associated negative financial impacts affect our long term trajectory? So, I'm just finishing my PhD. If I was diagnosed with cancer, I would require a year or two away from my studies. I may or may not finish my education that could then impact my employment and then my financial outcomes later on in life. So it's really this unique population who are going through so many transitions and changes in their lives. How does that cancer really impact that life course trajectory? I think it's unique from an adult who might have, you know, large savings where they can bear the brunt of their cancer financial impacts, whereas AYAs may not have that same financial stability, provide a safety net for the financial impact resulting from their disease. Dr. Shannon Westin: You broke my heart a little bit. I realized I'm no longer in that group, so I guess it's time to move on. Okay. So, let's talk a little bit about the overall design of the study. Can you just kind of walk us through how you set everything up? Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, absolutely. So it's a matched cohort study at the population level here in Canada. We have large national administrative databases, and we have this really unique set of data at the national level through Statistics Canada that we can link our cancer registry to tax records. It really provides this unique opportunity to longitudinally follow individuals from their disease forward in time. The main overall design is the matched cohort study. At the time of diagnosis of a cancer case, they're matched to someone from the population on certain characteristics. I follow these individuals from the index date of their cancer case forward in time. The crux of the study itself is a quasi-experimental two-group pre-post study design where I have information before the cancer diagnosis, I have information from their income after their cancer diagnosis, and it's really quantifying how much does that total income change from before the cancer to the after-cancer period. Dr. Shannon Westin: I'm always intrigued about hearing more about financial toxicity in general, certainly very multi-dimensional. Can you speak a little bit about the different ways that you can assess this and measure this and kind of what you chose? Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, so financial toxicity really has two main spheres of measurement. There's a direct and the indirect measurements of financial toxicity. So your direct financial toxicities could be related to actually paying for medical treatment and any sort of financial burden as a direct consequence of your disease. Fortunately here in Canada, we have a universal health care system, so patients don't have to pay directly for most of their treatment. There's also indirect financial toxicities, which are not a direct result of the disease. So in this study here, one of the, or the indirect financial toxicity that I measured was the financial impact to income. That's not the only indirect financial toxicity. There could be out-of-pocket expenses for drugs that may not be covered in the universal health care system here. It could be lost productivity at work. There's really this direct and indirect financial toxicities that together result in a significant financial burden and hardships for cancer patients and survivors. Dr. Shannon Westin: Okay, so you guys did a lot of matching. It was extensive. Can you speak a little bit about the factors you used to match your patients and your controls and kind of why you chose them? Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, absolutely. The matching I think is a really critical aspect of the study, and it really establishes this baseline period of individuals who are cancer-free, who look as similar as possible to the individuals who would eventually develop cancer. So I matched on birth year, sex, marital status, whether or not they had children, if they were born here in Canada or not, as well as a geographic measurement of census division. So it's really in the city or in a rural town. Then I also matched on a 5% buffer of their total income in the year prior to the cancer diagnosis. All this matching was really done in the year before they were diagnosed, and it's to establish this comparator cohort of individuals from the general population who looked as similar as possible to the individuals, or the AYAs, who would develop cancer. It's again to establish this baseline period of a control cohort who looks as similar as possible. So any differences that we might see after the cancer can be attributed to the effects of the AYA who would develop cancer. It's quite powerful, I think, from a study design perspective because it establishes causal inference methods through the study design and through the matching itself. Fortunately, I was able to match on an extensive list of covariates given the large population-based data that I used, particularly the tax records. Tax records contain a whole wealth of information, your marital status, your sex, your income, where you live. So it really provided this rich opportunity to match as closely as possible the AYAs who would develop cancer to someone from the population who wouldn't. Dr. Shannon Westin: Yeah, and I mean I think that's the only way to do this type of research and really make it generalizable and actually, you know, know that you can trust the results that you've got. So I just want to again congratulate you because I think this was just- when I read the design, I was so impressed. So now that we know the design and we understand everything, let's talk a little bit about the characteristics of the actual patient population that you studied. Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, for sure. So average age of diagnosis was in their early 30s, so around 32 years old. The breakdown of the population was mostly females, so I think two-thirds of the cohort were actually females who were diagnosed with cancer. Really, a lot of the cancers were thyroid and the breast cancers. These cancers are more common in women than they are in men. So it's really reflective of the different distribution of cancer in AYAs compared to other populations like in children or in older adults. Dr. Shannon Westin: All right, bottom line. What did your primary analysis demonstrate and how was the income different based on the types of cancer that people might have been diagnosed with? Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, the bottom line is actually quite a disturbing message, I would say, and it's really that cancer causes this long, prolonged financial hardship in survivors. That's, I think, a very important result from the study, and I think it has far-reaching implications. This study demonstrates that these individuals who were diagnosed with this disease that is unforeseen also pay a financial price, and that sustains for many years after their diagnosis. That's overall on average. Once I dove deeper, actually looking at the different cancer types, the message actually gets even more disturbing, I would say, particularly in some disease subgroups. So the central nervous system cancer survivors really have a large reduction in their income, which sustains over 25%, 10 years after their diagnosis, and they never really recover financially from their disease. There are some groups of cancer survivors who really pay a large financial price for their disease. Dr. Shannon Westin: I don't know if you're able to tease this out. This is just me thinking off the top of my head. Do you think it's the long-lasting side effects? Dr. Di Giuseppe: I think you hit the nail on the head there, absolutely. I think what we're seeing here is a direct result of the late effects that cancer survivors experience. CNS cancer survivors, whether that is a surgical resection, radiation to the head for their tumor, the late effects really impact these individuals in the post-cancer survivorship period. So I think what we're really seeing are these late effects here. Dr. Shannon Westin: The other thing I was kind of struck by is the differential and income loss over time. Can you speak a little bit about that in your work? Dr. Di Giuseppe: Yeah, absolutely. There really is this period of financial vulnerability in the first couple years of diagnosis. So that's year zero, one, two, and three, these first couple years when these individuals are diagnosed with cancer, they are significantly impacted by their disease financially. Some of these reductions in their income is 15%, 20% in the year of diagnosis and the year afterwards. It's unsurprising because this is when these individuals typically are undergoing their treatment. They're not working. They may have even lost their job or quit their job. So it's really reflective in the results in that first few years of their diagnoses where these financial impacts are the largest. I think it provides an opportunity where certain interventions might alleviate some of these large reductions in their income. Dr. Shannon Westin: Well, I really was disturbed by your work, and I hate to kind of say it that way because it's such important work. So I'm really- congratulations on everything that you're able to achieve and especially your PhD. But I think shining a light on these types of things is always pretty rough when you really look at the nitty-gritty details. So any thoughts about where we go from here, how do we support these people? Dr. Di Giuseppe: I think we can support them at multiple different levels. So at the individual level, I think within the clinic setting, financial screening for financial toxicity, financial literacy, I think all these things can be incorporated into cancer care continuum to kind of educate AYAs with cancer about the financial implications of their disease, both in the short and the long term. So I think educating these cancer patients is important. I think at the employer level, really working at the institutional level to incorporate workplace accommodations that might facilitate the return to work process for cancer survivors after their treatment or during, I think would also make the financial burden slightly less if cancer survivors are able to return to work or not have to quit their job because of their disease. And then return to work easier, I think might alleviate some of the employment consequences that these individuals face, which then lead to their adverse financial effects. Then I think also at the policy level, at the governmental level, whether that's incorporating any sort of fiscal stimulus for cancer survivors, whether they're under treatment or in survivorship, any sort of tax breaks that they might be available to them to kind of alleviate some of that financial stress. The reality of it is being diagnosed with cancer and having your income reduced by even 5% - cost of living is expensive, especially now - so I can't even imagine what cancer survivors who are in this economy are facing with rising inflation and cost of living going up. So I think really having tax breaks as well as financial aid for these cancer survivors could really support them both in their cancer journey while they're undergoing treatment as well as some of the sustained effects that they experience afterwards. It's particularly important, as we touched on earlier, for CNS cancer survivors, right? These individuals have this sustained effect that never really returns back to normal, and I think having  sort of disability pension or kind of financial aid for these individuals to support them, I think is important. Dr. Shannon Westin: We see this all the time in gynecologic cancers, these young women that support their families, young children, and then lose their ability to do so due to their diagnosis and the treatment they have to receive. So I can't say this enough how important this work was and how honored I am to get to speak with you today. I learned a ton. And thank you to all of you listeners. We're just so excited to have you. This has been long term dynamic financial impacts among adolescents and young adults with cancer: a longitudinal matched cohort study. Thanks again for listening to JCO After Hours, and please do check out our other 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.  

Should patients be able to opt out of AI in their care? Dr. Stephen Speicher, Head of Clinical Oncology and Safety at Flatiron Health, dives into the evolving ethics of informed consent as AI becomes increasingly embedded in medical workflows. From regulatory trends to future standards of care, he examines how clinicians and patients can navigate transparency, autonomy, and shared responsibility.

