Podcasts about egfr

“Colorectal cancer treatment is not just about eliminating a disease. It's about preserving life quality and empowering patients through every phase. So I think nurses are really at the forefront that we can do that in the oncology nursing space. So from early detection to survivorship, the journey is deeply personal. Precision medicine, compassionate care, and informed decision-making are reshaping outcomes. Treatment's just not about protocols. It's about people,” ONS member Kris Mathey, DNP, APRN-CNP, AOCNP®, gastrointestinal medical oncology nurse practitioner at The James Cancer Hospital of The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, told Jaime Weimer, MSN, RN, AGCNS-BS, AOCNS®, manager of oncology nursing practice at ONS, during a conversation about colorectal cancer treatment.  Music Credit: “Fireflies and Stardust” by Kevin MacLeod Licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 3.0  Earn 1.0 contact hour of nursing continuing professional development (NCPD) by listening to the full recording and completing an evaluation at courses.ons.org by August 1, 2026. The planners and faculty for this episode have no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies to disclose. ONS is accredited as a provider of nursing continuing professional development by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation. Learning outcome: Learner will report an increase in knowledge related to the treatment of colorectal cancer. Episode Notes  Complete this evaluation for free NCPD. ONS Podcast™ episodes: Episode 370: Colorectal Cancer Screening, Early Detection, and Disparities Episode 153: Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Has More Treatment Options Than Ever Before ONS Voice articles: Colorectal Cancer Prevention, Screening, Treatment, and Survivorship Recommendations Genetic Disorder Reference Sheet: Lynch Syndrome (Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer) How Liquid Biopsies Are Used in Cancer Treatment Selection Oncology Drug Reference Sheet: 5-Fluorouracil Oncology Drug Reference Sheet: Oxaliplatin What Is a Liquid Biopsy? Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing article: Colorectal Cancer in Young Adults: Considerations for Oncology Nurses Oncology Nursing Forum article: Neurotoxic Side Effects Early in the Oxaliplatin Treatment Period in Patients With Colorectal Cancer ONS Colorectal Cancer Learning Library ONS Biomarker Database (filtered by colorectal cancer) ONS Peripheral Neuropathy Symptom Interventions American Cancer Society colorectal cancer resources CancerCare Colorectal Cancer Alliance Colorectal Cancer Resource and Action Network Fight Colorectal Cancer National Comprehensive Cancer Network To discuss the information in this episode with other oncology nurses, visit the ONS Communities.  To find resources for creating an ONS Podcast club in your chapter or nursing community, visit the ONS Podcast Library. To provide feedback or otherwise reach ONS about the podcast, email pubONSVoice@ons.org. Highlights From This Episode “Colorectal cancer has several different types, but there is one that dominates the landscape, and that is adenocarcinoma. So I think most of us have heard that. It's fairly common, and it accounts for about 95% of all colorectal cancers. It begins in the glandular cells lining the colon or rectum and often develops from polyps, in particular adenomatous polyps.” TS 1:41 “One of the biomarkers that we'll most commonly hear about is KRAS or NRAS mutations. This indicates tumor genetics, and these mutations suggest resistance to our EGFR inhibitors such as cetuximab. BRAF mutation or V600E is a more aggressive tumor subtype, and those may respond to our BRAF targeted therapy. … And then our MSI-high or MMR-deficient—microsatellite instability or mismatch repair deficiency—that really predicts an immunotherapy response and may indicate Lynch syndrome, which is a huge genetic component that takes a whole other level of counseling and genetic testing with our patients as well.” TS 6:02 “Polypectomy or a local excision—that removes our small tumors or polyps during that colonoscopy. And that's what's used for those stage 0 or early stage I cancers. A colectomy removes part or all of the colon. This may be open or laparoscopic. It can include a hemicolectomy, a segmental resection, or a total colectomy, so where you take out the entire part of the colon. A proctectomy removes part or all of the rectum. This may include a low anterior resection, also known as an LAR … or an abdominal perineal resection, which is an APR. … Colostomy or ileostomy—that diverts the stool to an external bag via stoma. Sometimes this is temporary or permanent depending on the type of surgery.” TS 14:11 “We'll have our patients say, ‘Hey, I want immunotherapy therapy. I see commercials on it that it works so well.' We have to make sure that these patients are good candidates for it, also that we're treating them adequately. We need to make sure that they have those biomarkers, so as I mentioned, the MSI-high or MMR tumors. Our MSS-stable tumors—they may benefit from newer combinations or clinical trials. Metastatic disease—immunotherapy may be used alone or with other treatments. And then in the neoadjuvant setting, some trials are really showing promising results using immunotherapy prior to surgery.” TS 25:38 “Antibody-drug conjugates are really an exciting frontier in all cancer treatments as well as colorectal cancer treatment. This is used mainly for patients with advanced or treatment-resistant disease, and these therapies combine the targeted power of monoclonal antibodies with the cell-killing ability of potent chemotherapy agents. They're still on the horizon for the most part in colorectal cancer. However, there is only one approved antibody-drug conjugate, or ADC, at this time, and that's trastuzumab deruxtecan, or Enhertu. That's approved for any solid tumor, such as colorectal cancer with HER2 IHC 3+. So again, looking back at that pathology in those markers, making sure that you have that HER2 mutation and that IHC.” TS 35:00 “There are a few myths going around about colorectal cancer treatment that can lead to confusion or even delayed care. One myth is only older men get colorectal cancer. As you heard me talk in my previous podcast on screening, unfortunately, this isn't necessarily true. Colorectal cancer affects both men and women and our cases in the younger population are rising. So our screening guidelines have changed to age 45 because we are seeing it in the younger population.” TS 45:54

What does effective kidney care look like in the primary care setting—and who's really involved beyond your GP? In this first of a special two-part series, host Dee Moore is joined by Dr. Kristin Veighey to explore the crucial yet often misunderstood role of primary care in managing chronic kidney disease (CKD).   This episode takes you beyond the GP, highlighting the power of the multidisciplinary team—including specialist nurses, pharmacists, health coaches, social prescribers, and mental health professionals—and how each plays a unique role in supporting kidney health.   Together, they discuss: • The definition and purpose of primary care vs. secondary care • Why CKD is often overlooked or mismanaged in primary care settings • The impact of legacy thinking, outdated guidelines, and unclear care pathways • How to navigate the system, understand who does what, and advocate for yourself • The importance of tracking your eGFR, blood pressure, and asking the right questions during health checks   This empowering episode is designed to help you take control of your kidney health journey by understanding your rights, responsibilities, and the full range of support available to you.  

In today's episode, we spoke with Joshua K. Sabari, MD, about the use of telisotuzumab vedotin-tllv (Emrelis) in patients with c-MET–overexpressing, nonsquamous, EGFR wild-type advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Dr Sabari is an assistant professor in the Department of Medicine at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine; as well as the director of High Reliability Organization Initiatives at the Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York.  In our exclusive interview, Dr Sabari highlighted key data from the phase 2 LUMINOSITY study (NCT03539536) investigating telisotuzumab vedotin in this patient population, the significance of targeting c-Met overexpression, and how findings from the ongoing phase 2 TeliMET NSCLC-04 trial (NCT06568939) of telisotuzumab vedotin in patients with c-Met–overexpressing, locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC may further influence the NSCLC treatment paradigm. 

Welcome to another impactful episode of The OncoAlert Weekly Roundup — your go-to source for the latest breakthroughs in oncology, hosted by Gil Morgan.

In this episode, we discuss the evidence, safety, and place in therapy of Journavx® (suzetrigine), a newly approved analgesic with a unique non-opioid mechanism of action and additional considerations for its use. Key Concepts Suzetrigine is a first in its class NaV1.8 sodium channel blocker approved for short-term (14 days or less) pain relief in adults with moderate-to-severe pain. Unlike opioids, suzetrigine is non-sedating and non-dependence forming. Suzetrigine is taken as a whole pill without cutting, crushing, or chewing following a particular dosing schedule where the first dose is taken on an empty-stomach.  The most common side effects of suzetrigine include pruritus, muscle spasms, increased CPK, rash, and transient (reversible) eGFR decrease. Suzetrigine goes through CYP3A metabolism and therefore has significant interactions with CYP3A inducers and inhibitors. Use with strong inhibitors and moderate to strong inducers is not recommended. Dose reduction of suzetrigine is required if used with moderate inhibitors of CYP3A.  Although not formally adopted in a guideline recommendation, suzetrigine's current place in therapy can be moderate-to-severe acute pain relief in adult patients after NSAIDs/APAP options are exhausted, but before or in place of opioid therapy.  References Bertoch T, D'Aunno D, McCoun J, et al. Suzetrigine, a Nonopioid Na V 1.8 Inhibitor for Treatment of Moderate-to-severe Acute Pain: Two Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials. Anesthesiology. 2025;142(6):1085-1099. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000005460

On this week's episode, Eric Schmidt, Brad Loncar, Tim Opler and Tess Cameron kick off with a discussion on the surgein biotech M&A, with 2025 almost matching 2024's deal count and surpassing it in value ($40B YTD vs $30B), highlighting recent deals like Merck's acquisition of Verona and AbbVie's purchase of Capstan. The group debateswhether this signals a true “M&A wave,” noting pharma's $150 billion of LOE approaching and reduced macro uncertainty could be driving deal flow. They alsonote a current competitive dynamic around commercial-stage assets. Shifting to policy, Trump's “Big Beautiful Bill” introduces key IRA exemptions for rare diseases and on tariffs, the co-hosts note the market's quiet reaction andwonder if investors are becoming desensitized to D.C. headlines. As M&A steadies and drug launches hold strong despite pricing pressure, some stability seems to be on the way. On the regulatory front, the group praises the FDA'simproved communication under new leadership, citing their strong online presence and experience with media. Despite the FDA's recent rejection of Capricor's cell therapy for DMD, optimism remains about the therapy's potential. Despite the improved communication discussed earlier, questionsabout the FDA's transparency arise following the agency's issuance of CRLs to be more transparent; it remains uncertain if this trend will continue. Conversation shifts to data, overviewing KalVista's approval of Ekterly, thefirst oral calcineurin inhibitor approved for hereditary angioedema attacks and ProKidney's cell therapy that showed improved eGFR slope in CKD patients in aPhase 2 trial, skyrocketing shares. The episode closes with a conversation on obesity trends. *This episode aired on July 11, 2025. 

Solange Peters, MD, PhD - Partnering With Patients: Shared Decision-Making in Locally Advanced, Unresectable EGFR-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Solange Peters, MD, PhD - Partnering With Patients: Shared Decision-Making in Locally Advanced, Unresectable EGFR-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Solange Peters, MD, PhD - Partnering With Patients: Shared Decision-Making in Locally Advanced, Unresectable EGFR-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Solange Peters, MD, PhD - Partnering With Patients: Shared Decision-Making in Locally Advanced, Unresectable EGFR-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

