Podcasts about clinical oncology

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 1, 2026 23:25

Dr. Nabil Saba shares the first evidence-based guideline on thyroid cancer from ASCO. He highlights recommendations on first- and subsequent-line systemic treatment – including multikinase inhibitors (MKIs), genomically targeted therapies, immunotherapy, and cytotoxic chemotherapy across four subtypes of thyroid cancer: well-differentiated, differentiated high-grade or poorly differentiated, anaplastic, and medullary thyroid cancer. He dives into the evidence supporting each recommendation and explains the importance of shared decision-making on the risks and benefits of each treatment option. Dr. Saba also touches on outstanding questions including sequencing of agents, addressing resistance, emerging biomarker targets, and management of toxicities. Read the full guideline, "Systemic Treatment of Thyroid Cancer: ASCO Guideline." TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools and resources are available at https://ascopubs.org/topics/asco-guidelines/head-neck-cancer. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Nabil Saba from Emory University, lead author on "Systemic Treatment of Thyroid Cancer: ASCO Guideline." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Saba. Dr. Nabil Saba: Pleasure to be here. 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. Saba, 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 what we're here today to talk about, Dr. Saba, could you start us off by providing a general overview of the scope and purpose of this first ASCO guideline for thyroid cancer? Dr. Nabil Saba: So thyroid cancer is a complex disease, and the complexity has been added with the advent of multiple systemic therapeutic agents that have recently come on as part of the standard of care for treating this disease. The guidelines have lagged behind, I believe, in terms of being able to clearly delineate how to use these agents and what clinical settings to use them. And so this guideline, I think, is a much-needed and much-awaited guideline for clinicians to allow them to understand better the use of systemic agents in the treatment of thyroid cancer. And when we talk about systemic agents, what we want to specify is this applies mostly for patients with recurrent metastatic disease, patients who have failed the standard initial treatment, which continues to be surgical resection for these patients if surgery is possible, in addition to radioiodine therapy for the right clinical setting. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's a good point that this patient population for this guideline focuses mainly on recurrent disease and patients who have already received surgery and radioactive iodine therapy. So then this guideline covers four subtypes of thyroid cancer, including well-differentiated, differentiated high-grade or poorly differentiated, anaplastic, and medullary thyroid cancer. As you mentioned, you address clinical questions on systemic therapies, including multikinase inhibitors, genomically targeted therapies, immunotherapy, and cytotoxic chemotherapy in both the first-line and subsequent lines for each of these subtypes. So I'd like to review the key recommendations by subtype. So first, what are the key points for systemic therapy for well-differentiated thyroid cancer? Dr. Nabil Saba: It's important to also stress the point that we have these different subtypes of thyroid cancer. So when we talk about radioiodine refractory, those are for patients who are candidates for radioiodine therapy, of course. This usually encompasses the well-differentiated thyroid cancer. So for this group of patients, the guideline focuses on whether the use of multikinase inhibitors compared to placebo or observation impacts the survival in the first-line setting, whether the use of targeted therapies compared to placebo impacts also the survival in the first-line setting, all in the radioiodine refractory setting, of course. And then we tackle the issue of immunotherapy because this also is a topic that has entered the realm, if you like, of thyroid cancer and is being used in some subtypes of thyroid cancer. So we thought it would be important to raise the question of the role of immunotherapy compared to targeted agents or multikinase inhibitors, in addition to the role of cytotoxic therapy or chemotherapy, as we say, in this patient population. So the guideline goes through all of these questions and then makes specific recommendations as to the use of some of the agents in the first-line setting and second-line setting in case these patients progress after first-line setting. So, for example, it's clear that for patients who are radioiodine refractory and who have well-differentiated thyroid cancer, multikinase inhibitors are centerpiece of the first-line treatment option. And for this patient population, the recommendation essentially is to use lenvatinib or sorafenib, even though lenvatinib is considered to be the first choice in this patient population in the first-line setting. For the subsequent line settings, patients should be offered cabozantinib, which has been also proven in randomized trials. As far as genomically targeted therapy, there is always the contention of whether these agents should be initiated first in case the patient has a genomically altered disease. And so, for example, if the patient has a RET alteration or NTRK alteration, the recommendation here is in favor of using RET-targeted therapies such as selpercatinib or NTRK-targeted therapies such as larotrectinib or entrectinib for these patients as a first-line setting. If they do have the BRAF alteration, which is a commonly seen alteration in these settings, the guideline essentially indicates that this may be offered initially prior to treatment with multikinase inhibitors as well, even though the quality of the evidence here is rather lower, and the strength of the recommendation is conditional. And so it's clear that multikinase inhibitors, in the absence of any of these genomic alterations, is really the first line, and then the question becomes when do we use these genomically targeted approaches in patients who have genomically altered disease? Which basically introduces also the complexity of the question here because we have multiple agents depending on these genomic findings. And then it is sometimes confusing for practitioners which one to use or what do we use first? And so I think the guideline provides clarity in terms of what is acceptable, what is rather not acceptable, what is based on a strong recommendation, what is based on a rather weaker recommendation. I think that's part of the value of such a guideline. And then finally we have the question of radioiodine well-differentiated and the question of immunotherapy as a first line. And here we do not recommend using immunotherapy for this patient population. For patients with subsequent line settings, potentially adding pembrolizumab to a multikinase inhibitor is mentioned, however the evidence is low, and the strength of the recommendation is also conditional here. As far as chemotherapy, this is not recommended in this day and age for this patient population, however it may be considered also in patients who fail or progress on genomically targeted therapy and/or multikinase inhibitors. So this is the summary of the recommendations for well-differentiated thyroid cancer, but certainly, for details, I would refer you to the actual guideline since there are many nuances that cannot be covered during just this discussion. Brittany Harvey: Certainly. The full guideline will be available for listeners in our show notes, and there are many recommendation tables and figures that can help folks as they think through these recommendations. A lot of those key points are really important as clinicians think through which systemic therapies to offer and sequencing of these agents, as you mentioned. Following those recommendations for well-differentiated thyroid cancer, what are the recommendation highlights for systemic therapy for differentiated high-grade or poorly differentiated thyroid carcinoma? Dr. Nabil Saba: This entity is rather a rare entity. It's important to stress the fact that this entity has not really been very well represented in clinical trials, and so when we talk about differentiated high-grade or poorly differentiated, the information here is limited. However, the guideline infers on the recommendations to this subtype of thyroid cancer based on what we know for other subtypes. And I think because of the strength of evidence we have in the well-differentiated and the anaplastic thyroid cancer, this guideline for this subgroup of patients draws from these two guidelines and sort of makes recommendations based on this. So in the first-line setting, of course, if patients don't have a genomically altered disease, we certainly would recommend lenvatinib or sorafenib like we do in the well-differentiated disease. For patients with genomically altered diseases, we follow sort of the same guideline as we have followed for the well-differentiated setting, with the caveat that the quality is rather lower here and the strength of the recommendation is rather conditional for this subtype of patients. And so I think the take-home message is we do have these recommendations similar to the well-differentiated, but the strength of these recommendations for this particular subgroup of thyroid cancer patients is not as strong, given the under-representation in clinical trials. And that's basically the summary of this disease. Same applies to immunotherapy as well as chemotherapy here. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I think it's important to recognize where the evidence is not as strong, it's really important that the guideline panel has still offered up some recommendations to help clinicians in their daily practice as well. The next subtype the guideline panel addressed, what does the expert panel recommend regarding systemic therapy for anaplastic thyroid cancer? Dr. Nabil Saba: So it's important to remind the audience that this is a disease with dismal outcome, and this is rather a very, very rare type of thyroid cancer. So the challenge with anaplastic is we've had very little traditionally in terms of options for patients. However, this guideline highlights the advances that have happened in this disease over a relatively short period of time and stresses the important role of systemic agents. And so, for example, for non-genomically mutant anaplastic thyroid cancer in the first-line setting, the guideline does recommend lenvatinib with or without pembrolizumab. Even though the evidence of the quality is low and the strength of the recommendation is conditional, there is enough data that this recommendation could be made. The added complexity for anaplastic thyroid cancer is that this is a disease where multimodal approaches initially are really encouraged as well, including surgical resection primarily, but also potentially thinking about other modalities such as radiation therapy, as these patients have usually very aggressive disease. And so as far as genomically targeted approaches, the story of targeting BRAF I believe has been a successful story in this disease. And again, for patients with BRAF V600E mutated anaplastic thyroid cancer in the first-line setting, the guideline is clear in saying that we should offer BRAF/MEK inhibitor targeted therapy, namely dabrafenib and trametinib based on published data; the quality is moderate, though the strength of the recommendation is strong, essentially because of the compelling data in these rather small studies. In the first-line setting, again, we may offer also BRAF/MEK inhibition with or without pembrolizumab as well, and the strength here is low, with the recommendation being conditional as well. So you can see here that unlike the other types, immunotherapy may play a bigger role here in this type of cancer compared to the well-differentiated carcinoma because of the nature of the disease, and this has been also stressed in other guidelines. For patients who progress on genomically targeted therapy, there are not too many options, even though people can revert back to lenvatinib or lenvatinib and pembro. We do recommend participation in clinical trials for these patients because we really don't have any clear-cut options since the strength of these recommendations is conditional for these patients. As far as the question of immunotherapy per se, we talked about lenvatinib with pembrolizumab. There is also data on ipilimumab and nivolumab. So we include that also as an option for the first-line setting, and we also include, obviously, the dabrafenib and trametinib in combination with pembrolizumab. And even though all these recommendations are conditional, the size of these clinical trials are single-arm phase II studies. In terms of chemotherapy, again, no recommendation in the first-line setting. However, for patients who fail MKI or fail immunotherapy, clinicians may offer cytotoxic chemotherapy. So you can see that in this rare disease, the recommendations already in 2026 indicate a complex tree of decision-making for a number of these cases. And I think this is where these guidelines offer value to many of the practitioners out there. Certainly, they don't claim to answer any or every possible clinical scenario for these patients because anaplastic thyroid cancer, like any thyroid cancer or any malignancy, usually has to rely on careful evaluation on a case-by-case basis, and for this disease in particular, on a multidisciplinary evaluation based on evaluation by surgical team, by medical oncology, by radiation oncology. But hopefully, these guidelines help at least put in the systemic therapy within that context. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I think this is also where, in the guideline, the clinical interpretation can really be helpful for readers. And as you mentioned, that multidisciplinary collaboration along with shared decision-making with patients on the risks and benefits of each treatment option is really critical here. So the final subtype that the guideline expert panel addressed, what systemic therapies are recommended for medullary thyroid cancer? Dr. Nabil Saba: Yes, so medullary thyroid cancer is a separate disease in its own merit, and biologically it's different from the other diseases. And even though it's a relatively rare thyroid cancer, there has been quite substantial advances in systemic therapy, and I think the guideline importantly highlights these advances for this type of thyroid cancer, and this subtype adds to the value of the guideline as well. For these cancers, targeted therapy for patients who have RET alteration is really recommended as a first line. So for patients who have RET mutant disease, selpercatinib certainly is the treatment of choice, and this is based on high evidence and the recommendation being very strong here because it's based on randomized phase III data. In the subsequent line settings, however, patients with RET-altered disease who have progressed on selpercatinib, unfortunately, we don't have clear-cut recommendations, however, participation in clinical trials is recommended. If a trial is not available, we recommend that patients be offered vandetanib or cabozantinib in this situation. For patients without the RET alteration, in other words, for patient populations with wild-type disease, the first-line setting should include cabozantinib or vandetanib based also on improved progression-free survival in randomized clinical trial, and here the recommendation is quite strong. In terms of the role of immunotherapy here, there is very, very little role, and so we don't recommend using immunotherapy in the first-line setting or subsequent line setting. Similarly, for chemotherapy or cytotoxic chemotherapy, it's not recommended that patients be exposed to cytotoxic chemotherapy outside of a clinical trial, whether this be in the first-line setting or second-line setting. We say that in the second-line setting, if patients have failed genomically targeted therapy, clinicians may offer cytotoxic therapy, however, here the evidence is low, and the strength of the recommendation is conditional. And so clearly that tells you that advances have been substantial in this disease, specifically in the realm of targeted therapies, which is importantly highlighted in this guideline as well. Brittany Harvey: Yes, it's great to see the advances across these different subtypes. So thank you for reviewing all of these recommendations. It's clear you and the panel spent a lot of time reviewing the evidence to craft these recommendations. So you've already touched on this throughout our conversation already, but I'd like to ask, in your view, Dr. Saba, what is the importance of this guideline, and how will it impact both clinicians and patients with thyroid cancer? Dr. Nabil Saba: This is a guideline that's important because of the complexity of management of thyroid cancer, in addition to the fact that there has been quite a few systemic therapeutic agents that have come to the scene in the disease, and those are used in specific situations. We talked about medullary thyroid cancer and the story of RET inhibition, for example, the question of sequencing of these agents is important - what do you choose first in terms of your choice depending on the clinical scenario, I think, is highlighted in this guideline. I think this is going to be extremely helpful to practitioners inside and outside the United States because it is going to offer a guide for them to essentially decide on what would be the standard therapeutic option that should be offered to these patients. I know that many of these agents are not perhaps available in other countries, and I hope this guideline will also raise awareness, since it is coming from ASCO, that these agents need to be explored and considered for a large group of the population that may not have access to them, especially outside the United States and in third-world countries. And so I think from that angle, I think also the guideline is important in that it sets what is the accepted standard in terms of systemic therapy for these patients with these different diseases. Brittany Harvey: Yes, these evidence-based guidelines certainly set a standard and it will be really important to have these in the hands of many different people to inform best practices for care. Additionally, you've also mentioned earlier that several of the recommendations referred patients to clinical trials where there wasn't evidence. So I'd like to ask, what are the outstanding questions and ongoing research you are watching in the thyroid cancer space? Dr. Nabil Saba: This guideline I would like to look at it as a start. This is a much-needed start, however, it also exposes us to the fact that there are so many unanswered questions yet. We still don't know the exact way or best way to sequence these agents. The story of, for example, multikinase inhibitors in well-differentiated thyroid cancers that have BRAF alteration, what is to be started first? Do you start with a multikinase inhibitor, or do you start with a BRAF inhibition? This is a topic of a cooperative group trial currently answering these questions in terms of what is the best sequencing because, you know, you do have the approved cabozantinib in the second line, for example, but you also have the approved BRAF inhibition, which could be done in the first or second line. And so sometimes that is confusing to clinicians for a good reason because no studies have really examined the question of the appropriate sequencing of these agents. And so I think the more we get these agents as available options for treating patients, the more pressing the question would be of what would be the best sequencing. So I think that's a major question to tackle, and hopefully clinical trials will tackle that. I think the question of resistance to some of these agents, we don't talk too much about that in the guideline, but certainly these agents have limitations. Not every patient who gets a genomically targeted approach is to benefit from that. We've seen many patients who progress on these, and so the question is, how to overcome resistance? Even for the strong data that we have, for example, on RET alteration or NTRK, resistance mechanisms do happen, and we've seen patients who fail larotrectinib and then they need to go on other therapeutic options. And so I think clinical trials are crucial in answering all these questions, in addition to targeting other subtypes of thyroid cancers that have not really been very common. We know that RAS is also seen in some thyroid cancers, HRAS. There have been some studies along that line. ROS is another potential target. And so the question of resistance, I think the question of sequencing, in addition to the question of toxicity. Because, you know, how best to dose these agents? We talked about this a little in the guideline, but again, the focus on this guideline was not too much the toxicity management. So I think management of toxicities should also be a topic of interest that needs to probably accompany any systemic therapy guideline since we're using agents that people may not be too familiar with when they use it for the first time. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. We'll look forward to the results of these trials that you mentioned to inform sequencing, resistance, new targets, and addressing toxicity and potentially inform updates to this guideline. So I want to thank you so much for your work to develop this first ASCO guideline for thyroid cancer and for your time today, Dr. Saba. Dr. Nabil Saba: It's been my pleasure and it's been a pleasure to actually accomplish this and publish this guideline because I do believe it will be of great benefit to the oncologic community. 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/head-neck-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

united states journal treatments guidelines emory university systemic ras apple app store google play store ret asco thyroid cancer clinical oncology braf hras braf v600e mki asco guidelines