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Matteo Lambertini discuss a compelling global study on the clinical behavior of breast cancer in young BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, the association of pre-diagnostic awareness of BRCA status with prognosis, and the importance of identifying healthy people who are at risk of carrying the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Well, hello everyone, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I'm a medical oncologist, professor, and vice chair of medical oncology at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. Now, when we think about genetic testing, whether for patients diagnosed with breast cancer or for other family members of them, it seems to be widely underutilized. Today, we're going to be discussing a recently published study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that reported on the clinical behavior of breast cancer and specifically young BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, and the association of pre-diagnostic awareness of BRCA status with prognosis. I thought this was just a fascinating piece, and I honestly couldn't wait to have this conversation. It's a really compelling paper that highlights the importance of identifying healthy people who are at risk of carrying the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, and really the need for genetic counseling and testing to inform people about early detection that could lead to a better prognosis. I'm really delighted to welcome the study's lead author, Dr. Matteo Lambertini. He really needs no introduction. He's very well known in the breast cancer world for his amazing contributions to fertility in the context of breast cancer, to pregnancy in the context of breast cancer, and genetic testing. He's an associate professor at the University of Genova, and a breast cancer medical oncologist at the San Martino Polyclinic Hospital in Genova, Italy.  Dr. Lambertini, thank you so much for joining us today. Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Thank you very much, Dr. Pal. It's a great pleasure. Dr. Monty Pal: Oh, thanks. And just FYI, if you're listening in and you want to hear our disclosures, they're all listed at the transcript of this podcast.  So, I poured through this paper [Clinical Behavior of Breast Cancer in Young BRCA Carriers and Prediagnostic Awareness of Germline BRCA Status] yesterday, Dr. Lambertini, and first of all, congratulations on this study. This was a huge international multicenter effort, 4,752 patients. How did you pool all these patients with young breast cancer? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Thanks a lot for the question. Yes, this was an effort made by several centers all over the world. The main idea behind the creation of this network that we have named as BRCA BCY Collaboration, was to get as many data as possible in a sort of niche patient population in the breast cancer field, meaning women diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 40 years or younger, and all of them being BRCA carriers. We know that around, in the Western world, around 5% of breast cancer cases are being diagnosed under the age of 40 years, and among them around 10-15% are BRCA carriers. So, I would say it's a relatively rare patient population where we did not have a lot of evidence to support our choices in terms of counseling on treatment, prevention, and oncofertility as well. That was the idea behind the creation of this network that includes many centers. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah. You know, what's so interesting about this is that you sort of draw this line between patients who have BRCA testing at the time of diagnosis and then BRCA testing earlier in their course and then leading to a diagnosis perhaps. And I think that's where really sort of the dichotomy in outcome sits. Can you maybe elaborate on this and tell us about timing of genetic testing in this study and what that meant ultimately in terms of prognosis? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: In this specific analysis from this large network, including almost 5,000 women with breast cancer diagnosed at the age of 40 years or younger and being a BRCA carrier, we looked specifically into the timing of genetic testing because this is a retrospective study and the criteria for inclusion are those that I have just mentioned, so diagnosis at a young age plus carrying germline BRCA pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. In this analysis, we have looked into the time the patient has got the genetic testing and particular we focused on two populations: those that were diagnosed, knowing already to be a BRCA carrier, and those that got tested after being diagnosed with breast cancer. And the main findings from this analysis have been that knowing to be a BRCA carrier was associated with a lower stage at the time of diagnosis, meaning more T1 tumors, so a tumor less than 2 cm, more node-negative disease, and this translated into less aggressive treatment, so less often axillary dissection, less often use of chemotherapy and anthracycline-based chemotherapy. And even more importantly, we have seen a better overall survival for those patients that were diagnosed already knowing to be BRCA carriers as compared to those tested after breast cancer diagnosis. These results after adjusting for all the confounding, stage, treatment and so on, there was not significant anymore, meaning that it's not the timing of test per se that is probably leading to a better survival, but it is the fact that knowing to be a BRCA carrier would likely translate into having access to all the preventive measures that we have in this setting and this will translate into an overall survival benefit, so in terms of saving more lives in young BRCA carriers. Dr. Monty Pal: I think it's such an important point, and it's one that I think might sound implicit, right, but it needs to be proven, I think, through a study like this. You know, the fact that finding this early, identifying the mutation, doing enhanced screening, and so forth, is really going to lead to superior clinical outcomes. One of the things that I think many people puzzle over, including myself, is what to do? I personally occasionally will see BRCA altered patients in the context of prostate cancer. But that's a very different population of individuals, right? Typically older men. In young females with BRCA mutation, I guess there's a specific set of considerations around reproductive health. You'd already highlighted preventive strategies, but what sorts of things should we be talking about in the clinics once a patient's diagnosed and once perhaps their breast cancer diagnosis is established? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Yes, exactly. Knowing to be a BRCA carrier has a lot of implications from prevention to treatment to survivorship issues including reproductive counseling. And this is important not only for the patient that has been diagnosed with breast cancer but also for all the family members that will get tested and maybe identify with this sort of genetic alteration before diagnosis of cancer. Why this is important is because we have access to very effective preventive measures, a few examples: MRI screening, which starts at a very young age and normally young women don't have an effective screening strategy outside the BRCA field. Also, primary preventive measures, for example, risk-reducing surgery. These women are known to have a high risk of breast cancer and high risk of ovarian cancer. So the guidelines are suggesting to undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy at a young age, so 35 to 40 years in BRCA1 carrier, 40 to 45 years in BRCA2 carrier. And also risk-reducing mastectomy should be discussed because it is a very effective way to prevent the occurrence of breast cancer. And in some situations, including the setting that we are talking about, so young women with breast cancer, BRCA carrier, also risk-reducing mastectomy has shown to improve overall survival.  On the other side, once diagnosed with breast cancer, nowadays knowing to be or not a BRCA carrier can make a difference in terms of treatment. We have PARP inhibitors in the early setting, in the adjuvant setting as well as in the metastatic setting. And in terms of survivorship implication, one of the critical aspects for young women is the oncofertility care which is even more complicated when we talk about BRCA carriers that are women candidates for gynecological surgery at a very young age. So this sort of counseling is even more complicated. Dr. Monty Pal: One of the other things, and this is subtle in your paper and I hope you don't mind me bringing it up, is the difference between BRCA1 and BRCA2. It really got me thinking about that because there are differences in phenotype and manifestation. Do you mind just expanding on that a little bit for the audience because I think that's a really important reminder that you brought up in the discussion? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: The difference between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers has been known that there are different phenotypes of breast cancer that are more often diagnosed in these two different populations. Normally BRCA1 carriers have a higher likelihood to develop a triple negative breast cancer as compared to BRCA2 carriers, more likely to develop a hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative disease. In this study, again, a specific population of young women with breast cancer, we have seen the same findings, mostly triple negative disease in BRCA1 carrier, mostly luminal-like disease in BRCA2 carrier. But what's novel or interesting from this study is to look also at the age at the time of diagnosis of this disease. And particularly in BRCA1 carriers, we should be sort of more careful about diagnosis of breast cancer and also other primary tumors including ovarian cancer because the risk of developing these malignancies is higher even at a younger age as compared to BRCA2 carriers. And this has implications also in the primary and secondary prevention that we were talking about earlier. Dr. Monty Pal: Oh, interesting. I guess the fundamental question then from your paper becomes, how do we get at the right patients for screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2? And I realize our audience here is largely oncologists who are going to be listening to this podcast, oncology providers, MDs, nurses, etc. But maybe speak for a moment to the general practitioner. Are there things that, for instance, a general practitioner should be looking for to say, “Wait a minute, this patient's high risk, we should consider BRCA1, BRCA2 testing or germline screening”? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Yes, it's a very important question for the breast cancer community. After the updated ASCO guideline, the counseling is way easier because right now the age cutoff goes up to 65 years, meaning that all the patients diagnosed with breast cancer below the age of 65 years should be tested these days. And then above the age of 65, there are different criteria like triple-negative disease or family history. From a general practitioner standpoint, it's of course a bit more difficult, but knowing particularly the family history of the person that they have in front will be crucial to know if there are cases of breast cancer diagnosed at a young age, maybe triple-negative cases, knowing cases of ovarian cancer in first-degree relatives or pancreatic cancer in first-degree relatives, and of course cases of prostate cancer as well. So, I would say probably mostly the family side will be important from a general practitioner perspective.  From an oncology one, the other point that I think is important to stress also based on the data that we have shown in this publication is that having a case of breast cancer known to carry a BRCA pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. It means that all the people around this case should get tested and if found to be BRCA carrier and healthy carrier, these people should also undergo the primary and secondary prevention strategies because this is very critical also to improve their outcomes and try to avoid the developing of breast or ovarian cancer, but also in the case of diagnosis of this disease, a diagnosis at an earlier stage, as we have seen in this paper. Dr. Monty Pal: Brilliant. I'm going to diverge from our list of questions here and close by asking a question that I have at the top of my mind. You're very young. I know our podcast listeners can't see you, but you're very, very young. Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Thank you. Thank you for that. Not so young but yeah. Dr. Monty Pal: You have nearly 300 papers. Your H-index is 67. You've already made these seminal contributions, as I outlined it from the outset, regarding fertility, regarding use of GnRH analogs, regarding pregnancy and breast cancer. What are you studying now? What are you really excited about right now that you're doing that you think might potentially be practice changing? Give us a little teaser. Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Yeah. Thanks a lot, Dr. Pal. Receiving this compliment from you is fantastic. So, thanks a lot for that. From my side, in terms of my research, I've been interested in the field of breast cancer in young women since the start of my training. I've had very good mentors from Italy, from Europe, from the U.S. I'm still interested in this field, so I think we still have a lot to learn to try to improve the care of young women with breast cancer. For example, the oncofertility care, which is something I worked a lot over the past years. Now with all the new treatment options, there's a sort of new chapter of oncofertility counseling. So, what's the impact of immunotherapy? What's the impact of the new targeted agents?  More on the genetic aspects, now we know that there's not only BRCA1 or BRCA2. There are a lot of other different genes that may increase the risk of breast cancer and other malignancies. And also for these genes, we really don't have a lot of evidence to counsel women on prognosis, treatment, prevention strategy. So we need to learn way more for this special patient population that are quite rare, and so we really need a multicenter academic effort to try to give some evidence in this field. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah. It's tough because these are rare circumstances, but, you know, I think that you've done really well to sort of define some collective experiences that I think really define therapy. I mean, I just remember when I was in training 25 years ago, just reading through textbooks where all the experience around breast cancer and pregnancy was really just very sort of anecdotal almost, you know? And so it's great to see that the state of the science has moved forward.  Well, gosh, I really enjoyed our conversation today. I think your study really reminds us how powerful genetic information is in terms of improving outcomes. And, you know, hopefully this will lead some individuals to perhaps test more broadly in appropriate settings. So, thank you so much, Matteo, for joining us today with your fantastic insights on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Thank you very much, Dr. Pal. It's a real pleasure. Dr. Monty Pal: And thanks to our listeners too. You'll find a link to Dr. Lambertini's study in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you heard today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks a ton. 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. Sumanta (Monty) Pal  @montypal  Dr. Matteo Lambertini @matteolambe   Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:    Dr. Monty Pal:   Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview  Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical  Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis  Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, Seagen, Menarini, Nordic Pharma Speakers' Bureau: Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Ipsen, Knight Therapeutics, Libbs, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Menarini, AstraZeneca, Menarini Research Funding (Inst.): Gilead Sciences Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Roche

How do we make healthcare AI both safe and scalable? Dr. Stephen Speicher, Head of Clinical Oncology and Safety at Flatiron Health, shares how responsibility for AI safety must be shared across developers, deployers, clinicians, and health systems. He breaks down use-case-specific risks, informed consent challenges, and the risk of widening healthcare inequities.

To date, Michael P. Link has the unique honor of being the only pediatric oncologist to have served as president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Link, who is the Lydia J. Lee Professor in Pediatric Oncology at Stanford University, appeared on the Cancer History Project Podcast in conversation with Paul Goldberg, co-editor of the Cancer History Project and editor and publisher of The Cancer Letter.In honor of Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, Link revisits what drew him to pediatric oncology, his auspicious mentors, his 2011-2012 ASCO Presidential term—and his concerns about what he's seeing in oncology today.Over the course of his career, Link has seen a childhood cancer cure rate increase from a mere 40% to closer to 90%. But he's concerned about how the field of oncology is being impacted today.In his 2012 Presidential address, Link said:“There is another lesson from our children—that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This is a lesson not just from pediatric oncology, but from pediatrics in general. Prevention strategy through immunization has proven to be one of the greatest triumphs of pediatrics and of modern medicine. Rather than diagnosing and treating diphtheria, widespread immunization simply eliminated it as a health problem in North America. The near eradication of measles, polio, and serious infections from H Influenzae is a similar triumph.”He expressed shock about how things have changed in 2025. “I'm a pediatrician, so here I am and they have measles? I mean really, measles in 2025? How is that possible?” Link said. “I never thought I'd be in a position where I have to talk to people about measles and polio and chickenpox as a threat... And measles, it's a matter of how serious your illness is going to be, and if you're immunocompromised it's life threatening.”Other concerns from his time as ASCO President have reemerged—or never really gone away.In 2012, Link said, “But all this newfound insight into these diseases and their treatment is only as good as our ability to deliver what we know. The current chemotherapy shortage is emblematic of the precarious nature of the path between the discovery and the delivery of our most exciting new findings.”Speaking on the podcast, Link called this an issue of “whack-a-mole”—where new drugs go into shortage on a regular basis. “Can you believe that here we are in whatever year it is, 20-whenever the next shortage is going to come and we don't have access to this?”A transcript of this conversation, along with an archive of related content, is available on the Cancer History Project: https://cancerhistoryproject.com/article/michael-link-podcast/ 

How can genetic insights change the way we treat cancer?In this episode of the PQI Podcast, Dr. Soni Tuteja, Director of Pharmacogenomics at Penn Medicine, shares how her team put pharmacogenomic testing into practice — and the impact it's had on patients. She highlights findings from her Journal of Clinical Oncology article on DPYD and UGT1A1 testing in GI cancers, showing how pre-treatment testing helped reduce toxicities, guide dose adjustments, and support safer therapy.Listeners will also hear about:Practical strategies to expand and sustain pharmacogenetic testing in real-world settingsHow pharmacists can lead patient counseling and program implementationThe role of NCODA's Positive Quality Interventions (PQIs), like DPYD testing before fluoropyrimidine treatment, in helping teams deliver safer, more personalized care