FDA Approval: Datopotamab Deruxtecan for EGFR NSCLC by IASLC

Dr. Joshua Reuss joints that podcast to discuss the latest changes to the living guideline on stage IV NSCLC with driver alterations. He discusses the new evidence for NSCLC with EGFR mutations and NRG1 fusions and how this impacts the latest recommendations from the panel. He shares ongoing research that the panel will review in the future for further updates to this living guideline, and puts the updated recommendations into context for clinicians treating patients with stage IV NSCLC. Read the full living guideline update “Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2025.1” at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-25-01061 Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I'm interviewing Dr. Joshua Reuss from Georgetown University, co-chair on "Therapy for Stage IV Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer With Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2025.1." It's great to have you here today, Dr. Reuss. Dr. Joshua Reuss: Thank you. Happy to be here. Brittany Harvey: And then before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO conflict of interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Reuss, who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So to dive into what we're here today to talk about, Dr. Reuss, this living clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer with driver alterations is updated on an ongoing basis. So what prompted this latest update to the recommendations? Dr. Joshua Reuss: Yes, thank you. It's very important that we have living guidelines that are continuously updated. We obviously don't live in a static environment where things are non-changing, and we really need to apply the most up-to-date and current evidence to treat our patients with the most effective strategies, the most groundbreaking strategies. And so to have guidelines that can be disseminated, particularly these ASCO guidelines, to treating providers is incredibly important. So, with any of these updates, we review ongoing studies, published work, for the quality of evidence to see if it's something that warrants making adjustments to our guidelines or at least incorporating the information so that providers can review it and incorporate this into their own personal decision-making. So in this particular update, we reviewed evidence particularly pertaining to EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer and non–small cell lung cancer harboring an NRG1 fusion. Brittany Harvey: Yes, certainly there's a lot of new evidence in the advanced non–small cell lung cancer field, and so we appreciate the panel's continuous review of this evidence. So then you just mentioned two separate areas where the panel reviewed new evidence. So starting with that first one, what updated evidence did the panel review on first-line treatment options for patients with EGFR alterations, and how did this impact the recommendations? Dr. Joshua Reuss: Yes, so advanced EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer, at least with classical activating alterations - that is our exon 19 deletions and our exon 21 L858R mutations - is something that's really evolved rapidly in the last few years. You know, for many years, we basically, for the frontline treatment setting, were saying, "Okay, we have a targeted therapy, osimertinib. We're going to give that, and we're going to see what effect we can get out of that," with, you know, a median time of duration of treatment response averaging around 18 months, knowing that there are some that that's a lot longer and some that are a lot shorter. But recently, we've seen a lot of data emerging on combination strategies. The guideline has already been updated to incorporate two of these combinations: osimertinib with chemotherapy based off of the FLAURA2 trial, and then the combination of amivantamab with lazertinib based off of the MARIPOSA trial. And that was data on progression-free survival that was published and led to those particular recommendations. Now, more recently, we've seen data come out in smaller, randomized studies for other combinations. And more recently, we reviewed the RAMOSE study. So this was a phase II, open-label, randomized trial for patients with tyrosine kinase inhibitor–naive and really, treatment-naive advanced EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer harboring one of these two classical EGFR alterations, randomized to either osimertinib alone or osimertinib with the combination of ramucirumab, which is an anti-VEGF agent. There's been a lot of data, preclinical and clinical, for the role of VEGF blockade, particularly in EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer, so exploring the combination of this for synergy in the frontline setting really made a lot of sense. So again, this was a phase II trial that randomized patients prospectively to one of these two regimens. The population here is really what we typically see with EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer, predominantly a younger population - median age on this study was 65 - predominantly female - 71% female - and predominantly nonsmokers. Now, what this study showed was that at a median follow-up of 16.6 months, the progression-free survival favored the combination arm with a median progression-free survival of 24.8 months with the combination of osimertinib plus ramucirumab versus 15.6 months for osimertinib alone, for a hazard ratio of benefit of 0.55. The landmark one- and two-year endpoints for progression-free survival also favored the combination arm, and response rates were relatively comparable between groups, with overall adverse events being more frequent in the combination group, specifically high blood pressure, proteinuria, and epistaxis, which are our common adverse events related to VEGF-blocking agents. So, it's good to see data in this space. Now, of note, though, this was a phase II study, so not a phase III level of evidence. In addition, when looking at the population, this was a randomized, multicenter study, but it was a US-only population. There was also some imbalance in the number of visits between arms, so the combination arm was seen more frequently than the arm that got osimertinib alone. Now, the imaging assessments were no different, but obviously this could lead to potential confounding, at least in timing of awareness of potential side effects and and things being brought to the attention of investigators. So very promising data here, but because, you know, of this being a phase II study, this actually led to no changes in the guideline at this time. Brittany Harvey: Understood. Yes, as you mentioned prior, it's important to understand the full body of evidence and to review the trials even when it doesn't impact the recommendations. Dr. Joshua Reuss: And I will say that, you know, there is an ongoing phase III study looking at a very similar combination. It's the phase III ECOG-ACRIN trial of the combination of osimertinib plus bevacizumab versus osimertinib alone in this specific population. So, you know, I think we will see phase III–level data for a combination of VEGF with osimertinib, but again, promising phase II data that did not lead to a change in the recommendation at this time. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. We'll look forward to that ongoing trial to learn more about combination in this patient population. So then moving to that second patient population that you mentioned earlier where the panel reviewed evidence, what is the updated evidence and recommendation for patients with NRG1 fusions? Dr. Joshua Reuss: Yeah, so this was an exciting update that we made more recently with this unique iteration of the living guidelines. So, NRG1 fusions, this is perhaps a newer kid on the block in terms of driver alterations that has been known to be identified in non–small cell lung cancer among other solid tumors. It is very rare, occurring in less than 1% of solid tumors, but something that we know is a unique oncogenic pathway that can lead to oncogenesis and cancer development, including in non–small cell lung cancer. So up until now, unfortunately, there have not been targeted therapies that target this unique alteration. It's somewhat different than other driver alterations where there's a top-level signaling change in a protein. This is more of a ligand alteration that then alters, that then enables activation of more classical pathways, but again, through upregulation of a unique ligand. So a slightly different pathway but something that we know should be able to be targeted to promote patient survival for those with NRG1 fusions. So the therapy here is a therapy called zenocutuzumab. It's an IgG1 bispecific antibody against HER2 and HER3. So it prevents the downstream dimerization and signaling that occurs as a result of this NRG1 fusion and upregulation of the NRG1 signal. This was, as you can imagine with a rare alteration, a large phase II registrational study that examined this in advanced solid tumors containing the NRG1 fusion. This is the NRG1 registrational trial. And this study enrolled patients with advanced solid tumors who had progressed on prior therapy. Patients were treated with zenocutuzumab 750 milligrams IV every two weeks. Among 158 response-evaluable solid tumor patients, the response rate was 30%, median duration of response of 11.1 months, and a median progression-free survival of 6.8 months. Now, in those with non–small cell lung cancer, that made up 93 response-evaluable patients, very similar outcomes there: a response rate of 29%, median duration of response of 12.7 months, and a median progression-free survival of 6.8 months. This therapy did appear to be well tolerated. The most common higher-grade emergent side effects - grade 3 or higher - were anemia occurring in 5% and elevated liver numbers occurring in 3%. So this is a subsequent-line study, so this led to the updated recommendation that clinicians may offer zenocutuzumab in the subsequent-line setting for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer who harbor NRG1 fusions. So I think this does speak toward the incredible importance of next-generation sequencing and molecular testing for patients, particularly to include testing that looks at the RNA. These large fusions can sometimes be very challenging to detect on DNA sequencing platforms alone, so it's important to, if you have a high level of suspicion for an alteration like this, perhaps some of the mucinous adenocarcinomas where it's been challenging to find a driver alteration, and it's someone who is a never-smoker, really would want to include molecular testing that assesses the RNA level and not just the DNA. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. It's important to have all the biomarkers available so that clinicians are able to use that to inform their decision-making. So then, given these changes in the guideline, what should clinicians know as they implement this latest living guideline update? And how do these changes impact patients? Dr. Joshua Reuss: Yeah, I think talking in reverse order of what we just discussed here, there is a new guideline update for NRG1 fusions. So I think making sure that that's being evaluated, that clinicians are testing for that and really looking for that result that should be incorporated in in most next-generation large sequencing assays to get that result, but it's very important that that is not overlooked now that we do have a therapy that's available in the subsequent-line setting, though it is important to note that patients with NRG1 fusions, at least the limited data that there is suggests that the efficacy to standard chemoimmunotherapy regimens is overall poor. So physicians unfortunately might be facing this question for second-line therapy in patients with NRG1 fusions sooner rather than later. For the former, for EGFR-altered non–small cell lung cancer and how do we incorporate VEGF-containing regimens into these patients? Our guideline top-level update did not change based off of review of this new study, but it's important for clinicians to know what other combinations may exist. You know, there are phase III studies looking at this combination in the frontline setting. And of course, there is data on other bispecific molecules that incorporate VEGF in the subsequent-line setting, particularly a combination that includes the VEGF/PD-1 bispecific antibody ivonescimab that's being studied in the HARMONi-A trial for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer, for which we hope to get some more definitive data in the coming months. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. And then you've just mentioned a few ongoing trials where we're looking for evidence to inform future updates. But thinking beyond that, into the future, what is the panel examining for future updates to this living guideline? Dr. Joshua Reuss: It's a very exciting time to be in the world of treating advanced non–small cell lung cancer, particularly patients with driver alterations, because there is so much evolving data that's changing our practice in real time, again highlighting the importance of these living guideline updates. I'd say there's many things that we're excited to see. You know, a lot of the combination regimens in EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer for which there are approvals and current recommendations in our guideline, particularly osimertinib plus chemotherapy and amivantamab plus lazertinib - those are the two approved combination strategies in the front line - we are now seeing the emergence of overall survival data for those combinations. So obviously that is something that's going to be very important for the committee to review and incorporate into guideline updates. There are several new therapies coming down the road for other driver populations. We recently saw an approval for taletrectinib for ROS1 fusion–positive non–small cell lung cancer, so it's going to be important that the committee reviews the data and the publications regarding that therapy. And then there are other novel therapies that we're looking to see updated data on. There are multiple antibody-drug conjugates, which take the potent power of a chemotherapy molecule and attempt to make that targeted with an antibody targeting to a unique feature on the cancer cell. And there are several antibody-drug conjugates that are in development at various levels of promise in this space, particularly in EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer, and I anticipate seeing some emerging data for that coming up in the near future as well. So really, lots to be excited in the space and lots for our committee to review to give guidance on so that these patients can really receive the top-level care wherever they are being treated in the country and throughout the world. Brittany Harvey: Yes, we'll await this new data to continue to provide optimal options for patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer with driver alterations. So, Dr. Reuss, I want to thank you so much for your work to rapidly and continuously update and review the evidence for this guideline and thank you for your time today. Dr. Joshua Reuss: Thank you so much. Brittany Harvey: And finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available on the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

FDA Approval: Sunvozertinib for EGFR Exon 20 by IASLC

In today's episode, supported by Thermo Fisher Scientific, we had the pleasure of speaking with Apar Kishor Ganti, MD; and Allison Cushman-Vokoun, MD, PhD, FCAP, about the FDA approval of the Oncomine DX Express Test for use as a companion diagnostic for sunvozertinib (Zegfrovy) in EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation–positive non–small cell lung cancer and for use in tumor profiling. Dr Ganti is a professor in the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) Division of Oncology & Hematology, the Dr. and Mrs. D. Leon UMNC Research Fund Chair in Internal Medicine, and the associate director for Clinical Research at the Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center in Omaha. Dr Cushman is the Henry F. Krous Professor of Pathology, a professor in the UNMC Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, director of the Division of Diagnostic Molecular Pathology and Human Genetics, medical director of the Molecular Diagnostics and Personalized Medicine Laboratory at Nebraska Medicine, director of the Molecular Genetic Pathology Fellowship Program, and associate director of the UMNC MD-PhD Scholars Program.  In our exclusive interview, Drs Ganti and Cushman discussed the significance of the launch of the Oncomine DX Express Test, the benefits and limitations of rapid next-generation sequencing, and features that set Oncomine DX apart from other available tests. 

Welcome to HCPLive's 5 Stories in Under 5—your quick, must-know recap of the top 5 healthcare stories from the past week, all in under 5 minutes. Stay informed, stay ahead, and let's dive into the latest updates impacting clinicians and healthcare providers like you! Interested in a more traditional, text rundown? Check out the HCPFive! Top 5 Healthcare Headlines for June 30-July 6, 2025: Sebetralstat FDA-Approved as First Oral, On-Demand for Hereditary Angioedema The FDA approved sebetralstat (Ekterly) on July 7, 2025, as the first oral, on-demand treatment for hereditary angioedema attacks in patients aged 12 and older, backed by phase 3 KONFIDENT trial data. Rilparencel Improves eGFR Slope in Phase 2 CKD, Diabetes REGEN-007 Trial Rilparencel significantly slowed kidney function decline in CKD patients with diabetes in the REGEN-007 trial, showing dose-responsive eGFR slope improvements after two injections per kidney. J&J Submits sNDA to FDA for Lumateperone (CAPLYTA) to Prevent Schizophrenia Relapse J&J filed a supplemental NDA for lumateperone after phase 3 data showed a 63% reduction in schizophrenia relapse risk compared to placebo. FDA Publishes CRLs for Past Drug, Biological Product Applications The FDA publicly released over 200 Complete Response Letters from 2020–2024 to increase regulatory transparency and help accelerate future drug approvals. FDA Grants TSND-201 Breakthrough Therapy Designation for PTSD TSND-201 (methylone) received Breakthrough Therapy designation for PTSD on July 10, 2025, offering a potential rapid-acting alternative to SSRIs, which can take up to 12 weeks for full effect.

LCC in Portuguese: Virtual Tumor Board - EGFR NSCLC by IASLC

BUFFALO, NY – July 9, 2025 – A new #review was #published in Volume 16 of Oncotarget on June 25, 2025, titled “Challenges and resistance mechanisms to EGFR targeted therapies in head and neck cancers and breast cancer: Insights into RTK dependent and independent mechanisms.” Researchers from the University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Veterans Affairs Medical Center reviewed current research on why Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)-targeted therapies often fail in breast and head and neck cancers. The article by Shreya Shyamsunder, Zhixin Lu, Vinita Takiar, and Susan E. Waltz explores how cancer cells evade these treatments by activating alternative survival pathways. This review offers an in-depth look at the molecular barriers to EGFR inhibition and provides insights that could inform the development of more effective and durable treatments. EGFR is a critical protein that regulates cell growth and survival, and it is frequently overexpressed in breast and head and neck cancers. Although therapies targeting EGFR showed early promise, resistance has become a significant challenge. In breast cancer, resistance mechanisms include the movement of EGFR from the cell surface into the nucleus, where it promotes DNA repair, as well as ligand-dependent activation that helps tumor growth despite therapy. In head and neck cancers, resistance often arises from inflammatory signaling through the TLR4-MyD88 pathway and the loss of tumor suppressor genes like PTEN, which allow cancer cells to bypass EGFR inhibition. The review also describes how tumor cells in both cancers commonly activate other receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs), such as MET, AXL, and RON, to continue growing even when EGFR is blocked. By analyzing these resistance mechanisms, the authors highlight combination therapies from current research that target EGFR and other key molecular pathways. Strategies such as dual inhibition of EGFR and MET or blocking inflammation-driven survival signals may enhance treatment outcomes. Several clinical trials are evaluating these approaches in patients. For example, in breast cancer, combinations of EGFR inhibitors with chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors are being tested to improve responses, particularly in triple-negative breast cancer. In head and neck cancers, trials are investigating EGFR-blocking antibodies like cetuximab combined with immunotherapies such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab. These efforts aim to overcome resistance and provide more effective treatment options for patients with EGFR-driven tumors. The review also emphasizes the necessity of identifying biomarkers to predict which patients are most likely to benefit from EGFR-based therapies. “A recent phase 1 study has shown that patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer who received BCA101, a bifunctional dual targeting drug that targets EGFR and TGF-β in combination with pembrolizumab, were able to achieve an overall response rate of 65%.” This work brings together current knowledge about EGFR resistance and illustrates the difficulties involved in treating breast and head and neck cancers. By mapping the many ways tumors overcome EGFR inhibition, the review highlights opportunities for more tailored and effective treatments in the future. DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28747 Correspondence to - Susan E. Waltz - susan.waltz@uc.edu, and Vinita Takiar - takiarva@ucmail.uc.edu Video short - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD2W-F3_aX4 About Oncotarget: Website - https://www.oncotarget.com Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/Oncotarget/ X - https://twitter.com/oncotarget Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/oncotargetjrnl/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@OncotargetJournal LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/oncotarget Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/oncotarget/ Reddit - https://www.reddit.com/user/Oncotarget/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0gRwT6BqYWJzxzmjPJwtVh MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM

Wristband that provides relief for upper limb tremor is approved; FDA warns of clinically significant weight loss in younger kids taking ADHD meds; REMS removed for CAR T-cell immunotherapies; treatment approved for lung cancer patients with EGFR exon20 insertion mutations; and CDC committee recommends removing preservative from flu vaccines.

In this episode of Lung Cancer Considered, host Dr. Stephen Liu moderates a Virtual Tumor Board case with Dr. Chunxia Su and Dr. Collin Blakely. The case explores resectable EGFR NSCLC.

Send us a textCardiologist Michael Koren joins Kevin Geddings to discuss how kidney disease can offect other body systems, including the heart. The doctor explains that people with kidney dysfunction have significantly higher risks for cardiovascular problems including heart attacks, heart failure, and strokes. Dr. Koren differentiates between typical, insurance-driven care and the attentive clinical research experience, noting that the clnical research model may be better for many kidney disease patients.Be a part of advancing science by participating in clinical research.Have a question for Dr. Koren? Email him at askDrKoren@MedEvidence.comListen on SpotifyListen on Apple PodcastsWatch on YouTubeShare with a friend. Rate, Review, and Subscribe to the MedEvidence! podcast to be notified when new episodes are released.Follow us on Social Media:FacebookInstagramX (Formerly Twitter)LinkedInWant to learn more? Checkout our entire library of podcasts, videos, articles and presentations at www.MedEvidence.comMusic: Storyblocks - Corporate InspiredThank you for listening!

