Podcasts about egfr

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!

We are giving you a fresh take on celebrity health news and medical news that you can't get anywhere else! We're talking about Al B. Sure!'s wild survival story (coma, liver transplant, and those Diddy rumors), plus Nate Robinson's journey from NBA All-Star to kidney transplant survivor.I misspoke on the LIVE today. I said that it is standard of care for one to be referred to a nephrologist when the eGFR is less than 30. I meant to say that it is standard of care to refer a patient to a nephrologist when the eGFR is less than 60 and when the patient is in stage 3 CKD.This podcast is intended to be informational only.  It is not a medical consultation, nor is it personalized medical advice.  For medical advice, please consult your physician.Did you hear about Fox News commentator Camryn Kinsey fainting on live TV? Let's talk about why fainting happens—and why it's not just about “catching your breath.” Also, have you heard about That's So Raven, Disney Star, Rondell Sheridan's pancreatitis battle? It's a wake-up call for sure, and we'll talk about what you need to know plus so much more!#HealthHappyLifePodcast #DrFrita #MedicalMondays #MedicineInTheNewsHere are a few helpful resources to help on your journey to wellness:▶️ Subscribe so you will never miss a YouTube video.

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)

Clinical investigators discuss available data guiding the management of EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer.  CME information and select publications here.

This is the second episode of a two-part series on the HER2 diagnostic and treatment landscape in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), hosted by the Oncology Brothers, Drs Rohit and Rahul Gosain.      In this episode, Dr Isabel Preeshagul and Dr Eric Singhi provide the benefit of their experience when discussing how to approach different treatment scenarios in HER2-mutant NSCLC.   The conversation unfolds to cover: • Ways to distinguish HER2 alterations from other alterations on biomarker reports  • The latest efficacy and safety data of currently approved and emerging treatments for HER2-altered NSCLC   • The potential CNS activity of these treatments in patients with HER2-mutated NSCLC  • How the treatment pathway may look in the near future      Clinical takeaways • In NSCLC, HER2-positivity includes mutations, amplifications and overexpression. It's important to distinguish HER2 alterations from EGFR mutations, particularly exon 20 insertions, when interpreting next-generation sequencing (NGS) results  • Trastuzumab Deruxtecan (T-DXd) is currently the only approved targeted agent for HER2-altered NSCLC in the 2nd-line setting. It shows promising efficacy, especially in HER2-mutant cases, but has limited brain penetration and is associated with notable side effects, including pneumonitis, which requires close monitoring  • Emerging TKIs, such as zongertinib, BAY 2927088 (sevabertinib), and NVL-330, target HER2-mutations and have shown high response rates and CNS activity in early studies, without ILD/pneumonitis. These treatments come with unique side effects like diarrhoea and rash, which can be managed with supportive care  • CNS metastases are common, with up to 30% of HER2-altered NSCLC patients presenting with or quickly developing CNS metastases. Current large molecule therapies (like T-DXd) have limited brain penetration, making small-molecule TKIs, like zongertinib, BAY 2927088 (sevabertinib), and NVL-330, promising for their potential CNS activity • Current standard 1st-line care for HER2-mutant NSCLC remains platinum-based chemotherapy ± immunotherapy. Targeted agents (like T-DXd) are generally reserved for 2nd-line use, but ongoing trials are evaluating the move toward frontline therapy Follow us on social media: •⁠  ⁠X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers •⁠  ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers •⁠  Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ Don't forget to subscribe for the next episode

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. 