Dr. Tanya Thomas and Dr. Aparna Jotwani join the podcast to discuss the new Oncology Nursing Society and American Society of Clinical Oncology evidence-based guideline on the management of antineoplastic extravasation. They discuss recommendations from the expert panel on: management of extravasation of vesicant or irritant with vesicant properties antineoplastic agents, management of extravasation of paclitaxel or docetaxel, use & duration of thermal compress, and escalation of care. They share the importance of this comprehensive interdisciplinary guideline, highlight the algorithm as a useful tool for clinicians, and outline the outstanding questions related to the management of extravasation. Read the full guideline, “ONS/ASCO Guideline on the Management of Antineoplastic Extravasation” at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the JCO Oncology Practice, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/OP-25-00579  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. Tanya Thomas, clinical chair of the guideline and clinical nurse specialist from University of Virginia Health, and Dr. Aparna Jotwani, medical oncologist from Baylor College of Medicine, authors on "Management of Antineoplastic Extravasation: Oncology Nursing Society – American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Thomas and Dr. Jotwani. Dr. Aparna Jotwani: Thank you. Dr. Tanya Thomas: 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. Thomas and Dr. Jotwani, who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in JCO Oncology Practice, which is linked in the show notes. So then to dive into the content here, Dr. Thomas, could you start us off by providing an overview of both the scope and the objectives of this guideline? Dr. Tanya Thomas: Yes, so the objective of this guideline is to provide the evidence-based recommendations to help support our interdisciplinary teams, including the oncologist, the advanced practice providers, pharmacists, and nurses who are involved in the care and management of patients who are experiencing an extravasation of an antineoplastic agent. While rare, the antineoplastic and certain chemotherapy extravasations are oncologic emergencies. The recommendations are to minimize negative consequences and provide a standardized approach to the care when such an event occurs. Dr. Aparna Jotwani: I would add that our scope is limited to intravenous antineoplastic vesicants, irritants, and irritants with vesicant potential. The scope of the guideline applies to the care team for adult oncology patients receiving treatments through venous access. Outside the scope is management of extravasation during other routes of treatment administration, such as intraperitoneal, intravesical, and hepatic arterial infusion. Our recommendations regarding vascular access for therapy or interventions to prevent extravasations are also outside of the scope for this guideline. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate that background and understanding what's in scope and what's out of scope for this guideline. So then I'd like to pivot and talk about the key recommendations of this guideline across the clinical questions. So first, Dr. Jotwani, what does the panel recommend for patients with extravasation of vesicant or irritant with vesicant properties antineoplastic agents? Dr. Aparna Jotwani: The panel strongly recommends for all classes where an antidote exists to proceed with using the antidote. Recommendations for paclitaxel and docetaxel are specifically addressed in a recommendation. This is further detailed in Tables 1 and 4 within the guideline. Evidence on the use of antidotes for extravasation is limited to nonrandomized, uncontrolled, observational studies and case series. Placebo-controlled trials on this topic would be unethical. There is also a lack of comparative data for different antidote strategies. However, potential benefits of using the antidotes include tissue preservation and avoiding tissue necrosis. In developing the guidelines, we had an in-person roundtable discussion and weighed risks and benefits to ensure patient safety above all else. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate that description of the recommendation here. So then you just mentioned that there's a specific recommendation for paclitaxel and docetaxel. So what is recommended for those patients with extravasation of paclitaxel or docetaxel? Dr. Aparna Jotwani: So here, we conditionally recommended the specific use of hyaluronidase as the antidote. This was based on five studies that all used hyaluronidase as an antidote to lower the risk of tissue necrosis. In the studies included, with a subgroup of patients that experienced taxane-related extravasation, development of necrosis ranged from 0% to 0.83% among the patients who received an antidote. The potential harms associated with this were likely trivial. Brittany Harvey: Thank you for providing that recommendation as well. So then the next section of the guideline, Dr. Thomas, what does the expert panel recommend for use and duration of thermal compress? Dr. Tanya Thomas: So the expert panel actually recommends the use of thermal compresses, and the recommendations are based on the available literature for the various agents and the actual time frames most frequently used for the compress application. The utilization of a thermal compress is recommended for 15 to 20 minutes at a time for 3 to 4 times daily, at least for the first 48 to 72 hours after that extravasation occurs. The actual frequency and duration may vary based on the extent of the extravasation and the agent involved in that extravasation. The intent of the warm compress is to help disperse the agent and reduce the localized accumulation of the agent, whereas the cold compress, it actually helps prevent the dispersion or the spread of the agent while allowing the antidote to help neutralize that agent. Warm compresses are recommended for extravasations involving the vinca alkaloids, etoposide, oxaliplatin, and the taxanes - paclitaxel and docetaxel - only when coadministering the antidote hyaluronidase. The use of a cold compress is actually recommended for extravasations involving the anthracyclines, antimetabolites, alkylating agents, and taxanes when coadministration of the antidote hyaluronidase does not occur. Brittany Harvey: Understood. Those specific and actionable recommendations are really key for clinical practice. So then, following those recommendations, how does the guideline address escalation of care and surgical referral for patients with central line extravasation? Dr. Tanya Thomas: So this topic actually had a lot of discussion. And while there is not enough evidence to make strong recommendations, the expert panel recognized that surgical referrals should be considered in certain scenarios. Dr. Aparna Jotwani: We discussed that certain scenarios would include high-risk populations, such as patients that are receiving DNA-binding vesicants, those with high-volume estimated extravasation, and those with CTCAE grade 2, which would be erythema associated with symptoms such as edema, pain, induration, and phlebitis, or grade 3, which would be symptoms of ulceration or necrosis or concern for severe tissue damage, or grade 4, where you would have a life-threatening consequence extravasation, may have a greater likelihood of benefiting from surgical referral and/or escalation of care as deemed appropriate. Brittany Harvey: Great. And yes, it's really important to provide all of these recommendations that you've both just gone through, even when we're faced with very low evidence. So then, Dr. Thomas, in your view, what is the importance of this guideline, and how will it impact clinical practice? Dr. Tanya Thomas: So when extravasations occur in the clinical setting, members of the interdisciplinary team can be faced with barriers related to where to look for the information, how to find all the relevant information in one concise place, how to provide education to the patient about how to care for the site of extravasation in the home setting, and also when to escalate to specialized teams. This can actually cause some added stress and anxiety, and in certain circumstances, may lead to delays in efficient management. This guideline provides the resource clinicians have been looking for. It includes comprehensive recommendations for antineoplastic extravasations in one guideline while also providing a one-page algorithm with the key information regarding the management of the extravasations. This allows all levels of providers to have evidence-based recommendations regarding initial management of the extravasation, for instance, how to manage the infusion, key site assessment reminders, available antidotes, and the use of thermal compress; the required documentation, recommended follow-up scheduling, in addition to key aspects of the patient education. This type of guidance is not found in any other single document regarding antineoplastic extravasation. Having this document readily available at the point of care potentially can reduce time required for providers to search for management recommendations and also provide consistency in patient education and follow-up management scheduling. It reduces uncertainty within interdisciplinary teams and can help inform policy development for clinicians to approach extravasations with confidence. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I agree that this is an incredible resource for clinicians with the recommendations, the algorithm that you mentioned, and the supporting evidence that underpins these recommendations to really provide both efficient and effective care for patients. So beyond the impact for clinical practice, Dr. Jotwani, how will these guideline recommendations affect patients receiving antineoplastic treatment for cancer? Dr. Aparna Jotwani: Exactly. In addition to the clinical care team, we want to help and benefit our patients. So, oncology patients that experience extravasations are at risk for, aside of the side effects of tissue necrosis and infection, they also are at risk for delay of cancer treatment. In making these guidelines, we kept in mind the cost and the efforts for patients, additional visits that they could incur, additional time and supplies for care of the extravasation, as well as cost. Our guideline aims to provide an evidence-based approach to the care of oncology patients receiving antineoplastic intravenous therapy. While there are gaps in the data due to the nature of these events, based on careful literature review, these guidelines serve as a basis for quality, standardized oncology care during extravasation. Personally, I hope our graphics especially can be used across the systems to guide clinical care. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. We hope that these recommendations improve treatment and treatment outcomes for all patients receiving antineoplastic treatment for cancer. So then you've also just mentioned some gaps in the literature. So Dr. Thomas, I'd like to turn to you to wrap us up and ask, what are the outstanding questions for the management of antineoplastic extravasation? Dr. Tanya Thomas: Yes, that's a good question. Two of the main outstanding questions are related to the management of extravasations involving the novel agents and extravasations involving multi-agent regimens. The current literature regarding how to effectively manage the multi-agent regimens, for instance, there is no clear guidance for managing the extravasation for someone who is receiving a regimen that involves simultaneous administration of, let's say, a vinca alkaloid and an anthracycline. One of those agents requires a warm compress while the other requires a cold compress, and there are different antidotes for those two agents. Additionally, there has not been a lot of published information on the impact of extravasation of those novel agents like the antibody-drug conjugates. With the pace of the drug development, a subgroup of the guideline panelists actually are exploring case reports specific to novel agents to help inform some future work. Brittany Harvey: Yes, we'll look forward to learning more about how to address these ongoing issues and potentially impact guideline recommendations in the future as well. So I want to thank you both so much for your work to develop this incredibly important guideline, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Thomas and Dr. Jotwani. Dr. Aparna Jotwani: Thank you for the opportunity. Dr. Tanya Thomas: Yes, thank you. Brittany Harvey: And finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines. I also encourage you to check out the companion episode on this guideline on the ONS podcast, available on Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube Music. And finally, 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've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