In this JCO Article Insights episode, host Peter Li summarizes "Taletrectinib in ROS1-Mutated Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: TRUST" by Pérol et al, published April 03, 2025, followed by an interview with first author, Dr Maurice Pérol. TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. Dr. Peter Li: Welcome to this episode of JCO Article Insights. I am Dr. Peter Li, JCO's editorial fellow, and today I am joined by Dr. Maurice Pérol on “Taletrectinib in ROS1-Mutated Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: TRUST,” by Pérol et al. At the time of this recording, our guest has disclosures that will be linked in the transcript. Before we start our interview, I want to give our listeners a quick summary of the TRUST study. For those tuning in, the TRUST study is a phase II, single-arm, open-label, nonrandomized, multicenter trial looking at the efficacy and safety of a novel, next-generation ROS1 TKI, taletrectinib, in advanced ROS1-mutated non–small cell lung cancer. While a relatively rare mutation, the prevalence of ROS1 mutations ranges from 0.9% to 2.6% of patients, with a third of patients presenting with brain mets at diagnosis.Current FDA-approved therapies include crizotinib, entrectinib, and repotrectinib, which have varying degrees of efficacy, in-coming with trade-offs in CNS penetrance and safety with newer generations, particularly in the realm of neurological side effects, highlighting an unmet need in this arena. A total of 273 patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer with confirmed ROS1 mutation were recruited for this study. 160 patients were TKI-naive, while 113 were TKI-experienced with either crizotinib or entrectinib. Patients with asymptomatic brain mets were also allowed to enroll. In the TKI-naive arm, the median age was 57, with 91% of patients having stage IV disease, 20% having no more than one cycle of chemo, and 23% having brain mets at baseline. In the TKI-experienced arm, the median age was 53, with 97% having stage IV disease, 37% having received prior chemo, and about 50% having brain mets. Furthermore, about 10% of the study population had received entrectinib, while more than 90% had received crizotinib. About 10% had a known G2032R acquired resistance mutation. Taletrectinib was dosed at 600 mg daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicities. The primary endpoint was overall response rate, with secondary endpoints being disease control rate, duration of response, time to response, and progression-free survival. For those with brain mets, intracranial overall response rate and disease control rate were also assessed. Median follow-up time was about 21 months in both cohorts. In the TKI-naive cohort, the overall response rate was 89%, with 8 patients achieving a complete response. Disease control rate was 95%, with a median duration of response of 44.2 months. Time to treatment response was about 1.5 months. Median progression-free survival was 45.6 months, with 52.6% not having progressed at 3 years. While overall survival data were immature, 66% of patients were still alive at 3 years. In the pretreated cohort, overall response rate was 56%, with 5 patients achieving a complete response. Overall response rate was 53% for those who were crizotinib-pretreated and 80% for the entrectinib-pretreated patients. Disease control rate was 88%, and median duration of response was about 16.5 months. Time to treatment response was also 1.5 months, and median progression-free survival was 9.7 months. Median overall survival was not reached, but 77.5% of patients were still alive at 1 year. Responses were consistently seen across subgroup analyses. 17 TKI-naive and 32 TKI-pretreated patients had measurable brain mets. In the TKI-naive arm, intracranial overall response rate was 77%. Disease control rate was 88%, and duration of response was 15 months. In the TKI-pretreated arm, intracranial overall response was 66%, with one patient achieving complete response. The disease control rate was 94%, and duration of response was about a year. For the 13 patients who had a known G2032R mutation, a 62% response rate was noted. Most common treatment-related side effects were AST/ALT elevation, nausea, and vomiting, with most being grade 1 or 2. Most common neurological side effects were dizziness, dysgeusia, and headache. Again, most were grade 1. QTc prolongation is another important adverse event to note, occurring in about 18% of all patients. Discontinuation rate from treatment was only 7%. There were three treatment-related deaths in this study: one from hepatic failure, one from pneumonia in the naive arm, and one from liver dysfunction in the pretreated arm. Dr. Peter Li: Maurice, thank you so much for joining us today to talk about your paper. Would you mind just giving yourself a brief introduction to the listeners out there of who you are? Dr. Maurice Pérol: So, my name is Maurice Perol. I'm a thoracic oncologist working in the Cancer Center of Lyon in France. And I'm involved in clinical research in thoracic oncology. I've been involved for many years now. Dr. Peter Li: Okay. And for listeners out there, don't forget, he's also the primary author of the paper that we just talked about. So, Maurice, let's begin. Can you tell our listeners what is the significance of your study? Dr. Maurice Pérol: Well, the results of these two large phase II studies - TRUST-I, which has been conducted in China, and TRUST-II, which was a global, worldwide phase II study - so, the results place taletrectinib as the TKI with the most favorable efficacy-tolerability ratio of the available ROS1-targeting TKIs, especially in frontline therapy. And this is based on the response rate, which was very impressive, the CNS penetration with a great CNS activity, the duration of response with a compelling 45 months median PFS in frontline setting. The level of activity in pretreated patients after crizotinib or entrectinib was also impressive and similar to that of repotrectinib, for example, but with a more favorable neurological tolerance profile. The toxicity is mainly represented with grade 1 or 2 transaminase elevation, but without clinical symptoms, and GI toxicity, but mainly grade 1 and 2. The neurological toxicity is low, especially for dizziness, showing that taletrectinib spares TrKB in a large part. And finally, there is also a decrease in toxicity over time, especially for GI toxicity and liver toxicities, which allows a very long and a prolonged administration, which is very important in this setting. Dr. Peter Li: These are all excellent points. Can you tell the listeners if there are any limitations that we should be concerned about, about this study? Dr. Maurice Pérol: Sure. This data comes from single-arm phase II studies. So, this is not comparative data. And a phase III trial, which compares taletrectinib to crizotinib, is ongoing to evaluate the superiority of taletrectinib over the standard of care. Another limitation comes from the lack of systematic brain imaging at each tumor evaluation in patients without brain metastases at baseline, not allowing to assess the intracranial PFS in all patients, and which did not allow us to assess the CNS protective issue from taletrectinib, especially in patients without brain metastases at baseline. Dr. Peter Li: Another question that I have is, with this novel TKI now available, how would you recommend the sequencing of these drugs? Would you start with someone on an alternate TKI and then reserve taletrectinib second line or later? Or would you use it upfront? Or does it depend? Dr. Maurice Pérol: Well, it is a very important question, as we have now different available TKIs. Looking at the efficacy-toxicity balance, I would strongly favor the use of taletrectinib in frontline setting, in first line. The response rate, the CNS activity, the duration of response with a very compelling 45 months median PFS, and moreover, the good tolerance profile over time are strong arguments in favor of giving taletrectinib in frontline. Generally speaking, the use of the most active agent as frontline treatment in lung cancer depending on an oncogenic addiction is probably the best way to improve the patient's outcome. This is true for patients with EGFR mutation, for patients with ALK fusions, and this is probably also true for patients with ROS1 fusion. So, I would probably argue in favor of a frontline use of taletrectinib. Dr. Peter Li: Listeners are going to ask, well, if you use taletrectinib upfront, then what are you going to use second line once they progress? Dr. Maurice Pérol: Well, we have some new compounds which are under development today. For example, the NVL-520, which is a very interesting compound, which seems also to be active in case of resistance mutation. But I do think that we have to use the best-in-class TKI in frontline because, you know, the extension of PFS after acquired resistance you can obtain with a second-line TKI is always shorter than the benefit you can obtain by using the most active agent in frontline. And this is true for the majority of oncogenic addiction in lung cancer. Dr. Peter Li: That makes sense. I also noticed that cognitive impairment wasn't listed in the safety table. Is that not an issue that you've observed at all with taletrectinib, or is it still an issue but less so because, like you mentioned earlier, because of its higher selectivity? Dr. Maurice Pérol: Well, this is a good question because we have some ROS1-targeting TKIs like repotrectinib, entrectinib, and even lorlatinib, with some neurological adverse events and some cognitive issues. Taletrectinib is a very selective ROS1-targeting TKI, and it spares very well the TrKB, for example, explaining that we did not observe any cognitive impairment with taletrectinib in the TRUST study, showing also with the low level of other neurological adverse events, dizziness, dysgeusia, for example, the high selectivity of the compound and the preservation of TrKB. So, this is very important when you consider the long duration of treatment in those patients with ROS1 fusion. If you have to take a drug for more than 2, 3, or 4 years, of course, the neurological adverse events are very important, and they can clearly impair the quality of life. So, this is a very important point, the very low level of neurological toxicity of taletrectinib. Dr. Peter Li: And I think that goes to say why you would favor using it frontline as well compared to entrectinib or repotrectinib. Last question that we have for you is: well, what's next? You mentioned there's a phase III trial comparing it to crizotinib. I think one of the questions that a lot of us would have is: why not compare it to one of the newer agents as a comparator arm? Dr. Maurice Pérol: Well, this is a good question. Crizotinib remains the standard of care in many countries for ROS1-positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer outside of the US, especially in Europe, and in particular in patients who do not have brain metastases at diagnosis. Entrectinib has a better CNS penetration, but it did not achieve a better PFS than crizotinib in phase I/II trials, and clearly, it has a less favorable tolerance profile with weight gain, edema, and neurological adverse events. Repotrectinib has overall a level of activity which seems close to that of taletrectinib. So, it makes it difficult to consider a comparative trial that would, for example, test taletrectinib in comparison with repotrectinib because this kind of study would need a very large number of patients and a very late readout. Considering if you have a median PFS of more than 3 or 4 years, it would be very difficult to have results in before 4-5 years. So, from a pragmatic point of view, the comparison of taletrectinib to crizotinib is probably the best way to evaluate in a phase III setting the level of activity of taletrectinib, especially in the CNS, because this study will probably allow us to assess the CNS protective effect of the compound for patients without brain metastates at baseline. So, I think probably it's a pragmatic study that will allow us to confirm the high level of activity and the good tolerance profile of taletrectinib. Dr. Peter Li: Well, thank you, Maurice, so much for speaking about the JCO article, “Taletrectinib in ROS1-Mutated Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: TRUST,” and for all your valuable input today. 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.  

In this episode, hear Allison Butts, PharmD, BCOP and Danielle Roman, PharmD, BCOP, share their insights on the best practices for incorporating antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) into clinical practice including:An overview of ADC structure and mechanism of actionA topline review of data supporting the current FDA-approved indications for ADCs targeting HER2 and TROP-2 across multiple tumor typesAn in-depth look at common and serious adverse events with each approved ADC along with an overview of management strategiesEditor's note: On June 23, 2025, the FDA granted accelerated approval for a new indication for datopotamab deruxtecan, one of the antibody drug conjugates discussed in this podcast. Datopotamab deruxtecan is now also approved for adults with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutated NSCLC who have received previous EGFR-targeted therapy and platinum-based chemotherapy. Program faculty:Allison Butts, PharmD, BCOPPharmacist Manager, OncologyClinical Pharmacist, Breast OncologyUK HealthCareMarkey Cancer CenterLexington, KentuckyDanielle Roman, PharmD, BCOPManager, Oncology Clinical Pharmacy ServicesAllegheny Health NetworkPittsburgh, PennsylvaniaProgram page:https://bit.ly/4lr7cT6