Monica Bertagnolli - Episode 83

ACM ByteCast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 31, 2026 57:17

In this episode, part of a special collaboration between ACM ByteCast and the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA)'s For Your Informatics podcast, Sabrina Hsueh and Li Zhou host Monica Bertagnolli, a surgical oncologist, physician-scientist, and President Elect of the National Academy of Medicine—the first woman to hold that position in NAM's history. She previously served as the 17th Director of the National Institutes of Health and the 16th Director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), as well as President of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. In the past, she was the Richard E. Wilson Professor of Surgery in surgical oncology at Harvard Medical School, a surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital, and a member of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Treatment and Sarcoma Centers at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. In the interview, Dr. Bertagnolli shares her unique journey from Princeton engineering to cancer surgery and national leadership. She emphasizes collaboration, system thinking, and bringing an engineering mindset of “pilot, test, scale, and continuously improve” to AI in healthcare. She highlights her role in founding mCODE, an initiative to improve patient care through oncological data interoperability, and how NAM's six core commitments and ten guiding principles for responsible AI address issues of bias and equity. Dr. Bertagnolli also offers insights on the growing erosion of trust in science and medicine—and how to restore it.

women director health president ai medicine hospitals surgery national institutes elect harvard medical school american society national academy nam brigham dana farber cancer institute clinical oncology national cancer institute nci li zhou

JCO Article Insights: ctDNA in DLBCL - Ready for Prime Time?

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 30, 2026 13:53

In this episode of JCO Article Insights, host Dr. Ash Gurumurthi summarizes JCO articles, "Phased Variant–Supported Circulating Tumor DNA as a Prognostic Biomarker After First-Line Treatment in Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Findings From the DIRECT Study" and " Prospective Validation of Circulating Tumor DNA Measurable Residual Disease After First-Line Therapy in Large B-Cell Lymphoma" TRANSCRIPT Ash Gurumurthi: Hi and welcome to JCO Article Insights. I'm your host, Ash Gurumurthi, and today we will be discussing two articles, both published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, on the real-world utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) MRD in newly diagnosed large B-cell lymphoma. The first study is the article "Phased-Variant-Supported Circulating Tumor DNA as a Prognostic Biomarker After First-Line Treatment in Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Findings From the DIRECT Study" by Dr. Joanna Krupka and colleagues in the United Kingdom. For the sake of convenience, I'll refer to this as the DIRECT study. The second study is "The Prospective Validation of Circulating Tumor DNA Measurable Residual Disease After First-Line Therapy in Large B-Cell Lymphoma" by Dr. Steven Wang and colleagues in the Netherlands, referred to as the HOVON 902 study. By way of background, I wanted to talk about MRD in hematolymphoid malignancies. Nodal diseases have lacked a robust biomarker for end-of-treatment response. They have relied historically on PET scans interpreted using the semiquantitative Deauville 5-point scale, which has a high negative predictive value but a limited positive predictive value. The poor positive predictive value for survival results in extended follow-up with serial imaging for risk stratification with unnecessary and invasive biopsies. There have been recent revolutionary advancements in ctDNA MRD in B-cell lymphoma. The use of ctDNA in lymphoma began with CAPP-seq, which tracked single nucleotide variants that were tumor specific but was limited by excessive background sequencing noise with false negatives. To overcome this, Dr. Kurtz and colleagues developed the proprietary PhasED-seq assay. This tracks well-recognized phased mutations on the same DNA strand in cis configuration within hypermutated regions that are unique to B-cell lymphoma. Using this method, they pushed their limit of detection at 95%, the so-called LOD95, to 0.7 parts per million under optimal circumstances with 120 nanograms of input cell-free DNA from plasma. Based on the use of the PhasED-seq assay in trials of newly diagnosed large B-cell lymphoma with the use of investigational agents, the NCCN currently recommends consideration of ctDNA MRD assay with a detection limit of less than 1 part per million if biopsy is not feasible for a positive end-of-treatment PET. However, I believe this threshold needs reconsideration given it is based on an ideal assay LOD95 under optimal circumstances rather than sample-specific LOD95. Real-world validation of the role of end-of-treatment ctDNA and appropriate thresholds for sample-specific LOD95 were lacking until the publication of these two studies. The DIRECT and the HOVON 902 studies were multicenter, prospective trials using real-world cohorts of newly diagnosed large B-cell lymphoma treated with standard anthracycline immunochemotherapy, ie, R-CHOP chemotherapy. They validated end-of-treatment ctDNA MRD response measured on a phased-variant platform and found them to be strongly prognostic for relapse and survival. This was independent of PET imaging or baseline clinical prognostication like the International Prognostication Index, the IPI. They also demonstrated a threshold with an LOD95 of approximately 1 in 100,000 is necessary for clinical utility. Both trials recruited over a similar period between 2020 to 2023, with the DIRECT study conducted within the National Health Service in the United Kingdom and the HOVON 902 as a national study in the Netherlands. For survival analysis, only patients who reached the landmark event of end of treatment with an available ctDNA MRD sample without progressive disease or death at that time point were included. These studies evaluated similar-sized cohorts with 134 patients for HOVON 902 and 151 patients for the DIRECT study. As expected, their baseline demographics are reflective of a real-world population of newly diagnosed cases with large B-cell lymphoma. Although both used comparable statistical methodologies with time-to-event analysis, the primary outcomes vary, making headline comparisons quite challenging. The DIRECT study utilized the time to tumor progression, censoring death unrelated to disease. This was done to isolate the molecular impact of detectable ctDNA at the end of treatment. In contrast, the HOVON 902 study used progression-free survival, which counts all-cause mortality as an event. This naturally results in lower event-free rates for PFS compared to TTP in the DIRECT study. The trials differed in their choice of phased-variant platforms, with the DIRECT study developing an independent, fully open-source phased-variant ctDNA assay. This has been released on GitHub. In contrast, the HOVON 902 study utilized PhasED-seq by Foresight Diagnostics, which is currently the only proprietary and commercially available phased-variant assay for lymphoid malignancies. Interestingly, despite the differences in platforms and the primary end points, the results were remarkably consistent. The DIRECT study found a highly significant difference in the 2-year TTP rate of 96% in those with undetectable ctDNA MRD at the end of treatment compared to 45% in those with detectable ctDNA, with a hazard ratio of 15. Similarly, the HOVON 902 study found a significantly superior 3-year PFS of 85% in those with undetectable ctDNA compared to 17% with detectable ctDNA, with a hazard ratio of 10. Crucially, both studies found end-of-treatment ctDNA MRD significantly outperformed PET response assessment for long-term PFS. In fact, for the end point of PFS in both trials, the baseline IPI lost all statistical significance in both univariate and multivariable analysis when accounting for ctDNA MRD and PET status at the end of treatment. While both studies demonstrate the superiority of ctDNA MRD compared to PET in predicting survival, interestingly, the combination of both tests appeared to be complementary in identifying the highest-risk group. The HOVON 902 study identified 13 patients who were double positive, ie, they were positive with end-of-treatment PET and detectable ctDNA MRD. Every single one of these patients progressed over a 3-year period with a dismal overall survival of 17%. The DIRECT study mirrored these findings with the same double-positive group having a 2-year time to progression rate of 23%. Given consistency in identifying the poor outcome of this double-positive population in both studies, this is clearly a group that would benefit from trial-based approaches like consolidation or, alternatively, frequent surveillance for clinical relapse. On the other hand, the best-performing group was the double negative, ie, those who had achieved PET negative and ctDNA undetectable at the end of treatment. The double-negative group had a 2-year time to progression of 97% in the DIRECT study and a 3-year PFS of 88% in the HOVON 902 trial. This is quite impressive. Based on these findings, we can anticipate that ctDNA may complement rather than wholly replace PET at the end of treatment for response assessment. Perhaps the most critical finding from both studies challenged current NCCN-recommended ctDNA MRD sensitivity threshold of achieving less than one part per million. While phased-variant assays can theoretically detect this, this is under optimal conditions, specifically 120 nanograms of input cell-free DNA. In both trials, only 3% of samples could achieve this sensitivity, with the vast majority limited to a sample-specific LOD95 of approximately 1 in 100,000 informative reads. The primary constraint was simply limited plasma volume collected, a denominator problem of input cell-free DNA. For example, the HOVON 902 study had a median plasma volume of 5 mL, yielding 20 nanograms of input DNA. The DIRECT study elegantly demonstrated bridging the gap to attain the NCCN standard of LOD95 of less than 1 part per million is practically impossible. This would require greater input DNA, attained through a 20- to 30-milliliter collection of plasma rather than the standard 10 milliliters, and a massive 20- to 40-fold increase in sequencing depth. With the current real-world sensitivity of roughly 1 in 100,000 in both these studies, the negative predictive value is already nearly at 90%. There is going to be diminishing returns for further analytical sensitivity. This strongly suggests that the NCCN guidelines should be updated to prioritize achievable sample-specific LOD95 rather than assay-specific theoretical limits. Collectively, these studies validate the real-world utility of ctDNA MRD as an independent predictor of long-term outcomes following first-line therapy of large B-cell lymphoma. Finally, after two decades of the default R-CHOP for all, the field of aggressive large B-cell lymphoma is taking leaps and bounds by integrating ctDNA MRD with the current wave of bispecific and cellular therapies. I want to now leave you with my five key clinical takeaways from both these studies. ● Firstly, ctDNA MRD is a more potent independent predictor of outcome than end-of-treatment PET/CT and baseline IPI. ● Second, ctDNA MRD in first-line large B-cell lymphoma is already reshaping clinical trial space with therapeutic escalation and de-escalation strategies based on ctDNA kinetics during treatment, as well as identifying candidates with persistent ctDNA at the end of treatment for consolidation approaches. ● Thirdly, this technology is ready for prime time. Whether this is through Foresight's PhasED-seq assays or the open-source method released by the DIRECT group, academic centers can now operationalize this in routine clinical care. ● Fourth, biology clearly provides a ceiling. Current sensitivity goals of less than one part per million as recommended by the NCCN are limited by the actual amount of cell-free DNA we can extract from a patient's blood, not just the assay's technology. I believe these two studies will inform the NCCN's next revision to move away from theoretical assay limits to a more realistic sample-specific LOD95 of approximately 1 in 100,000. ● Finally, it appears that the end-of-treatment ctDNA MRD test may be complementary to PET/CT rather than a replacement. Clearly, the best outcomes are seen in double-negative patients, while double-positive results, ie, positive end-of-treatment PET and detectable ctDNA at the end of treatment, identify a group with an extremely high risk of early progression who may need early intervention. Thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries, and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit asco.org/podcasts. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

The Power of "I Don't Know": Why Admitting Uncertainty is an Oncologist's Greatest Strength