The OncoAlertWeekly Round Up   Covering the TOP of the week April 18-24, 2025  REGISTER at http://OncoAlert360.com OR https://oncoalert.m-pages.com/nhMpwe/oncoalert-newsletter-registration   Discussing:UPDATE on DESTINY-Breast09https://astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2025/enhertu-combination-improved-pfs-in-1l-her-positive-mbc.htmlUPDATE on ASCENT 04https://gilead.com/news/news-details/2025/trodelvy-plus-keytruda-demonstrates-a-statistically-significant-and-clinically-meaningful-improvement-in-progression-free-survival-in-patients-with-previously-untreated-pd-l1-metastatic-tripAnnual Report to the Nationon the Status of Cancer, featuring state-level statistics after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemichttps://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cncr.35833Osimertinib vs. Afatinib in 1L therapy of atypical EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer https://lungcancerjournal.info/article/S0169-5002(25)00443-X/fulltextTargeting Lung Cancer with Precision: The ADC Therapeutic Revolutionhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11912-025-01655-5Prevalence by therapy line and incidence of breast cancer brain metastases in 18 075 patientshttps://academic.oup.com/jnci/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jnci/djaf048/8101485?login=falseEuropean screening platform for EORTC clinical trials in advanced colorectal cancer ‘SPECTAcolor'https://esmogastro.org/article/S2949-8198(25)00037-8/fulltextKorea, Japan, Europe, and the United States: Why are guidelines for gastric cancer different?https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10120-025-01613-xOutpatient Administration of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy Using Remote Patient Monitoringhttps://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/OP-25-00062Safety and Activity of Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors in Advanced Malignancieshttps://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/PO-24-00896?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed

LIVE from Transform 2025! Adria Ferrier is the founder of Elayne, an AI copilot for financial and estate management. Elayne's mission is to modernize estate planning and affairs settlements, making it more accessible, efficient, and integrated into daily life. She launched Elayne after experiencing firsthand the disjointed, frustrating challenges families face after loss, along with its impact on careers. After her mom passed away, she spent months navigating banks, insurance companies, lawyers, taxes, and doing countless administrative tasks—like canceling her mom's subscriptions and deactivating her social media—each with its own complex, manual process. The burden, on top of the impact of losing her mother, took a toll on her performance at work. Ultimately, she resigned, a decision made by nearly 50% of employees within a year of a major loss. Adria started her career in corporate M&A before transitioning to private equity at Blackstone in NYC. She later earned her MBA from Wharton and joined Permira's healthcare investing team, deploying billions in capital throughout her career. In her early 20s, she helped launch a patient advocacy group for EGFR-positive lung cancer with her mom, directing hundreds of thousands toward EGFR-related research projects. Adria grew up between Debrecen, Hungary, and Providence, RI. She has lived in nine countries and speaks four languages. We dig into: - What key flaws in estate management inspired you to launch Elayne, and how does AI solve them? - How can companies better support employees navigating loss, so they don't feel forced to resign? - From private equity to entrepreneurship, what's been the biggest mindset shift in building Elayne? - The passion and story behind her company and so much more! Visit www.Elayne.com Get.elayne.com/POZCAST https://get.elayne.com/transform/ Live from Transform 2025, we're bringing you an exclusive podcast series packed with insights from some of the brightest minds in hiring, talent strategy, and workforce transformation! In this series, we've got incredible guests from Okta, Tubi, Edelman, Greenhouse, Findem, and more, sharing how top organizations are rethinking hiring, culture, and talent acquisition in today's fast-changing world. Greenhouse combines a structured, data-driven hiring approach with AI-embedded workflows that empower recruiters to focus on strategic, high-impact work. From sourcing top talent to personalizing the candidate experience, Greenhouse streamlines and optimizes the entire hiring process. This ensures that every hire is the right hire—eliminating bias, creating fairness, and helping teams make smarter, faster decisions. Over 7,500 companies, including HubSpot, Duolingo, and J.D. Power, trust Greenhouse to build better teams and turn talent into a strategic advantage. Want to learn how today's top companies are winning the talent game? Tune in now and visit Greenhouse.com to transform the way you hire. Thanks for listening. Please follow us on Instagram @NHPTalent and X @AdamJPosner. Visit www.thePOZcast.com for all episodes.