Dr. Vamsi Velcheti and Dr. Nate Pennell discuss novel treatment approaches in small cell and non-small cell lung cancer that were featured at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Hello, I'm Dr. Vamsi Velcheti, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm a professor of medicine and chief of hematology and oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. The 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting featured some exciting advancements in small cell lung cancer, targeted therapies for non-small cell lung cancer, and other novel [treatment] approaches. Today, I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Nate Pennell to discuss some of the key abstracts that are advancing the lung cancer field. Dr. Pennell is the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and also the vice chair of clinical research at the Taussig Cancer Institute. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Nate, it's great to have you back on the podcast. Thanks so much for being here. Dr. Nate Pennell: Thanks, Vamsi. Always a pleasure. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Let's get started, and I think the first abstract that really caught my attention was Abstract 8516, “The Randomized Trial of Relevance of Time of Day of Immunotherapy for Progression-Free and Overall Survival in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.” What are your thoughts about this, Nate? Dr. Nate Pennell: I agree. I thought this was one of the most discussed abstracts, certainly in the lung cancer session, but I think even outside of lung cancer, it got some discussion. So, just to put this in perspective, there have been a number of publications that have all been remarkably consistent, and not just in lung cancer but across multiple cancer types, that immunotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, are commonly used. And all of them have suggested, when looking at retrospective cohorts, that patients who receive immune checkpoint inhibitors earlier in the day – so in the morning or before the early afternoon – for whatever reason, appear to have better outcomes than those who get it later in the day, and this has been repeated. And I think many people just sort of assumed that this was some sort of strange association and that there was something fundamentally different from a prognostic standpoint in people who came in in the morning to get their treatment versus those who came later in the afternoon, and that was probably the explanation. The authors of this randomized trial actually decided to test this concept. And so, about 210 patients with previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to get chemo and immune checkpoint inhibitor – either pembrolizumab or sintilimab – and half of them were randomly assigned to get the treatment before 3 PM in the afternoon, and half of them were assigned to get it after 3 PM in the afternoon. And it almost completely recapitulated what was seen in the retrospective cohorts. So, the median progression-free survival in those who got earlier treatment was 13.2 months versus only 6.5 months in those who got it later in the day. So, really enormous difference with a hazard ratio of 0.43, which was statistically significant. And perhaps even more striking, the median overall survival was not reached in the early group versus 17.8 months in the late group with a hazard ratio of 0.43, also highly statistically significant. Even the response rate was 20% higher in the early patients; 75% response rate compared to 56% in the late-time-of-day patients. So very consistent across all measures of efficacy with pretty good matched characteristics across the different groups. And so, I have to tell you, I don't know what to make of this. I certainly was a skeptic about the retrospective series, but now we have a prospective randomized trial that shows essentially the same thing. So, maybe there is a difference between getting treated in the morning, although I have yet to hear someone give a very good mechanistic explanation as to why this would be. What were your thoughts on this? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: It's indeed fascinating, Nate, and I actually think this was a very interesting abstract. Really, I was caught off guard looking at the data. I mean, if it were a drug, we would be so excited, right? I mean, with those kind of survival benefits. I don't know. I think circadian rhythm probably has something to do with it, like different cytokine profiles at the time of administration. I mean, who knows? But I think it's a randomized trial, and I think I would expect to see a mad rush for treatment appointments early in the morning given this, and at least I want my patients to come in first thing in the morning. It'll be interesting to see. Dr. Nate Pennell: It's important to point out that in this study, everyone got chemo and immunotherapy. And, at least in our cancer center, most patients who are getting platinum-doublet chemotherapy and immunotherapy actually do get treated earlier in the day already, just because of the length of the infusion appointment that's needed. So it really is oftentimes people getting single-agent immunotherapy who are often getting the later, shorter visits. But if you have a choice, I think it would be very reasonable to have people treated earlier in the day. And I do think most of the impressions that I got from people about this is that they would like to see it reproduced but certainly well worth further investigation. And I personally would like to see more investigation into what the rationale would be for this because I still can't quite figure out, yes, if you got it at, say, you know, 5 PM, that's later in the day and I can understand that maybe your immune system is somewhat less receptive at that point than it would be in the morning. But because these checkpoint inhibitors have such long half-lives, it's still in your system the next morning when your immune system is supposedly more receptive. So I don't quite understand why that would be the case. Well, let's move on to the next study. I would like to hear your thoughts on Abstract 8515, “Plasma-Guided, Adaptive First-Line Chemoimmunotherapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.” Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, this was another abstract that seems to be really interesting in my opinion. I think there's kind of a lot of emphasis lately on ctDNA and MRD-based assays to monitor disease. In the lung cancer space, we haven't had a lot of clinical trials looking at this prospectively, and this was one of those pilot studies where they looked at circulating free DNA (cfDNA)-based response-adaptive strategy for frontline patients who are PD-L1 positive. So, patients started with pembrolizumab monotherapy, and based on plasma molecular response after 2 cycles, those patients without response received early treatment intensification with a platinum doublet. So the approach essentially was to reduce the chemotherapy exposure in patients who respond to immunotherapy. And only about 17.5% of the patients on the trial received chemotherapy based on lack of molecular response. So, in this trial, what they found was patients with the cfDNA response had a markedly improved PFS of 16.4 months versus 4.8 months. So essentially, like, this is a really nice study to set a foundation on which we have to do larger studies to incorporate molecular markers trying to look at cfDNA response to inform treatment strategy, either escalation or de-escalation strategies. So, I thought it was a very interesting study. Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah. I mean, we always have this question for patients, “Should they get immunotherapy alone or combined with chemo?” and I think this certainly is intriguing, suggesting that there may be ways you can monitor people and perhaps rescue those that aren't going to respond to single agent. I'd like to see a randomized trial against, you know, this strategy, perhaps against everyone getting, say, chemoimmunotherapy or make sure that you're not potentially harming people by doing this strategy. But I agree, it's time to move beyond just observing that cell-free DNA is prognostic and important and start using it to actually guide treatment. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, and I would just caution though, like, you know, I think we need more data, but, however, it's certainly a very interesting piece of data to kind of help inform future trials. So, there was another abstract that caught my attention, and I think this would be a very interesting abstract in the EGFR space. Abstract 8506, "Patritumab Deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) in Resistant EGFR-Mutant Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients After Third-Generation EGFR TKI," it's the HERTHENA-Lung02 study. What do you think about the results of this study? Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, this was, I would say, very widely anticipated and ultimately a little disappointing, despite being a positive trial. So, these are patients with EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer who have progressed after a third-generation EGFR TKI like osimertinib. This is really an area of major unmet need. We do have drugs like amivantamab in this space, but still definitely an area where essentially patients move from having a highly effective oral therapy to being in the realm of chemotherapy as their best option. So, this HER3 antibody-drug conjugate, patritumab deruxtecan, had some good single-arm data for this. And we're sort of hoping this would become an available option for patients. This trial was designed against platinum-doublet chemotherapy in this setting and with a primary endpoint of progression-free survival. And it actually was positive for improved progression-free survival compared to chemo with a hazard ratio of 0.77. But when you look at the medians, you can see that the median PFS was only 5.8 versus 5.4 months. It was really a modest difference between the two arms. And on the interim analysis, it appeared that there will not be a difference in overall survival between the two arms. In fact, the hazard ratio at the interim analysis was 0.98 for the two arms. So based on this, unfortunately, the company that developed the HER3-DXd has withdrawn their application to the FDA for approval of the drug, anticipating that they probably wouldn't get past approval without that overall survival endpoint. So, unfortunately, probably not, at least for the near future, going to be a new option for these patients. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think this is a space that's clearly an unmet need, and this was a big disappointment, I should say. I think all of us were going into the meeting anticipating some change in the standard of care here. Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, I agree. It was something that I was telling patients, honestly, that I was expecting this to be coming, and so now, definitely a bit of a disappointment. But it happens and, hopefully, it will still find perhaps a role or other drugs with a similar target. Certainly an active area. Well, let's leave the EGFR-mutant space and move into small cell. There were a couple of very impactful studies. And one of them was Abstract 8006, “Lurbinectedin Plus Atezolizumab as First-Line Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer, Primary Results from the Phase III IMforte Trial.” So, what was your impression of this? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I think this is definitely an interesting study, and small cell, I remember those days when we had barely any studies of small cell at ASCO, and now we have a lot of exciting developments in the small cell space. It's really good to see. The IMforte trial is essentially like a maintenance lurbinectedin trial with atezolizumab maintenance. And the study was a positive trial. The primary endpoint was a PFS, and the study showed improvement in both PFS and OS with the addition of lurbinectedin to atezolizumab maintenance. And definitely, it's a positive trial, met its primary endpoint, but I always am a little skeptical of adding maintenance cytotoxic therapies here in this setting. In my practice, and I'd like to hear your opinion, Nate, most patients with small cell after 4 cycles of a platinum doublet, they're kind of really beaten up. Adding more cytotoxic therapy in the maintenance space is going to be tough, I think, for a lot of patients. But also, most importantly, I think this rapidly evolving landscape for patients with small cell lung cancer with multiple new, exciting agents, actually like some FDA-approved like tarlatamab, also like a lot of these emerging therapeutics like I-DXd and other ADCs in this space. You kind of wonder, is it really optimal strategy to bring on like another cytotoxic agent right after induction chemotherapy, or do you kind of delay that? Or maybe have like a different strategy in terms of maintenance. I know that the tarlatamab maintenance trial is probably going to read out at some point too. I think it's a little challenging. The hazard ratio is also 0.73. As I said, it's a positive trial, but it's just incremental benefit of adding lurbi. And also on the trial, we need to also pay attention to the post-progression second-line treatments, number of patients who received tarlatamab or any other investigational agents.  So I think it's a lot of questions still. I'm not quite sure I'd be able to embrace this completely. I think a vast majority of my patients might not be eligible anyway for cytotoxic chemotherapy maintenance right away, but yeah, it's tough. Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah. I would call this a single and not a home run. It definitely is real. It was a real overall survival benefit. Certainly not surprising that a maintenance therapy would improve progression-free survival. We've known that for a long time in small cell, but first to really show an overall survival benefit. But I completely agree with you. I mean, many people are not going to want to continue further cytotoxics after 4 cycles of platinum-doublet chemo. So I would say, for those that are young and healthy and fly through chemo without a lot of toxicity, I think certainly something worth mentioning. The problem with small cell, of course, is that so many people get sick so quickly while on that observation period after first-line chemo that they don't make it to second-line treatment. And so, giving everyone maintenance therapy essentially ensures everyone gets that second-line treatment. But they also lose that potentially precious few months where they feel good and normal and are able to be off of treatment. So, I would say this is something where we're really going to have to kind of sit and have that shared decision-making visit with patients and decide what's meaningful to them. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I agree. The next abstract that was a Late-Breaking Abstract, 8000, “Overall Survival of Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy in Patients With Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in CheckMate-816.” This was a highly anticipated read-out of the OS data from 816. What did you make of this abstract? Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, I thought this was great. Of course, CheckMate-816 changed practice a number of years ago when it first reported out. So, this was the first of the neoadjuvant or perioperative chemoimmunotherapy studies in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. So, just to review, this was a phase 3 study for patients with what we would now consider stage II or stage IIIA resectable non-small cell lung cancer. And they received three cycles of either chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus nivolumab, and that was it. That was the whole treatment. No adjuvant treatment was given afterwards. They went to resection. And patients who received the chemoimmunotherapy had a much higher pathologic complete response rate and a much better event-free survival. And based on this, this regimen was approved and, I think, at least in the United States, widely adopted.  Now, since the first presentation of CheckMate 816, there have been a number of perioperative studies that have included an adjuvant component of immunotherapy – KEYNOTE-671, the AEGEAN study – and these also have shown improved outcomes. The KEYNOTE study with pembrolizumab also with an overall survival benefit. And I think people forgot a little bit about CheckMate-816. So, this was the 5-year overall survival final analysis. And it did show a statistically and, I think, clinically meaningful difference in overall survival with the 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemo-nivo compared to chemo with a hazard ratio of 0.72. The 5-year overall survival of 65% in the chemo-IO group versus 55% with the chemo alone. So a meaningful improvement. And interestingly, that hazard ratio of 0.72 is very similar to what was seen in the peri-operative pembro study that included the adjuvant component. So, very much still relevant for people who think that perhaps the value of those neoadjuvant treatments might be really where most of the impact comes from this type of approach. They also gave us an update on those with pathologic complete response, showing really astronomically good outcomes. If you have a pathologic complete response, which was more than a quarter of patients, the long-term survival was just phenomenal. I mean, 95% alive at 5 years if they were in that group and suggesting that in those patients at least, the adjuvant treatment may not be all that important.  So, I think this was an exciting update and still leaves very much the open question about the importance of continuing immunotherapy after surgery after the neoadjuvant component. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, I completely agree, Nate. I think the million-dollar question is: “Is there like a population of patients who don't have complete response but like maybe close to complete response?” So, would you like still consider stopping adjuvant IO? I probably would not be comfortable, but I think sometimes, you know, we all have patients who are like very apprehensive of continuing treatments. So, I think that we really need more studies, especially for those patients who don't achieve a complete CR. I think trying to find strategies for like de-escalation based on MRD or other risk factors. But we need more trials in that space to inform not just de-escalation, but there are some patients who don't respond at all to a neoadjuvant IO. So, there may be an opportunity for escalating adjuvant therapies. So, it is an interesting space to watch out for. Dr. Nate Pennell: No, absolutely. Moving to KRAS-mutant space, so our very common situation in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, we had the results of Abstract 8500, “First-Line Adagrasib With Pembrolizumab in Patients With Advanced or Metastatic KRASG12C-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer” from the phase 2 portion of the KRYSTAL-7 study. Why was this an interesting and important study? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: First of all, there were attempts to kind of combine KRASG12C inhibitors in the past with immune checkpoint inhibitors, notably sotorasib with pembrolizumab. Unfortunately, those trials have led to like a lot of toxicity, with increased especially liver toxicity, which was a major issue. This is a phase 2 study of adagrasib in combination with pembrolizumab, and this is a study in the frontline setting in patients with the G12C-mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. And across all the PD-L1 groups, the ORR was 44%, and the median PFS was 11 months, comparable to the previous data that we have seen with adagrasib in this setting. So it's not like a major improvement in clinical efficacy. However, I think the toxicity profile that we were seeing was slightly better than the previous trials in combination with sotorasib, but you still have a fair amount of transaminitis even in the study. At this point, this is not ready for clinical primetime. I don't think we should be using sotorasib or adagrasib in the frontline or even in the second line in combination with checkpoint inhibitors. Combining these drugs with checkpoint inhibitors in the clinical practice might lead to adverse outcomes. So, we need to wait for more data like newer-generation G12C inhibitors which are also being studied in combination, so we'll have to kind of wait for more data to emerge in this space. Dr. Nate Pennell: I agree, this is not immediately practice changing. This is really an attempt to try to combine targeted treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitor. And I agree with you that, you know, it does appear to be perhaps a little bit better tolerated than some of the prior combinations that have tried in this space. The outcomes overall were not that impressive, although in the PD-L1 greater than 50%, it did have a better response rate perhaps than you would expect with either drug alone. And I do think that the company is focusing on that population for a future randomized trial, which certainly would inform this question better. But in the meantime, I agree with you, there's a lot of newer drugs that are coming along that potentially may be more active and better tolerated. And so, I'd say for now, interesting but we'll wait and see. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, so now moving back again to small cell. So, there was a Late-Breaking Abstract, 8008. This is a study of tarlatamab versus chemotherapy as second-line treatment for small cell lung cancer. They presented the primary analysis of the phase III DeLLphi-304 study. What do you think about this? Dr. Nate Pennell: Yeah, I thought this was really exciting. This was, I would say, perhaps the most important lung study that was presented. Tarlatamab is, of course, the anti-DLL3 bispecific T-cell engager compound, which is already FDA approved based on a prior single-arm phase II study, which showed a very nice response rate as a single agent in previously treated small cell lung cancer and relatively manageable side effects, although somewhat unique to solid tumor docs in the use of these bispecific drugs in things like cytokine release syndrome and ICANS, the neurologic toxicities. So, this trial was important because tarlatamab was approved, but there were also other chemotherapy drugs approved in the previously treated space. And so, this was a head-to-head second-line competition comparison between tarlatamab and either topotecan, lurbinectedin, or amrubicin in previously treated small cell patients with a primary endpoint of overall survival. So, a very well-designed trial. And it did show, I think, a very impressive improvement in overall survival with a median overall survival in the tarlatamab group of 13.6 months compared to 8.3 months with chemotherapy, hazard ratio of 0.6. And progression-free survival was also longer at 4.2 months versus 3.2 months, hazard ratio of 0.72. In addition to showing improvements in cancer-related symptoms that were improved in tarlatamab compared to chemotherapy, there was actually also significantly lower rates of serious treatment-related adverse events with tarlatamab compared to chemotherapy. So, you do still see the cytokine release syndrome, which is seen in most people but is manageable because these patients are admitted to the hospital for the first two cycles, as well as a significant number of patients with neurologic side effects, the so-called ICANS, which also can be treated with steroids. And so, I think based upon the very significant improvement in outcomes, I would expect that this should become our kind of standard second-line treatment since it seems to be much better than chemo. However, tarlatamab is definitely a new drug that a lot of places are not used to using, and I think a lot of cancer centers, especially ones that aren't tied to a hospital, may have questions about how to deal with the CRS. So, I'm curious your thoughts on that. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, thank you, Nate. And I completely agree. I think the data looked really promising, and I've already been using tarlatamab in the second-line space. The durability of response and overall, having used tarlatamab quite a bit - like, I participated in some of the early trials and also used it as standard of care - tarlatamab has unique challenges in terms of like need for hospitalization for monitoring for the first few treatments and make sure, you know, we monitor those patients for CRS and ICANS. But once you get past that initial administration and monitoring of CRS, these patients have a much better quality of life, they're off chemotherapy, and I think it's really about the logistics of actually administering tarlatamab and coordination with the hospital and administration in the outpatient setting. It's definitely challenging, but I think it definitely can be done and should be done given what we are seeing in terms of clinical efficacy here. Dr. Nate Pennell: I agree. I think hospital systems now are just going to have to find a way to be able to get this on formulary and use it because it clearly seems to be more effective and generally better tolerated by patients. So, should move forward, I think. Finally, there's an abstract I wanted to ask you about, Abstract 8001, which is the “Neoadjuvant osimertinib with or without chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in resectable epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: The NeoADAURA Study”. And this is one that I think was also fairly highly anticipated. So, what are your thoughts? Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: You know, I wasn't probably surprised with the results, and I believe we were all expecting a positive trial, and we certainly were handed a positive trial here. It's a phase III trial of osimertinib and chemotherapy or osimertinib in the neoadjuvant space followed by surgery, followed by osimertinib. It's a global phase 3 trial and very well conducted, and patients with stage II to stage IIIB were enrolled in the study. And in the trial, patients who had a neoadjuvant osimertinib with or without chemotherapy showed a significant improvement in major pathologic response rates over chemotherapy alone. And the EFS was also positive for osimertinib and chemotherapy, osimertinib monotherapy as well compared to chemotherapy alone. So overall, the study met its primary endpoint, and I think it sheds light on how we manage our patients with early-stage lung cancer. I think osimertinib, we know that osimertinib is already FDA approved in the adjuvant space, but what we didn't really know is how was osimertinib going to work in the neoadjuvant space. And there are always situations, especially for stage III patients, where we are on the fence about, are these patients already close to being metastatic? They have, like, almost all these patients have micrometastatic disease, even if they have stage III. As we saw in the LAURA data, when you look at the control arm, it was like a very short PFS. Chemoradiation does nothing for those patients, and I think these patients have systemic mets, either gross or micrometastatic disease at onset. So, it's really important to incorporate osimertinib early in the treatment course. And I think, especially for the locally advanced patients, I think it's even more important to kind of incorporate osimertinib in the neoadjuvant space and get effective local control with surgery and treat them with adjuvant. I'm curious to hear your thoughts, Nate. Dr. Nate Pennell: I am a believer and have long been a believer in targeted adjuvant treatments, and, you know, it has always bothered me somewhat that we're using our far and away most effective systemic therapy; we wait until after they go through all their pre-op treatments, they go through surgery, then they go through chemotherapy, and then finally months later, they get their osimertinib, and it still clearly improves survival in the adjuvant setting. Why not just start the osimertinib as soon as you know that the patient has EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer, and then you can move on to surgery and adjuvant treatment afterwards? And I think what was remarkable about this study is that all of these patients almost - 90% in each arm - went to surgery. So, you weren't harming them with the neoadjuvant treatment. And clearly better major pathologic response, nodal downstaging, event-free survival was better. But I don't know that this trial is ever going to show an overall survival difference between neoadjuvant versus just surgery and adjuvant treatment, given how effective the drug is in the adjuvant setting. Nonetheless, I think the data is compelling enough to consider this, certainly for our N2-positive, stage IIIA patients or a IIIB who might be otherwise surgical candidates. I think based on this, I would certainly consider that. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Yeah, and especially for EGFR, like even for stage IIIB patients, in the light of the LAURA study, those patients who do not do too well with chemoradiation. So you're kind of delaying effective systemic therapy, as you said, waiting for the chemoradiation to finish. So I think probably time to revisit how we kind of manage these locally advanced EGFR patients. Dr. Nate Pennell: Yep, I agree. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: Nate, thank you so much for sharing your fantastic insights today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. It's been an exciting ASCO again. You know, we've seen a lot of positive trials impacting our care of non-small cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer patients. Dr. Nate Pennell: Thanks for inviting me, Vamsi. Always a pleasure to discuss these with you. Dr. Vamsi Velcheti: And thanks to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to all of the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of the episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear from the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. More on today's speakers:    Dr. Vamsi Velcheti   @VamsiVelcheti    Dr. Nathan Pennell   @n8pennell   Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter     ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn   ASCO on BlueSky   Disclosures:   Dr. Vamsi Velcheti:   Honoraria: ITeos Therapeutics   Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Foundation Medicine, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Novartis, Lilly, EMD Serono, GSK, Amgen, Elevation Oncology, Taiho Oncology, Merus   Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech, Trovagene, Eisai, OncoPlex Diagnostics, Alkermes, NantOmics, Genoptix, Altor BioScience, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Atreca, Heat Biologics, Leap Therapeutics, RSIP Vision, GlaxoSmithKline   Dr. Nathan Pennell:     Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Cota Healthcare, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Viosera, Xencor, Mirati Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi/Regeneron    Research Funding (Inst): Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, Loxo, Altor BioScience, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jounce Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, WindMIL, Sanofi 