Oncology Peer Review On-The-Go

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 24, 2026 23:43

Listen to JCO's Art of Oncology article, "The Power of "I Don't Know" by Dr. Sondos Zayed, who is a radiation oncologist at The Ottawa Hospital and an assistant professor at the University of Ottawa, Canada. The article is followed by an interview with Zayed and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr Zayed shares a reflection on the unexpected power of saying "I don't know," and how honest uncertainty can deepen trust, guide care and create space for what truly matters in oncology. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: The Power of "I Don't Know", Sondos, Zayed, MD, MPH, FRCPC 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 Dr. Sondos Zayed, a radiation oncologist at the Ottawa Hospital and Assistant Professor at the University of Ottawa, Canada, to discuss her Journal of Clinical Oncology article, "The Power of I Don't Know." At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. She and I have agreed to address each other by first names. Sondos, thank you for contributing to the Journal of Clinical Oncology, and what a pleasure it is to have you join us to discuss your article. Dr. Sondos Zayed: Thank you so much for having me. It's a privilege. Mikkael Sekeres: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself? Where are you from? And walk us through your career up to this point. Dr. Sondos Zayed: Yeah, oh my goodness. So it seems like such a long road and yet so many years left in my career, hopefully. You know, I'm Canadian, and I had the opportunity to grow up in Montreal, which was wonderful, and I went to McGill Medical School, and then after that pursued Radiation Oncology Residency at Western University. And following that I did a fellowship specializing in GI and CNS malignancies with MR-Linac technology in Toronto, and eventually landed in Ottawa, where right now I'm a radiation oncologist treating GI and CNS malignancies and an Assistant Professor at the University of Ottawa. Mikkael Sekeres: That's fantastic. How far are you out of training? Dr. Sondos Zayed: Well, this would be officially my second year essentially as an independent radiation oncologist. Mikkael Sekeres: Wonderful. And I'm curious, what drew you to radiation oncology? Dr. Sondos Zayed: I always say that it was meant to be. And the reason being, when I was in medical school at McGill, they parachuted us out into very niche specialties that we wouldn't otherwise have exposure to. And essentially the way that they would do that is they'd send us an email and say, you know, "Show up at this place, at this location. Here's attached a PowerPoint, just review it before you go." And I get this email and the PowerPoint is talking about, you know, photons and electrons, linear accelerators. And I'm like, "I have no idea what's going on. This is so confusing." I thought I was in medicine. And so I do follow the instructions and I was so lucky that I had such a wonderful supervisor, and he showed me the machines and I saw the coolest cases that day, and it was just such a wonderful experience and the most captivating. And so I just kept on wanting to go back. And the rest is literally history. The really, really fascinating thing about radiation oncology is that it's the mix of physics, it's a mix of like technology, and at the same time there's the medicine and the clinical aspect of it. And there's obviously the privilege to be able to support patients on their most vulnerable journeys with their cancer diagnosis and treatment, et cetera. And so it's a mix of the most interesting things all around and I felt like the best fit for me. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, your passion for it is absolutely palpable. It's really fun to hear the excitement in your voice. Isn't it interesting how one mentor can make the difference in the career path we choose? Dr. Sondos Zayed: Absolutely. Never underestimate the impact they can have on any single trainee at any point in time. It really does turn things around for many people, and it can inspire them to pursue something that they would have never thought of pursuing before. Mikkael Sekeres: I had a very similar experience. It was during fellowship that my very first month of fellowship I was placed on the leukemia service with Rich Stone at Dana-Farber, and I never turned back. He was such a fabulous mentor. I couldn't imagine doing anything else with my career. You write this piece. We loved this piece when you submitted it, myself and the editorial staff. And you write it from the perspective of someone who has recently finished fellowship, which you have. And you write in particular that- this one quote, "During my first year as an attending, I had braced for the steep learning curve, the finality of being the decision maker, the quiet hours at night when treatment decisions still played in my head. What I hadn't prepared for was the weight of uncertainty." It's a great line. So now that you're on the other side of training, what do you think could have prepared you better for the weight of uncertainty? Dr. Sondos Zayed: I had such wonderful mentors throughout my training, and so they were fantastic and I learned so much from them, but sometimes it just took having to be the final decision maker for me not to have to have the security of somebody to just turn back to immediately after a patient encounter, for example, and be like, "Oh, my supervisor can answer this question," or, "Here are my thoughts, but my attending can also join in the discussion," or give their thoughts as well. So that sort of cushion is no longer there. And so when I'm in the room by myself making those decisions with patients, nothing can really prepare you for that. You just have to go in and then do it yourself. Mikkael Sekeres: There is a safety net to training by design and thank God there is, right? Where we can always turn to somebody more experienced than us to answer those hard questions or to know what to do. And that's what's pulled out from under us when we become attendings, when we become the final pathway, when people suddenly turn to us and say, "Okay, what are we going to do here?" or, "What's the answer?" Did anybody during your training model "I don't know"? So did you see your own attendings say "I don't know" to patients and see how that played out? Dr. Sondos Zayed: Not as much, and I think there's a culture in medicine where when people walk into that room, they're hoping that you have all the answers, and you don't want to disappoint them. And so sometimes what we do is we rely on like the evidence and the data and the numbers that are in the literature to answer questions that the patient is asking in an absolute way but we answer it in a probability or a percentage or, "Most likely this will happen," or, "These are the potential, you know, this is the median overall survival," or, "Progression-free survival," or, "This percentage of people have this toxicity," for example. And so it's easy for us to fall back on that cushion of, "These are the numbers and the evidence." And that's what I saw modeled most frequently. But when I started practicing as an attending, what I realized is that when a patient comes in and they sit in front of you, they ask, "How long am I going to live?" What they're asking about is how long they specifically are going to live and not what the median survival in X study is telling us that that's how long they most likely would live, just as an example. And so what I had to do, when I'm speaking to patients, I kind of separate those two concepts where I start with, "I don't know, because I don't have a crystal ball, and your circumstances and how you respond to treatment is something that I can't predict before anything has started. And it's it's just I really don't know. But what I can say is on average in this study, this is what we see, and there's a 95% confidence interval, and most people fall within that." And so I separate their immediate outcome with the data that we have. So that- because sometimes when I say, "Oh, your median survival is one year," they hear, "I'm going to only live for one year." And then you always have these patients that come through and be like, "You know, they told me I only had six months to live, but here I am two years later." And really it is again, we live in a world of probabilities and confidence intervals, but for the patients themselves, this is their life. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah. One of the aspects of your essay that I really liked is the title, "The Power of 'I Don't Know'" because saying, "I don't know," actually does have some power to it. And I've seen this demonstrated in a couple of different ways. I had a boss once who we'd all be in a meeting, and someone would ask a question, and the boss would say, "I don't know." And he said it in a way where one reaction from other people in the meeting could have been, "Oh, how could he be such an idiot and not know the answer to this?" But what wound up happening is people reacted to it by saying, "Gee, if he doesn't know, then it's okay that I don't know also. And maybe if he doesn't know, that means that maybe I thought I knew, but maybe I really don't know as well as I should." And it makes you kind of redouble your efforts to understand whatever's being communicated in the meeting. So I always thought that there was this power in saying, "I don't know," in meetings, but you bring up the power of "I don't know" in patient interactions. So tell me what is the power in saying, "I don't know," to a patient? What is it that that conveys to a patient and how does that affect the relationship that you have with your patients? Dr. Sondos Zayed: The way that I have learned to see it over the last year and a bit is that when I say, "I don't know," what they hear is honesty, and they hear that, you know, I'm not going to pretend to make up a number or make up an outcome when I'm not sure of it. And they hear that physicians are also very human. And it makes us seem much more approachable. And so what I noticed started happening when I admitted there were things that I don't know where sometimes there was no way of me knowing answers to some of their questions is they started seeing the human aspect of what we do every day. And then they started wanting to share more of their human experience and what really matters to them the most. So they started sharing, "Okay, well, if if the physician doesn't know, these are the things that are important to me. I want to be able to walk my daughter down the aisle in a few months. I want to be able to play with my grandchildren. I want to be able to be at home when the end comes." So it opened this discussion where my admitting that I don't know is a form of vulnerability, and I say that, and that allowed them to be a bit more vulnerable with what it is that they really wanted to achieve in the time that they had left. And it closed gaps where the physician is seen as not somebody who necessarily has all the answers, but somebody who when they don't know, they will tell us, and what they can tell us in terms of what they can offer for treatment, what possible outcomes are, what they can expect, all these things that they do know, they will tailor to what it is that is important to them. I felt like it was more of a bridge than it was scarier. It built bonds and it built bridges as opposed to them feeling that they're not being cared for. Mikkael Sekeres: Sounds like it establishes an environment of honesty and that leads to trust in the relationship between you and your patients. Dr. Sondos Zayed: Yeah, I would agree. Mikkael Sekeres: When people ask, "How long do I have to live?" it also, what I've learned from communications experts in oncology is that it gives us an opportunity to say, "Why do you ask?" And that can lead to a discussion of goals and what are we working toward here and make sure that we're on the same page with what our patients' expectations are as well. Dr. Sondos Zayed: Absolutely. Mikkael Sekeres: You talk about vulnerability with your patients. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about our roles as doctors and nurses and pharmacists, when is it expected that we provide a concrete answer and when is it okay to be vulnerable and say, "I don't know"? Dr. Sondos Zayed: That really depends on the situation. So I feel like when we should be able to provide concrete answers when we have the evidence and information to be able to answer them in a way that the patient requires. When we don't have that evidence and we don't have that clear picture of, "Oh, this is obviously the answer," based on our usually at least decade plus of training, then being able to admit, "I don't know," actually opens the doors for discussion, anchor that "I don't know" into something more concrete. So when you say, "I don't know," you don't kind of leave it in the air, that can certainly be cause for anxiety. But sort of taking that, "I don't know," and then framing the subsequent part of that conversation about what are the things that you do know about the question that they asked and how you can support them by giving them the information that you are confident about. Mikkael Sekeres: Has it ever backfired on you? Dr. Sondos Zayed: Not yet, but I've got many years of practice to come. Mikkael Sekeres: It has on me. I don't know that I would say maybe "backfired" is too strong, but there are times when I've said, "I don't know," and my patients have said, "But you're the doctor. You're supposed to know." Dr. Sondos Zayed: Mm-hm. Mikkael Sekeres: And I found that creates an opportunity to talk about expectations and where the limits of our knowledge are and where we can provide estimates and ranges, but can't give people a precise answer. Dr. Sondos Zayed: Mm-hm. Mikkael Sekeres: In your essay, you write, "When the reality doesn't match the implied promise, patients don't lose faith in the data, they lose faith in the person who gave it. That is how trust erodes." I thought that was just very elegantly phrased. Has that ever happened to you where you've provided an estimate maybe of a potential outcome and things didn't work out that way for the patient? Dr. Sondos Zayed: Yes, that has, and I think most physicians can sort of share that experience, to be honest, where it'll come back and say, "Well, actually I didn't I didn't have that side effect," or, "Actually I lived longer than you'd anticipated," for example, or like, "It didn't have that outcome." And I think that's where the idea of saying, "I don't know," actually came from, where I I realized that a lot of the times when we turn back to the data, patients hear it as like, "Oh, this is the concrete truth of what exactly is going to happen to me." But to sort of distinguish between, "Oh, this is what we see in the data versus what exactly is going to happen to you," making that distinction is what by saying, "I don't know," is what has helped me try to prevent these outcomes from happening, or prevent the erosion of of trust by sounding maybe overconfident with specific things that mean so much to them. So- and this is their life, right? They come in and they hear these things and they remember them forever. And we see so many people on a daily basis and sometimes we don't keep track of every single word we've ever said. And so- but these words have so much weight to them. And so distinguishing between what we see in and saying, "I don't know," and then, "Here's what I do know," and saying that for them specifically, it's almost impossible to predict, it really helps prevent, in my opinion, the erosion of of that trust so that you don't have somebody saying, "Oh, actually you were wrong afterwards," or misunderstanding or misinterpreting what is that we're trying to convey by giving that information. Mikkael Sekeres: And that's a great place to end a great discussion and a wonderful piece. It has been such a pleasure to have Dr. Sondos Zayed, who is a radiation oncologist at the Ottawa Hospital and Assistant Professor at the University of Ottawa, Canada, to discuss her essay, "The Power of 'I Don't Know.'" Sondos, thank you so very much for submitting your article and for joining us today. Dr. Sondos Zayed: Thank you so much. 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, 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 Sondos Zayed is a Radiation Oncologist at The Ottawa Hospital and Assistant Professor at the University of Ottawa, Canada.

god university spotify canada power art apple canadian professor miami toronto medicine chief journal md uncertainty montreal assistant professor ottawa gi mph progression powerpoint oncology admitting mcgill gee cns western university asco oncologists hematology clinical oncology greatest strength zayed radiation oncologist dana farber ottawa hospital jco sylvester comprehensive cancer center mikkael sekeres sondos rich stone

S1 Ep206: Is It Helping or Harming? A Clinician's Guide to Cannabis Use in Oncology

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 23, 2026 30:47

In this episode of Oncology on The Go, created in collaboration with the American Psychosocial Oncology Society, Daniel C. McFarland, DO, and Ilana M. Braun, MD, dove into the complexities of cannabis use within the oncology landscape. They explored the tension between rising public popularity and the need for rigorous scientific scrutiny in symptom management.Key Discussion Points: The 2024 ASCO Guidelines: Braun highlighted the first-of-its-kind clinical guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which acknowledge medicinal utility for chemotherapy-induced nausea, vomiting (as an adjunct), and non-cancer pain. Routes of Administration: McFarland and Braun compared oral, combusted, and vaporized methods, noting that while oncologists favor oral routes, they are subject to "first-pass metabolism," which can delay relief. Safety and Clinical Concerns: There are potential negative impacts on outcomes for patients using immune checkpoint inhibitors. Risks may impact patients with a personal or family history of psychosis when using THC-predominant products. There are possible dangers linked to e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury (EVALI) from informally sourced products. Addressing "Cancer-Directed" Claims: The pair addressed the misconception that cannabis treats the cancer itself, noting that ASCO explicitly discourages using it as a replacement for conventional treatments like chemotherapy or surgery. The Future of Research: The discussion concluded with the potential impact of reclassifying cannabis to Schedule III, which could reduce red tape and enable high-quality comparative efficacy trials for sleep, anxiety, and depression. The conversation emphasized a "harm reduction" approach, urging oncologists to provide stigma-free, evidence-based education while respecting patient autonomy.McFarland is the director of the Psycho-Oncology Program at Wilmot Cancer Center and a medical oncologist who specializes in head, neck, and lung cancer, in addition to being the psycho-oncology editorial advisory board member for the journal ONCOLOGY. Braun is an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and senior physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. ReferenceBraun IM, Bohlke K, Abrams DI, et al. Cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer: ASCO guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42(13):1575-1593. doi:10.1200/JCO.23.02596

The CISTO Study: Radical Cystectomy or Bladder-Sparing Therapy for Recurrent NMIBC

Empowered Patient Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 12, 2026 19:20