The last few years have seen “a remarkable change in both our approach and management of EGFR lung cancer,” says Shirish M. Gadgeel, MD, division head for hematology/oncology and associate director of Patient Experience and Clinical Care at the Henry Ford Cancer Institute in Detroit. He discusses key considerations for managing EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer with Robert A. Figlin, MD, the interim director and Steven Spielberg Family Chair in Hematology-Oncology at Cedars-Sinai Cancer Center in Los Angeles. Dr. Gadgeel describes considerations for leptomeningeal metastases, important treatment toxicities, and exciting advances on the horizon. Dr. Gadgeel reported various financial relationships. Dr. Figlin reported various financial relationships.

Featuring perspectives from Dr Jonathan Goldman and Dr Natasha B Leighl, including the following topics: Introduction (0:00) Current Management of Nonmetastatic and Metastatic EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) — Prof Leighl (1:42) Promising Novel Agents in Clinical Development; EGFR Exon 20 Mutation-Positive NSCLC — Dr Goldman (37:25) CME information and select publications

In this episode, host Jonathan Sackier speaks with Alexander Spira about cutting-edge advances in lung and colorectal cancer, including EGFR and KRAS-targeted therapies. They also discuss Spira's leadership in oncology research, his thoughts on the evolving ‘town-gown' dynamic in US medicine, and his hopes for the future of cancer care.  Timestamps:  00:00 – Introduction 01:50 – Most memorable family travel adventure 03:30 – What inspired you to go into oncology 05:49 – Three recent publications in lung cancer 07:02 – Real-world data on colorectal cancer 08:15 – Sex/gender differences in non-small cell lung cancer 11:53 – The science of KRAS mutations and drug development 15:07 – Accelerating diagnostics and access to therapies 17:13 – The ‘town-gown' debate in American healthcare 18:09- Three Wishes 

Welcome back to the Oncology Brothers podcast! In this episode, Drs. Rahul and Rohit Gosain are joined by Dr. Joshua Sabari, a thoracic medical oncologist from NYU, to discuss the latest findings from the European Lung Cancer Conference (ELCC) 2025. We dived into several key studies that are shaping the future of lung cancer treatment, including: • KEYNOTE-799: Exploring the combination of concurrent chemotherapy and radiation with the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab for unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). • LAURA: The impact of osimertinib in patients with EGFR mutations post-chemoradiation therapy. • MARIPOSA: The promising results of amivantamab and lisertinib in the metastatic setting for EGFR-mutated NSCLC. • KRYSTAL-7: Investigating the use of KRAS G12C inhibitors in frontline therapy. Join us as we discuss the implications of these studies, the importance of next-generation sequencing (NGS), and how to manage side effects associated with these new therapies. YouTube: https://youtu.be/akoXXAUEl_8 Follow us on social media: •⁠  ⁠X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers •⁠  ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers •⁠  Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ Don't forget to like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell for more updates on the latest in oncology! #Oncology #LungCancer #ELCC2025 #EGFR #KRAS #CancerResearch #Podcast

Oncology here & nowIn this interview Dr. Biagio Ricciuti of Dana Farber Cancer Institute (USA) talks to Dr. Marcelo Corassa of beneficência Portuguesa de São Paulo (Brazil) as they discuss Treatments in EGFR mutant Non Small Cell Lung Cancer. The discussion centers around the results of FLAURA, MARIPOSA and FLAURA2, future directions and much more.Join Us