BUFFALO, NY – June 24, 2025 – A new precision #oncology paper was #published in Volume 16 of Oncotarget on June 17, 2025, titled “Case Report WIN-MTB-2023001 WIN International Molecular Tumor Board A 62-year-old male with metastatic colorectal cancer with 5 prior lines of treatment.” In this report, led by Alberto Hernando-Calvo from Vall d'Hebron University Hospital and Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology; Razelle Kurzrock from WIN Consortium and Medical College of Wisconsin; Oncotarget Editor-in-Chief Wafik S. El-Deiry from WIN Consortium and Legorreta Cancer Center at Brown University; and corresponding author Shai Magidi, also from WIN Consortium, along with colleagues, describe the case of a 62-year-old man with metastatic colorectal cancer who underwent multiple lines of therapy. After analysis, the WIN International Molecular Tumor Board proposed different personalized treatment plans based on the tumor's unique genetic mutations. This case highlights the growing role of precision oncology in guiding therapies for patients with treatment-resistant cancers. Colorectal cancer is one of the deadliest cancers worldwide, and managing advanced cases remains a significant challenge. This patient had already received five prior treatment regimens, including chemotherapy and targeted therapies. Although some treatments were initially beneficial, the cancer eventually developed resistance. Molecular analysis revealed key mutations in genes such as BRAF, MET, APC, TP53, and NRAS, which are often linked to aggressive tumor behavior and reduced treatment effectiveness. With limited standard options left, the patient's case was presented and reviewed by the WIN International Molecular Tumor Board, a global panel of cancer experts. The team analyzed the clinical history and genetic profile to design new treatment approaches. These involved off-label drug combinations tailored to the specific mutations found in the tumor. For example, one approach combined trametinib, a drug that blocks cancer cell growth signals, with amivantamab, an antibody that attacks cancer-related proteins MET and EGFR, and regorafenib, which helps cut off blood supply to tumors and may counteract effects from APC and TP53 mutations. “Another option was trametinib at 1 mg daily, cetuximab (EGFR antibody), 250 mg/m² IV every two-weeks, and cabozantinib (MET and VEGFR inhibitor), 40 mg po daily.” This case reflects a shift in cancer care from standardized protocols to precision approaches, where therapy is selected based on a tumor's molecular features. Such strategies aim to delay resistance and slow disease progression more effectively. The WIN International Molecular Tumor Board also discussed practical challenges, including access to medications, combining off-label drugs, and the difficulties of enrolling patients in clinical trials after multiple prior treatments. Although the ultimate treatment decision remained with the patient's physician, this report shows how international collaboration and precision oncology can expand options for patients facing limited alternatives. It also emphasizes the value of repeat genetic analysis during disease progression to monitor new mutations in the tumor that may impact treatment. While the patient ultimately died from cancer progression, this case serves as a model for how molecular analysis and expert input can be used to guide treatment even in complex and metastatic colorectal cancer. As personalized cancer strategies continue to evolve, they may offer potential pathways for patients who have exhausted standard treatment options. DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28744 Correspondence to - Shai Magidi - shai.magidi@winconsortium.org Video short - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWDtWNgpK7A To learn more about Oncotarget, please visit https://www.oncotarget.com. MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM

Featuring perspectives from Prof Nicolas Girard, Dr Jonathan Goldman, Dr Pasi A Jänne, Dr Suresh S Ramalingam, Dr Joshua K Sabari and Dr Helena Yu, moderated by Dr Yu, including the following topics: Introduction (0:00) Evolving First-Line Treatment for Metastatic EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) — Dr Yu (1:47) EGFR-Targeted Approaches for Relapsed EGFR-Mutant NSCLC; Strategies to Facilitate Delivery of Recently Approved Agents — Dr Sabari (23:48) Potential Utility of TROP2-Targeted Therapy in the Management of EGFR-Mutant NSCLC — Dr Ramalingam (45:16) Contemporary Care for Patients with Nonmetastatic EGFR-Mutant NSCLC — Dr Goldman (1:03:56) Current and Future Management of EGFR Exon 20 Mutation-Positive NSCLC — Prof Girard (1:24:40) Emerging Role of HER3-Targeted Therapy in the Management of EGFR-Mutant NSCLC — Dr Jänne (1:43:46) CME information and select publications

Prof Nicolas Girard, Dr Jonathan Goldman, Dr Pasi Jänne, Dr Suresh Ramalingam, Dr Joshua Sabari and moderator Dr Helena Yu present data informing treatment decision-making for EGFR-mutated NSCLC at the 2025 ASCO annual meeting. CME information and select publications here.

This week on The Beat, CTSNet Editor-in-Chief Joel Dunning speaks with CTSNet JANS Editor Dr. Mateo Marin-Cuartas, a cardiac surgeon in the University Department of Cardiac Surgery at the Leipzig Heart Center, Germany, about surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) vs transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Chapters 00:00 Intro 00:57 Dr. Marin-Cuartas Feature 02:28 SHURUI Robot Feasability 05:09 Touching as Diagnostic Test 09:06 Removal of Rib Stab Hardware 13:00 Resectable EGFR-Positive NSCLC 16:12 On-Pump Beating Heart MVR 17:56 Post-Infarction Myocardial Rupture 19:52 Head-First Graft Technique 22:18 SAVR vs TAVR, Dr. Marin-Cuartas 46:44 Upcoming Events 47:52 Closing They discuss SAVR and TAVR guidelines, the suitability of SAVR vs TAVR for patients aged 65-75, and mechanical heart valves. They also explore surgery after TAVR, TAVR after TAVR, and the future of addressing aortic valve stenosis.   Joel also highlights recent JANS articles on the safety and feasibility of novel single-port robotic-assisted lobectomy/segmentectomy for lung cancer, touching (proximity) as a companion diagnostic test, long-term outcomes after removal of rib stabilization hardware in patients with blunt chest trauma, and advancing the needle on the management of resectable EGFR-positive NSCLC.    In addition, Joel explores an on-pump beating heart mitral valve repair through right anterior minithoracotomy, post-infarction myocardial rupture treated with surgical repair and graded mechanical support, and a head-first graft technique in aortic arch replacement. Before closing, Joel highlights upcoming events in CT surgery.    JANS Items Mentioned  1.) Safety and Feasibility of Novel Single-Port Robotic-Assisted Lobectomy/Segmentectomy for Lung Cancer  2.) Touching (Proximity) as a Companion Diagnostic Test   3.)  Long-Term Outcomes After Removal of Rib Stabilization Hardware in Patients With Blunt Chest Trauma  4.) Advancing the Needle on the Management of Resectable EGFR-Positive NSCLC: Is Neoadjuvant Osimertinib the Answer?  CTSNET Content Mentioned  1.) On-Pump Beating Heart Mitral Valve Repair Through Right Anterior Mini Thoracotomy  2.) Drain, Patch, Unload: Post-Infarction Myocardial Rupture Treated With Surgical Repair and Graded Mechanical Support  3.) Head-First Graft Technique in Aortic Arch Replacement  Other Items Mentioned  1.) Career Center   2.) CTSNet Events Calendar  Disclaimer The information and views presented on CTSNet.org represent the views of the authors and contributors of the material and not of CTSNet. Please review our full disclaimer page here.

BUFFALO, NY - June 11, 2025 – A new #research paper was #published in Volume 16 of Oncotarget on May 29, 2025, titled “Durable complete response in leptomeningeal disease of EGFR mutated non-small cell lung cancer to amivantamab, an EGFR-MET receptor bispecific antibody, after progressing on osimertinib.” A team led by first author Jinah Kim, from the University of Vermont Medical Center, and corresponding author Young Kwang Chae, from the Feinberg School of Medicine, reports a clinical case in which a patient with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) carrying rare EGFR mutations responded remarkably to amivantamab after other treatments had failed. The patient experienced a complete resolution of brain and spinal fluid metastases, suggesting that amivantamab may be a viable option for patients with uncommon genetic profiles and limited therapy options. Lung cancer remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Patients with NSCLC who have rare mutations in the EGFR gene often face limited treatment options and poor outcomes, especially when the disease spreads to the brain or spinal fluid. This case involved a 67-year-old man diagnosed with NSCLC who had two rare EGFR mutations—G719A and A289V. After disease progression on osimertinib and other therapies, the patient began amivantamab monotherapy. Within six weeks, his lung tumor shrank by over 30 percent. By six months, imaging confirmed the disappearance of brain metastases and leptomeningeal disease, a serious condition affecting the membranes of the brain and spinal cord. Blood tests showed no detectable cancer-related mutations, and the patient, previously wheelchair-bound, regained the ability to walk and perform daily activities. This response has been sustained for more than 19 months. “Treatment produced a durable response over 19 months, including a 32.2% reduction in tumor size at six weeks, and complete resolution of brain metastases and LMD by six months.” Amivantamab is a bispecific antibody that targets EGFR and MET, two key drivers of tumor growth. While it is approved in combination regimens for common EGFR mutations, its effectiveness as a single agent in rare mutations or in treating brain metastases remains largely unproven. This case challenges the assumption that large antibody drugs cannot cross the blood-brain barrier and suggests that amivantamab may have potential in managing central nervous system involvement. Further research is needed to clarify how the drug achieves these effects and to explore its broader use in patients with rare EGFR mutations and limited treatment options. This case highlights three key findings: amivantamab may be effective against rare EGFR mutations, can be used as monotherapy, and may overcome the challenges of the blood-brain barrier. Although based on a single patient, the results provide encouraging evidence to support further investigation of amivantamab in treating difficult-to-manage forms of NSCLC. DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28730 Correspondence to - Young Kwang Chae - young.chae@northwestern.edu Video short - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJX3rmtH7h8 Subscribe for free publication alerts from Oncotarget - https://www.oncotarget.com/subscribe/ Keywords - cancer, amivantamab, monotherapy, rare EGFR mutation, NSCLC, leptomeningeal disease To learn more about Oncotarget, please visit https://www.oncotarget.com and connect with us: Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/Oncotarget/ X - https://twitter.com/oncotarget Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/oncotargetjrnl/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@OncotargetJournal LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/oncotarget Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/oncotarget/ Reddit - https://www.reddit.com/user/Oncotarget/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0gRwT6BqYWJzxzmjPJwtVh MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/ZAF865. CME/MOC credit will be available until June 15, 2026.Mastering the Evidence and Establishing Best Practices for Making Well-Informed Precision Decisions in EGFR-Mutated NSCLC In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by an educational grant from Johnson & Johnson.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/ZAF865. CME/MOC credit will be available until June 15, 2026.Mastering the Evidence and Establishing Best Practices for Making Well-Informed Precision Decisions in EGFR-Mutated NSCLC In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by an educational grant from Johnson & Johnson.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

Featuring perspectives from Dr Jessica J Lin and Dr Joel W Neal, including the following topics: Introduction: Actionable Genomic Alterations (0:00) ALK (9:49) ROS1 (22:22) HER2 (31:00) RET (38:52) NTRK (45:30) MET (46:31) Novel Targeted Strategies (49:09) BRAF (54:19) KRAS G12C (55:38) CME information and select publications

In today's episode, we spoke with Jonathan W. Goldman, MD, about the phase 2 LUMINOSITY study (NCT03539536) evaluating telisotuzumab vedotin-tllv (Teliso-V; Emrelis) in patients with c-MET protein–overexpressing, nonsquamous, EGFR wild-type advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Dr Goldman is a professor of medicine in the Division of Hematology/Oncology at UCLA, as well as director of Clinical Trials in Thoracic Oncology, associate director of Early Drug Development, and chair of the University of California Lung Cancer Consortium.