Guest Dr. John Gore and host Dr. Davide Soldato discuss JCO article, "12-Month Results from the CISTO Study Comparing Radical Cystectomy Versus Bladder-Sparing Therapy for Recurrent Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer," which compares radical cystectomy and bladder sparing therapy for patients with recurrent high-grade non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Gore and Dr. Soldato focus on the study's patient-centered approach, eligibility criteria, and quality of life after treatment. 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 author Dr. John Gore, urologist at Fred Hutch Cancer Center and professor of urology at University of Washington School of Medicine. Today, we will be discussing the article titled, "Twelve-Month Results From the CISTO Study Comparing Radical Cystectomy Versus Bladder-Sparing Therapy for Recurrent High-Grade Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer." Thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Gore. Dr. John Gore: Thank you so much for having me. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, I just want to jump right in. We know that patients who are diagnosed with recurrent high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer can be treated with two different approaches. So, one is radical cystectomy, and the other is bladder-sparing therapy. I just wanted to understand: what was the gap that you were trying to fill with this study? In particular, one point that is very important is that this study is very centered on the preference of the patients. Why did you choose this endpoint instead of going for more solid oncology-based endpoints? Dr. John Gore: Yeah, so CISTO was a study that was derived really organically from patient engagement. I think as a clinical gap in care, making a decision about when to pursue radical cystectomy for patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer is a tough decision for us as clinicians. We did some engagement work partnered with the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network and my partner Angela Smith, and found that it is also a huge gap for patients. You know, they are very anxious about recurrences, and the decision about when to take out the bladder is a very difficult one. We did an evidence synthesis and found that evidence guiding this decision is fairly limited. The reason we chose more of a patient-reported endpoint is several-fold. One is that we, as part of our engagement work, also worked with our patient survey network to identify outcomes that were important to patients. Some of those are the same outcomes that we care about as clinicians - recurrence-free survival and metastasis-free survival - but several outcomes came out that were more patient-centered. These were patient-reported outcomes such as the burden on my finances, the burden on my caregiver or loved one, and the ability to return to physical activities that are important to them. Part of what is unique about CISTO is that this was a contract with PCORI where we knew we would only have about 12-month outcomes for the majority of our patients. That is too early to really derive a lot of the clinical outcomes, but we are able to answer that patient-centered question of, "Am I going to be able to return to physical activities that are important to me?" And that was the genesis of that as the primary endpoint. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, who were the patients that were eligible to participate in the CISTO trial? What were the key eligibility criteria? This is very particular to this study because this was actually an observational study. Why did you think that such a pragmatic approach still can inform us on what is the best treatment approach for these patients? Dr. John Gore: The intent of CISTO was not necessarily to focus on the tightly defined BCG-unresponsive patient population. That is a clearly important patient population, but every day we are all faced in our real-world practice with patients with challenging, high-grade recurrences that don't fit neatly into that BCG-unresponsive box. The reason we chose a broader inclusion was to help doctors and patients answer these same questions they have when it doesn't fit nicely into this BCG-unresponsive category. You know, maybe their BCG exposure was two years ago, but now they are having a recurrence after intravesical chemotherapy. That is no less challenging a clinical conundrum, and we wanted to be able to enroll those patients. Other key inclusions were that all of the patients in CISTO had to have BCG at some point, and they had to have recent exposure to some adjuvant instillational or intravenous therapy like pembrolizumab. We also had some exclusions that were important. They couldn't be participating in a phase 2 clinical trial, and they couldn't have had a prior upper tract urothelial cancer. The other point about the observational trial design is I think a really important one. Part of our engagement work also asked patients about their willingness to randomize. There is a ton of literature in our history of trials that failed to accrue well when they were comparing a large-scale surgical intervention with a more conservative management strategy. What we found is only about 10% of patients would be willing to randomize when the clinical comparison is between radical cystectomy and bladder-sparing therapy. So it was very clear that an observational study design was the only way we were going to get evidence to inform clinical care when one of the key comparators was radical cystectomy. And so that is why we utilized the observational trial design. Dr. Davide Soldato: Starting to go deeper into the results, you mentioned before that the endpoint you chose for this trial was really centered on what patients thought was more important to them. In particular, the primary endpoint of the study was physical function as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. I just wanted to understand: first, did you have a solid hypothesis regarding how physical function could be impacted by either radical cystectomy or bladder-sparing treatments? And second, what were the key results of the study? Dr. John Gore: We figured that at 12 months after enrollment, given the burden and morbidity of a radical cystectomy, that patients in the radical cystectomy arm would have worse self-reported physical functioning than patients in the bladder-sparing therapy arm. We did hypothesize that some of our secondary outcomes might potentially be better after radical cystectomy, such as recurrence-free survival and potentially some other cancer-specific outcomes, because it is a more definitive management strategy. For our primary endpoint, however, we hypothesized that it would be worse. What we found, and the key finding of our study, is that at 12 months after enrollment, physical functioning was not different between patients undergoing radical cystectomy and patients undergoing bladder-sparing therapy, which is just important in terms of clinical counseling because it just means that you can tell your patients, "Gosh, if we could fast-forward your life six to nine months after this procedure, your physical functioning would be similar to as if you had been able to keep your bladder." Dr. Davide Soldato: And you mentioned that there were some key secondary endpoints of the study, which included both other dimensions of quality of life and also hard clinical outcomes. We mentioned metastasis-free survival, for example. Going a little bit into the key secondary quality of life outcomes, we know that radical cystectomy can impact physical functioning, but we also know that bowel, sexual symptoms, and also genitourinary symptoms might potentially be impacted by this type of treatment. We also know that, especially in a system like the US, financial toxicity can be a significant burden for patients. Considering the two different approaches, was radical cystectomy better also in other key secondary quality of life outcomes, and was financial toxicity different between the two arms? Dr. John Gore: Thank you for highlighting some of the really important secondary outcomes that I think are really important to trying to figure out what's best for your patients. Some of the main ones were some of the bladder cancer-specific quality of life outcomes you highlight. Urinary quality of life was worse at enrollment in patients in the radical cystectomy arm but was no different 12 months after. What is unique about how we measure that is we used an instrument called the Bladder Cancer Index because we're comparing a population of patients who have lost their bladder with a population of patients who have retained their bladder, and there are different considerations by gender. And so that instrument is agnostic to urinary diversion status and gender. We found that bowel function and sexual function were worse in the radical cystectomy arm. It appeared that bowel functioning was getting better to the point of near equivalence at 12 months in the radical cystectomy arm but was still inferior to bladder-sparing therapy, and that probably relates to the fact that we use the bowel as part of the urinary diversion, and that causes some transient disruption in bowel function. Financial toxicity is an outcome we weren't initially planning on having as part of the CISTO study, but based on that patient feedback, we made that one of our key secondary outcomes. That actually demonstrated superiority in the radical cystectomy arm. I think it's important that we remember that when we do bladder-sparing therapy, those patients are predisposed to a number of visits to our office, whether they're for instillational therapies or cystoscopy surveillance visits. Sometimes that involves the patient themselves, and sometimes that involves a caregiver. We live in an area with a very large geographic catchment, so sometimes that involves overnight hotel stays and airfare. It can be a particular burden, as you made mention, especially in our healthcare system. Dr. Davide Soldato: Going back to the quality of life dimensions and especially considering the different treatments, 50% of the patients received radical cystectomy with robotic surgery. Did you look a little bit into whether the type of surgery that they received might potentially impact on these dimensions of quality of life? Dr. John Gore: These are some questions that a lot of urologists have asked us in the surgical arm, related to surgical approach, so robotic versus open, and urinary diversion type. We sometimes reconstruct the urinary tract with an incontinent diversion called an ileal conduit where the urine drains tonically into a bag, and we sometimes do a continent diversion where someone typically will have a neobladder, where you reconstruct a sphere reservoir out of intestines and sew it to the urethra. About 20% of patients in the radical cystectomy arm in CISTO had a neobladder. We have not yet looked at specific surgical factors and some of those outcomes. That is one of the secondary analyses that we have planned, but we have not drilled into how different surgical approach factors can affect some of our outcomes. Fortunately, we have about 200 patients in the radical cystectomy arm, so it's enough patients that hopefully we can look at some of those factors in the future. Dr. Davide Soldato: Going back to the clinical endpoints, you mentioned that several of these were measured. There was metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and progression-free survival. We now have the data at 12 months. I am just wondering if you can comment on those when comparing the radical cystectomy with the bladder-sparing techniques. Dr. John Gore: I think importantly, bladder cancer-specific survival was very high in both arms, over 95% at one year. So both patient populations do very well in terms of cancer-specific and overall survival at one year. You know, when you take out the bladder, you're taking out a big source of recurrences. Not surprisingly, there was a marked reduction in recurrences in the radical cystectomy arm, so they had better recurrence-free survival. There actually was worse progression-free survival in the radical cystectomy arm, but there is a big asterisk to that. As you noted, it is an observational study, and one of the areas of imbalance in the study is that we had higher cancer severity in the radical cystectomy arm. So there was about a 20% rate of progression at the time of radical cystectomy to muscle-invasive and node-positive disease. Of those progressions, the overwhelming majority of them were progressions at the time of radical cystectomy, which I think speaks to a couple of important factors. Number one is the challenge in staging these patients. Our staging of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer is very reliant on our resection. And so there is this risk of understaging our patients. Number two is just the challenge of decision making, that we fear losing our window of cure in this patient population, which is why we try to steer some patients toward radical cystectomy, and that progression figure kind of speaks to that. Dr. Davide Soldato: Also, one of the factors that was most common in the patients who received radical cystectomy was the presence of other high-risk features. For example, non-urothelial histology, which I think is something that in clinical practice we tend to fear a little bit in terms of recurrence, and so it might potentially bias a little bit towards proposing more strongly radical cystectomy to the patient. Another thing that I wanted to have a comment on, so this is not really in the paper, but I think it speaks a little bit to how the data will evolve over time. Do you imagine these clinical outcomes changing over time, and do you think that with higher maturity of these endpoints, this study might be even more informative when counseling patients regarding what they are obtaining with a radical cystectomy versus the other type of treatments? Dr. John Gore: You know, I think in this cancer universe, 12-month outcomes are great, but I think we all want to see two-year and five-year outcomes. We're very fortunate to supplement the work that we've done in the initial CISTO study, we're very fortunate that we've gotten supplementary funding from the National Cancer Institute to get long-term outcomes in this patient population. So we are continuing to follow all of our CISTO study patients to get two-year and five-year outcomes. What we expect to find is the accrual of new events in the bladder-sparing therapy arm. About 7% of patients in the bladder-sparing therapy arm underwent cystectomy in the first year, but that number will probably go up either as they have recurrences or progression events. We definitely expect the recurrence-free survival to continue to have superiority in the cystectomy arm, but we probably will see the progression events equilibrate as more progression events accrue in the bladder-sparing therapy arm. Maybe by five years, we hypothesize that we'll see clinical superiority in the radical cystectomy arm. By then, we might also see mortality events that separate bladder cancer-specific survival and overall survival between the two arms potentially. But we don't know. Hypothetically, cystectomy has its own downstream risks. It is a major reconstruction with some metabolic sequelae and renal functional sequelae, and so there may be some general medical events that accrue in the cystectomy arm that are also impactful. Dr. Davide Soldato: One other thing that I think should be complimented on this study is that you also looked at several other endpoints that might be important for patients. For example, anxiety symptoms and depression symptoms. Dr. John Gore: Yeah, I think one of the other key secondary outcomes we looked at were mental health outcomes. We utilized the PROMIS domains of anxiety and depression. Not unexpectedly, our radical cystectomy arm patients exhibited higher anxiety symptoms and higher depression symptoms at enrollment. What we found is at 12 months, they actually had significantly lower anxiety and depression than patients in the bladder-sparing therapy arm. We hypothesized in this paper that that actually relates probably mostly to cancer-specific anxiety. You know, when you experience this cavalcade of recurrences, it just breeds an anxiety about adverse cancer-specific outcomes, and by taking out the bladder, you kind of eliminate this prevalent source of anxiety. We followed up the study with a qualitative piece where we interviewed 50 patients and 20 caregivers. Based on those interviews, and that's just a sample of the patient population, it did seem to be cancer-specific anxiety that was driving a lot of those responses. Dr. Davide Soldato: I would like to end with a methodological consideration on your part because we said that this was an observational study. Frequently we tend to think that observational studies come with a lot of bias, and so we tend to downgrade a little bit the results. But I think that a lot of the merit that goes in the CISTO study that was published in the JCO, and I think it also speaks to the fact that this is very high-quality data, comes with the fact that the methodology behind this study was really robust in terms of informing us. Even with this observational study that, as you said, was the only one that we could perform considering the patient population. So just a comment on your part also to speak to the solidity of the data that was published. Dr. John Gore: Importantly, you know, if you look at ClinicalTrials.gov or other sources, CISTO is the only trial that has radical cystectomy as a major comparator. In many ways, this study is our only source of evidence for radical cystectomy. So we'd rather have flawed observational evidence than no evidence at all. We all experience flaws of our RCTs as well. They tend to be these narrowly defined patient populations that may not match the patient in front of you. So I think there are unrecognized flaws on the other side as well. The way that we try to counterbalance that, and none of these techniques are perfect, but we used a strategy called 'targeted maximum likelihood estimation'. Like many methods, such as propensity scores or instrumental variable analysis, what we're trying to do theoretically is coax randomization from non-randomized data. And TMLE, which is the technique we use, tends to be pretty robust to that. So it's the best available way that we can try to counterbalance the bias based on age and clinical severity between the two patient arms. I also think what's important about this is that even when there are biases, I think we are able to infer those out and still extract meaningful details from the data. So even with the biased data, I think we all glean some really important clinical learnings from it. Dr. Davide Soldato: Absolutely, but I would also say that in terms of observational data, the work that you have done is really something that makes us quite confident about what you found in the CISTO study. So with this, I would like to thank you again for joining us today. Dr. John Gore: Thank you so much, and thank you for highlighting the CISTO study. We are very excited about the data. Dr. Davide Soldato: So Dr. Gore, we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled, "Twelve-Month Results From the CISTO Study Comparing Radical Cystectomy Versus Bladder-Sparing Therapy for Recurrent High-Grade Non-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/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 Disclosure Dr. Gore:Consulting or Advisory Role: Astellas Pharma

Pan-Cancer AI Platform Providing Academic-Level Precision Medicine to Community Settings with Kristin Ashcraft OncoRx Insights

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 11, 2026 19:02

Kristin Ashcraft, Co-Founder and CEO of OncoRx Insights, is determined to bring current information to community-based oncologists to help them identify precision therapies for their patients. The AI platform is designed to augment the oncologist's expertise by analyzing molecular diagnostics, pathology reports, and patient history to identify appropriate FDA-approved drugs and possible clinical trials. The aim is to democratize access to advanced treatment information, bringing the capabilities of academic medical centers to the community setting. Kristin explains, "Our goal is to increase the lifespan of cancer patients by enabling community oncologists to more efficiently identify precision therapies for their patients. We do this through a unique, comprehensive analysis of the molecular diagnostics, patient history, and pathology reports. The reason that we are here is that it can be summed up really well in a study that was recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, in which they found that only 36% of eligible lung cancer patients receive precision medicine therapies. And so OncoRX Insights is focused on bringing greater access to precision medicine for cancer patients." "Cancer results from genetic mutations from external or inherited causes, and it presents in over a hundred different forms. So as you pointed out, understanding the best possible treatment really is a challenge. But using the molecular diagnostic report and additional information like pathology reports, patient history, understanding those details can really help drive the most targeted treatment to have the best chance of the best outcomes for those patients." #OncoRxInsights #PrecisionMedicine #CancerCare #AIInHealthcare #Oncology #CommunityOncology #HealthTech #MedTech #CancerTreatment #DigitalHealth #PersonalizedMedicine #HealthcareInnovation #CancerResearch #HealthcareInnovation #RealWorldData OncoRxInsights.com Download the transcript here

ceo community ai co founders cancer journal platform fda providing academic settings precision medicine clinical oncology ashcraft

Pan-Cancer AI Platform Providing Academic-Level Precision Medicine to Community Settings with Kristin Ashcraft OncoRx Insights TRANSCRIPT

Empowered Patient Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 11, 2026

ceo community ai co founders cancer journal platform fda providing academic settings precision medicine clinical oncology ashcraft