Welcome to another episode of the Oncology Brothers podcast! In this episode, hosts Drs. Rahul and Rohit Gosain continue their ToxCheck series, focusing on the management of side effects associated with treatments for pancreatic cancer. Join us as we dive deep into the use of key drugs such as 5-FU, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, liposomal irinotecan, and the combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel. We are joined by esteemed guests Dr. Rachna Shroff from the University of Arizona and Dr. Midhun Malla from the University of Alabama, who share their insights and clinical pearls on managing the challenging side effects of these therapies. Key topics discussed include: •⁠  ⁠The utility of 5-FU bolus and leucovorin in treatment regimens •⁠  ⁠Managing common side effects like diarrhea, mucositis, and neuropathy •⁠  ⁠The importance of preemptive strategies in side effect management •⁠  ⁠Insights on liposomal irinotecan and its tolerability •⁠  ⁠The impact of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel on quality of life Whether you're a healthcare professional or someone interested in oncology, this episode provides valuable information on optimizing treatment while maintaining patient quality of life. YouTube: https://youtu.be/KByOGRpzFMQ Follow us on social media: •⁠  ⁠X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers •⁠  ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers •⁠  Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ Don't forget to check out our other ToxCheck episodes on antibody drug conjugates, CAR-T, and anti-EGFR drugs used in colorectal cancer. Subscribe for more insights from the Oncology Brothers!  

In today's episode, supported by Summit Therapeutics, we had the pleasure of speaking with Xiuning Le, MD, PhD, about the use of ivonescimab (SMT112) in patients with PD-L1–positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Dr Le is an associate professor in the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology in the Division of Internal Medicine at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. The phase 3 HARMONi-2 trial (NCT05499390) investigated ivonescimab vs pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic, PD-L1–positive NSCLC without sensitizing EGFR mutations or ALK translocations. At the preplanned interim analysis, at a median follow-up of 8.7 months (IQR, 7.1-10.3), the median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ivonescimab arm (n = 198) vs the pembrolizumab arm (n = 200), at 11.1 months (95% CI, 7.3-not estimable) vs 5.8 months (95% CI, 5.0-8.2), respectively (stratified HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.69; 1-sided P < .0001). The objective response rates were 50% (95% CI, 43%-57%) and 39% (95% CI, 32%-46%) in these respective arms. In our exclusive interview, Dr Le discussed the rationale for the HARMONi-2 trial, key findings from the study, and where these findings position the potential role of ivonescimab in the PD-L1–positive NSCLC treatment paradigm.

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

In this episode, Dr. Paul Wheatley-Price sits down with Bev Moir, who's been living with stage 4 EGFR+ lung cancer since 2019, and her husband Ron Foreman. Bev and Ron share their experiences navigating this tough diagnosis, the important role that Ron plays as a caregiver supporting Bev throughout the journey, and what made Bev decide to use her voice as a platform and advocate for those living with lung cancer.

In this episode of the Veterinary Cancer Pioneers Podcast, host Dr. Rachel Venable welcomes Dr. Mark Mamula, an immunologist and professor at Yale University School of Medicine, to discuss his groundbreaking work in canine cancer immunotherapy. Dr. Mamula shares how his background in autoimmune diseases led him to develop an experimental vaccine targeting EGFR and HER2 proteins in dogs with cancer. He explains the science behind this therapy, its clinical trial progress, and its potential to improve survival outcomes for cancers such as osteosarcoma and hemangiosarcoma. They also explore the challenges of bringing new therapies to veterinary medicine, the role of combination treatments, and the importance of accessible, cost-effective options for pet owners. Tune in for an insightful conversation on the evolving landscape of canine cancer treatment and the promising future of immunotherapy.