Dr Jessica J Lin from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and Dr Joel W Neal from Stanford Cancer Institute in California summarize major treatment advances over the past year and review relevant ongoing clinical trials using targeted therapies for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. CME information and select publications here.

Welcome to the Oncology Brothers podcast! In this episode, hosts Drs. Rahul and Rohit Gosain are joined by Dr. Stephen Liu from Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center to discuss the latest and most impactful findings from the ASCO 2025 meeting, focusing on lung cancer. Join us as we dive into five key studies that could change clinical practice: 1. CheckMate 816: Discover the significant overall survival benefits of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with nivolumab in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. 2. Timing of Immunotherapy: Explore a groundbreaking study that reveals how the timing of immunotherapy infusions can dramatically affect patient outcomes. 3. NeoADAURA Trial: Learn about the use of osimertinib in the neoadjuvant setting for EGFR-mutated lung cancer and how it compares to established adjuvant therapies. 4. IMforte Study: Understand the implications of maintenance therapy in small cell lung cancer and how it can improve overall survival rates. 5. DeLLphi 304: Get insights into the efficacy of tarlatamab as a second-line treatment for small cell lung cancer and its potential to become the new standard of care. Follow us on social media: •⁠  ⁠X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers •⁠  ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers •⁠  Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ Tune in for an engaging discussion filled with expert insights, clinical pearls, and the latest advancements in lung cancer treatment. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and check out our other conference highlights! #OncologyBrothers #LungCancer #ASCO2025 #CancerResearch #Immunotherapy #EGFR #SmallCellLungCancer #NeoadjuvantTherapy #Podcast

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/CC/AAPA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/UKV865. CME/MOC/CC/AAPA credit will be available until June 13, 2026.Harnessing Precision With EGFR-Targeted Therapy in Resectable NSCLC: Evidence, Cases, and Considerations for Multidisciplinary Patient Care In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by an independent educational grant from AstraZeneca.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/CC/AAPA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/UKV865. CME/MOC/CC/AAPA credit will be available until June 13, 2026.Harnessing Precision With EGFR-Targeted Therapy in Resectable NSCLC: Evidence, Cases, and Considerations for Multidisciplinary Patient Care In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by an independent educational grant from AstraZeneca.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/CC/AAPA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/UKV865. CME/MOC/CC/AAPA credit will be available until June 13, 2026.Harnessing Precision With EGFR-Targeted Therapy in Resectable NSCLC: Evidence, Cases, and Considerations for Multidisciplinary Patient Care In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by an independent educational grant from AstraZeneca.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/CC/AAPA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/UKV865. CME/MOC/CC/AAPA credit will be available until June 13, 2026.Harnessing Precision With EGFR-Targeted Therapy in Resectable NSCLC: Evidence, Cases, and Considerations for Multidisciplinary Patient Care In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by an independent educational grant from AstraZeneca.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

Why You Should Listen:  In this episode, you will learn about chronic kidney disease and how to address the Kidneydemic with Renology. About My Guest: My guest for this episode is Dr. Robin Rose.  Robin Rose, MD began a journey into holistic healing in her teens in the mid-sixties beginning with nutrition and botanical medicine and yoga and meditation.  Over the years her journey included time living in India and working with both village doctors and healers.  She became a health food chef and inspired many to change their habits.  Before long she was enrolled in an RN program and then a family nurse practitioner program.  Aware that the education wasn't complete, she attended University of Arizona College of Medicine; while also serving as a medical student board member for the American Holistic Medical Association.  During residency, she continued learning Chinese medicine, acupuncture, osteopathy, energy medicine, and herbal medicine.  Her main practice was in Ashland, Oregon where she served a community eager to integrate many healing modalities into the conventional setting, including innovative care in the hospital.  In the past decade after her own alarming health challenges with kidney cancer and advanced kidney disease, she became agile in regenerative medical approaches to kidney care.  She created a new specialty called Renology; a new concept of "Kidney Success" not Kidney Failure.  When she discovered peptides and especially bioregulator peptides, she led the brigade to new heights of seeing success in a field that had not embraced this kind of care.  Her recent book "Renology Peptides" is a nearly 800 page text on how to achieve this renewal of health.  Her current intention is to raise awareness of the role of kidney in wellbeing and how we can all celebrate this success.  Key Takeaways: What is the purpose of the kidneys? What symptoms are observed in chronic kidney disease? Is kidney disease a catabolic process? Is kidney disease genetic or epigenetic? What are the stages of kidney disease? What are the best tests and lab markers? What might elevations or phosphorous or potassium suggest? What is the kidney-gut axis? What is the role of endothelial health in kidney disease? What role do the mitochondria play?  How do infections and environmental toxicants contribute to kidney disease? What is the role of oxalates in kidney health? How might carbon dioxide guide treatment? Does cellular senescence play a role? What is the connection between the kidneys and the teeth? How do the limbic system and mental/emotional health impact the kidneys? What treatment intervention warrant exploration? Where do dialysis and transplantation come into the discussion? What role might peptides and peptide bioregulators play? Connect With My Guest:  RenologyIsKidneySuccess.com Interview Date: May 21, 2025 Transcript: To review a transcript of this show, visit https://BetterHealthGuy.com/Episode217. Additional Information: To learn more, visit https://BetterHealthGuy.com. Follow Me on Social Media: Facebook - https://facebook.com/betterhealthguy Instagram - https://instagram.com/betterhealthguy X - https://twitter.com/betterhealthguy TikTok - https://tiktok.com/@betterhealthguy Disclaimer:  The content of this show is for informational purposes only and is not intended to diagnose, treat, or cure any illness or medical condition. Nothing in today's discussion is meant to serve as medical advice or as information to facilitate self-treatment. As always, please discuss any potential health-related decisions with your own personal medical authority. 

Why You Should Listen:  In this episode, you will learn about chronic kidney disease and how to address the Kidneydemic with Renology. About My Guest: My guest for this episode is Dr. Robin Rose.  Robin Rose, MD began a journey into holistic healing in her teens in the mid-sixties beginning with nutrition and botanical medicine and yoga and meditation.  Over the years her journey included time living in India and working with both village doctors and healers.  She became a health food chef and inspired many to change their habits.  Before long she was enrolled in an RN program and then a family nurse practitioner program.  Aware that the education wasn't complete, she attended University of Arizona College of Medicine; while also serving as a medical student board member for the American Holistic Medical Association.  During residency, she continued learning Chinese medicine, acupuncture, osteopathy, energy medicine, and herbal medicine.  Her main practice was in Ashland, Oregon where she served a community eager to integrate many healing modalities into the conventional setting, including innovative care in the hospital.  In the past decade after her own alarming health challenges with kidney cancer and advanced kidney disease, she became agile in regenerative medical approaches to kidney care.  She created a new specialty called Renology; a new concept of "Kidney Success" not Kidney Failure.  When she discovered peptides and especially bioregulator peptides, she led the brigade to new heights of seeing success in a field that had not embraced this kind of care.  Her recent book "Renology Peptides" is a nearly 800 page text on how to achieve this renewal of health.  Her current intention is to raise awareness of the role of kidney in wellbeing and how we can all celebrate this success.  Key Takeaways: What is the purpose of the kidneys? What symptoms are observed in chronic kidney disease? Is kidney disease a catabolic process? Is kidney disease genetic or epigenetic? What are the stages of kidney disease? What are the best tests and lab markers? What might elevations or phosphorous or potassium suggest? What is the kidney-gut axis? What is the role of endothelial health in kidney disease? What role do the mitochondria play?  How do infections and environmental toxicants contribute to kidney disease? What is the role of oxalates in kidney health? How might carbon dioxide guide treatment? Does cellular senescence play a role? What is the connection between the kidneys and the teeth? How do the limbic system and mental/emotional health impact the kidneys? What treatment intervention warrant exploration? Where do dialysis and transplantation come into the discussion? What role might peptides and peptide bioregulators play? Connect With My Guest:  RenologyIsKidneySuccess.com Interview Date: May 21, 2025 Transcript: To review a transcript of this show, visit https://BetterHealthGuy.com/Episode218. Additional Information: To learn more, visit https://BetterHealthGuy.com. Follow Me on Social Media: Facebook - https://facebook.com/betterhealthguy Instagram - https://instagram.com/betterhealthguy X - https://twitter.com/betterhealthguy TikTok - https://tiktok.com/@betterhealthguy Disclaimer:  The content of this show is for informational purposes only and is not intended to diagnose, treat, or cure any illness or medical condition. Nothing in today's discussion is meant to serve as medical advice or as information to facilitate self-treatment. As always, please discuss any potential health-related decisions with your own personal medical authority. 

Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 3 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including new research for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma and 2 studies on novel approaches in non-small cell lung cancer. Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 3 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Today's selection features studies addressing the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma and 2 studies exploring novel approaches in non-small cell lung cancer. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. The first abstract is number 4505. This study, led by Dr. Toni Choueiri of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, describes the final analysis of the CheckMate 214 trial, which compared the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab with sunitinib for the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. The ipi-nivo combination is approved for the frontline treatment of intermediate and poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma based on the primary analysis of the CheckMate 214 trial, which demonstrated a higher response rate and longer overall survival compared with sunitinib. Today's presentation provided the final safety and efficacy results for the trial with long-term follow-up of more than 9 years.  The intent-to-treat (ITT) population in this trial comprised 550 patients randomized to nivo and ipi versus 546 who received sunitinib. The final analysis showed sustained long-term benefit for the combination therapy. Patients given nivolumab plus ipi had a 29% reduction in the risk for death compared with sunitinib. For patients with intermediate or poor-risk disease, there was a 31% reduction in the risk of death.   The probability of remaining in response through 8 years was more than doubled with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in the ITT population at 48% versus 19%, and in the intermediate and poor-risk population at 50% versus 23%. The other important observation is that patients with favorable-risk disease appeared to have a 20% reduction in the risk for death at 9 years and more durable responses. This suggests a possible delayed benefit for ipi and nivo in this group since these differences were not seen in the earlier analysis.   No new safety signals emerged with longer follow-up, and the results confirm the use of ipi and nivo as a standard front-line combination therapy in this disease. Since this combination has been in widespread use for some years, the results are not surprising although the subgroup analysis suggesting benefit in favorable-risk patients is likely to inform practice in the future.   Today's second abstract is number is 8506, which was presented by Dr. Tony Mok from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, describing results from the phase 3 HERTHENA-Lung02 trial. This trial compared the antibody-drug conjugate patritumab deruxtecan with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer following a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI).  Patritumab deruxtecan, also known as HER3-DXd, comprises a fully human anti-HER3 IgG3 monoclonal antibody conjugated to a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor payload, and showed activity in a previous phase 2 trial in patients relapsing after EGFR TKI and chemotherapy.   In this phase 3 study, this agent was compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in eligible patients with an EGFR-activating mutation who had previously received 1 or 2 EGFR TKIs, at least one of which was a third-generation drug, with relapse or progression after this therapy. Five hundred and eighty-six patients were enrolled, with progression-free survival as the primary endpoint.  The primary analysis showed a 9-month progression-free survival of 29% for the experimental arm compared with 19% for platinum-based chemotherapy, for a hazard ratio of 0.77 and a P value of 0.011. With higher progression-free survival rates at 6 months and 12 months, HER3-DXd also had a better objective response rate (35.2% versus 25.3%) compared with platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC), and HER3-DXd also extended intracranial progression-free survival compared with PBC in patients with brain metastases, with a hazard ratio of 0.75. Grade 3 or more treatment-related adverse events occurred in 73% of patients treated with HER3-DXd and 57% of patients who received PBC. HER3-DXd had a higher rate of grade or more 3 thrombocytopenia, and drug-related interstitial lung disease occurred in 5% of patients in the HER3-DXd arm.   The follow-up will need more time to mature since no overall survival data are currently available, but definitely an agent to watch with interest. Moving on to today's final abstract, 8500, was presented by Dr. Pasi Jänne from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, describing results from the phase 2 portion of the KRYSTAL-7 study. This study is exploring the use of a potent KRAS inhibitor, adagrasib, in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic KRASG12C- mutated non-small cell lung cancer.  Adagrasib has already received accelerated approval in the U.S. for previously treated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with a KRASG12C mutation. A previous report from the KRYSTAL-7 study demonstrated encouraging activity in combination with pembrolizumab in the frontline setting for this patient group who also had more than 50% expression of PD-L1. The presentation today described efficacy and safety data for this drug combination across all PD-L1 expression levels.  One hundred and forty-nine patients with a median age of 67 years were treated with the combination, 104 of whom had PD-L1 expression level results available, representing the so-called biomarker population in this trial. The overall response rate for the entire study population was 44%. In the biomarker population, the overall response rate ranged from 36% in those with less than 1% PD-L1 expression to 61% for those with more than 50% expression. For all patients, the median response duration was just over 26 months, and the median progression-free and overall survival rates were 11 and 18.3 months respectively.    For the biomarker population, the median progression-free and overall survival were highest in those patients with more than 50% PD-L1. No new safety issues emerged from this analysis; the most frequent toxicities were nausea, diarrhea, and increases in transaminases. Immune-related toxicities included pneumonitis, hypothyroidism, and hepatitis. These are important results and the results of the phase 3 portion of KRYSTAL-7, which compares first-line therapy with adagrasib plus pembro versus pembro alone in the KRASG12C mutated/PD-L1 more than 50% group, will be informative. For those patients with lower levels of PD-L1 expression, the authors suggest that the treatment escalation may be beneficial, possibly including the addition of chemotherapy.  That concludes today's report. Thanks for listening and I hope you will join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.  Disclaimer:  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  Find out more about today's speaker:    Dr. John Sweetenham    Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter    @ASCO on Bluesky    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:   Dr. John Sweetenham:    No relationships to disclose