Patient-Clinician Communication Guideline Update

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 10, 2026 31:22

Dr. Timothy Gilligan and Dr. Calvin Chou discuss the updated guideline on patient-clinician communication in oncology. They highlight clinical recommendations and strategies on topics such as communication skills and practices that apply at every visit, principles for telehealth interactions, cross-disciplinary communication, facilitating involvement of the patient's support network, discussing prognosis, goals of care, treatment selection – including clinical trials, end-of-life discussions, overcoming barriers to communication, facilitating discussions of cost of care and financial toxicity, mitigating stigma, and setting boundaries with patients. Dr. Gilligan and Dr. Chou also share how clinicians can enhance their communication skills through skills practice opportunities and experiential learning. They discuss how fundamental communication is to optimal patient care and look to the future on how generative AI may impact healthcare communication. Read the full guideline, "Patient-Clinician Communication: ASCO Guideline Update" 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-26-00118 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. Timothy Gilligan from Taussig Cancer Institute and the Center for Excellence in Healthcare Communication at Cleveland Clinic, and Dr. Calvin Chou from the University of California and Veterans Affairs Health Care System in San Francisco, co-chairs on "Patient-Clinician Communication: ASCO Guideline Update." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Gilligan and Dr. Chou. Dr. Timothy Gilligan: Thank you for having us. Dr. Calvin Chou: Delighted to be here. 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. Gilligan and Dr. Chou 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 would like to dive into what we are here really today to talk about. So Dr. Gilligan, this guideline updates the patient-clinician communication guideline that was first published in 2017. What prompted this update and what is the scope of this updated guideline? Dr. Timothy Gilligan: So I think with the first guideline, that was the first draft of it that we published five or six, seven years ago, really we were focused on getting the content right, what was the state of the knowledge at that time, and I was very happy with what came out of that. But when I looked back on it, I thought there were ways we could make it more accessible and more practical. Because what we really would like would be for people to apply what we know and then communicate more effectively with patients and colleagues. And one of the reasons I was really excited on the membership of the panel we had this time was I thought they were very well selected to help us do that, is to really think about what are practical guidelines, practical steps we can tell people to take that will improve their own experience and the experience of patients and the quality of care. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely, thinking about operationalizing that guideline really improves the dissemination and the uptake of these recommendations. So then, Dr. Chou, I would like to review the key recommendations and strategies across the clinical questions that the guideline addressed. I realize today with our limited time we may not be able to go through every recommendation and strategy, so we will start with some of the highlights. First, let's address the highlights of the process of communication with patients and their support networks. This includes the questions that address what communication skills and practices apply at every visit across the continuum of care, principles for telehealth interactions, cross-disciplinary communication, and facilitating involvement of the patient's support network. In your view, what are the most important recommendations across these clinical questions? Dr. Calvin Chou: I think the thing that all clinicians know in their bones that they want to be able to do effectively with patients is to communicate information clearly, as well as to communicate in a way that really deepens the relationship, demonstrates empathy, and also demonstrates understanding bilaterally between the various parties. So the communication guidelines that we established in this group, they are fundamental to communication in all conversations throughout healthcare. And the first guideline talks about how clinicians and their team can communicate effectively with the patient and the patient's support network. And those include things like preparing ahead of time; getting a list of the topics that are important to the patient support network so that we can consider them in the visit; making certain that we are hearing what the patients' and the patients' support networks are saying very, very closely; responding to those empathically; and being able to have conversations about care throughout the visit that demonstrate respect and deepen the trust; and then finally, to have some kind of bidirectional understanding, usually through teach-back, that allow both sides to know that communication has occurred as opposed to just been downloaded. The guidelines also talk about applying these same communication skills throughout telehealth communication - that is both in terms of synchronous communication, audio or video, as well as asynchronous communication, i.e., through secure messaging. We also talk about how we can use these same communication skills to communicate effectively with members of our own team. Interprofessional communication is an important part of all the work that we do, and how we can use these very, very same skills in communication with colleagues, with nursing staff, with social workers, and other allied health professionals. These are all very, very important, crucial members of our healthcare team in the delivery of care to our patients. And that is something that we really need to emphasize throughout to try to bring the best of communication in every conversation that we have. Dr. Timothy Gilligan: I totally agree with that. Those are really important points. When I was looking over it in preparation for this podcast, it struck me that we have a lot of recommendations and a lot of small things that we can do either well or not well. And it reminded me of a quotation from a famous chef, Marco Pierre White, who said that perfection is a lot of little things done well. This guideline has a lot of little things that if you do them well, you get better outcomes. And I think the chef's point was that if you want a really delicious dish, you have to pay attention to all those little details. And I think if people go through the guidelines carefully and apply the skills that are along the lines of what Dr. Chou was talking about, we get better results. And those results are really important results. It is not only patient satisfaction, which is really important, but it is also quality of care and outcomes for patients. It is better medical care. It is a better day for us, we have a better day if we have better conversations. Poor communication creates endless headaches for everybody. What I see in the guidelines is it is a lot of little best practices and it requires discipline to learn those. The good news is none of them I don't think are all that hard. The bad news is doing it consistently well every day requires discipline and practice. And what I would hope for these guidelines is that people will read them carefully and think about what they can do to apply what we know more consistently. And I think the interprofessional communication piece, that was something we added this year, is really critical. Medicine has a bad history of really disrespectful behavior. It was almost normalized that different specialties would make fun of each other, that different professions would talk disrespectfully of each other. And we know now that uncivil behavior results in more healthcare errors. And it is not only bad for our teams and our culture, but it is bad for our patients if we are not communicating well with each other. So I thought it was really critical that we added that piece to the update. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Those fundamental principles that Dr. Chou outlined are really key across every healthcare interaction, including those interdisciplinary interactions. And as you alluded to, Dr. Gilligan, I think it will really serve clinicians well to review the details and go through every table to read the recommendations and each individual strategy to help them improve their communication in day-to-day interactions. Moving to some of those day-to-day clinical communication scenarios, Dr. Gilligan, I'd like to think through some of those key points. So what is recommended for discussion of prognosis, goals of care, treatment selection, including discussion of clinical trials, and end-of-life discussions? Dr. Timothy Gilligan: So my perspective is that there is a broad theme of flattening the hierarchy that runs through these recommendations and this part of the guideline - that the sections that Dr. Chou just talked about really have a lot to do with the details. What does good communication look like? What are best practices that we can adopt? And I think these other sections are a little bit more, they also have a lot of specific guidelines, but there is a philosophical point that we do better when we talk to the patient at their own level. And we sometimes fail to do that. I remember from about 10 years ago I was in a room with a patient and one of the other doctors said to the patient, "We're going to bronch you tomorrow." And I was trying to think, like, what do they think the patient hears when we use language like that? Like they don't understand what the word means. We are just expecting them to step up to our level. We are not accommodating them, and I think that really interferes with our ability to form effective relationships with patients and communicate clearly. So if we are going to talk about prognosis, goals of care, treatment selection, clinical trials, end of life, the first step for me is that we have to get down to the patient's level, which means listening. We have to ask them what they know, we have to get their perspective. We have to understand what their health literacy level is so that we can have a conversation that takes into account the patient's perspective. And we need to be humble and remember that the patient often has information that we do not have yet unless we ask them and listen to what they say. That is going to change what we think is the best plan of care. And so shared decision-making is really a critical piece of that. One of my favorite trainers who I follow online says, "I make suggestions, you make decisions." And I like to bring that attitude into the room when I talk to patients. It is their life, it is their body, it is their health, it is their decision. It is not my decision. I don't get to tell them what to do. I want to make sure that they make a decision that is based on the best available evidence, but also a decision that is based on who they are and what their values are. And we try to give pointers to how we can have these conversations in a way that is really fully respectful of the patient's autonomy and the importance of the patient's expertise in their own body, their own lived experience. Because there is a risk that we come in with our white coat and we overpower them with our authority, our medical authority, our medical knowledge, and no one likes to be overpowered. And I think we all have a better day if we go in and have a conversation as human beings with each other. Dr. Calvin Chou: I want to underscore this point of having the patient and their support network make the ultimate decisions. Reviewing the evidence from more general literature, it is clear that across demographics that only 10% of patients want us to make decisions for them. 90% of patients want to have at least some say, if not full say, in the decisions that they make, and this is true across age, across gender, educational status, socioeconomic status, veteran status. This is a very, very important point. I think oftentimes we go in thinking we know what's going to happen and we need to make them do that. Thinking about this as a conversation as opposed to a download is an important point. Dr. Timothy Gilligan: And one thing that I think that the guidelines are relevant for here, which is I think one way to achieve honoring the patient autonomy, is to really make a commitment to having a good process, to not be committed to an outcome. So that when we start the conversation, we're not going to say it's a good conversation based on whether it ends up where I wanted it to end up. It's a good conversation based on whether we have a good process, a fair process. And the steps of good communication that are outlined in this guideline help us to establish a good process. And I think if we have a good process, we can trust it will take us to the appropriate outcome, which may be different than the outcome we thought was going to be the appropriate outcome when we started the conversation. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. I think, as you mentioned, tailoring discussions to each individual patient and situation is really critical. And I think in every other podcast episode across guidelines we've really emphasized the importance of shared decision-making. And so talking through the process of it in this guideline will really have impacts across all of ASCO's guidelines. Moving on to the next section of the guideline, this guideline also addresses barriers in the communication process. So Dr. Gilligan, what highlights are there for overcoming barriers to communication, facilitating discussions of cost of care and financial toxicity, mitigating stigma, and setting boundaries with patients? Dr. Timothy Gilligan: Yeah, it's interesting. I want to hear Dr. Chou's perspective on this too. I thought that the communication skills are really important for these conversations, but less powerful or less effective, potentially. For instance, barriers to communication, the big one that comes to mind is language differences. If the patient and the clinician do not share the same language, that results in less good care unfortunately. It results in less good communication. Having skilled translators or interpreters there is essential, and using them with skill is essential, but it does not get us to equality. I mean the best thing for a patient is to have a clinician who speaks their language. Unfortunately, that's not possible. So the second best thing we can do is to have good interpreters or translators to help us work. And then for us to use those people effectively, because oftentimes we cut corners when working with interpreters and shortchange the patient. So it is important to do the best we can. I think it is also important to acknowledge that it's a challenge and no matter how good your communication skills are, it's not going to be the same conversation if you're talking through another person versus directly to the patient. Similarly, with financial toxicity, it is important to talk about it. We need to be open about it. We need to talk to patients about it, but financial stress from healthcare is a real problem, and however well you communicate it, it doesn't make that problem go away. You know, in oncology, our drugs are obscenely expensive, and I can't communicate my way to lower prices. So I can talk about it and legitimize it and empathize, but I feel like I have more power in the other sections to really change the outcome by communicating well than I do with these. But it is important to talk about it. Patients are hugely affected by the cost of care and we need to talk about it with them. I do think for mitigating stigma and setting boundaries, then our communication skills become more powerful. We see everyone in the healthcare system, and when working with individuals who have been subject to stigma because of aspects of their identity, we can help lessen their vulnerability and fear by proactively letting them know that we will strive to avoid perpetuating that stigma, that we will treat them with respect and address them as they wish to be addressed, that we will care for them as dignified and valued human beings. That is not always their experience in the system, but we can choose to be different. We can choose to do better. And our communication skills are important because listening and curiosity are super important in that space. Because if we are talking to people who may be different from us, we need to learn about them by listening and being open and being curious, and replacing, if we have any tendency towards judgment, to replace judgment with curiosity. With setting boundaries, I think it is also really important. I don't think you can show up and be fully present with patients the way I want to, the way we want other people to, if we don't know that there are boundaries. And we know this in other aspects of our care, right? I go into the room and I do intimate physical exams and I ask about intimate aspects of the patient's life. And I'm allowed to do that because there is a non-negotiable barrier to any kind of sexual or romantic contact between me and my patients. We know there's a hard wall there that we don't cross that line, so that when I am doing an intimate exam, we know where that stops and that we're not going to cross boundaries there. But the same thing applies verbally, and I think doctors sometimes and other healthcare professionals sometimes feel like they need to accommodate the patient no matter what. I was hoping the guidelines would send a strong message that, you know, we don't need to put up with disrespectful behavior. That when you go into the room, as a clinician or as a patient, you should be treated with respect. You should feel safe, you should feel like you belong, and if patients are behaving in a way that violates that, then clinicians have a right to speak up and to set limits and to set boundaries. And if we know those boundaries are there, then I think we can lean in closer. If we don't know those boundaries are there, then we kind of have to hold back to protect ourselves. And just to give one of like a million examples you can give, I don't know a woman in healthcare who hasn't had a patient say something sexually inappropriate to them at some point. And that's not okay. I want my colleagues to know that's not okay, and it's okay to set boundaries and they don't have to put up with that. And my hope is that if we know where the boundaries are, then we can step in closer. That's my perspective on these, but Calvin, please, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Dr. Calvin Chou: I want to double-click on everything that you said, Tim. It is so important that we recognize what we have control over and what we don't have control over. And what we don't have control over, for example, language discordance or financial woes of a patient, I have no possible way of controlling that. And so the best I can do in those situations is to sit with them, empathize, and do what I can, whatever power I might have in advocacy or I often refer folks to a social worker that I work very, very closely with, because I have no agency over any of that. At the same time, when we talk about mitigating stigma in healthcare encounters, we have full control over the biases that we have. We may not be aware of them, but we do have control over them ultimately. And so it is up to us really to examine our practices, to see where we have maybe been steered in the wrong direction, where we double down on internal implicit biases that we have carried for our entire lives. And that requires that we approach all of our encounters with everybody in healthcare, with humility, and with an extra eye toward understanding how we are coming across to them, and whether or not at least some of those interactions are infused with bias that we can decrease. And then finally, with the idea of boundaries, there are boundaries in two directions, as Tim was saying a moment ago, that there are boundaries that we must place in between ourselves and patients during examinations and also during interactions. And there's also boundaries that we have to set up that require that we uphold the standards ethically of clinical medicine. And that is, there are certain things- I would never ask a patient out, for example, on a date. And that's an important proscription; that's an important boundary that we must set up between ourselves and patients. Those are clear barriers that we must not breach. There are some barriers that are a little bit less clear. For example, there are some instances where physicians are asking patients who have means to perhaps contribute to a foundation or contribute to the university or to make a large donation to an institution. In some instances, that's a much less clear boundary. For myself, I feel uncomfortable making those kinds of requests, and there are other instances where those requests are actually not just okay to do, but the patient is willing to do those kinds of things. So I think we need to consider that these boundaries are not always set in stone. Sometimes the boundaries move, sometimes the boundaries are different. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I think this latest question covered a lot of ground, and I think some key points here are that treating everyone with dignity is really paramount to this guideline. Recognizing the challenges even when they're not solvable is really important, such as thinking about financial issues or perhaps not speaking the same language as a patient. And then building trust and mutual respect between patients and clinicians to establish clear boundaries is really important as well. So, I want to thank you both for reviewing at a high level the recommendations and the strategies from this guideline, and I encourage listeners to review the full guideline and tables for all of the recommendations and strategies to implement these clinical recommendations. So, Dr. Chou, this guideline panel also addressed one education question. So, what are the recommendations for effective ways for clinicians to enhance their communication skills? Dr. Calvin Chou: Thanks for asking, Brittany. When we talk about all of these communication skills, Dr. Gilligan and I have talked for a long time about all these individual communication skills. These are not skills that are necessarily naturally formed within us and that we just roll out without any practice. And that's why we both feel, if I can speak for you, Tim, that we both feel that communication skills training, and high-quality communication skills training, is deeply important. This is training that is less about I'm listening to this podcast and therefore I can communicate better, it's more about skills practice opportunities, experiential learning, oftentimes using that horrifying word 'roleplay' that people don't like to think about roleplay before they're in it, but then once they've done those skills exercises they realize how important it is to actually have practiced some of these skills so that when you get into the real situation, you have an approach to it as opposed to trying to just improvise or make it up on the fly. The other aspect of communication skills training that is deeply important is not just forming the words and speaking to somebody else, it also needs to incorporate practitioner self-awareness and situational awareness that allows us to understand what's going on within us emotionally and attitudinally so that we are interacting moment by moment with patients and their support networks in a way that's authentic, that brings the appropriate amount of vulnerability and expertise to deepen trust between all of those relationships. And finally, when we talk about communication skills training, there are ways to do this kind of training that, I've used ChatGPT, for example, when I'm having some difficulty wondering how to navigate a particular situation, sometimes you can use ChatGPT to give you some suggestions on how to approach that interaction. But at the same time, the most important thing is to be able to have really meaningful practice with other people, with other human beings. Because as much as I might interact with a computer, that computer is not a human being. And what we are talking about is interpersonal communication with emphasis on 'person'. And us as human beings, we understand, in a way that ChatGPT probably will never fully understand, the nuances of the emotional reactions and the importance of human connection between people when we talk to each other. And so therefore, if we can't depend on computers to do this communication skills training, we need institutions to emphasize and invest in all of our continuing ability to communicate effectively with everybody in healthcare. This is probably one of the most important outcomes of this guideline, is not just that communication skills are important, and not just that communication skills training is important, it's that we need everybody to invest in everybody's ability to communicate with each other on the highest possible level that we can bring. Brittany Harvey: Yes, I think it's really important that the panel addressed this question, to emphasize that it's not just individual clinicians, but institutions that really need to value communication and this training to make sure that clinicians are being the most effective communicators that they can be. So, I'd like to move on to the next question, and Dr. Gilligan, ask, in your view, what is the importance of this guideline and how will it impact both clinicians and people with cancer? Dr. Timothy Gilligan: So I would build off of what Dr. Chou was just talking about, which is what we're hoping is that it will serve as a resource that will give people interested in communicating better guidance on where to go, what to do, what are the best practices, what do we know at this time. if you want to get better, what are the methods that are going to help you get better. And ideally I hope it will inspire people to want to get better. Communicating is such a fundamental part of our day-to-day work in healthcare that it needs to be something that we're very, very good at. And as professionals we should aspire to be as good as possible. A lot of this stuff is pretty basic, but we forget to do it. When I had young kids and was teaching them to ski, one of the ski instructors said to me once that there were Olympic skiers who trained at the same mountain where my kids were learning. And he said they would go down easy slopes and just practice basic techniques still. They were good enough to ski in the Olympics going at crazy speeds, but they kept going back to their fundamentals. And my son is a serious soccer player and they do role plays in soccer. They practice drills. They have scenarios they know are going to come up and they artificially recreate that scenario and they practice it over and over again. There's a famous line from a college football coach that you don't practice it until you get it right, you practice it until you can't get it wrong. And I think if people would bring that sense of professionalism to communication, it's a lifelong journey. I'm still trying to get better. It requires practice, it requires discipline. There's a lot that we know, but it doesn't happen without practice. And as Dr. Chou was saying, it's a motor skill. You don't learn it by reading about it. You don't learn it by listening to us talk about it. You learn it by practicing it. And I practice with patients. Not in the sense that I'm doing an experiment, but I work on my skills with patients. And I see how it goes. And when things don't go well, I think of what I could have done differently. And when things do go well, I think of what did I do that helped it go well that I need to make sure I do again next time. And I think I'd love to see people adopt an attitude that they want to be fantastic communicators and they want to get better. And I think the guidelines provide a lot of clues and steps to take for all of us to get better. Dr. Calvin Chou: I heard Tim, you talk about communication being a procedure and that we would never think about going into a room and sticking a central line into a patient without having practiced that over and over and over again to get it right. Not to get it right, to never get it wrong, like you were just saying. And so if we think about communication as the most common procedure in healthcare, then it behooves us all to do the best we can with it. It is a frame shift because we are communicating with each other all the time, oftentimes without thinking. And what we're advocating right now is for everyone to really bring it in terms of communication skills in all settings, because the effect of ineffective communication is not necessarily just making people feel bad. As Tim said at the top of the program, it also impinges on quality of care. It's not just the right thing to do, it's the safe thing to do. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And highlighting the fundamentals here and practicing them as clinicians will improve each healthcare interaction. So then, finally, to wrap us up, Dr. Chou, earlier you mentioned ChatGPT and thinking about maybe some technological advances and how those will impact in the future. What are the outstanding questions and priorities for future research for optimal patient-clinician communication? Dr. Calvin Chou: I think there's a lot we still need to learn about in this very, very nascent time of interacting with generative artificial intelligence. We won't know what things are going to be like probably even tomorrow given the vast advances that AI is allowing us to do. And also, as I was mentioning earlier, what AI can never do is to bring the human element into these interactions. And I think that's part of what, maybe that's a lot of what brings people to healthcare, is if they're in need and they have some physical issue that we need to help them solve, it's not just a physical issue, it also is a deep emotional experience. And we have heard many times now cautionary tales of when AI has led people astray to then, for example, allow them to die by suicide. And that is the last thing that we can allow to happen in healthcare. That is the ultimate low-quality item. We need to make certain that everybody is cared for with high quality and high safety. And we're definitely not there yet with AI. We hope that at some point we'll be able to work with AI in order to bring even better healthcare than we have right now, and I think that has been demonstrated to be possible. That is one major outstanding question that we're all going to have to wrestle with. Brittany Harvey: I think that's absolutely a key point. With generative AI quickly evolving, there need to be guardrails in place. And like any intervention, thinking about how to maximize the benefits of it and reduce the harms to make sure that you're preserving that human interaction and communicating effectively, and that patients can receive their health information in an appropriate way. So I want to thank you both so much for your work to update this guideline, to draft all of these recommendations and the strategies, and work with the entire panel to create this excellent product. So thank you for all that work and thank you for your time today, Dr. Chou and Dr. Gilligan. Dr. Timothy Gilligan: Thank you. Dr. Calvin Chou: Thank you, Brittany, 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/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 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.