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

Listen to ASCO's Journal of Clinical Oncology Art of Oncology article, "Brown Paper Bags” by Dr. Stephanie Graff, who is an Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University and Director of Breast Oncology at Brown University Health in Providence Rhode Island. The article is followed by an interview with Graff and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr Graff shares how she handled receiving a gift from a patient. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: Brown Paper Bags, by Stephanie Graff, MD, FACP, FASCO  Minor demographic features of the patients described have been altered to honor their privacy “Why are you being weird about opening the bag?” he asks.  The gift that William brought me is still sitting on the edge of the clinic examination room counter, the proverbial elephant in the room. He presented it to me the moment I entered the examination room, excited as a child giving their first Christmas gift. I have demurred, stating I will open it later. I have tried to avoid opening the bag, explaining that I do not like opening gifts in front of people. William is as tenacious about me opening this gift right now as he is about facing his disease. I treat William for male breast cancer. I have always called him William because it is what the electronic medical record says as his preferred name. It is his first name, and when I verified on our first meeting what he preferred to be called, he said “William is fine,” but just like the Sheryl Crow song says, “I'm sure it's Bill or Billy or Mack or Buddy.” 1 William is electric. He lights up the examination room, engages my staff while playfully ribbing them, and has a laugh that reverberates down the hallway. He comes to each visit with a colorful story about the events that have transpired since our last appointment, vividly painting images of his children and grandchildren and his life outside the clinic walls. He swells with pride discussing his grown children like a new mother showing off photos of her baby. “Ryan just finished the most beautiful presentation deck for work. You should see it. Those slides! I bet he would show it to you.” Ryan works in banking or finance or insurance—I cannot remember—but I confess I never took William up on the offer to see the slide deck.  Abruptly, William stands up, moving faster than an elderly patient with metastatic cancer should be able to move. In a single swift movement, he grabs the brown paper bag from where I abandoned it on the counter and drops it in my lap. “Open it!” I sigh deeply, carefully unroll the top, and peek in. “I got those for the mister!” he exclaims. Inside is a bag of Werther's hard caramels. As relief floods me, I laugh a deep, slow laugh of appreciation for this 70-something man and his ability to brighten the world around him in the most surprising ways. During our last clinic visit, he told me hard caramels take the chemotaste out of his mouth, and I had confessed that my husband is also Werther's devotee, but prefers the soft chews. William made a case then and there for the hard caramels and told me I should try to get “Mr Dr Graff” to make the change. He approached the soft caramel versus hard caramel discussion with the intensity of a high school debate champion. Needless to say, the Graff household now alternates our caramels—enjoying both hard caramels and soft chews. “Seriously. What gives with you and the bag?” he probes again. I recognize that William is not going to let this go. He is too astute and persistent. So, I decided to tell him the whole truth about gifts from patients and brown paper bagsThat first year as an oncology fellow, after months on inpatient consults, I finally started outpatient clinics just as the holidays season began. The patients, many of whom had deep and long relationships with the attending oncologists—the same relationships I was eager to build, the relationships that drove me to oncology as a profession—brought in gift after gift, homemade cookies, handmade quilts, and jars of homemade jam. It was rarely something elaborate as the patients knew the faculty could not accept anything too over the top, but it often showed the same tender thoughtfulness that you show a dear friend or favorite relative. Their favorite coffee. A T-shirt of a favorite band. Or something jovial, like a rival sports team or college's coffee mug. It was during this time of the busy holidays, maybe the second week of December, in my own fellow's clinic, that one of my patients with solid tumor arrived with a small brown paper bag. He of course had synchronous primary malignancies that in no way aligned for a simple plan of care and was experiencing dreadful side effects, which seemed to be the way of fellow's clinic. I had been seeing him quite often, pouring every ounce of my nascent skills into trying to help him through his treatment. He handed me the bag, and in my enthusiasm and naivety and holiday spirit, I bubbled with excitement thinking “oh, he brought me a little gift!” But my own thoughts were pouring over him saying “I brought this in for you because…” and as he was saying the rest, I tore open the bag, all the while with my eyes on him as he spoke, and plunged my hand into the bag, grabbing the…what exactly…cloth something…to hear him saying….  “…because I wanted you to see how bad this diarrhea is! Pure liquid. Bloody. Constant. I can't even make it to the bathroom,” he was saying. Yes. I was holding—in my bare hand—his soiled, blood-stained underwear. Merry Christmas. I have not excitedly torn open a mystery gift or plunged my hand into a bag since. This is not a lesson that took more than one time to learn. In retrospect, perhaps my patient did give me a tremendous gift that day. I was given a true under-standing of his side effects, of what it means to have grade 3 diarrhea, hemorrhoidal bleeding, and fecal incontinence. If there was any chance I did not believe patients before that day, I have always believed patients since—no need to bring me evidence in a little brown bag. Thanks. I'm good. By this point in my retelling of the story, William was nearly doubled-over in laughter, red-faced, and barely able to breathe or stay in his chair. Thus, our little ritual began. William continued to bring me gifts in brown paper bags at every visit for the rest of his time as my patient. Always small tokens. A pocket pack of Kleenex during cold season. A can ofsoup “to warm my hands,” which are perpetually cold during physical examinations. A small handmade Christmas ornament. Sometimes, he would put a bag inside a bag, inside a bag…laughing like an evil super villain, while I nervously unpacked his brown paper bags of torture. William elected to go to hospice care appropriately, living a few months with a good quality of life with home hospice. A few weeks after his passing, his son arrived at the registration desk and asked to speak with me. When I went to the front of the clinic to invite him back, to hug him, and tell him how much his father mattered to all of us at the cancer center, he handed me a brown paper bag. “He insisted” was all William's son said. I opened it, genuinely concerned what I might find this time, nervously peeking into the bag. It was a copy of William's obituary, thanking the cancer center for all the care we had shown him and for inviting him to be part of our lives as much as we were a part of his. This is the greatest gift—the gift of impact. Of knowing my care mattered, of knowing we were truly on the same care team. I carry my patients and their families with me through life, recalling their anecdotes, wisdoms, and warnings at just the right moments. I save their precious words in a box of cards I keep at my desk. I also have a collection of hilarious, insightful, peculiar, and profound assortment of little gifts that made a patient think of me—a curio of curiosities, a microcosm of my career. I think this is why patients give these small tokens in the first place—to make tangible the gratitude, the emotion, and the bond that is ex-changed between the patient and the oncologist. In giving, we are connected. Gifts speak for us when the weight of emotion and the vulnerability of truth are too much. A gift says “you matter in my life” as much as a gift says “I want you to feel how life altering the diarrhea I have been experiencing at home has been.” I have received both those gifts. They have changed me. So, I do not know—I am thinking maybe it is time I go back to plunging my hand straight in? Because in the end, somewhere down there at the bottom, that is where all the good stuff is hidden. Mikkael Sekeres: Welcome back to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. This ASCO podcast features intimate narratives and perspectives from authors exploring their experiences in oncology. I am your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I am Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. Today, I am so excited to be joined by Dr. Stephanie Graff, Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University and Director of the Breast Oncology Program at Brown University Health in Providence, Rhode Island, to discuss her Journal of Clinical Oncology article, "Brown Paper Bags." Our guests' disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Stephanie, I am so excited to have you here. Welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us. Dr. Stephanie Graff: It is such an honor to be here and to discuss this with you. Mikkael Sekeres: Stephanie, I have to say, I feel like I know you so well because I have read your writing over years, and there is an intimacy to how you write and an honesty to it where I really feel as if we are sitting together over a table drinking an International House of Coffee mocha blend, talking about our recent trip to Paris. But I am not sure all of our listeners know you quite as well, so I am wondering if you can tell us a little bit about yourself. Dr. Stephanie Graff: Sure. So I am on the JCO Art of Oncology editorial board, and live in Providence. So you and I have many shared interests. I love to write and I love to read, and I think that how you described my writing reflects my communication. I think that I tend to be really honest and open with patients about, about everything, about both myself and their disease. And I think that that is really what you are capturing in my story writing. I am an avid reader. I read just nonstop and write a variety of different styles of writing. I have written several breast cancer related texts, obviously academic papers. I have confessed to you in the past that I write poetry, but it is for myself. It is very unlikely to end up in the pages of JCO. I like writing stories like this when I feel like a story has been percolating in my mind for a while. Mikkael Sekeres: Boy, there is a lot of jumping off points I want to take from what you just said, of course. Maybe we can start with your writing process. What triggers a story and how do you face the dreaded blank page? Dr. Stephanie Graff: I think it is different for different stories. Often, it is something that has been the struggle or the relived experience that I keep turning over. And I find that like when I am walking my dog in the morning or when I am running on the treadmill, that sometimes the same moments keep coming back up in my mind: a difficult patient encounter, a heartwarming patient encounter, a challenging conflict with a peer or colleague. Those are the things that I keep going back to. And I think that as I go back to it over time, I craft that narrative. And crafting the narrative is also what helps me work through the story and cement it as a lesson that I learned from or that becomes a memory that is important to me, and ultimately makes it easy to just sit down and write, which is often, I do just sit down and write the whole story and it comes out pretty much in the form I end up submitting. But I think that that is because I have spent so much pre-contemplative thought before I get to pen to paper. Sometimes it is, with this story, and I think I had said this in my original cover letter with "Brown Paper Bags," one of my nurses, my nurse practitioner, actually had gotten a gift from a patient that was actually wildly inappropriate for her, both as a gift from a patient and for her as an individual. And she had like brought it back to our shared workspace and was like, "Guys, like, what do I do with this?" And it prompted all of us to share our stories of like really fantastic things that patients have given us, really weird things that patients have given us, and just to end up laughing hysterically about the funny moments and getting a little teary-eyed thinking about the way that we hold on to some of those memories. Mikkael Sekeres: I love that whole description. First of all, starting with your writing process. I think we all come out of a room sometimes where we have been meeting with a person, and our stomach just turns. There is something that did not sit right with us about the interaction or there is something that was really special about the interaction. And I think if we are thoughtful people and thoughtful doctors, we ruminate over that for a while and think to ourselves, “What was it that was really special about that, that really worked that I can actually apply to other patients?” Or, “What was it that did not work, that something that went south where I probably need to change my behavior or change how I am entering an interaction so that does not happen again?” Dr. Stephanie Graff: Yeah, I think about it like those, you know, I am sure you have the same experience I do that a lot of your early childhood memories are actually photos of your early childhood that you can remember more clearly because you have the picture of them, and certainly the same is true for my own children. But I think that having that description, that powerful visual description of a photograph from a moment, helps you cement that memory and treasure it. And I think that the same is true with writing, that when we have an experience that if we are able to make it tangible, write about it, turn it into a song, turn it into a poem, turn it into a piece of art, whether that is, you know, an interpretive dance or a painting, whatever your expression is, that is going to be something that becomes a more concrete memory for you. And so regardless of whether it is a good memory or a bad memory, I think sometimes that that is how we learn and grow. Mikkael Sekeres: I think that is spot on. I believe there are some theories of memory also that talk about accessing the memory over and over again so that you do not lose it and you do not lose the connections to it. And those connections can be other memories or they can be anything that occurred with our five senses when the event actually occurred. Dr. Stephanie Graff: Yeah. That- so one of my favorite books is Audrey Niffenegger's book called The Time Traveler's Wife. Have you read that? It is- the gentleman has a, you know, genetic condition in the fictional book that makes him travel in time and he like leaves his body, his clothes are on the floor and travels back and he is drawn to moments that are important to him. So he is drawn back constantly to the moment he met his wife, he is drawn back constantly to the moment his parents died. And I think that that is true, right? Our memory takes us back to those really visceral, important moments over and over again. Mikkael Sekeres: So you mentioned before, one of the jumping off points I wanted to explore a little bit more was when someone gets an unusual gift and brings it back to the workroom and there is that moment when everyone looks at it and the person says exactly what you said, "What do I do with this?" Right? And it is interesting that it is even a question because sometimes there is a really weird gift and there are certain people who would just immediately put it in the trash, but as oncologists, we do not, do we? Dr. Stephanie Graff: No. Mikkael Sekeres: That is not an option, but we want to know what it is we can do with it. So I do not know if you can remember any particularly unusual gifts you received or your colleagues received during that conversation and then what do you do with them? Dr. Stephanie Graff: Yeah, I think that sometimes they are, I mean, honestly, like the truth is is that I have them, right? Like they are all over my life, these little trinkets and doodads, even to the point that sometimes I give gifts that are inspired by my patients, too. Like two Christmases ago, I gave all of my colleagues as their Christmas gift these blown glass octopuses because one of my patients was obsessed with octopi and it like had led to several conversations, and they have obviously eight arms, we all know that, but they have numerous hearts, they have this very complex, empathetic brain, they are thinking and feeling, very cool, cool animals if you really start to learn and read about them. And I really started to think both about how much we had all kind of rallied around this one patient and her unique love of octopi, but also like how much that animal represents what it means to practice team based care, to have this larger than life heart, to feel like you are more than one brain, like you have eight arms because you work with these really great people. So I wrote that much more eloquently than I am doing right now in a card for my team and gave them these glass octopuses for Christmas. And so, you know, I think that our patients, it is not always even a physical gift. Sometimes it is just sharing their stories that ends up staying with us. Mikkael Sekeres: And that must not have been that long after the documentary was released about the man who had this special relationship with an octopus as well. So do you save the gifts given to you by patients? Why or why not? Dr. Stephanie Graff: So, obviously we get a lot of things like food and we just eat that, right? I am sure your clinic is a collection of boxes of chocolates and, so in Rhode Island, there is a lot of Portuguese patients and so we get a lot of like Portuguese bread and things like that too, which is delicious. So we have all sorts of food all the time and that just gets eaten. I do save patients'- and I realize we are not on camera for our viewing audience, but I have bizarrely, so one patient gave me this red devil, which is amazing because Adriamycin, which is obviously a really common breast cancer drug, is called the "red devil." And this is kind of a famous folk art carving by Alexander Girard. I think the actual real one is in Philadelphia at their art museum, but she was like, "You gave me the red devil, so I am going to give you the red devil." And like, I think that is hilarious. Like, I will save that forever. But I have so many other patients that have given me like little angels because I like meant a lot to them or helped them through this difficult moment. And I have all of those things, right? And so I have this kind of funny little shelf of angels and devils in my office, which is, I think, amusing. And then, obviously I wrote about the brown paper bags. You know, that patient filled it with little things like butterscotches and a can of soup and an instant hot cocoa mix. It was stuff that like you can realistically use. It kind of comes and goes. It is not necessarily something that you have forever. I had all three of my children during my time, one in fellowship and two as a practicing oncologist, and I was practicing in the Midwest then. I have a wealth of absolutely gorgeous quilts, baby quilts, that were made by my patients for my kids. And I have saved every single one of those. I can tell you which patient made it for which child because those are just such heirlooms to me. Yeah, lots of really great things. I am curious about you. You have to have these treasures too in your life. Mikkael Sekeres: Oh, absolutely. Isn't it remarkable that people in the face of life threatening illnesses, and I probably have a patient population specializing in acute leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes where their illness is often more acute than, than your typical patient in your patient population even, but even during those times, I am always so moved how people take the time to ask about us and want to know about our lives as physicians and take the time to give a gift. And sure, I have my own shelf of curios, I think that is how you refer to it in your essay, from patients and it is very meaningful. There was one patient I treated who was a baseball fan. We were both living in Cleveland at the time. I am a Yankees fan. Both my parents are from the Bronx, so they raised me the right way, of course, even though I was raised in Providence, Rhode Island. And she was a Red Sox fan, and every time she came to visit me, she would wear red socks. It became this ongoing joke. She would wear her red socks and I would remember to wear my Yankees socks. So when we reached the five year mark, she was cured of her leukemia, she gave me a framed box of red socks to hang up. So, yeah, we have these stories and they are immediately evocative of the person we took care of and built a relationship, hopefully a long term relationship with. Gift giving in oncology can be nuanced at times. Why do you think patients give gifts and why are they meaningful to us as caregivers? Dr. Stephanie Graff: I mean, I think that gift giving at its heart is sometimes just a more comfortable way to express emotion for so many patients, right? And humans, right? We give gifts to celebrate births, weddings, birthdays, anniversaries, major holidays, right, for our own friends and family. And so it makes sense that that cultural or social tradition exists where we give gifts to acknowledge and celebrate that someone is important and a part of our life. And so often, I think it is just a way for a patient to say, "You have been here for me, I see you, I see the work you do, I appreciate you." So it is a way to say thank you that to any individual patient feels bigger than just the words. Obviously, I want to say as- if any patient stumbles onto this podcast, just the words are more than enough and we do not even need that. Like it is my greatest honor to care for the patients that allow me to enter their lives and care for them. Like, I do not need them to tell me thank you. I certainly do not need them to give me a gift, but I think that is a big part of why patients do it. But I think another part of it is that in many ways, you know, we have all seen that when somebody is diagnosed with cancer, that they have this real reckoning with their family and friends where people that they thought were very good friends do not know how to show up for them. And so sometimes they see these shifting dynamics in their friend groups, especially maybe for our younger patients or mid aged patients that just their friends are so busy. There is lots that goes on, right, that I think that often the gift is saying, "Thank you for showing up." We were a constant in their life during that time and for many of my patients, they do not have that constancy from the other people in their life. And so again, if anyone stumbles onto this podcast and someone in your life that you love is diagnosed with cancer, the most important thing that any of us can do for someone battling a chronic illness is just show up. And I often tell people even uninvited, like, show up and offer to take their laundry back to your house, show up and drop off a meal because I think that the people saying, "Well, let me know what I can do," is not helpful because it is really awkward to tell people what to do when you are battling an illness. Mikkael Sekeres: That notion of presence is just so important and you enunciated it beautifully. When my patients say to me, "Oh, I want to get you something," I always respond the same way that you do. I always say, "Your good health is the greatest gift that I could hope for," and just the, just the words and the presence are enough. I wanted to end quoting you to yourself and asking you to reflect on it. You write, "I carry my patients and their families with me through life, recalling their anecdotes, wisdoms, and warnings at just the right moments." Stephanie, what are those moments when you lean on the anecdotes and wisdom of your patients? Dr. Stephanie Graff: Patients will say things to me about - oh gosh, I will get all teary thinking about it - you know, patients say things to me who are my, you know, stage four metastatic patients about what has mattered to them in life. And it makes it so easy for me to leave that thing undone and go home at the end of the day because none of them say, "It really mattered to me that I spent that extra hour at work or that I got that promotion or that raise." I am in the habit of, when I meet patients for the first time and they are at a visit with their husband or their wife or their partner, I will ask how long they have been together. And when patients tell me that it has been decades, 40, 50, 60 years, I will ask what the secret is, because I am at 17 years of marriage and I'd love to see 63, which is my record for a patient story. And my one patient during a visit, the wife and I were talking and I asked how long they had been married. We had already had a pretty long visit at that point when it came up, and the whole visit, the husband had just sat in the corner, very quiet, had not said a word. For all I know, he could have been nonverbal. And she said, "Oh, we have been married 60 years." And I said, "Oh my gosh, what is the secret?" And before she could even open her mouth, he goes, "Separate bathrooms." I think about it all the time. Like any time I am like annoyed with my husband getting ready in the morning, I am like, "Yep, separate bathrooms. It is the key to everything." Bringing those little moments, those little things that patients say to you that just pop back up into your mind are so wonderful. Like those rich little anecdotes that patients share with you are really things that stay with you long term. Mikkael Sekeres: So it does not surprise me, Stephanie, that you and I have settled on the same line of questioning with our patients. I wrote an Art of Oncology piece a few years ago called exactly that: "What I Learned About Love From My Patients," asking the exact same question. It was a fascinating exploration of long term marriage from people who say, "Oh, you have to have a sense of humor," which you always hear, to some things that were just brutally honest where somebody said, "Well, I could not find anybody better, so I just settled," right? Because they are in the oncologist's office and sometimes people will speak very dark truths in our clinics. But my favorites were always the people where I would ask them and the husband and wife would turn to each other and just hold hands and say, "I do not know, I just love her." And I always thought to myself, that is the marriage for me. Dr. Stephanie Graff: My husband and I trained together. He was a fellow when I was a resident. So we had one rotation together in our entire careers and it was in cardiology. Like he was like the fellow on cardiovascular ICU and I was the resident on cardiology. And the attending had been prodding this woman who had heart disease about how she needed to be more physically active and said something to the extent to the patient about how he could tell that she was more of a couch potato, that she really needed to get more active. Mind you, this is a long time ago. And her husband, I mean, they are older patients, her husband boldly interrupts the attending physician and says, "She may be a couch potato, but she is my sweet potato." And my husband and I every once in a while will quip, "Well, you are my sweet potato" to one another because we still, we both remembered that interaction all these years later. Like, that is love. I do not know what else is love if it is not fighting for your wife's honor by proclaiming her your ‘sweet potato'. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, I cannot say just how much of a treat it has been to have you here, Stephanie. This has been Stephanie Graff, Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University and Director of the Breast Oncology Program at Brown University Health in Providence, Rhode Island, discussing her Journal of Clinical Oncology article, "Brown Paper Bags." If you have enjoyed this episode, consider sharing it with a friend or colleague or leave us a review. Your feedback and support helps us continue to have these important conversations. If you are looking for more episodes and context, follow our show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen and explore more from ASCO at asco.org/podcasts. Until next time, this has been Mikkael Sekeres. Thank you for joining us. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Show Notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review.    Guest Bio: Stephanie Graff, MD, FACP, FASCO is an Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University and Director of Breast Oncology at Brown University Health in Providence Rhode Island   Additional Reading: What My Patients Taught Me About Love, by Mikkael Sekeres    