Dutch biotech Merus' EGFR x LGR5 bispecific antibody has caught investors' attention in the run-up to ASCO as a new approach to block EGFR signaling. On the latest BioCentury This Week podcast, BioCentury's analysts discuss Phase II data from Merus for petosemtamab as they preview the American Society of Clinical Oncology's upcoming annual meeting. The analysts also assess a setback in a gene therapy trial for Rocket Pharmaceuticals, renewed interest in cancer target EpCAM, and a flurry of biopharma activity on the Hong Kong stock exchange. Finally, the team previews BioCentury's second annual Grand Rounds R&D meeting, which takes place next week in Chicago. This episode was sponsored by Jeito Capital.View full story: https://www.biocentury.com/article/656038#biotech #biopharma #pharma #lifescience #RandD #DrugDevelopment00:01 - Sponsor Message: Jeito Capital24:52 - HK IPOs07:12 - ASCO16:37 - EpCAM20:16 - RocketTo submit a question to BioCentury's editors, email the BioCentury This Week team at podcasts@biocentury.com.Reach us by sending a text

Dr. Luis Raez and Michael Reff share the newest update to the medically integrated dispensing pharmacy standards from NCODA and ASCO. They review updates to domain one, on key patient-centered quality standards on health equity and social determinants of health, drug access, patient safety, education, and adherence to maximize treatment outcomes and domain two, on key operational quality standards on logistics, care coordination, and waste prevention. We also cover the impact of these updated standards for clinicians, oncology practices, and people receiving oral anti-cancer medications. Read the complete standards, “Medically Integrated Dispensing Pharmacy: ASCO-NCODA Standards.” Transcript These standards, clinical tools, and resources are available on ASCO.org.  Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the JCO Oncology Practice. 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 Michael Reff from the Network of Collaborative Oncology Development and Advancement and Dr. Luis Raez from Memorial Cancer Institute and Florida Atlantic University, co-chairs on "Medically Integrated Dispensing Pharmacy: American Society of Clinical Oncology – Network of Collaborative Oncology Development and Advancement Association Standards Update." Thank you for being here, Michael and Dr. Raez. Dr. Luis Raez: Thanks for inviting us. Michael Reff: Thank you for having us. Brittany Harvey: Then, before we discuss these standards, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its standards and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest policy is followed for each guidance product. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the expert panel, including Michael and Dr. Luis Raez who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the standards in JCO Oncology Practice, which is linked in the show notes. So then, to dive into the content here, Michael, I'd like to start with what prompted an update to these ASCO-NCODA standards and what is the scope of this update? Michael Reff: Thank you, Brittany. What led NCODA and ASCO to endeavor in this, and it started back in 2019 as the amount of oral anticancer medications became more and more prevalent in cancer treatment, we saw the need providing a blueprint for excellence in care for patients prescribed oral anticancer medications, specifically in the outpatient setting. And the update was driven by the rapid growth of these oral oncolytics starting back in the mid to late 2015 through 2019 or so, and then continued on into the 2020s where we are today. We saw the increase in the complexity of the management of these patients with these therapies basically outside the traditional clinical settings. And we wanted to make sure that with more cancer treatments that are taken at home than just at the clinic, like in the oral setting, new challenges had emerged around patient safety, access, adherence, and overall treatment success. The updates now address patient-centered and operational interventions designed to improve access, safety, quality, accountability, and outcomes of oral anticancer and other supportive care medications prescribed for the cancer patient. Dr. Luis Raez: As Mike said, these guidelines help improve patient care tremendously, but also help us a lot as an oncologist, you know, community oncologists that- now that we have opportunity to dispense these oral oncolytics, we need help to create our medical integrated pharmacies, and NCODA is providing here a way that, how to do this safely, efficaciously, good quality, you know? So that's why I think we always do everything for the patients, but also this helps a lot to the doctors. And there are a lot of what we call specialty pharmacies or medical integrated pharmacies now nationwide. Michael Reff: I'll build on what Dr. Raez had mentioned. This is the impetus. If you looked at the innovation that was coming from the pharmaceutical companies, many of it coming in the oral form for anticancer medications, and based on that, taking a look at the infrastructure that is in place in these practices, whether it's in the community or the IDN or health system settings, this amount of innovation that was coming needed to be addressed by taking a look at the medically integrated oncology team. And these standards address not just the pharmacy component, but also the whole continuum of care, starting with a medical oncologist or the hematologist, with the pharmacists, nurses, the pharmacy technicians, others that are involved in the care of the patient. And there were no standards involved. And when we approached ASCO back in 2018 to eventually publish the first version of these standards, the need was identified, and we worked collaboratively with ASCO to create the first set and then the revisions as we talked about. One thing to note regarding the revision plus the original standards, we had a cross-section of the care team on the committee, and we did that very purposefully. So, the ASCO-NCODA team curated a committee to help develop these original standards and the revision of these standards with medical oncologists both from community and health systems, pharmacists from both community and health systems, and also nurses. And we also included a patient that currently has and currently receives oral anticancer medication. And so NCODA and ASCO are very proud of the committee that we put together because of the experts in their field, but also extended the invitation to a current patient. And we embedded everybody's expertise in the curation of these standards. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. I appreciate that background and context and how it's critical to improve patient care. And these standards really help oncologists, and we're looking across the continuum of care to provide optimal care for our patients. So then next, Dr. Raez, I'd like to review the key points of the revised standards for our listeners. So for Domain 1, what are the key patient-centered quality standards on health equity and social determinants of health, drug access, patient safety, education, and adherence to maximize treatment outcomes? Dr. Luis Raez: Yeah, this was a great effort, you know, at the multidisciplinary team. And as you can read in the standard, there were more than 240 publications reviewed; more than 55 of them are quoted here. And the standards are in two groups, as you said. With the group one, I'll briefly mention some of them. For example, SDOH, social determinants of health, is very important because as doctors, we prescribe, and sometimes patients don't get the medication, you know? And we prescribe assuming that 100% of the patients will get the medication. But something simple like the patient doesn't have insurance, the patient is underinsured. I have a patient that we didn't have an address to send the medication because he's homeless. Something that as a doctor you say, "Oh, oh my God, this is outside my realm," but it's not outside reality. So that's why, even if we don't think that this is part of our expertise dealing with social determinants of health, the fact that the patients have food insecurity, they don't have transportation, they don't have insurance, they don't have a caregiver, impact tremendously in the outcomes of the therapy. So that's why, basically, in this standard, we want to call attention that SDOH, social determinants of health, needs to be identified. There are in the literature countless examples of why this is important. For example, in the guidelines, we quote two or three examples of prostate cancer studies that, for example, we quote a study of 27,000 people with prostate cancer that were taking oral oncolytics, and how come the fact that the elderly, seniors, the fact that they have high prescription costs, and how all of this affected the adherence to the medication. And that's why it's important to identify the SDOH. And in other sections of the guidelines, we said how to address them, no? Another important thing in this domain is the cultural, you know, we need to be culturally sensitive and to take care of all of these social factors. For example, here in South Florida, we deal with the Haitian culture, Filipino culture, Latin culture, and American culture, and it's a blend, but it's not easy to go from one to the other. Another one is the fact that we have to include new technologies. A lot of patients, for example, we use EMR, EMR Epic, and now Epic has everything in the phone. The fact that we can have now the patient can see her prescription medication over the phone, the fact that they can use the phone to request from you a refill, and from your phone, you send the refill to the pharmacy, and you notify from your phone to the patient that the refill is sent, and the patient can check in his phone that the refill is ready. These things are amazing because that's why it's important that we incorporate these technologies to the patient care, and in this specific case, of dispensation of oral therapies, no? Another crucial point is education. You cannot be sending a patient a package of 300 pills without education. So that's why in our guidelines, mainly pharmacy, clinical pharmacies, or in some centers like mine, we have advanced practice providers, it's mandatory in our centers to have like a one hour of education before you send the prescription. So the patient is aware about side effects and contraindications, all of these things. They provide them also materials and also consent. You know, in the old times, you don't give chemo without a consent. Now, a lot of people say, "Oh, it's only a pill." There is a lot of benefits or side effects that can come from the pill, so you need to consent everybody, you know? So, another aspect is adherence. I already told about that, but we need to provide patients with a baseline assessment, no? So, you cannot send again the prescription and hope, "Oh, I'll figure it out what happened next month when the patient comes back." I tell you, the patient is homeless, where are you going to send it? If the patient is telling you, "I don't have insurance," what good is it for you to send a prescription? The patient will not get it. So that's why you need to do a baseline assessment of adherence. You need to do a calendar. You need to do electronic support, I mentioned already with the EMR and the phones. For example, my MIP, my specialty pharmacist, sends me a message in the EMR, "Dr. Raez, the insurance is not covering, the patient has a high copayment, we are going to delay the dispensation of the medication." So there needs to be a communication. Or sometimes there is a confusion with the insurance, and I cannot wait for the poor patient to call three, four weeks later, "Oh, I didn't get the medication," to know what happened, no? My MIP is very good. They send the clinical pharmacist a message, "Hey, you know, the insurance doesn't believe that the pill is adequate, or you need to provide more documentation. You need to prove the mutation, the genetic aberration." So if you provide us that, the insurance may approve. So that communication with the doctor is very important to improve adherence. And one important thing that we have in this one that we didn't have in the anterior is the tracking of outside medications. A lot of times you say, "Okay, the insurance allowed us to provide the medication it's 100% responsible." But then the insurance says, "Oh, no, no, don't worry. CVS will provide the medication." So it says, "Well, it's you know, it's not my responsibility. CVS will provide the medication, they have to take care." But we know that outside our specialty pharmacies or MIPs, the care is not very good. So that's why we are taking our ownership that, "Okay, the insurance said the patient will get the medication from some outside pharmacy." But our clinical pharmacists track that. What happened? Did the patient get it? The patient didn't get it. The copayment is still high. So even if you get the medication from somewhere else, if the copayment is high, we, our clinical pharmacists, help the patient to navigate and get the foundation or the copayment or finally the maker, the industry partner, provides the drug for free, but somebody needs to do the paperwork. And that's why this is very important. We cannot abort our responsibility because, "Oh, the insurance said somebody else will give it." I work for the public healthcare system, so my patients, some of them don't have insurance, they are underinsured. So we see these problems every day. And finally, the standards talk about the importance of safety, documentation, verification, monitoring, refills, you know, you need to keep track of refills. We already mentioned how important is the technology to facilitate the refills, and the quality. Brittany Harvey: Yes, thank you for touching on those highlights for Domain 1. It's important that all patients have access to care and these oral anticancer medications, and not only just access to care, but safe and effective care. It's really important, as you mentioned, Dr. Raez, to meet patients where they're at and incorporate technology. And I also want to note the coordination with external pharmacies that you mentioned in tracking outside medications as well. It's not only important for multidisciplinary care within the oncology practice itself, but also external to the oncology practice. That's why we put together this multidisciplinary panel to develop these standards. So then, expanding on that, Dr. Raez, for Domain 2, what are the key operational quality standards? Those on logistics, care coordination, and waste prevention. Dr. Luis Raez: Yeah, we have a lot of standards here, but maybe we can summarize in five or six points, no? For example, financial toxicity in cost and waste are very important because the patients, yeah, you put them on therapy, but as you can understand, if there is disease progression, the patient don't need the medications. And sometimes you get refills even if the patient has disease progression. If you do a dose reduction, the same problem. Or you discontinue medication and the patient keeps getting the drugs. So, you're talking about drugs that are between 20 and 30 thousand dollars per month. This is a lot of money. There are studies that we're quoting in the standards that the waste could be from 1 to 3 or 4 thousand per patient, no? Another aspect is dispensing. When you dispense the medication, this is not as easy as, "I'll ship to your house a bag of medications." You know, there needs to be a diagram, a decision tree. You need to train the staff to know what we're doing. There needs to be an auditing of the process. They need to be even packaging and shipping, you know? For example, I'm in Florida today and outside in summer it's going to be 95 degrees. So, everybody leaves the package outside your house, and sometimes you go the whole day until when you come at 6:00 p.m. There are medications that cannot be left outside there, you know? I don't know, it sounds like a joke, but I have a patient that the medication used to be stolen because people thought that that was something important, you know? And of course, it's important because it's a $20,000 medication. So, the poor patient, because he lives in an area that is not safe, has to come and pick up in person. All of these things sound very trivial, but that's real life that affects adherence. Another important thing is shortage. This is something that we just suffered two or three years ago, and we have to think about what happens in the next shortage. What happens if there's going to be a shortage? What do we do or how are we going to do that? Now we know it's something that is happening probably very soon again, and something that we have to consider. Another standard is the care coordination. You need to have probably, if it's possible, a coordinator. I know that for small practices it's very hard, but for big cancer centers, you should have a coordinator of this. I already mentioned before, the communication between the physicians and the doctors to coordinate the care, no? You need to write the prescription again, you need to provide more information, or to be notified, "Hey, you know, the patient is throwing up in the first week, you need to see the patient, please," no? So, this type of communication needs to exist so we can serve the patient better. It's also important, you know, we're improving quality and we're improving care. It's important to try to collect patient-reported outcomes. This is something that now we have the opportunity, if we do things well, to do it and show that we're providing a better care. The other thing is that we already mentioned SDOH in the other standard. In this standard, we mention mainly SDOH to partner. For example, we collect in my center SDOH, and I always get frustrated when the patient doesn't have transportation. But I didn't know that there are local institutions that provide free Uber rides, free Lyft rides. So that's why it's important to partner with these institutions. I have a local grocery chain that provides free food for the patients, and I didn't know that. It's important to be aware what the patient needs and what resources do you have to fulfill the SDOH. That's the part that we mention in here. So that's why, in summary, those are the six probably most important points here. I'll ask Mike for some comments. Michael Reff: Thank you, Dr. Raez. Brittany, to answer your question, and as was pointed out on logistics, care coordination, and prevention of waste, certainly that is an aspect that has changed in the revision that we're here to talk about. There's really two components to waste, and it's cost avoidance and then waste prevention. And as Dr. Raez mentioned several times, the importance of the medically integrated team and having the ability for that practice to fill that prescription internally and have robust documentation. Cost avoidance is a critical component that the medically integrated pharmacy, or the MIP, can help the total cost of care. And that is by preventing errant fills or waste that can occur by intervening in the care of the cancer patient, as we do every day. But when the practice has access to the medication and can fill that prescription in-house in the medically integrated pharmacy, that team, that care coordination that takes place, can prevent those errant fills or additional fills when there's dose reductions, there's holidays, there's things that happen in real time. And it's impossible for a mail-order pharmacy that's in another state that has lead times, when a prescription needs to be mailed 7 days or 10 days before the patient will run out of the medication, it's impossible for them to logistically coordinate that care like we can internally within the medically integrated pharmacy. So, we prevent waste and overall cost of care by cost avoidance and having that coordination or that continuity of care that we talk about. And we prevent waste from the mail-order pharmacies by taking that prescription internally and filling it, but also doing it in a way that's more sustainable and cost-effective for all stakeholders in the oncology ecosystem. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Thank you both for reviewing those key standards for Domain 2 and touching on the importance of distribution logistics and all the things that a medically integrated pharmacy needs to think through in getting oral anticancer agents to patients. Following that, Michael, we've touched on this a little bit earlier, but how will these updated standards impact clinicians and oncology practices? Michael Reff: Yes, and as Dr. Raez and I have discussed throughout this podcast, these additional standards are there to help support that continuity of care by educating the clinicians that are in the oral anticancer medication space to elevate their provision for these oral therapies. What I mean by that is the practice has to perform at a certain level in order for them to, as I call it, deserve the right to fill that prescription by having the processes and procedures in place. And these standards, these updated or revised standards, are the blueprint for better patient care and to help the practices execute on that journey of continuous improvement. Dr. Luis Raez: Yeah, I only want to add, we have practical examples in the guidelines. We quote a couple of studies that have been successful. And this year, for example, I am a lung cancer doctor, we are presenting in World Lung our standards of adherence to oral oncolytics for EGFR therapy, following the NCODA-ASCO standards. We're around 95% of adherence. We are a healthcare system that is public. We have people with no insurance and a lot of social determinants of health. We are trying to show that it's feasible, even in the most difficult circumstance, when you follow the standards, to be successful. Brittany Harvey: Definitely, these standards can help clinicians and oncology practices succeed in providing these medications. So then beyond that, and to wrap us up, Michael, what do these revised standards mean for patients who are receiving oral anticancer medications? Michael Reff: Yes, great point and question, Brittany, because we have covered the benefits to the clinicians and the practices themselves. But how is this going to support better patient care? And it does it in a whole host of ways. I'll cover just a few of them. What I'm about to share with you relates back to what we call at NCODA the "core claims." Like, what's the core claims of having a medically integrated pharmacy within the practice? And there are seven different core claims that we feel practices that are focused on the continuity of care can deliver better outcomes that are embedded in these standards. And it's talking about abandonment, adherence, access and affordability, speed to therapy or time to fill, as we call it, education, patient satisfaction, and cost avoidance that we covered earlier. So those are the core claims that a practice that follows these revised standards can help elevate. So, faster and more affordable access to the oral cancer medications; individualized support to address barriers like transportation, finance, language, or health literacy, and so on; clear, patient-friendly education; something that is near and dear to all clinicians' hearts, and of course, the patient that was on our panel or on our committee, to empower them to manage side effects and recognize when to seek help; and a stronger partnership with a care team, with regular follow-ups focused on their experience, challenges, and successes; and then, greater overall safety through proactive monitoring for medication errors or complications. So all of these aspects, or tenets, as I'll call them, are baked into these quality standards that are totally aligned with NCODA's core claims document that, again, talks about abandonment, adherence, access and affordability, speed to therapy, education, satisfaction for the patients, and also cost avoidance. Dr. Luis Raez: I only want to add and invite the community to adhere to these standards, to practice the standards. You will be providing the best patient care that we can nowadays. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. I think these standards are very important. And Michael, I thank you for touching on those key claims from NCODA. I think those, along with these updated standards, will improve outcomes for patients everywhere. So I want to thank you both so much for your work to update these standards and all the time you put into it. And thank you for your time today too, Michael and Dr. Raez. Michael Reff: I'd like to thank not only the committee, my esteemed committee that helped support the standards and the revision. Many of the original healthcare providers and patient that were on the first go of the standards were part of the second standards. We revised it, of course, and we got additional support from the new committee. And certainly ASCO and their partnership and collaboration with NCODA has been tremendous. And we look forward to the oncology community at large adopting these standards, again, to work together, we do become stronger, and it will improve cancer care for patients receiving oral anticancer medications. So thank you, Brittany. Dr. Luis Raez: I only want to say the same thing. Actually, there is probably more people in NCODA that is not in the publication that has helped. Same in ASCO. Also, we want to give thanks to Dr. Stephen Grubbs, our leader in quality. He's retiring. We're going to miss him, but he has been a key collaborator with Mike organizing these standards for the last five or six years. So, looking forward to these standards in practice. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. A big thank you to the entire panel and everyone who contributed to this, and NCODA as well. And then finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the complete standards, go to www.asco.org/standards. I also encourage you to check out the companion episode on these standards on the PQI podcast by NCODA, which you can find on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also find many of our standards and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Welcome to the Oncology Brothers podcast! In this episode, hosts Drs. Rahul and Rohit Gosain are joined by Dr. Gilberto Lopes, a thoracic medical oncologist from the Sylvester Cancer Center. Together, they dived into the latest updates on anti-EGFR drugs used in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutations. In this informative discussion, they covered: •⁠  ⁠The evolution of EGFR inhibitors, including Afatinib, Osimertinib, Amivantamab, and Lazertinib. •⁠  ⁠Common side effects associated with these treatments, such as diarrhea, skin toxicity, and infusion-related reactions. •⁠  ⁠Strategies for managing these side effects to improve patient quality of life and treatment adherence. •⁠  ⁠Insights from recent studies, including the SKIPirr trial and the MARIPOSA study, highlighting the benefits of new combinations and treatment approaches. Youtube: https://youtu.be/v6fb6nx0YY4 Follow us on social media: •⁠  ⁠X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers •⁠  ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers •⁠  Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ Join us as we explore how proactive management of side effects can maximize the effectiveness of these therapies and enhance patient outcomes. Don't forget to check out our other ToxCheck discussions, treatment algorithms, and conference highlights!