Episode 257 – Peptides for Sexual Wellness & Hormonal Health: PT-141, Growth Hormones, Bone Health & More!

Let's Talk Wellness Now

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 3, 2026 36:43

Dr. Deb Muth 0:00 Welcome back to Let’s Talk Wellness Now. I’m your host, Dr. Zab, and we are continuing our discussion this week on 0:08 peptides. And so, if you haven’t heard our first conversation about peptides, 0:13 please go back and look at that episode. We talk all about the manufacturing, the safety, the quality of peptides, and we 0:20 dove into GLP1s. And today we’re going to dive into peptides for sexual 0:26 wellness, immune function, growth hormone, and all the amazing fun things 0:32 we can do with peptides. So, as usual, grab your cup of coffee or tea, settle 0:37 in, and let’s talk wellness now. And we’re going to take a short pause from our sponsor. I know we’ve got to do 0:44 that, you guys. They’re who keep us on the air. So, I’m going to pause for just a minute and be right back after this 0:50 message from our sponsor. Ladies, it’s time to reignite your vitality. Primal 0:56 Queen supplements are clean, powerful formulas made for women like you who want balance, strength, and energy that 1:03 lasts. Get 25% off at primal queen.com. Serenity Health. That’s primalqueen.com. 1:10 Serenity Health. Because every queen deserves to feel in her prime. All 1:15 right, everybody. We are back. And are you ready? We are talking all things peptide and I am opening the show today 1:23 with sexual wellness. Yes, I’m going there, you guys. I am going there. You 1:29 know, this has really become a big issue for people um of all ages. It’s not just 1:3 4us older people. It’s younger people, too. And there’s a whole variety of reasons why we have sexual dysfunction. 1:42 And when we’re talking about sexual dysfunction, we’re not just talking about it doesn’t work, right? Or I can’t 1:48 reach orgasm. A lot of it is around desire and um the thought of it and 1:54 wanting to connect, wanting to be kinder to one another, wanting to be touching 2:00 one another. A lot of it resolves or revolves around that. And so there are some peptides that can help us and I’m 2:08 really excited to be able to talk about those today. So the first one is called PT-141. 2:14 This targets the brain not the periphery. Right? So for many women I 2:20 will always tell you sex starts between here. It is a brain thing for us. It is 2:26 not necessarily a physical thing. For guys that’s a little different. It’s very physical. For women it’s all in our 2:32 brain. So tip for you men that are listening. You have to prime your woman’s brain first if you want her to 2:38 have sex with you that night. You have to be nice to her. You have to bring her flowers. Do the dishes for her. Do 2:45 something kind. Bring her a cup of coffee or tea or a glass of wine. Take her to dinner. You have to woo her. And 2:51 I don’t care how long you’ve been married. That has to happen. And tip number two, don’t say anything stupid 2:57 that day. I’m just being honest. When you guys say things that make us upset, 3:03 that lingers with us for the rest of the day. And it’s it’s a turnoff for us. And 3:08 for a lot of women, we can’t get past that when it comes time to snuggle at night. And sex doesn’t always have to be 3:14 at night either. So, you can tell I really love talking about this conversation, but we’re going to get into the peptide part of it because this 3:21 is going to help people. So, um, PT-141 is marketed as I’m going to slaughter 3:28 this name, Vali, and it represents a fundamentally different approach to 3:34 sexual dysfunction than the PDE5s inhibitors like Slenden, Viagra, 3:40 Tedataphil, which is Seialis. And while the PDE5 inhibitors work specifically by 3:47 enhancing blood flow to the genital tissues, PT-141 works centrally in the brain by 3:54 modulating neural s neural circuits involved in the sexual desire and 4:00 arousal. Now PT-41 is a cyclic hpatipeptide. It’s seven amino acid 4:07 peptide arranged in a cyclic structure that acts as a melanoortin receptor 4:13 agonist and with particularly the infinity for MC3R and MC4R subtypes. 4:20 It’s actually a metabolite of the melanotan 2, a peptide originally 4:26 developed for tanning that was also found to enhance sexual desire in early 4:31 studies. Now the melanoortin system in the brain is involved in multiple functions including energy homeostasis 4:39 but it also is involved in sexual motivation and arousal behaviors. The FDA approved PT-141 in 2019 specifically 4:48 for the treatment of acquired generalized hypoactive sexual desire 4:54 HSDD in permenopausal women. So for the first time we have a medication that was 5:01 approved by the FDA to use for women for sexual dysfunction. We have had all of 5:07 these seialis tedataphil viagros for men but we had nothing for women. And so 5:12 this is amazing that this is available for women and approved by the FDA. It’s a big deal. This represents the first 5:19 and only FDA approved medication specifically targeting these circuits of sexual desire rather than the peripheral 5:27 arousal mechanisms. And this indication is quite specific, meaning it was developed at some point, not lifelong. 5:35 So I if you’ve had sexual dysfunction your entire life, this medication was 5:40 not approved for you. But if it’s something that you developed over time, like when you went through pmenopause or 5:46 menopause or some women have this experience happen after childirth, that’s what we’re talking about here. 5:53 Now, it’s also not just um supposed to be used if you dislike your partner, 5:59 right? If your relationship is bad and you dislike your partner, this probably isn’t going to fix a ton. It might help 6:05 a little bit, but that’s not what it’s meant for. So, you really have to know what you’re using it for and why. And 6:11 the other thing that I would say is this is something that we don’t go to if your hormones are not balanced properly. You 6:17 have to balance your hormones properly before using something like this because it still may not work. Now, the only 6:24 caveat to that is if you’re a woman that has a risk of breast cancer and can’t use hormones, then that’s a different 6:31 story and we would have that conversation about whether or not this medication would be appropriate for you. Now, the FDA label specifies PTA1 uh 6:39 PT-141 as it not being indicated for HSDD in causes where low sexual desire 6:46 is due to coexisting medical or psychiatric conditions, problems with relationships, like we had talked about, 6:53 side effects to medications or other substance use. This specifically reflects the importance of differential 6:59 diagnosis. Low sexual desire can have many root causes and PT-41 is only 7:05 appropriate when those causes have been ruled out. Now, I have I used PT41 in 7:10 people who have sexual dysfunction issues as a result of using 7:16 anti-depressants. Yes, I have. I’ve used Flynn in that effect as well. And it 7:21 does work sometimes, but it doesn’t work completely. But you need to know that that is not what the approval is for the 7:27 FDA. So that is done in something that we call off label use. So very important 7:33 to know. Now in these clinical trials leading to FDA approval, this was published by Kinsburg and colleagues in 7:40 obstetrics and gyne gynecology in 2019. PT-141 demonstrated statistically 7:46 significant improvements in sexual desire and decreases in distress related 7:51 to low desire compared to placebo. The effects manifest over 45 minutes to 7:56 several hours after the injection and the mechanisms involved modulation of dopamine and melanoorton pathways in the 8:04 hypothalamus and the brain regions that involved sexual motivation. Now cardiovascular effects of PT 141 require 8:12 careful attention. This drug causes transient increases in blood pressure about 3 to four points and transient 8:20 decreases in heart rate. And because of this, it is contraindicated in patients 8:25 with uncontrolled hypertension or known cardiovascular disease. And it has been studied in patients who’ve had recent 8:32 cardiovascular events or sorry hasn’t been studied hasn’t been studied in patients who’ve had recent 8:39 cardiovascular events. So patients need to have their blood pressures checked before starting therapy. Nausea is 8:45 extremely common. It is one of the biggest things I often will tell people to take an anti-nausea medicine if 8:52 they’re going to do this because the last thing you want to do is inject this medication and think it’s going to give 8:57 you this great time with your partner and you’re so nauseated that you can’t even perform, don’t want to kiss, don’t 9:05 want to do anything. It it can be pretty profound for some people. um it does affect about 40% of the patients in 9:12 clinical trials which is why many clinicians require or recommend an 9:17 anti-nausea medication like I had just said other common adverse effects include flushing injection site 9:24 reactions headache in about 13% of the population which I have seen worse if 9:30 people are prone to headaches and the headaches are pretty intense so I will also have them premedicate if they have 9:36 that um sensitivity ity with a Tylenol or Advil, Alie, whatever it is they 9:42 typically use for their headaches to help prevent that from occurring. Now, some patients also experience a 9:50 generalized hyperpigmentation of their skin, particularly in areas with chronic friction, and this may not be reversible 9:57 after discontinuation. So from an integrative perspective, PT-41 10:03 represents one tool in addressing female sexual dysfunction, but it should never be the first or only intervention. And 10:11 low sexual desire in women is complex. Multiffactorial involving hormonal imbalances, low testosterone, estrogen 10:18 deficiency, progesterone imbalances, thyroid dysfunction, adrenal dysfunction, and with elevated or 10:24 disregulated cortisol levels, sleep deprivation, relationship issues, unresolved trauma, including sexual 10:31 trauma, chronic pain, body image concerns, and medication side effects such as SSRIs are notorious for this. So 10:39 a comprehensive hormone panel including total and free testosterones, estradile, 10:45 progesterone, DHEA, thyroid function in cortisol assessment, ideally four-point 10:51 cortisol, salivary should precede any pharmacological intervention. And additionally, addressing the 10:57 psychological component and relationship dimensions through appropriate therapy is necessary. I have a lot of patients 11:03 that say, “This is just too much work for sex. I don’t want the side effects. I don’t want to deal with this.” and that’s totally fine. But for some 11:09 people, their sexual dysfunction is actually causing more problems on their 11:14 relationship and they want to do something to fix that. And just know that if you’re using a peptide like this 11:20 that comes with some of these side effects and you have to premedicate for it, it is not the end of the world. Um, 11:27 but it may be a possibility that you may need that. So, let’s dive into body composition and growth hormone access. 11:34 So Tesmarellin is the only FDA approved GH 11:40 analog. Tesarelin is marketed as Agrifta and Agria SV. It is a synthetic analog 11:48 of human growth hormone releasing hormone. So GH RH human growth hormone 11:53 releasing hormone. These things are such long names it’s confusing and it’s difficult to spit out, right? It 11:59 consists of 44 amino acids. The structure is identical to our own 12:05 body’s growth hormone GHR um with the addition of trans3 hexonol group which 12:14 stabilizes the molecule that extends its half-life compared to the native GHR. 12:19 The mechanism of tesmarellin is elegant in its preservation of physiological 12:24 growth hormone GH secretion patterns and rather than administering an exogenous 12:30 growth hormone directly, tesmarillin binds to the GH receptor in the anterior 12:36 pituitary gland stimulating the indogenous pulsatile release of GH. So 12:42 you know it it’s slower in that stimulation and it pulsates instead of a direct rise and fall. This pusile 12:49 pattern more closely mimics natural GH secretion which occurs in bursts 12:54 primarily during sleep. The GH then stimulates the liver to produce insulin-like growth factor IGF-1 which 13:01 exerts many of the downstream metabolic effects including lipolytic effects on 13:07 the atapost tissue. So fat atapose and how we break that down. The FDA approved 13:13 tesmarellin in 2010 for a very specific narrow indication, the reduction of 13:19 excess abdominal fat in HIV infected patients with lipodistrophe. This 13:25 condition characterized by abnormal fat redistribution with accumulation of visceral body fat and the loss of 13:32 subcutaneous fat in face and limbs developed as a complication of an 13:37 antiviral therapy particularly with older protease inhibitor reg uh 13:42 regimens. The visceral fat accumulation in patients is not just cosmetic. It’s associated with increased cardiovascular 13:49 risk, insulin resistance, and inflammatory markers. The pivotal trial that led to the FDA approval included 13:56 work by Stanley and colleagues published in the annuals of internal medicine in 2014. It demonstrated that tesmarillan 14:03 significantly reduced the visceral atapose measured by CT scan by approximately 15 to 20% which is a 14:10 significant difference to placebo over a short period of time only 26 weeks. Now, 14:16 interestingly, the total body uh weight typically remained stable or even 14:21 increased slightly as the reduction of visceral fat was sometimes offset by increases in lean body mass or 14:28 subcutaneous fat. This highlights an important point. Tesmearellin is not a weight loss drug in its conventional 14:34 sense. Its effects are specifically on body composition and fat redistribution. 14:40 Now the glucose metabolism effects of tesmarellin do require careful monitoring because GH and IGF1 can 14:47 induce insulin resistance. Tesmearellin can increase glucose levels and hemoglobin A1C and in these clinical 14:54 trials glucose tolerance and new onset diabetes occurred in some patients. So 14:59 this creates a therapeutic paradox while res reducing visceral fat we should theoretically improve metabolic health. 15:07 The GH mediated insulin resistance can worsen the glycemic control and patients 15:12 with diabetes require particularly close monitoring. The potential need for adjustment in diabetic medications can 15:19 occur. So I already know what you guys are thinking. Can I use Tesmarellin and 15:24 GLP1 at the same time? And the answer is yes. Especially in those people that we 15:30 know have an insulin resistance already or are prone to that, we can use lowd 15:36 dose micro doing GLP-1 along with tesmarellin to help prevent this from 15:42 occurring um or reduce the risk of it occurring. Now there are some other adverse related problems to growth 15:49 hormone access which include fluid retention which can uh manifest as uh 15:55 ankle swelling, joint pain, muscle pain, paristhesas, carpal tunnel syndrome is 16:01 common to see. Of course you can always see injection site reactions reported about 26 to 30% of the time in the trial 16:08 participants. And this also theoretically has a concern about IGF-1 elevation potentially promoting 16:14 malignancy through long-term data is limited. So we have to be cautious about 16:20 this but it is a growth hormone and anything that is a growth hormone can cause cells to grow and it cannot 16:26 necessarily differentiate between healthy cells and bad cells. So the drug is contraindicated is contraindicated in 16:33 patients with active cancer and in patients with the disruption of the HPA access from conditions like pituitary 16:40 tumors, pituitary surgery, head of radiation um and traumatic brain injury. 16:46 Now off label use of tesmarellin for general anti-aging or body composition 16:51 optimization in non-HIV population, it doesn’t have FDA approval. There is no 16:58 FDA studies. um that promote this, but practitioners do prescribe it for these 17:04 purposes under an experimental and not supported by FDA approved indications. 17:10 And um from an integrative medical standpoint, optimizing natural growth 17:15 hormone secretion through lifestyle interventions, high quality sleep is important. GH primarily is excreted 17:22 during sleep and deep sleep waves. So improving your deep sleep is important. Intermittent fasting can also increase 17:28 growth hormone by five-fold as demonstrated in a Hartman and colleagues uh study from the journal of clinical 17:35 endocrinology and metabolism in 1992. And highintensity interval training, adequate dietary protein, blood sugar 17:42 control, these all can help naturally increase your growth hormone. So, let’s 17:47 dive in now and talk about bone health. peptide hormones um such as oh I’m gonna 17:54 I’m gonna really slaughter this name. Terraparatide is a true bonebuilding 18:01 peptide. It’s marketed as forio. It’s a recumbent form of the first 34 amino 18:08 acids out of 85 of the human parathyroid hormone PTH. It represents a unique 18:13 approach to osteoporosis treatment because it’s one of the few truly anabolic anabolic bone therapies meaning 18:21 it actively binds new bone rather than simply preventing bone loss. The biology 18:26 of parathyroid is fascinating and seemly contraindicated or uh contradictory. 