In this episode of SurgOnc Today, we will discuss a few of the practice changing trials presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting this past June. The episode is moderated by Dr. Kelly Hewitt and offers insightful discussion by leaders in medical oncology, including Dr. Jo Chien, Dr. Laura Kennedy and Dr. William Gradishar.  Highlights include discussion of results from COMPASS Her2, SERENA-6 and the current state and utility of circulating tumor DNA in patients with early-stage breast cancer.

Host Dr. Shannon Westin and guest Dr. Hani Babiker discuss the JCO article "Tumor Treating Fields With Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Randomized, Open-Label, Pivotal Phase III PANOVA-3 Study." TRANSCRIPT TTFields in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Dr. Shannon Westin: Hello everyone, and welcome to another episode of JCO After Hours, the podcast where we get in depth with manuscripts that have been published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, gynecologic oncologist Shannon Westin, social media editor at the JCO, and just excited to be here to learn today about pancreatic cancer. None of our participants have conflicts of interest related to this podcast, and it is my honor to introduce Dr. Hani Babiker. He is an associate professor of medicine, consultant in oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. Welcome, Dr. Babiker. Dr. Hani Babiker: Hi, Dr. Westin. Thank you for the great opportunity to discuss our trial, and thank you for having me here. I really appreciate it, and I am excited. Dr. Shannon Westin: All right, so are we. So we are going to be talking about “Tumor Treating Fields with Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized, Open-Label, Pivotal Phase III PANOVA-3 Study.” This was simultaneously published and presented in the JCO and at the annual meeting of ASCO on 5/31/2025. So, let's level set. Can you speak to us just a little bit about pancreatic cancer? What is the survival, and what is the typical treatment for locally advanced disease? This gynecologic oncologist has not kept up in this field. Dr. Hani Babiker: Absolutely, Dr. Westin, and thank you for that question. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a lethal cancer. When I first started my career, the 5-year survival, per the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, was at 4.5%. I always, whenever I was giving talks, say that I really hope that I will see it in the double digit. Now, the 5-year survival for all pancreatic adenocarcinoma is 13.3%. And the 5-year survival, and although it is a double digit, I still hope that I will see it in a higher double digit in the future. It is even worse in patients with metastatic cancer, about 3% 5-year survival for metastatic pancreatic cancer. It is a dismal diagnosis. I really hope in the future we will find a better therapeutic approach to this lethal cancer. Dr. Shannon Westin: Yes, I just lost a very dear friend and colleague to this disease, so I completely agree with you. Well, now that we are settled kind of with the basics here, I would love to talk a little bit about kind of the primary piece of this intervention, the Tumor Treating Fields. So, how does this work? And what diseases has it gotten indications in as yet? Dr. Hani Babiker: Absolutely. So, Tumor Treating Fields is alternating frequency electrical fields that have been studied preclinically and shown that it abrogates cancer cell proliferation. Earlier on, we knew that it inhibits polymerization of tubulin, and hence, it affects cancer cells from proliferating. Later, we are learning that there are multiple mechanisms of action. It affects permeability, allowing for better drug delivery. It also inhibits cancer cell proliferation through affecting autophagy mechanisms that pancreatic cancer cells will use for proliferating and becoming more aggressive. There is also some early data preclinically in colorectal cancer cell lines and lung cancer cell lines and in vivo models showing that it potentially could activate the microenvironment to make it more pro-immunogenic. We recently published papers showing that it could also affect the nanomechanical properties of the tumor microenvironment within pancreatic cancer, hinting towards affecting, potentially, the stroma. So, there are multiple mechanisms to Tumor Treating Electric Fields. It is a new, novel therapeutic approach. Sometimes when I speak with my trainees, I say, "Well, we have surgery, we have radiation and chemotherapy, and this is something new." Tumor Treating Fields initially was studied in refractory GBM and got an indication there. Subsequently, frontline treatment of GBM in a randomized clinical trial, and then malignant pleural mesothelioma and non-small cell lung cancer. We have studied it in pancreatic cancer. Dr. Shannon Westin: I don't think I have ever heard it described so perfectly. That was brilliant. So thank you, and I hope everyone listening knows that you just got a masterclass on this mechanism. You know, they dabbled in it a little bit in ovarian cancer and it didn't quite make the grade, so I was a little definitely disappointed. But very excited about the data we're going to talk about today. So let's get into the PANOVA-3 study. Can you highlight the overall design and also the key eligibility criteria that would be helpful for our listeners? Dr. Hani Babiker: Absolutely. So, it started off with preclinical work in pancreatic cancer showing Tumor Treating Fields with chemo abrogate cancer cell perforation. It led to a trial, the PANOVA-2 trial, that was run in Europe that showed efficacy for OS and PFS in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer, which included metastatic and locally advanced pancreatic cancer, more so in locally advanced that led to the PANOVA-3 trial, which was an international, global study. This was in more than 190 centers, 20 countries in Latin America, North America, Europe, and Asia. It was a randomized trial. Patients were randomized 1 to 1 to either chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel per drug label. The other arm was with Tumor Treating Fields at 150 kHz for a recommendation for patients to wear it 18 hours per day. The primary end point of the trial was OS, overall survival. The secondary end point included other efficacy landmarks such as local PFS, pain control, quality of life, and safety. And there was a post hoc that looked at distant PFS. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's a pretty common secondary end point in pancreatic studies of looking at the pain-free interval. I thought that was really brilliant because, you know, I think in gyn cancers, we see resolution of symptoms as being a really big deal, but it's not necessarily something that we always look at. So I thought that was really nice that you included that. Okay, talk to us a little bit about the population. So, the population that actually got treated in PANOVA-3 is pretty generalizable to what people are treating in the clinic. Dr. Hani Babiker: So, in pancreatic cancer, unfortunately, most of our patients present, approximately 80%, with metastatic disease. Local is divided to resectable, borderline, and locally advanced. We studied this trial, a randomized trial, in locally advanced and unresectable, which is really an unmet need. Most of our patients with locally advanced and unresectable are grouped up with other trials in the metastatic setting without a focus on locally advanced and unresectable, save for a few trials. This year, a trial that we were looking for for a long time, the LAPLACE trial, unfortunately, that we were very excited about, this is a molecule that targeted connective tissue growth factor, that showed earlier efficacy in a randomized trial, did not meet up the median OS end point. And hence, PANOVA-3 is the first trial in locally advanced and unresectable that did meet its primary end point. So, it's a very unmet need in locally advanced and unresectable. A lot of the times, our patients in clinic are treated with frontline chemotherapy that was studied in metastatic disease and locally advanced and unresectable, which include either FOLFIRINOX, NALIRIFOX, or gemcitabine/abraxane. I do have in my clinic multiple patients that would stay on the regimen for such a long time, and then we would have to devise a mechanism of maintenance, although this is not studied really in details, either with capecitabine or dropping the oxaliplatin to continue FOLFIRI. And then we also approach chemoradiotherapy. So the trial was in a disease in pancreatic cancer that really is an unmet need. So the inclusion criteria included a patient with locally advanced and unresectable. These were done at multiple centers. Most of them academic centers were discussed at the tumor board, and if it's unresectable, they will be meeting specific metrics of appropriate liver function tests, kidney function tests, and blood counts. We excluded patients that obviously had, given that these are electric fields, patients that have, for example, stimulators or pacemakers, knowing that this could potentially affect some of these devices. But for the most part, it was locally advanced and unresectable patients with a very good performance status and good counts. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's great. I think everyone's excited to hear about the primary outcome of overall survival. What did you find, and how does it compare to some of the recent trials? Dr. Hani Babiker: We're very excited that it did meet its primary end point of median overall survival. It was very exciting knowing that a lot of us were disappointed a little bit of some of the trials that were presented at ASCO GI, such as the LAPLACE trial that I alluded to. Just before the presentation, the PRODIGE 29 trial that is in locally advanced and unresectable that randomized patients with locally advanced disease to either FOLFIRINOX or single-agent gemcitabine, allowing for a crossover, although it did meet its primary end point of PFS, there was no overall survival benefit. So that kind of got us a little bit disappointed, but having the PANOVA-3 trial being positive in median OS got us all excited. In addition, the 12-year overall survival rate was increased in both the intention-to-treat and modified intention-to-treat. The modified intention-to-treat were patients that have had at least one cycle of therapy with TTFields daily and/or one cycle with chemotherapy, which was gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. There was a trend to improvement in PFS and local PFS, although that did not have statistical significance, but the 12-year PFS rate in both the intention-to-treat and modified intention-to-treat was significant. For me, as one of the investigators, that told me that there might be a specific biomarker that would tell me that patients could respond greater than others, more exceptional than others, given that 12-month PFS rate was improved. On a post hoc analysis, the distant PFS was improved with the intervention of Tumor Treating Fields with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. In addition, there was an improvement in global health status and quality of life in addition to pain-free survival, which is a strong hurdle in our patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma that most present with significant abdominal pain. Dr. Shannon Westin: One of the other questions that I think has come up is around central review. So did you all use central review in this study? Dr. Hani Babiker: Most of the centers were academic centers. These were discussed in tumor boards, which included radiation oncologists and surgeons. I wanted to point out that it's very important to note that the primary end point was overall survival. So the primary end point was not PFS. Hence, the central review would help us, for example, with elaborating and making sure patients were actually locally advanced disease, but in a setting where the primary end point is overall survival, that was the key point of the clinical trial. This trial was discussed at academic centers, and all included tumor boards to decide if patients were locally advanced or not. In the trial, there was a good proportion of patients, or percentage, that had a CA 19-9 more than 1000. That could indicate that potentially there are a fraction of patients that actually had metastatic disease, micrometastatic disease. So that could hint towards why the median OS was slightly lower then in both arms when compared to, for example, the trial that was presented at ASCO GI, the LAPLACE trial. However, having said that, we were very excited about the trial. It was the first positive trial in locally advanced and unresectable to meet median OS survival. Dr. Shannon Westin: It's so awesome. So congratulations. Okay, so let's talk a little bit about your very detailed secondary end points because you had a lot of really prudent choices there. So anything that was interesting or informative in those end points? Dr. Hani Babiker: One major hurdle back we have for most of our patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, like I mentioned earlier, is pain. We try to approach it, obviously, with narcotics. If it doesn't work, we try to do celiac axis block interventionally, and that sometimes is successful and sometimes is not. So actually, to see the pain-free survival end point to be met was very exciting for us. And as for me, as a scientist that studies TTFields in clinic and lab as also to develop a mechanism and understanding really how that works. That was very important for us that in addition to chemotherapy, it improved pain-free survival or deterioration of pain. And most importantly, our patients with pancreatic cancer, this disease is very aggressive. It affects quality of life of patients. Patients feel fatigued, tired. It's a procoagulant tumor that causes clots and strokes, etcetera, marantic endocarditis. And one big problem we deal with when we're seeing patients in clinic is obviously that quality of life. Although data have shown with treatment, with frontline regimens, that quality of life improves with treatment and chemotherapy, it's actually great to see that that improvement happens early in addition to Tumor Treating Fields. The other interesting point was that it was not only pain and quality of life, but also digestive symptoms that are improved with this intervention, knowing that a lot of our patients do have pancreatic cancer, pancreatic exocrine insufficiency that affect also with digestion, and a lot of our patients have abdominal pain after eating and diarrhea. So it was interesting to see that also improved with the intervention. Dr. Shannon Westin: You have touched a little bit on some of the adverse events, kind of with the TT mechanisms, but I'd love to hear a little bit more detail around adverse events in general in this study, as well as specific AEs related to the Tumor Treating Fields. Dr. Hani Babiker: Absolutely. So when we compared both arms, there was a similar toxicity related to the regimen, mostly with chemotherapy, but in specifically to Tumor Treating Fields, there was a rash, and that included dermatitis and rash. Most of the side effects were grade 1 and grade 2. Grade 3 toxicities related to skin was less than 10%, approximately 7% to 8%, and hence did not affect many patients. But it was something to note, and it's something that in the future, when we develop a mechanism of treating patients to note early. We in our clinic have learned to treat patients in the clinical trial early with topical steroids to each patient, of shifting the arrays to mitigate some toxicity and rash. We do advise our patients in hot areas, we keep them aware that sweating, for example, can lead to higher conductivity of electrical fields with a predisposition for rash. So if there's an opportunity to stay in a little bit of a cold area, make sure that the arrays are shifted, use topical steroids early. If it's a significant rash, to hold treatment for at least 48 hours and speak to the investigators. And through these mechanisms, we have learned that we were able to mitigate the rash quite a bit. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's awesome. Thank you so much. Yeah, I'm, it's summer right now, and I think- I'm in Texas, you're in Florida, like we know. Okay, so I guess, again, you have been kind of touching on this, but I would love to know, like if in the quality-of-life assessments or if just in your discussions with patients, like how easy is this to use? How easy is the Tumor Treating Fields device to use, and what do patients really think? Dr. Hani Babiker: Absolutely. We have learned that whenever we speak with patients, it's always good to discuss with them briefly the science of it. A lot of patients would want to know if it's interventional, is that something that goes, is delivered percutaneously or not, and we explain that these are delivered through arrays that are through the skin. We always touch base with them about a lot of question I get about mechanism of action and then about compliance. So I think one important thing to note is that compliance with the use of the device is a lot of the question we'll get quite a bit. Patients know there's going to take an effort from them, and some of my patients enjoyed it because they felt like they also are fighting the disease by wearing the device. I have learned very quickly that having a team, surrounded by a team that knew how to mitigate some of the side effects and knew how to explain how to use the device helped quite a bit. And this included some of our nurses and our nurse practitioners and our clinical research coordinators who've done a wonderful job of showing these arrays actually to patients before they start on the trial, look at it, know how it works. The other point to know is that the sponsor provided Device Support Specialist, we call them DSS, they have been instrumental in helping us, helping the patients know how to use the device, how to use the generator, how to change the batteries, and that helped us conduct the trials and enroll very well. I would envision in the future with education and relying on the Device Support Specialist and having a team that knows how to use the device and mitigate some of the side effects will go a long way for patients to learn about this treatment. Many of the times our patients said while they are on the clinical trial felt like they are also being part of this team in applying the device and fighting the cancer. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's awesome. Well, I guess the bottom line. Is it ready for prime time? Is this something you are going to use for your patients in the clinic? Dr. Hani Babiker: Absolutely. In a disease that has poor prognosis, and we are trying our best to find new treatments to fight this cancer and treatment modalities, presenting patients with all the treatment options that are out there would be recommended. It's what I would do it for in my clinic. And you know, it's funny that I am mentioning that right now. I had a patient who was seen internationally asking about the trial and the device and had locally advanced and unresectable before they start frontline treatment. I do think that there is going to be an educational piece. Obviously, this is not a pill, it's not an intravenous chemotherapy that we're very well and accustomed to. And some of us in academic centers know it very well. I usually joke that whenever I am talking about it in pancreatic cancer, if there is a radiation oncologist in the room, they will be like, "Yeah, we know all about it. We have been treating patients with GBM over there." So a lot of the times, when we first went to trial, if I had any questions, I would call them and ask them. So from their perspective, they, because they use it as a standard of care in treatment of GBM, they develop significant expertise in it. I think in the GI world, specifically and with oncologists that treat pancreatic cancer and specifically oncologists in the community, learning about the device and how to use it, how to recommend it, how to mitigate side effects, will be hopefully for prime time in the future. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's great. Sounds like some real educational opportunities there. Well, this has been awesome. Thank you so much, Dr. Babiker. I mean, I learned a ton, and I wish that we could find a way to use this in gynecologic cancers, but really, really just want to commend you on the design of the trial and the success in this really devastating disease. So again, this was "Tumor Treating Fields with Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized, Open-Label, Pivotal Phase III PANOVA-3 Study." And as always, I am your host, Shannon Westin. Please go check out our other offerings wherever you get your podcasts and 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. Babiker Disclosures Consulting or Advisory Role: Endocyte, Celgene, Idera, Myovant Sciences, Novocure, Ipsen, Caris MPI, Incyte, Guardant Health Speakers' Bureau: Guardant Health Research Funding:  Spirita Oncology, Novocure, AstraZeneca, JSI, Incyte, Qurient, HiFiBiO Therapeutics, Revolution Health Care, Elevation Oncology, Dragonfly Therapeutics, Zelbio, BMS, Mirati Therapeutics, Strategia        