The FiltrateJoel TopfAC GomezSophia AmbrusoNayan AroraSpecial Guest Charles Edelstein, MD, PhD Professor, Medicine-Renal Med Diseases/HypertensionExtra-Special GuestMichelle Rheault, MD Professor of Pediatrics, University of MinnesotaEditing bySimon and Joel TopfThe Kidney Connection written and performed by by Tim YauShow NotesKDIGO ADPKD Guidelines:WebsiteGuideline PDFExecutive Summary PDFNephJC coverageConsortium for Radiologic Imaging Studies of Polycystic Kidney Disease (CRISP)Hy's Law (Wikipedia) has three components:ALT or AST by 3-fold or greater above the upper limit of normalAnd total serum bilirubin of greater than 2× the upper limit of normal, without findings of cholestasis (defined as serum alkaline phosphatase activity less than 2× the upper limit of normal)And no other reason can be found to explain the combination of increased aminotransferase and serum total bilirubin, such as viral hepatitis, alcohol abuse, ischemia, preexisting liver disease, or another drug capable of causing the observed injuryMeeting this definition yields a very high risk of fulminant kidney failure (76% in one series)Clinical Pattern of Tolvaptan-Associated Liver Injury in Subjects with Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease: Analysis of Clinical Trials Database (PubMed) Two of 957 patients on tolvaptan met Hy's law criteria. None had fulminant kidney failure.Effects of Hydrochlorothiazide and Metformin on Aquaresis and Nephroprotection by a Vasopressin V2 Receptor Antagonist in ADPKD: A Randomized Crossover Trial (PubMed) Patients had a baseline urine volume on tolvaptan of 6.9 L/24 h. Urine volume decreased to 5.1 L/24 h with hydrochlorothiazide and to 5.4 L/24 h on metformin.TEMPO 3:4 Tolvaptan in Patients with Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease (NEJM)Reprise Trial Tolvaptan in Later-Stage Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease ( NEJM | NephJC )Unified ultrasonographic diagnostic criteria for polycystic kidney disease by Edelstein in JASN (PubMed)Tolvaptan and Kidney Function Decline in Older Individuals With Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Observational Studies (PubMed)Charles' draft choice Recommendation 4.1.1.1: We recommend initiating tolvaptan treatment in adults with ADPKD with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ‡25 ml/min per 1.73 m2 who are at risk for rapidly progressive disease (1B).Sophia's draft choice Recommendation 1.4.2.1: We recommend employing the Mayo Imaging Classi cation (MIC) to predict future decline in kidney function and the timing of kidney failure (1B).Progression to kidney failure in ADPKD: the PROPKD score underestimates the risk assessed by the Mayo imaging classification (Frontiers of Science)AC's draft choice Recommendation 9.2.1: We recommend targeting BP to ≤ 50th percentile for age, sex, and height or ≤ 110/70 mm Hg in adolescents in the setting of ADPKD and high BP (1D).HALT-PKD Blood Pressure in Early Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease (NEJM)Nayan's draft choice Recommendation 6.1.2: We recommend screening for ICA in people with ADPKD and a personal history of SAH or a positive family history of ICA, SAH, or unexplained sudden death in those eligible for treatment and who have a reasonable life expectancy (1D).Screening for Intracranial Aneurysms in Patients with Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease (CJASN)Surgical Clipping Versus Endovascular Coiling in the Management of Intracranial Aneurysms (PubMed) Clipping is associated with a higher rate of occlusion of the aneurysm and lower rates of residual and recurrent aneurysms, whereas coiling is associated with lower morbidity and mortality and a better postoperative course.Joel's editorial pick Recommendation 6.1.1: We recommend informing adults with ADPKD about the increased risk for intracranial aneurysms (ICAs) and subarachnoid hemorrhage (1C).Joel's first draft pick The bring out your dead pick:Recommendation 4.3.1: We recommend not using mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors to slow kidney disease progression in people with ADPKD (1C).Recommendation 4.4.1: We suggest not using statins specfiically to slow kidney disease progression in people with ADPKD (2D).Recommendation 4.5.1: We recommend not using metformin specifically to slow the rate of disease progression in people with ADPKD who do not have diabetes (1B).Recommendation 4.6.1: We suggest that somatostatin analogues should not be prescribed for the sole purpose of decreasing eGFR decline in people with ADPKD (2B).Perfect match: mTOR inhibitors and tuberous sclerosis complex (Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases)Navitor Pharmaceuticals Announces Janssen Has Acquired Anakuria Therapeutics, Inc. (BioSpace) This is press release about acquiring the mTor1 inhibitor.Joel's second draft pick Recommendation 4.2.1.1: We suggest adapting water intake, spread throughout the day, to achieve at least 2–3 liters of water intake per day in people with ADPKD and an eGFR ≥ 30 ml/min per 1.73 m2 without contraindications to excreting a solute load (2D).Nayan's bonus draft Practice Point 4.7.1: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) should not be used to slow eGFR decline in people with ADPKD.Open-Label, Randomized, Controlled, Crossover Trial on the Effect of Dapagliflozin in Patients With ADPKD Receiving Tolvaptan (KIReports)SMART Trial of GLP-1ra in non-diabetics: Semaglutide in patients with overweight or obesity and chronic kidney disease without diabetes: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial (PubMed)Tubular SecretionsNayan: Landman on Paramount Plus (IMDB)Sophia: PassNayan: steps in with The Pitt on HBO (Wikipedia)Charles: The White Lotus, Yellowstone 1923, Poirot (IMDB)AC: The PittMichael Crichton's Estate Sends The Pitt to the Courtroom (Vulture)Joel: I Must Betray you by Ruta Sepetys (Amazon)

Why You Should Listen:  In this episode, you will learn about Metabolic Vulnerability Index (MVX) as an indicator of mortality and longevity. About My Guest: My guest for this episode is Dr. Darren Schmidt.  Darren Schmidt, DC is the Founder of The Nutritional Healing Center of Ann Arbor which is the largest non-insurance nutrition clinic in the country.  His purpose is to bankrupt pharmaceutical companies by teaching doctors how to improve health rather than treat symptoms.  He uses new and old clinical discoveries to solve complex chronic illness with only diet and supplements.  He uses MVX Plus, the best lab test to measure longevity and health, and it also directs the treatment plan. Key Takeaways: What is MVX? What are the 6 factors and 3 indices that are explored with MVX? How might MVX be a better metric for mortality than many conventionally-used metrics today? Can MVX be extrapolated to be used as a measure of health and longevity? What is GlycA?  What drives it? What tools can be used to lower GlycA? What is the connection between GlycA and hypercoagulation? Why is eGFR and kidney health often used on the context of predicting mortality? What is small HDL particle number?  How can it be optimized? What is the Inflammation Vulnerability Index? What is citrate?  What tools can be used to lower it when elevated? What is the connection between citrate and mitochondrial function? What is lactic acidosis? What is learned from looking at valine, leucine, and isoleucine? What steps may be taken if they are high?  If they are low? What is the Metabolic Malnutrition Index? When might a keto diet be appropriate? What does the Metabolic Vulnerability Index tell us? Is MVX impacted by genetics or epigenetics? What is the 7 Step Blueprint to Optimal Health? How do the 7 steps overlap with the 6 MVX factors? Connect With My Guest:  TheNutritionalHealingCenter.com Related Resources: To see the resources in the Show Notes, visit https://BetterHealthGuy.com/Episode216. Interview Date: April 21, 2025 Transcript: To review a transcript of this show, visit https://BetterHealthGuy.com/Episode216. Additional Information: To learn more, visit https://BetterHealthGuy.com. Follow Me on Social Media: Facebook - https://facebook.com/betterhealthguy Instagram - https://instagram.com/betterhealthguy X - https://twitter.com/betterhealthguy TikTok - https://tiktok.com/@betterhealthguy Disclaimer:  The content of this show is for informational purposes only and is not intended to diagnose, treat, or cure any illness or medical condition. Nothing in today's discussion is meant to serve as medical advice or as information to facilitate self-treatment. As always, please discuss any potential health-related decisions with your own personal medical authority.