18:32 Continuously sustained elevations of PTH as occurs in hyperarathyroidism 18:37 is catabolic to bone. So people who have hyperarothyroidism typically have significant bone loss 18:44 especially before it’s diagnosed and it causes causes increased bone 18:49 reabsorption loss of bone density increased fracture risk and however 18:55 intermittent exposure to PTH as achieved with once daily uh injections of forio 19:01 has the opposite effect. This intermittent exposure preferentially stimulates osteoblasts bone building 19:08 cells over osteoclasts bone reabsorbing cells and it leads to 19:13 the net bone formation. So terraparatide binds to the PTH receptors on 19:20 osteoblasts and renal tubular cells in bone. It increases the number of 19:25 activity of osteoblasts stimulating the differentiation of osteoblast precursor cells and may 19:32 reduce osteoblast apoptosis basically programmed cell death allowing this bone 19:37 building cell to work longer. The result is increased bone formation, improved bone architecture and tbacular 19:45 connectivity and ultimately increased bone mineral density um particularly in the hip and the spine which is so 19:51 difficult to regain. The FDA approved this medication in 2002 based on pivotal 19:57 studies by Near and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2001 which demonstrated significant 20:05 reductions in vertebral and non-vebral fractures in post-menopausal women with 20:11 osteoporosis. specifically uh reduced new vertebral fractures by 20:17 65% and nonvettebral fragility fractures by 53% 20:23 compared to placebo over a median followup of 21 months. This is really 20:29 incredible because we have not seen this kind of um change uh in other 20:35 medications that we’ve used for osteoporosis. So current FDA approval 20:40 indicates uh this for post-menopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk for 20:46 fracture, men with primary or hypoconatal osteoporosis at high risk for fracture 20:53 and men and women with glucocord cord glucocordide 21:00 induced osteoporosis at high risk for fracture. The high risk qualifier is 21:05 important. uh terrapeptide is reserved for patients with severe osteoporosis, 21:11 multiple fractures, very low low bone density and those who have failed or are 21:16 intolerant of other therapies. The most significant concern for this medication 21:21 is highlighted in a boxed warning with rat toxicology studies where it caused 21:27 osteioaroma which is a bone cancer in a dose dependent and treatment duration dependent manner. The revolence of this 21:34 finding to humans is debated. Rats have fundamentally different bone biology than humans with continuous bone growth 21:41 throughout life and different PTH receptors. Now post marketing 21:46 surveillance in humans hasn’t shown a clear increase in osteocaroma risk but 21:51 theoretically concerns persist and because of this terapeptide is 21:57 contraindicated in patients at risk baseline risk for osteioaroma 22:02 including those with pageantss disease of the bone unexplained elevations of alkaline phosphate prior skeletal 22:10 radiations bone metastases or skeletal malignancies and pediatric patients or young adults 22:16 with open hyes. There’s also a lifetime treatment duration of only 2 years and 22:22 terrapeptide can cause transient hypercalcemia. So an elevated blood calcium and as PTH normally increases 22:31 calcium levels by enhancing bone reabsorption, increasing renal calcium 22:36 reabsorption and promoting activation of vitamin D which increases intestinal calcium absorption. Some patients 22:43 experience orthostatic hypotension within 4 hours of injecting requiring 22:48 caution in at risk populations for blood pressure. Common side effects include 22:53 muscle pain, joint pain, pain in the limbs, nausea, headache, and dizziness. So from an integrative bone health 23:00 perspective, terrapeptides should be part of a comprehensive strategy. Adequate calcium intake, 500 to a,000 23:08 milligrams of calcium a day from food and supplements combined. and vitamin D. 23:13 Getting vitamin D levels of at least 50 to 80 are essential for the drug to work 23:20 optimally. But beyond this, bone health requires vitamin K2, which directs calcium into the bones rather than soft 23:27 tissues, magnesium as a co-actor in bone metabolism, trace minerals like boron, 23:33 copper, silica, and of course, adequate protein intake, which many of us, especially as women, don’t do 0.8 8 to 1 23:42 gram of protein per kilogram of body weight, weightbearing exercise. Of 23:47 course, these all provide mechanical signals that complement the biochemical 23:52 symbol uh signals of terrapeptide. Sequential therapy is also critical. The 23:58 bone mass gains from terraparatide can be lost if patients don’t transition to 24:05 an anti-resorbbitive agent a bisphosphinate after completing this therapy and the anabolic effects to 24:12 build bone but maintaining the new bone requires preventing excess reabsorption. 24:18 So positive things about this but there are definitely some concerns as well. So 24:23 the next one we’re going to talk about is Lu Prolrooide. It is marketed under 24:29 the multiple brand names of Lupron, Depo, Eligard, and it’s a synthetic 24:34 nonapeptide analog of naturally occurring ginonadotropen releasing 24:39 hormone G&R, also called luteinizing hormone releasing hormone, LHR. 24:46 It’s a fascinating example of how manipulating natural hormonal feedback systems can create therapeutic effects. 24:53 So, G&RH is normally secreted in a pulsatile fashion by the hypothalamus 24:59 and travels to the anterior pituitary where it binds to G&R receptors and 25:05 stimulates the release of luteinizing hormone LH and follical stimulating hormone FSH. These ginatotropins signal 25:13 the ovaries or the testes to produce sex hormones, estrogen, progesterone in 25:18 women, testosterone in men. Uh, luoprololi lupron as a GNR agonist 25:26 initially mimics the action of natural G&R causing an acute flare response with 25:33 uh increased LHFSH secretion which temporarily increases sex hormone 25:38 production. However, the continuous administration which is in the depo 25:44 formulations, the GNR receptors in the pituitary become desensitized and 25:50 downregulated. And after about 2 to four weeks of continuous exposure, LH and FSH 25:56 secretion is profoundly suppressed, leading to what’s termed as chemical 26:01 castration. Testosterone levels in men drop to castrated levels less than 50 26:08 and estrogen production is marketkedly suppressed in women. This bifphasic 26:13 response creates both therapeutic applications and management challenges in prostate cancer where tumor growth is 26:20 typically androgen dependent and the ultimate goal is testosterone suppression. However, the initial 26:27 testosterone surge during the flare phase can temporarily worsen symptoms potentially causing increased bone pain, 26:34 urinary obstruction, or even spinal cord compression in patients with metastatic 26:40 disease. This is why uh luoprolide is often started with an anti-ad androgen 26:47 like bicladamide for the first two to four weeks to block the effects of the 26:52 testosterone surge. The FDA has approved lupalide for multiple indications across 26:59 formulations. In oncology, it’s used for palletive treatment of advanced prostate cancers. In gynecology, various 27:06 formulations are approved for endometriosis, for pain management and lesion reduction and for fibroids. 27:13 Typically for pre-operative uh hematological improvement in anemic patients. In pediatrics, it’s used for 27:20 central precocious p puberty basically to halt the premature sexual development of these young people. Now, there are 27:28 adex uh adverse effect profile that reflects profound hormonal suppression. 27:34 In men treated for prostate cancer, hot flashes affect about 59% of the patients. Other common effects include 27:41 general pain, swelling, bone pain. Um long-term use of these medications leads 27:47 to metabolic changes. It increases fat mass. It decreases lean mass. It worsens 27:53 insulin sensitivity, disrupts the cholesterol uh lipid panels, increases 27:59 diabetic risk, has some concerns over cardiovascular disease. And the metaanalysis have shown increased risks 28:06 of heart infarction, myocardial inffection, sudden cardiac death, and stroke in populations receiving 28:13 long-term androgen deprivation therapy. The bone effects are particularly dramatic. Without sex hormones, bone 28:20 density decreases significantly, typically 3 to 4% per year during the 28:26 first two to three years of therapy. And this bone loss may not fully be reversible after the the therapy 28:32 discontinues. The American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends bone density monitoring and consideration of 28:39 bisphosphinates uh in men receiving long-term androgen deprivation. In women treated for 28:46 endometriosis or fibroids, the estrogen suppression creates a hypoestrogenetic state similar 28:54 to menopause. Hot flashes affect 90% of patients with other common effects 29:00 including headaches, emotional irritability, decreased sex drive, vaginal dryness, bone density loss. And 29:08 because of these bone concerns and treatment duration with endometriosis, typically limited to six months, though 29:14 some formulations allow for longer use with adback hormonal therapy to 29:20 partially mitigate these side effects. The mood and cognitive effects can be s 29:25 significant. I’ve seen it over the years. the depression, the memory impairment, difficulty focusing and 29:31 concentrating. It can be very very traumatic and the quality of life that 29:37 happens for these uh women and men can be unbearing for many of them. Um, from 29:44 an integrative perspective, patients receiving this medication need comprehensive support care. Bone health 29:51 interventions using calcium, vitamin D, vitamin K2, weightbearing exercise, 29:58 cardiovascular risk management becomes critical, including blood pressure monitoring, lipid management, diabetes 30:05 screening. For hot flashes management, some patients respond to black coohos, 30:10 sage, or vitamin E. Though evidence is mixed and individual response varies, 30:16 omega-3s may help with the mood and the inflammation, resistance training becomes specifically important to 30:22 preserve lean muscle mass in the face of hormonal suppression. 30:27 Now there’s something called calcetonin salamon which is marketed as miaelin. 30:34 It is a nasal spray. It is now discontinued. And foral is the new 30:39 synthetic polyeptide hormone of 32 amino acids identical to calcetonin of salamon 30:47 origin. It represents an interesting case study in how initial promise gives 30:52 way to safety concerns that regulate a therapy to historical footnote status. 30:58 Calcetonin is naturally occurring hormone in humans. It’s secreted by the paraphalicular sea cells in the thyroid 31:04 gland. Its primary physiological role is to lower blood calcium levels by 31:10 directly inhibiting osteoclast activity, reducing bone reabsorption, increasing 31:16 renal calcium secretion or excretion, and possibly reducing the intestinal 31:21 calcium absorption. So, salamon calcetonin is used therapeutically because it’s more potent and longer 31:27 acting than human calcetonin. The FDA initially approved calceton and salmon 31:34 for several indications post-menopausal osteoporosis in women more than five 31:39 years post-menopausal when alternative treatments are not sustainable. Padet’s 31:44 disease for bone and hypercalcemium as emergency treatments. The nasal spray formulation is particularly popular for 31:53 osteoporosis because it offered a non-injectable alternative to bisphosphinates. 31:58 However, in 2012, the European Medicine’s Agency, EMA, conducted a 32:05 comprehensive safety safety review after a poolled analysis of 21 clinical trials 32:10 involving over 10,000 patients showed a statistically significant increase in 32:15 malignancy risk in patients treated with calceton salamon compared to compared to 32:21 placebo. The overall malignancy rate was 4.1% in calcetonin treated patients 32:28 versus 2.9% in placebo patients. The types of cancer 32:34 varied with no single cancer type predominating, making it difficult to establish a clear mechanistic link. 32:41 However, the signal was concerning enough that the EMA restricted the use of calcetonin containing medicines. In 32:48 the United States, the FDA issued communications about malignancy signal and conducted its own review. While they 32:56 didn’t fully withdraw the drug, the cons consensus shifted dramatically. The nasal spray formulations miaelson was 33:03 voluntarily discontinued by the manufacturer and current clinical practice guidelines now consider 33:10 calcetonin salamon as a second line or lower option for osteoporosis. While 33:15 behind bisphosphinates, dennism mob, uh, terrapeptide, the analesic effect of 33:21 calcetonin in bone pain, particularly in acute vitibbral, uh, compression 33:26 fractions from osteoporosis or pageantss disease may still provide a role for short-term use in these selected 33:32 patients. The mechanism of this pain relief is unclear, but may involve 33:38 effects of endorphin systems and/or direct actions on pathways. The history serves as an important reminder in 33:45 peptide medicine. Initial approval and early clinical use does not guarantee 33:50 long-term safety effects. Post marketing surveillance and poolled analysis of the clinical trial data can reveal adverse 33:58 effects that weren’t apparent in initial studies. It also underscores why newer 34:04 agents with better safety profiles um have largely replaced calcetonin in 34:10 clinical practice. So this is really an important thing. Not one thing stays the same forever. We have to change as we 34:18 identify new and better products as we identify problems and concerns. I will 34:24 always tell my patients if you are uncertain of taking a new drug which we 34:30 all should be wait five years. Within five years we are going to find the 34:36 problems that they didn’t find in the clinical studies. Remember, a lot of these clinical studies are small, small 34:43 groups, short periods of time. It’s expensive to do these trials. So, if you 34:49 wait for five years, in the first two to three years, you will see the problem start to emerge. And what are you going 34:55 to look for? You’re going to look for the the news um commercials from lawyers 35:02 suing a drug. And they will tell you what the problem is. and then you can decide, is this something that I want to 35:09 use or not. Don’t jump on bandwagon and be the first one to do this, especially 35:14 if you’re sensitive. You know, give it time so you can see exactly what’s going on. So, I’m going to end our show on 35:22 this and we are going to pick up on part three of peptide therapy in our next 35:28 segment where we’re going to talk about the investigational peptides and some 35:34 exciting things that are happening with that. So, I want to thank you for joining me today on Let’s Talk Wellness 35:39 Now. It’s always a pleasure having a conversation with you guys and I hope this brings value to you with what we’re 35:45 talking about. If you have ideas for topics that you want me to discuss, 35:51 please message us, you can share your comments on Facebook, you can email us, 35:58 um you can get a hold of us however you would like to share that. I do look at the comments below in the episodes as 36:04 well. So you can place your comments there. And once again, one of the best things you can do for me is like, 36:11 subscribe, and share so that we can spread the messages of what we’re doing. 36:16 I do this at no cost. I don’t make any money out of this. I do this as an 36:21 educational purpose for everybody else. I love doing it, but it really helps us 36:28 on the algorithms if you would be just willing to like, subscribe, and share. 36:33 So, thank you for spending your time with me. I know time is important.The post Episode 257 – Peptides for Sexual Wellness & Hormonal Health: PT-141, Growth Hormones, Bone Health & More! first appeared on Let's Talk Wellness Now.

Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer Guideline Update

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 26, 2026 28:55

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.

White Blood Cell Growth Factors Guideline Update

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 25, 2026 23:22

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.

new york university canada growth table journal ontario grade factors guidelines apple app store google play store asco weill cornell medicine csf clinical oncology choosing wisely white blood cells jco g csf csfs cxcr4 asco guidelines

Mother's Grief: Loss Through the Lens of Motherhood

professor md hong kong approaches surgical ng early stage lung cancer cantonese clinical oncology chinese university nsclc vats

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 24, 2026 30:37

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

god university spotify art apple mother miami minnesota tennessee grief chief hospitals journal md feelings empathy mama motherhood mississippi iv lens rochester gu oncology gee ewing asco jude children research hospital grief loss hematology louis university clinical oncology brookhaven wash u caringbridge jco sylvester comprehensive cancer center pediatric hematology oncology mikkael sekeres cardinal glennon

Policy in Practice: Change Hits the Clinic

Cancer Buzz

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 17, 2026 20:11

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)

practice mba md policy hits app pac clinic johnson johnson mhs clinical oncology texas society fasco

• LCC in Cantonese: Updates in Surgical Approaches and Techniques in Early-Stage Lung Cancer

Lung Cancer Considered

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 13, 2026 54:31

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)

NCI Working Group on Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer

The Cancer History Project

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 12, 2026 28:15

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.

italy journal cat albert einstein psa historically mri harvard medical school embark johns hopkins hormonal prostate cancer genoa asco psas working group recurrent national cancer institute mdt beth israel deaconess medical center madan pfs clinical oncology nci bcr jco psma national cancer institute nci psma pet asco gu kaplan meier mcspc

Funmi Olopade on how life in Nigeria and South Side Chicago inspired her career in cancer genetics

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 12, 2026 40:43

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/

North Star: The Importance of Presence in Pediatric Oncology

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 10, 2026 24:34

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.

university spotify art apple miami italy chief presence hospitals journal impossible assistant professor north star pediatrics incredibly turin oncology manuela paulo coelho asco hematology clinical oncology pediatric oncology jco alda merini sylvester comprehensive cancer center mikkael sekeres mikkael

Therapy for Stage IV NSCLC With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline Update 2026.3.0 Part 2

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 3, 2026 19:36

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.

chinese therapy staying journal fish iv driver guidelines pcr rna apple app store google play store cns mariposa puri asco stage iv alterations her2 egfr pfs clinical oncology ngs nsclc adcs reuss moffitt cancer center pd l1 ihc jco ctdna ros1 egfr tkis t dxd l858r egfr tki asco guidelines

Therapy for Stage IV NSCLC Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline Update 2026.3.0 Part 1

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 3, 2026 18:03

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.

A Chance to Heal with Cold Hard Steel: The Fine Surgical Line Between Healing and Harming

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 27, 2026 30:15

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.

god university spotify art english apple healing professor miami colorado italy ohio medicine chief spider man journal cold heal fellow columbus iv frozen steel ent kindle belly ohio state university mm emory university cms surgical oncology harming pca mms asco hematology aua clinical oncology western slope jco american urological association goodstein sylvester comprehensive cancer center dilaudid mikkael sekeres

TdC 318: Neutropenia febril - 5 Clinicagens

Ta de Clinicagem

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 21, 2026 45:52

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

research european blood management current cancer md treatments recommendations quando pe shock mart published fever infection medicina refer leukemia ib predictive cohorts markers aac nou quantitative optimisation prisma suppl hematology blood transfusions clinical oncology leukaemia early death neutropenia infectious diseases society jco european organization ann intern med european conference cdk4 cochrane database syst rev empiric procalcitonin naproxen clin infect dis s2352 j clin oncol medicine baltimore lancet infect dis clin microbiol infect

Systemic Therapy in Patients With mCRPC: ASCO Living Guideline 2026.1

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 20, 2026 13:37

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.

ai peace journal patients os treatments fda guidelines pd apple app store google play store asco brca msi adt dana farber cancer institute clinical oncology parp taplin jco ctdna psma systemic therapy hrr arpi asco guidelines

The Quiet Work of Clarity: Seeing Into the Future at the End of Life

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 13, 2026 29:46

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.

covid-19 united states university spotify art english apple doctors miami chief irish journal clarity quiet stanford boy taiwan stanford university illness ama gi oncology rice university end of life asco hematology bair clinical oncology middle english texas medical center jco mikail cancer stories sylvester comprehensive cancer center wills eye hospital mikkael sekeres

Association Between EOL SACT and Healthcare Utilization

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 8, 2026 23:00

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)

united states canada canadian italy healthcare journal patients claims medicare correct public policy icu seer part b royalties genoa asco part d md anderson cancer center adelson md anderson clinical oncology eol canavan kerin jco quantum health national quality forum chief quality healthcare utilization transcript dr

Treatment of Multiple Myeloma: ASCO-OH (CCO) Living Guideline

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 6, 2026 22:18

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.

university toronto hospitals journal treatments guidelines cart hicks apple app store google play store asco multiple myeloma clinical oncology myeloma mikhael jco cd38 hope cancer center asco guidelines

Final Silence: The Weight of Unspoken Words

Stand Up! with Pete Dominick

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 23, 2025 26:14

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.

united states university spotify chicago art english apple professor miami reading medicine dad silence chief cancer journal weight korea korean assistant professor seoul oncology unspoken asco hematology medical oncology clinical oncology jco asco annual meeting korea university cancer stories sylvester comprehensive cancer center mikkael sekeres mikkael

1504 Dr. Zeke Emanuel + The Shitshow news recap

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 18, 2025 90:56

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

america director university world health president future new york times phd office management medicine arts healthcare wisconsin budget bbc cnn md atlantic wall street journal standup washington post council npr harvard university sciences msnbc national institutes world health organization american academy oxford university humanities levy senior fellow harvard medical school prescription venmo co director american society medal subscription national academy mount sinai director general affordable care act biochemistry foreign relations royal college lifetime achievement award health policy bioethics shit show american families special advisor medical college amherst college american progress icahn school vice provost news recap md anderson cancer center guggenheim fellow global initiatives national economic council macalester college clinical oncology apple podcasts listen american physicians pennsylvania perelman school public service award zeke emanuel pete dominick ezekiel j emanuel

Management of Cancer During Pregnancy Guideline

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 11, 2025 34:50

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.

university management medicine pennsylvania cancer journal montana pregnancy guidelines drs ob gyn ironically leukemia apple app store google play store hodgkin partridge asco dana farber cancer institute mfm her2 dvt perelman school dpd clinical oncology apgar westernized jco asco guidelines asco guidelines podcast

Milan Consensus Endpoints for Bladder Preservation in MIBC

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 11, 2025 27:18

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.

Smell: The Scent of Inevitability

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 9, 2025 23:49

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.

university spotify art english apple talk professor miami michigan medicine pennsylvania dad chief illinois wisconsin journal iowa va assistant professor smell parkinson madison square garden ann arbor hospice malcolm gladwell scent oncology english literature cleveland clinic iowa city asco inevitability hematology midwesterners mcat clinical oncology md dr cusick case western jco cancer stories sylvester comprehensive cancer center mikkael sekeres mikkael

JCO at 2025 ASH: Pirtobrutinib in Untreated CLL

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 9, 2025 20:17

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

united states north america journal poland alliance fda ash ohio state university american society astrazeneca davids roche oncology merck sequoia janssen novartis median krakow btk bruin asco schrodinger genentech hematology abbvie bristol myers squibb wojciech takeda dana farber cancer institute afib untreated bruton pfs friedberg clinical oncology cll jco cd20 tp53 ash annual meeting sll genmab loxo bcl2 adaptive biotechnologies disclosures dr mei pharma ighv

Are You Bereaved? Allowing Yourself to Grieve a Patient

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 25, 2025 21:45

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.

university spotify art apple professor miami michigan minnesota medicine chief journal patients md assistant professor remembrance ann arbor grieve oncology mississippi river palliative care asco jude children research hospital hematology bereaved go blue clinical oncology rochester medical center jco sekeres cancer stories sylvester comprehensive cancer center pediatric hematology oncology mikkael sekeres mikkael

The Man at the Bow: Remembering the Lives People Lived Prior to Cancer