JCO fellow Dr. Ece Cali speaks with JCO Associate Editor Dr. Thomas E. Stinchcombe to discuss the JCO article "Phase 2 Dose-Randomized Study of Sunvozertinib in Platinum-Pretreated Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Exon 20 Insertion Mutations (WU-KONG1B)", that was simultaneously released at the IASLC 2025 World Conference on Lung Cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Ece Cali: Hello, and welcome to our series where we cover some of the top JCO papers published simultaneously with their abstract presentation at this year's most important oncology meetings. I am your host, Dr. Ece Cali, JCO editorial fellow, and I am joined by Dr. Tom Stinchcombe, JCO associate editor, to discuss the Journal of Clinical Oncology article and 2025 World Conference on Lung Cancer abstract presentation, “Phase II Dose-Randomized Study of Sunvozertinib in Platinum-Pretreated Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer With EGFR Exon 20 Insertion Mutations.” The WU-KONG1B trial is a multinational, phase II study that investigated the efficacy and safety of different doses of sunvozertinib in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations after progression on platinum based chemotherapy. Tom, before we dive into the results, could you walk us through the rationale for this study, and how does it fit into the current treatment options for patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion? Dr. Tom Stinchcombe: Thank you, Dr. Cali. I think the clinical context is always important. We have known that EGFR exon 20 insertions exist and that they are resistant to our currently available EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and I think there have been attempts in the past to develop a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, but there is a very narrow therapeutic window between the dose you need to inhibit the EGFR mutation in the cancer and the EGFR receptor on normal tissues, most notably the mucosa, the gut, and the skin. And so, our previous attempts have failed largely because the dose required was not tolerable for patients and they could not really stay on the drug for a long time or they were not very active. And so, I think there was a real desire to develop an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and then, historically, the standard had been a platinum based doublet as the standard of care. And more recently, platinum based doublet with amivantamab has proven to be superior to platinum based chemotherapy alone. I think the context is also important that amivantamab is not necessarily available in all the countries, and so, there are patients who do not have access to amivantamab. Going to the rationale, I think that this drug had shown preliminary promise of having activity but without that being encumbered by those EGFR wild type toxicities, and, therefore, it was really explored in this larger study. Dr. Ece Cali: And what are some key findings from this trial? Dr. Tom Stinchcombe: So, I think that we should look at the study design. It is a little quirky, for lack of a better term, in that there is a randomization to 200 versus 300 mg, and then, there was a nonrandomized cohort of 300 mg. So, when you look at the study, if you are a purist, you will just look at the randomized patients. If you are sort of an aggregator, you look at all patients. So, it shows reporting on three cohorts, but I think the key findings are that the 200 mg and the 300 mg treatments had similar toxicities in terms of response rate, duration of response, and progression free survival. And as you know going through the review, there was a lot of queries from the reviewers as to which would be the preferred dose, and to me, I think this really illustrates a dose finding component to a trial design because there is a lot of debate about what the minimal effective dose is or the optimal dose. And in this case, having the two dose cohorts did provide us some valuable efficacy and toxicity information. And then, when I look at the study, I want to make sure it reflects my patient population, and about a quarter of patients had brain metastases, and about 15% had previous amivantamab, and about 5% to 10% had another EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Dr. Ece Cali: And what is the objective response rate and the duration of response? These are pretty good numbers for this patient population. Dr. Tom Stinchcombe: In the 200 mg cohort, it was about 46%. The duration of response was around 11 months, and the PFS was around 8 months. The 300 mg cohort was 46%, duration of response 9.8, and the median PFS is 6.9 months, and I think that this is greater activity than we have seen with our previous attempts at EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Dr. Ece Cali: And based on these data, FDA granted accelerated approval for sunvozertinib very recently at 200 mg once daily dosing in this setting. So, that is a major step forward for our patients. Dr. Stinchcombe, how does this impact your clinical practice, and what side effects should oncologists be watching for if they prescribe this medication? Dr. Tom Stinchcombe: So, I think it was very interesting that they chose the 200 mg dose, which I think was more tolerable, and when we kind of look at this, there still was a rate of diarrhea, all grade, rash, paronychia, which are the EGFR related toxicities. There can be some decreased appetite, stomatitis, and then, it can lead to some lab abnormalities, like increased CPK and creatinine that physicians have to be aware of. You know, how it will affect my practice is that all these patients had received a platinum based chemotherapy as the first line therapy. I think that this would become my preferred second line therapy for patients outside the context of a trial because of the activity and the tolerability. Dr. Ece Cali: And lastly, several other tyrosine kinase inhibitors are being evaluated for EGFR exon 20 insertion, including in the frontline setting. So, what are some of the outstanding questions in this space, and what data should our listeners keep an eye on moving forward? Dr. Tom Stinchcombe: I think you are right that now, there is going to be another EGFR tyrosine kinase that may become available in the next year, and there is another drug, furmonertinib, that is being investigated. I think, for the clinical question, is, well, can we move these into the first line setting? And actually, the development path has two ways of doing this. There is EGFR tyrosine kinase compared to platinum based chemotherapy, and then, platinum based chemotherapy with an EGFR tyrosine kinase versus platinum based chemotherapy, and both have their merits and strengths. And so, I think it is going to be very interesting as we see if those first line trials, one, can they be demonstrated to be superior to platinum based chemotherapy, and then by what magnitude and what the side effects are. But I think we are hoping that in the next couple of years, we will have an additional first line option for our patients. Dr. Ece Cali: Yeah, it is always great to have more options for our patients. Thank you, Dr. Stinchcombe, for speaking about the JCO article, “Phase II Dose-Randomized Study of Sunvozertinib in Platinum-Pretreated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With EGFR Exon 20 Insertion Mutations.” Join us again for the latest JCO simultaneous publications. Please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to all ASCO podcast shows at asco.org/podcasts. Until then, enjoy the rest of World Lung Conference. 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.  

“She's triple negative and has a very, very aggressive tumor. Instead of going on spring break that year, she sat in our chemo room and got chemo. Her friends from college are good to try to keep her involved and try to surround her and encourage her, but they're right now in very, very different spots in their lives. She's fighting for her life; her friends are fighting for the grade they get in a class—and that's different,” ONS member Kristi Orbaugh, MSN, NP, AOCN®, AOCNP®, nurse practitioner at Community Hospital North Cancer Center in Indianapolis, IN, told Jaime Weimer, MSN, RN, AGCNS-BS, AOCNS®, manager of oncology nursing practice at ONS, during a conversation about metastatic breast cancer in adolescent and young adult patients. Music Credit: “Fireflies and Stardust” by Kevin MacLeod Licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 3.0  This podcast is sponsored by Lilly and is not eligible for NCPD contact hours. ONS is solely responsible for the criteria, objectives, content, quality, and scientific integrity of its programs and publications. Episode Notes This episode is not eligible for NCPD. ONS Podcast™ episodes: Episode 368: Best Practices for Challenging Patient Conversations in Metastatic Breast Cancer Episode 354: Breast Cancer Survivorship Considerations for Nurses Episode 350: Breast Cancer Treatment Considerations for Nurses Episode 345: Breast Cancer Screening, Detection, and Disparities Episode 307: AYAs With Cancer: Financial Toxicity Episode 300: AYAs With Cancer: End-of-Life Care Planning ONS Voice articles: ‘Cancer Ghosting' May Add Another Layer of Emotional Burden for Patients Discoveries in Race-Related Breast Cancer Biomarkers May Improve Precision Treatments What Is HER-2-Low Breast Cancer? What Oncology Nurses Need to Know About Supporting AYAs With Cancer ONS books: Guide to Breast Cancer for Oncology Nurses Oncology Nursing Forum articles: An Integrative Review of the Role of Nurses in Fertility Preservation for Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer Impact of Race and Area Deprivation on Triple-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Outcomes Relations of Mindfulness and Illness Acceptance With Psychosocial Functioning in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer and Caregivers ONS huddle cards: Altered Body Image Fertility Preservation Sexuality Other ONS resources: Breast Cancer Learning Library Fertility Preservation in Individuals With Cancer ONS Biomarker Database American Cancer Society's breast cancer resources American Society of Clinical Oncology continuing education resources Elephants and Tea Life, Interrupted Livestrong National Cancer Institute's breast cancer resources Stupid Cancer Young Survival Coalition To discuss the information in this episode with other oncology nurses, visit the ONS Communities.  To find resources for creating an ONS Podcast club in your chapter or nursing community, visit the ONS Podcast Library. To provide feedback or otherwise reach ONS about the podcast, email pubONSVoice@ons.org. Highlights From This Episode “When we use ‘adolescent and young adult,' we're really talking about age 19–35. Some groups will say 15–39, but right around that age. When we think about that age, think about what all could be going on during those ages. Late teenagers, they may be going off to college, they may be graduating high school, trying to set up their own life, trying to become independent from mom and dad. If you're talking about early to mid 30s, you could be talking about young parents, young career folks. So, just setting that into place makes you realize this can be a very tumultuous time for folks.” TS 2:06 “Unfortunately, this group tends to have more aggressive subtypes. We see more triple-negative in this group. We see more hormone-negative, HER2-positive in this group. Normal breast cancer cells should be stimulated by hormone. They are stimulated by hormones. So when you have a breast cancer cell that is not driven by hormones, it's much more difficult to treat. We tend to see more aggressiveness in these tumors. We also see a higher incidence in non-Caucasian folks in this age group compared to the older age groups.” TS 4:53 “I think we have gotten much better about understanding the importance of fertility preservation and getting reproductive endocrinologists in, sooner rather than later. If we have earlier-stage cancers and we have patients that want to try to preserve eggs, preserve fertility, sperm banking. … If you have that time to talk to them—maybe a 21-year-old—the primary thing on her mind is not how many children she wants to have one day. Maybe she's not even thought about having kids yet. It's still a question you need to [ask]. Do you want to try to preserve fertility? Do you want to try to harvest some eggs? That's a conversation that needs to be had and is very, very important for that age group.” TS 10:35 “One thing that helps is if you can get them [into] reputable support groups with people their own age that are going through what they're going through. Someone else that doesn't have hair, someone else that isn't going to make it to the big board meeting or isn't going to get the promotion this year because they've had to take a medical leave. Someone else that understands it differently.” TS 16:47 “In breast cancer, many of those biomarkers just get reflexed. And what I mean by reflexed is a breast cancer pathology comes through, or a breast cancer specimen comes through, and it just automatically gets tested for X, Y, Z. HER2 and of course ER/PR. Now we understand that we don't just need to know whether they're HER2 positive or HER2 negative. We need to know: What is the IHC score? And even if the IHC score is zero, is there any membrane staining? And then we need to know what's their ESR1, their PTEN, their AKT, their PIK3CA. Those are so important to know.” TS 18:11 “I think it's important to try to remember what our priorities were when we were in our 20s—what our priorities were when we were starting out as young mothers or starting out our career. Because that's where these folks are. … I can't imagine in the midst of college, when I'm trying to be independent, to suddenly have to be at home and rely on my mom to take me to my chemo appointment. … So I think one really important bias is to remember where they are in the developmental stages of life. They're not 40-something. They haven't lived X amount of life, and we need to take a step back and try to remember when we were their age, what was important to us? Where were our priorities at that point? And then hear them when they're telling us what's important to them.” TS 29:22 “From a female standpoint … we frequently throw these patients into menopause or have early menopausal symptoms, and I think we forget how devastating that can be. … They now are at higher risk for osteopenia or osteoporosis. … And then we tell people, ‘Be as normal as possible, get back and do those normal things.' Well, they're in a relationship, and they want to be intimate [but] suddenly having sexual intercourse is incredibly painful. Or if it's not painful, sometimes they've just lost pure interest in that. They don't feel confident about their body. All of those things need to be addressed because patients are trying to live each day as normally as possible.” TS 31:55 

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

 If you are a menopausal woman and spend any time on social media, you are familiar with Dr. Corinne Menn. She is a trustworthy voice of science and evidence-based medicine in a sea of influencers who don't always stick to the data.   Dr. Menn is one of the authors of a recent study titled Women's Insights on Sexual Health after a Breast Cancer Diagnosis. This study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, asked 1,463 women with a breast cancer diagnosis about their sexual experience, including how the health care system either helped or, in most cases, failed them by giving misinformation, conflicting information, or no information We discuss study results, including The impact of breast cancer treatment on sexual function in general The most common symptoms The effect of breast cancer on orgasm and pleasure The impact on partners Their interactions with the health care system, including misinformation, conflicting information, and no information Link to Study: (There is a paywall but you can access the abstract)  COME AGAIN, Episode 29 Cancer and Sex,  is all about sexuality, not just after breast cancer, but for women living with any cancer diagnosis. (Release Sept 8, 2025)                                                            Dr. Corinne Menn https://www.drmenn.com/ Insta: @DrMennOBGYN LinkedIn- https://www.linkedin.com/in/drmenn/ Substack- https://drmennobgyn.substack.com/   Lauren Streicher MD, is a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, the founding medical director of the Northwestern Medicine Center for Sexual Medicine and Menopause, and a Senior Research Fellow of The Kinsey Institute, Indiana University. She is a certified menopause practitioner of The Menopause Society.  Dr. Streicher is the medical correspondent for Chicago's top-rated news program, the WGN Morning News, and has been seen on The Today Show, Good Morning America, The Oprah Winfrey Show, CNN, NPR, Dr. Radio, Nightline, Fox and Friends, The Steve Harvey Show, CBS This Morning, ABC News Now, NBCNightlyNews,20/20, and World News Tonight. She is an expert source for many magazines and serves on the medical advisory board of The Kinsey Institute, Self Magazine, and Prevention Magazine. She writes a regular column for The Ethel by AARP and Prevention Magazine.    LINKS Subscribe To Dr. Streicher's Substack Information About the COME AGAIN Podcast Dr. Streicher's CV and additional bio information To Find a Menopause Clinician and Other Resources  Glossary Of Medical Terminology Books by Lauren Streicher, MD  Slip Sliding Away: Turning Back the Clock on Your Vagina-A gynecologist's guide to eliminating post-menopause dryness and pain Hot Flash Hell: A Gynecologist's Guide to Turning Down the Heat Sex Rx- Hormones, Health, and Your Best Sex Ever The Essential Guide to Hysterectomy     Dr. Streicher's Inside Information podcast is for education and information and is not intended to replace medical advice from your personal healthcare clinician. Dr. Streicher disclaims liability for any medical outcomes that may occur because of applying methods suggested or discussed in this podcast.                        

The Vizient Summer 2025 Spend Management Outlook (SMO) provides an integrated perspective on trends, factors and future expenses providers will face across the various dimensions of healthcare. In this episode, Dr. Carina Dolan and Dr. Jeni Hayes join host Carolyn Liptak to discuss pharmacy insights from the SMO including declining drug price inflation and how autoimmune conditions have surpassed oncology in total pharmacy costs. They also touch on pediatric spend drivers, biosimilar competition, and the impact of novel therapies. Tune in to VerifiedRx for practical insights to help pharmacy leaders plan for what's ahead.   Guest speakers:  Carina Dolan, Pharm. D., MS Pharm, BCOP   Associate Vice President, Clinical Oncology, Pharmacoeconomics and Market Insights   Vizient    Jeni Hayes, PharmD, MS Pharm, BCPS  Senior Clinical Manager, Market Intelligence  Vizient     Host:   Carolyn Liptak, , BS Pharm, MBA  Verified Rx Host    Show Notes:  [01:13-02:41]  Key pharmacy trends emerging from the Summer SMO [02:42-04:00] Current pharmacy trends [04:01-05:55]  Pharmacy spend for autoimmune conditions has exceeded that of oncology [05:56-07:36] Key takeaways [07:37-08:47] Significant trends in this latest therapeutic insights update [08:48-10:04] Challenges in gene and cell therapy space [10:05-11:33] The Therapeutic Insights webpage for pediatrics [11:34-13:41] Other reflections from the SMO [13:42-14:49]  How to locate the SMO   Links | Resources:  Vizient Spend Management Outlook Vizient Therapeutic class insights   Subscribe Today! Apple Podcasts Amazon Podcasts Spotify Android RSS Feed  

Dr. Joshua Reuss joints that podcast to discuss the latest changes to the living guideline on stage IV NSCLC with driver alterations. He discusses the new evidence for NSCLC with EGFR mutations and NRG1 fusions and how this impacts the latest recommendations from the panel. He shares ongoing research that the panel will review in the future for further updates to this living guideline, and puts the updated recommendations into context for clinicians treating patients with stage IV NSCLC. Read the full living guideline update “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2025.1” at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-25-01061 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. Joshua Reuss from Georgetown University, co-chair on "Therapy for Stage IV Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2025.1." It's great to have you here today, Dr. Reuss. Dr. Joshua Reuss: Thank you. 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. Reuss, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So to dive into what we're here today to talk about, Dr. Reuss, this living clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer with driver alterations is updated on an ongoing basis. So what prompted this latest update to the recommendations? Dr. Joshua Reuss: Yes, thank you. It's very important that we have living guidelines that are continuously updated. We obviously don't live in a static environment where things are non-changing, and we really need to apply the most up-to-date and current evidence to treat our patients with the most effective strategies, the most groundbreaking strategies. And so to have guidelines that can be disseminated, particularly these ASCO guidelines, to treating providers is incredibly important. So, with any of these updates, we review ongoing studies, published work, for the quality of evidence to see if it's something that warrants making adjustments to our guidelines or at least incorporating the information so that providers can review it and incorporate this into their own personal decision-making. So in this particular update, we reviewed evidence particularly pertaining to EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer and non–small cell lung cancer harboring an NRG1 fusion. Brittany Harvey: Yes, certainly there's a lot of new evidence in the advanced non–small cell lung cancer field, and so we appreciate the panel's continuous review of this evidence. So then you just mentioned two separate areas where the panel reviewed new evidence. So starting with that first one, what updated evidence did the panel review on first-line treatment options for patients with EGFR alterations, and how did this impact the recommendations? Dr. Joshua Reuss: Yes, so advanced EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer, at least with classical activating alterations - that is our exon 19 deletions and our exon 21 L858R mutations - is something that's really evolved rapidly in the last few years. You know, for many years, we basically, for the frontline treatment setting, were saying, "Okay, we have a targeted therapy, osimertinib. We're going to give that, and we're going to see what effect we can get out of that," with, you know, a median time of duration of treatment response averaging around 18 months, knowing that there are some that that's a lot longer and some that are a lot shorter. But recently, we've seen a lot of data emerging on combination strategies. The guideline has already been updated to incorporate two of these combinations: osimertinib with chemotherapy based off of the FLAURA2 trial, and then the combination of amivantamab with lazertinib based off of the MARIPOSA trial. And that was data on progression-free survival that was published and led to those particular recommendations. Now, more recently, we've seen data come out in smaller, randomized studies for other combinations. And more recently, we reviewed the RAMOSE study. So this was a phase II, open-label, randomized trial for patients with tyrosine kinase inhibitor–naive and really, treatment-naive advanced EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer harboring one of these two classical EGFR alterations, randomized to either osimertinib alone or osimertinib with the combination of ramucirumab, which is an anti-VEGF agent. There's been a lot of data, preclinical and clinical, for the role of VEGF blockade, particularly in EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer, so exploring the combination of this for synergy in the frontline setting really made a lot of sense. So again, this was a phase II trial that randomized patients prospectively to one of these two regimens. The population here is really what we typically see with EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer, predominantly a younger population - median age on this study was 65 - predominantly female - 71% female - and predominantly nonsmokers. Now, what this study showed was that at a median follow-up of 16.6 months, the progression-free survival favored the combination arm with a median progression-free survival of 24.8 months with the combination of osimertinib plus ramucirumab versus 15.6 months for osimertinib alone, for a hazard ratio of benefit of 0.55. The landmark one- and two-year endpoints for progression-free survival also favored the combination arm, and response rates were relatively comparable between groups, with overall adverse events being more frequent in the combination group, specifically high blood pressure, proteinuria, and epistaxis, which are our common adverse events related to VEGF-blocking agents. So, it's good to see data in this space. Now, of note, though, this was a phase II study, so not a phase III level of evidence. In addition, when looking at the population, this was a randomized, multicenter study, but it was a US-only population. There was also some imbalance in the number of visits between arms, so the combination arm was seen more frequently than the arm that got osimertinib alone. Now, the imaging assessments were no different, but obviously this could lead to potential confounding, at least in timing of awareness of potential side effects and and things being brought to the attention of investigators. So very promising data here, but because, you know, of this being a phase II study, this actually led to no changes in the guideline at this time. Brittany Harvey: Understood. Yes, as you mentioned prior, it's important to understand the full body of evidence and to review the trials even when it doesn't impact the recommendations. Dr. Joshua Reuss: And I will say that, you know, there is an ongoing phase III study looking at a very similar combination. It's the phase III ECOG-ACRIN trial of the combination of osimertinib plus bevacizumab versus osimertinib alone in this specific population. So, you know, I think we will see phase III–level data for a combination of VEGF with osimertinib, but again, promising phase II data that did not lead to a change in the recommendation at this time. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. We'll look forward to that ongoing trial to learn more about combination in this patient population. So then moving to that second patient population that you mentioned earlier where the panel reviewed evidence, what is the updated evidence and recommendation for patients with NRG1 fusions? Dr. Joshua Reuss: Yeah, so this was an exciting update that we made more recently with this unique iteration of the living guidelines. So, NRG1 fusions, this is perhaps a newer kid on the block in terms of driver alterations that has been known to be identified in non–small cell lung cancer among other solid tumors. It is very rare, occurring in less than 1% of solid tumors, but something that we know is a unique oncogenic pathway that can lead to oncogenesis and cancer development, including in non–small cell lung cancer. So up until now, unfortunately, there have not been targeted therapies that target this unique alteration. It's somewhat different than other driver alterations where there's a top-level signaling change in a protein. This is more of a ligand alteration that then alters, that then enables activation of more classical pathways, but again, through upregulation of a unique ligand. So a slightly different pathway but something that we know should be able to be targeted to promote patient survival for those with NRG1 fusions. So the therapy here is a therapy called zenocutuzumab. It's an IgG1 bispecific antibody against HER2 and HER3. So it prevents the downstream dimerization and signaling that occurs as a result of this NRG1 fusion and upregulation of the NRG1 signal. This was, as you can imagine with a rare alteration, a large phase II registrational study that examined this in advanced solid tumors containing the NRG1 fusion. This is the NRG1 registrational trial. And this study enrolled patients with advanced solid tumors who had progressed on prior therapy. Patients were treated with zenocutuzumab 750 milligrams IV every two weeks. Among 158 response-evaluable solid tumor patients, the response rate was 30%, median duration of response of 11.1 months, and a median progression-free survival of 6.8 months. Now, in those with non–small cell lung cancer, that made up 93 response-evaluable patients, very similar outcomes there: a response rate of 29%, median duration of response of 12.7 months, and a median progression-free survival of 6.8 months. This therapy did appear to be well tolerated. The most common higher-grade emergent side effects - grade 3 or higher - were anemia occurring in 5% and elevated liver numbers occurring in 3%. So this is a subsequent-line study, so this led to the updated recommendation that clinicians may offer zenocutuzumab in the subsequent-line setting for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer who harbor NRG1 fusions. So I think this does speak toward the incredible importance of next-generation sequencing and molecular testing for patients, particularly to include testing that looks at the RNA. These large fusions can sometimes be very challenging to detect on DNA sequencing platforms alone, so it's important to, if you have a high level of suspicion for an alteration like this, perhaps some of the mucinous adenocarcinomas where it's been challenging to find a driver alteration, and it's someone who is a never-smoker, really would want to include molecular testing that assesses the RNA level and not just the DNA. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's important to have all the biomarkers available so that clinicians are able to use that to inform their decision-making. So then, given these changes in the guideline, what should clinicians know as they implement this latest living guideline update? And how do these changes impact patients? Dr. Joshua Reuss: Yeah, I think talking in reverse order of what we just discussed here, there is a new guideline update for NRG1 fusions. So I think making sure that that's being evaluated, that clinicians are testing for that and really looking for that result that should be incorporated in in most next-generation large sequencing assays to get that result, but it's very important that that is not overlooked now that we do have a therapy that's available in the subsequent-line setting, though it is important to note that patients with NRG1 fusions, at least the limited data that there is suggests that the efficacy to standard chemoimmunotherapy regimens is overall poor. So physicians unfortunately might be facing this question for second-line therapy in patients with NRG1 fusions sooner rather than later. For the former, for EGFR-altered non–small cell lung cancer and how do we incorporate VEGF-containing regimens into these patients? Our guideline top-level update did not change based off of review of this new study, but it's important for clinicians to know what other combinations may exist. You know, there are phase III studies looking at this combination in the frontline setting. And of course, there is data on other bispecific molecules that incorporate VEGF in the subsequent-line setting, particularly a combination that includes the VEGF/PD-1 bispecific antibody ivonescimab that's being studied in the HARMONi-A trial for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer, for which we hope to get some more definitive data in the coming months. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And then you've just mentioned a few ongoing trials where we're looking for evidence to inform future updates. But thinking beyond that, into the future, what is the panel examining for future updates to this living guideline? Dr. Joshua Reuss: It's a very exciting time to be in the world of treating advanced non–small cell lung cancer, particularly patients with driver alterations, because there is so much evolving data that's changing our practice in real time, again highlighting the importance of these living guideline updates. I'd say there's many things that we're excited to see. You know, a lot of the combination regimens in EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer for which there are approvals and current recommendations in our guideline, particularly osimertinib plus chemotherapy and amivantamab plus lazertinib - those are the two approved combination strategies in the front line - we are now seeing the emergence of overall survival data for those combinations. So obviously that is something that's going to be very important for the committee to review and incorporate into guideline updates. There are several new therapies coming down the road for other driver populations. We recently saw an approval for taletrectinib for ROS1 fusion–positive non–small cell lung cancer, so it's going to be important that the committee reviews the data and the publications regarding that therapy. And then there are other novel therapies that we're looking to see updated data on. There are multiple antibody-drug conjugates, which take the potent power of a chemotherapy molecule and attempt to make that targeted with an antibody targeting to a unique feature on the cancer cell. And there are several antibody-drug conjugates that are in development at various levels of promise in this space, particularly in EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer, and I anticipate seeing some emerging data for that coming up in the near future as well. So really, lots to be excited in the space and lots for our committee to review to give guidance on so that these patients can really receive the top-level care wherever they are being treated in the country and throughout the world. Brittany Harvey: Yes, we'll await this new data to continue to provide optimal options for patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer with driver alterations. So, Dr. Reuss, I want to thank you so much for your work to rapidly and continuously update and review the evidence for this guideline and thank you for your time today. Dr. Joshua Reuss: Thank you so much. Brittany Harvey: And finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available on 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 is back on the podcast to discuss the latest update of the living guideline on therapy for stage IV NSCLC without driver alterations. She shares the studies the Expert Panel reviewed in the first- and second-line settings, including NIPPON, HARMONi-2, and DUBLIN-3. Although these studies do not impact the existing guideline recommendations, Dr. Bazhenova provides context and comments on ongoing trials that will influence the next iteration of the living guideline. Read the full living guideline update “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2025.1” at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-25-01062 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 2025.1." It's great to have you back on the show today, Dr Bazhenova. Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: It's my pleasure to be here. Brittany Harvey: And then before we discuss this guideline update, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Bazhenova, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then to dive into the content here, Dr. Bazhenova, this living clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer without driver alterations is updated on an ongoing continuous basis. So what prompted this latest update to the recommendations? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: Living ASCO guidelines are designed to keep pace with rapidly evolving evidence that impacts treatment of our patients with lung cancer. As a committee, we are tasked with regular review of the published literature and determine if the new data warrants changes to existing recommendations. So in this recently published update, we evaluated new trials related to treatment of patients with metastatic lung cancer without driver alterations. Brittany Harvey: Excellent. Thank you for that explanation of the process. So, you just mentioned that the panel reviewed new trials for this update. So, which particular updated evidence did the panel review on first-line treatment options for patients with good performance status across histology and PD-L1 expression status, and how did this impact the recommendations? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: For the first-line treatment option for patients without driver alterations, two studies met our criteria for review. One was the NIPPON trial from Japan, the second was the HARMONi trial. None of those two trials resulted in change in our guidelines, but I think they are giving us some additional information that would be useful for the way we treat patients with non–small cell lung cancer without driver alterations. For example, if we take those patients, we currently have several treatment options as a first line. One is monotherapy immunotherapy. You can give pembrolizumab as an example, and that was based on the KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-042 trials. Then we have a platinum doublet plus immunotherapy, and there are several trials that did that pathway. And then we have also an option of giving our patients dual IO immunotherapy combination, such as CheckMate 9LA and POSEIDON. At this point, we do not have any randomized trials comparing those three treatment modalities head-to-head. And the NIPPON trial was interesting to us because it was the first trial to compare CheckMate 9LA regimen, which is again, dual immunotherapy plus chemo, versus KEYNOTE-189 or KEYNOTE-407, which is a chemotherapy plus immunotherapy. And as a result of the study, while chemotherapy plus ipilimumab-nivolumab led to numerically higher overall survival, the difference was not statistically significant. And what is concerning in that trial is that we saw a higher number of treatment-related death occurring in nivolumab and ipilimumab arm compared to the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy arm. As a matter of fact, the trial was terminated early because of the increased risk of death. If you look at the treatment-related death in CheckMate 9LA, the 9LA study reported the treatment-related death to be 2%, and then in the NIPPON trial, the treatment-related death was 7%. Why is that happening? It's really difficult to say. The study was done in Japan. Maybe there is some pharmacogenomic differences between global population and Japan population. But certainly the higher rate of adverse events needs to be taken into account. Another interesting thing about this trial is that it did not show any differences in a subset analysis for patients with squamous histology as well as PD-L1 negative tumor. So while this does not change our current guidelines and CheckMate 9LA treatment still remains an appropriate treatment option, it kind of raises the possibility that this combination could be associated with a higher toxicity. And we do have a randomized US-based trial that is ongoing, and we are hoping that eventually we will be able to answer that question after the trial will be completed. The second trial we reviewed is HARMONi-2. So HARMONi-2 was a randomized, double-blind study which is conducted primarily in China, looking at bispecific PD-L1 and VEGF antibody called ivonescimab. And that took patients who were PD-L1 positive, as defined as more than 1% expression, and patients were randomized to pembrolizumab versus bispecific ivonescimab. And the study was positive. It showed improvement in median progression-free survival of 11 months versus almost 6 months in bispecific versus pembrolizumab. There were, however, higher grade 3 events in the ivonescimab arm. At this point, we are not changing our recommendations because this trial was done in an ex-US population, and we are awaiting a similar trial ongoing in the United States before we change recommendations and decide if ivonescimab needs to be included in our guidelines. Brittany Harvey: This context is very helpful when clinicians think through the data behind these options. And it's important that the panel reviews this evidence, even if it doesn't prompt a change to the recommendations. And we'll await results of those trials that you mentioned to further inform this guideline. So then beyond those studies for first line, what updated evidence did the panel review for second-line and subsequent treatment options for patients with good performance status, and how did this impact the recommendations? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: So for second line, only one trial met the criteria, and that was DUBLIN-3. DUBLIN-3 is a phase 3 single-blind randomized trial comparing docetaxel versus docetaxel plus plinabulin. And the study enrolled patients with second or third line. They have to have had platinum-based chemotherapy and progressed. Plinabulin is an interesting compound. It's a small molecule tubulin binder that prevents polymerization of tubulin and appears to impact dendritic cell maturation and T-cell activation. This study enrolled 559 patients, randomly assigned them to two groups. And one important information about this study is that was a study that was envisioned before immunotherapy became a standard mainstream treatment for first-line therapy. And only 20% of patients had prior PD-1 exposure. So therefore, the results of that study need to be taken into context of this population no longer existing in the United States because we use PD-L1 inhibitors in the first line. And we saw that interesting in the plinabulin arm had lower rates of neutropenia but higher rates of serious adverse events. And at this point, we are not changing our guidelines for mainly two reasons. Number one, low number of patients that received prior treatment with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors, as well as a modest overall survival benefit of this trial. Brittany Harvey: Understood. I appreciate you describing that study as well and why that evidence didn't prompt a change to those particular recommendations. So then, what should clinicians know as they implement this living guideline, and how does this new evidence impact clinicians and patients? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: At this point, none of the studies that we reviewed resulted in a change in guidelines. We are still waiting for more global results from some of the studies that I highlighted. It shows that there's still a lot of questions we need to be answering in those patients. And I'm hoping that with future clinical trials, we will be able to definitively maybe recommend one treatment over another. But at this point, all the treatments that I mentioned before remain appropriate for patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer without driver alterations. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And then you just mentioned that there's still a lot of outstanding questions in this field. You've mentioned a couple different studies where we're awaiting evidence. Beyond those that you already mentioned, what is the panel examining for future updates to this living guideline? Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: Right now, our next task is to come up with a full guidelines update. ASCO have certain rules for the guidelines committee members. And so we are gearing for a full guideline update, which hopefully will be ready by the end of 2025. Brittany Harvey: Excellent. We'll look forward to that full update of the living guideline, and we'll still await results of these ongoing trials to further inform this living guideline. So I want to thank you so much for your work to rapidly and continuously update this living guideline, and thank you for the time today, Dr. Bazhenova. Dr. Lyudmila Bazhenova: My pleasure. Brittany Harvey: And finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Kimmie Ng, MD, MPH, a JAMA associate editor and associate chief of the Division of Gastrointestinal Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, shares highlights from the American Society of Clinical Oncology's annual meeting, including new research on diet, exercise, and cancer survival and the best time of day for treatment. Related Content: Lifestyle and Cancer Survival, the Best Time of Day for Treatment, and More—Highlights From ASCO