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 information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/KRC865. CME credit will be available until February 26, 2026.Modern Practice Principles in Lung Cancer—First Find the Targets, Then Treat With Precision: A Concise Guide for Biomarker Testing and EGFR-Targeted Therapy in 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 Janssen Biotech, Inc., administered by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Both are Johnson & Johnson companies.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 information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/KRC865. CME credit will be available until February 26, 2026.Modern Practice Principles in Lung Cancer—First Find the Targets, Then Treat With Precision: A Concise Guide for Biomarker Testing and EGFR-Targeted Therapy in 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 Janssen Biotech, Inc., administered by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Both are Johnson & Johnson companies.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 information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/KRC865. CME credit will be available until February 26, 2026.Modern Practice Principles in Lung Cancer—First Find the Targets, Then Treat With Precision: A Concise Guide for Biomarker Testing and EGFR-Targeted Therapy in 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 Janssen Biotech, Inc., administered by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Both are Johnson & Johnson companies.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 information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/KRC865. CME credit will be available until February 26, 2026.Modern Practice Principles in Lung Cancer—First Find the Targets, Then Treat With Precision: A Concise Guide for Biomarker Testing and EGFR-Targeted Therapy in 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 Janssen Biotech, Inc., administered by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Both are Johnson & Johnson companies.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 information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/KRC865. CME credit will be available until February 26, 2026.Modern Practice Principles in Lung Cancer—First Find the Targets, Then Treat With Precision: A Concise Guide for Biomarker Testing and EGFR-Targeted Therapy in 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 Janssen Biotech, Inc., administered by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Both are Johnson & Johnson companies.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 information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/KRC865. CME credit will be available until February 26, 2026.Modern Practice Principles in Lung Cancer—First Find the Targets, Then Treat With Precision: A Concise Guide for Biomarker Testing and EGFR-Targeted Therapy in 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 Janssen Biotech, Inc., administered by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Both are Johnson & Johnson companies.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

BUFFALO, NY — March 3, 2025 — A new #research paper was #published in Aging (Aging-US) on February 27, 2025, as the #cover of Volume 17, Issue 2, titled “Variability in radiotherapy outcomes across cancer types: a comparative study of glioblastoma multiforme and low-grade gliomas.” An international research team, led by first author Alexander Veviorskiy from Insilico Medicine AI Limited, Abu Dhabi, UAE, and corresponding author Morten Scheibye-Knudsen from the Center for Healthy Aging, University of Copenhagen, investigated how radiotherapy affects survival in different types of cancer, with a special focus on glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and low-grade gliomas (LGG). Their findings reveal that radiotherapy has opposite effects in GBM and LGG patients. The study highlights key biological differences between these brain cancer types, emphasizing the need for personalized treatment strategies. Radiotherapy is a standard treatment for many tumors, but its effectiveness varies widely depending on the type of cancer. The researchers began by analyzing data from 32 cancer types using information from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). They then focused on glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and low-grade gliomas (LGG), two types of brain cancer with distinct biological behaviors. GBM is an aggressive cancer with poor survival rates, whereas LGG progresses more slowly and often has a better prognosis. “GBM and LGG are particularly interesting to study together because GBM often originates from a preexisting LGG, representing a progression from a lower-grade to a higher-grade malignancy.” The results revealed a striking contrast: patients with GBM who received radiotherapy lived longer, whereas those with LGG had shorter survival times after treatment. To understand the reasons behind this, the researchers analyzed gene expression and signaling pathways. They identify several biological processes that may influence radiotherapy outcomes. For example, GBM tumors have weaker DNA repair mechanisms, making them more vulnerable to radiation-induced damage, which allows radiotherapy to effectively kill cancer cells. In contrast, LGG tumors have stronger DNA repair systems, helping cells survive radiation better and potentially reducing the treatment's effectiveness. Additionally, differences in immune system activity and genetic mutations—such as EGFR alterations—were linked to worse survival in LGG patients who received radiotherapy. These findings highlight the need for a more personalized approach to treating brain cancer. The study proposes that a universal approach to radiotherapy is not appropriate, particularly for patients with LGG. Instead, personalized treatment strategies based on genetic and molecular characteristics could improve patient survival outcomes. The research also raises the possibility of combining radiotherapy with targeted therapies, such as immune-boosting therapies or DNA repair inhibitors, to enhance its effectiveness. In conclusion, this study highlights the complexity of brain cancer treatment and the need for further research to refine therapeutic strategies. By understanding the molecular and genetic differences between the different types of cancers, more effective and personalized approaches can be developed to improve survival and quality of life for brain cancer patients. DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.206212 Corresponding author - Morten Scheibye-Knudsen - mscheibye@sund.ku.dk Video short - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j91rzDJHXTE Visit our website at https://www.Aging-US.com​​ and connect with us: Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/AgingUS/ X - https://twitter.com/AgingJrnl Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/agingjrnl/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@AgingJournal LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/aging/ Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/AgingUS/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/1X4HQQgegjReaf6Mozn6Mc MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM

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

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

Drs Camidge and Oxnard discussed Dr Oxnard's work with novel EGFR inhibitors that aims to overcome treatment resistance; how advancements in precision medicine have increased the importance of early cancer detection; and how he balances clinical practice with his industry role, advocating for efficient, patient-centered care

JCO PO author Dr. Hatim Husain at University of California San Diego, shares insights into his JCO PO article, “Adagrasib Treatment After Sotorasib-Related Hepatotoxicity in Patients With KRASG12C-Mutated Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Case Series and Literature Review”, one of the top downloaded articles of 2024. Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Husain discuss how to utilize real-world and clinical trial data to discern the safety of adagrasib (another KRASG12C inhibitor), following sotorasib discontinuation due to hepatotoxicity. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCOPO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, Podcast Editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Assistant Professor at the OU Stephenson Cancer Center.  Today, I'm very excited to be joined by Dr. Hatim Hussain, Professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and author of the JCO Precision Oncology article, “Adagrasib Treatment After Sotorasib-Related Hepatotoxicity in Patients With KRAS-G12C-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Case Series and Literature Review.” This was one of the top downloaded articles of 2024. And the other interesting thing is we generally don't do podcasts for case reports or case series, so this is one of the very few that we have selected for the podcast.  And at the time of the recording, our guest disclosures will be linked in the transcript.  Dr. Hussain, welcome to our podcast and thank you for joining us today. Dr. Hatim Husain: Thank you Dr. Naqash. Such a pleasure to be here and to speak with you all. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: And for the sake of this podcast, we'll refer to each other using our first names. So again, as I mentioned earlier that this is one of the very few case reports that we have selected for podcasts in JCOPO and the intention was very deliberate because it caters to something that is emerging where we are trying to treat more KRAS mutant patients with different KRAS inhibitors. And you tried to address one very unique aspect of it in this article which pertains to toxicity, especially hepatotoxicity. So for the sake of our listeners who tend to be community oncologists, trainees, academic faculty, can you tell us what are KRAS inhibitors? What is KRAS-G12C? And how do some of these approved KRAS inhibitors try to inhibit KRAS-G12C? Dr. Hatim Husain: Sure. For a long time actually we've not had a selective way to inhibit mutant KRAS. And over the last several years actually now, we've seen some dramatic advances here, particularly with the FDA approval of some of the selective inhibitors against the G12C variant. So KRAS-G12C is an isoform of KRAS that is most common in lung cancer and in fact actually is a transversion mutation in the KRAS gene that is a product of the carcinogen of tobacco. And in fact, the incidence of KRAS-G12C in lung cancer, it's quite astounding where as many KRAS-G12C patients there are, there can be, as you know, more than EGFR patients in certain populations and cohorts. The medicines sotorasib and adagrasib were rationally designed to be selective KRAS-G12C inhibitors. And the way that they do this is that they lock the KRAS protein in the OFF state. KRAS is a protein that oscillates between an ON and an OFF state and by virtue of locking the protein in an OFF state, it has shown inhibition of downstream signaling and mitigation of tumor growth and, in fact, tumor cell death. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I absolutely love the way you describe the ON and OFF state, the oscillation where the ON is bound to the GTP and the OFF is bound to the GDP. The two KRAS inhibitors as currently FDA approved, as you mentioned, are RAS OFF inhibitors and they're emerging KRAS inhibitors that are RAS ON. So now, as we have known from previous data related to immunotherapy and EGFR TKIs such as osimirtinib where toxicity tends to be a compounded effect when you have osimertinib given within a certain timeline of previous checkpoint therapy, we've seen that in the clinic as the data for these KRAS inhibitors is emerging, you talk about some very interesting aspects and data about what has been published so far with regards to prior use of immunotherapy or chemo immunotherapy and the subsequent use of KRAS inhibitors. Could you elaborate upon that? Dr. Hatim Husain: Sure. So for this population of patients, the first line approved strategy is a strategy that most cases will incorporate immune therapy and chemotherapy. Immune therapy can have some important responses for patients with KRAS-G12C. This may be due to the fact that KRAS-G12C patients may have a higher incidence of prior smoking, perhaps higher mutation burdens in some patients, and perhaps immunogenicity is defined in that context. So the standard of care in the first line currently includes immune therapy or immune therapy and chemotherapy. Where the current FDA approvals for selective G12C inhibitors are are after the first line of therapy. There are a number of trials exploring these medicines in the first line to see if they may be incorporated into a future treatment paradigm. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for that explanation. Now, going to what you published in this manuscript, can you help us understand the context of why you looked at this? Even though the data just comprises a case series of a handful of patients, but the observations are very interesting and these are real world scenarios where we often tend to be in situations where an individual has had toxicity on a certain drug and may have some response to that drug, but at the same time, the toxicity is challenging. And then you try to debate whether another drug in the same class might be beneficial without those toxicities. So you've tried to address that to some extent using this data set. So can you elaborate upon the question, the methodology, what you tried to look at, and important observations that you have? Dr. Hatim Husain: Yes, our paper was actually inspired by one of my patients. My patient was a patient who had received chemotherapy and immune therapy and actually in the past, even, you know, additional lines of immune therapies, it was really coming to the edge of where standard treatments would exist. It was right at the same time that these selective inhibitors had been approved and the patient had received sotorasib. And what was remarkable was, when given sotorasib, patient had a very high peak and spike in the transaminases. And we would do different trials of strategies around dose, around interruptions. And it was becoming quite difficult, actually, for the patient to proceed with additional therapy. It was around similar times, actually, and I do want to make a note that the patient was progressing, driven in large fact by the fact that we've had to interrupt the medicine. So we feel and believe that the patient had had inadequate dosing because of the level of toxicity that the patient was having with transaminase increase. So it was around the same time that adagrasib was first commercially available that we were at that point, and we did a trial of adagrasib post-sotorasib, largely driven by necessity, without having additional options to provide this patient in our environment. What was remarkable was when the patient received the adagrasib, there were no spikes in transaminases similar to what we had seen before. And that really led us thinking and to say, “Is this adverse event of transaminase increase or hepatotoxicity, is this a class effect with KRAS-G12C inhibitors, or is it more nuanced than that? Are there different, perhaps, mechanisms by which the medicines may work that may more or less differentially contribute to this adverse event?” And so that inspired us to kind of do a larger analysis, kind of really reach out to a larger network of physicians to gather insights and to gather responses in patients who had had a serial approach of sotorasib and then adagrasib.  What we found in this process was, in fact, actually there were many more cases of patients who resembled my patient, where the sequence of sotorasib going to adagrasib may have demonstrated differential contribution of hepatotoxicity in that context. And that really motivated us to put the publication together to due diligence, and in the publication spend a lot of time to kind of outline each patient case in detail around metrics surrounding time from last immune therapy, the number of days on sotorasib, the best response to sotorasib, the interval between sotorasib and adagrasib, the duration of adagrasib and then the grade of hepatotoxicity seen in each of the contexts, and particularly kind of the adagrasib and patient disease status as well. We were quite inspired by the effort to try to, if we do not have randomized data in comparison of one medicine to another, which we do not at this juncture, we do not have a randomized analysis to really diligently and rigorously compare the rates of AEs across each medicine, and even in sequence, we do not have that with immune therapy. But what we felt was trying to get more analysis of this sequential approach of, if patients had received a medicine, had to be taken off because of toxicity and then actually tried on a new medicine, what were those rates? We felt like that was at least some information to try to get at this question. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: And you bring forward a very important point, which is, a lot of times in the real world setting we don't have cross trial comparisons that can be fully applicable, or we don't have trials that compare two drugs of the same class with respect to the AE profile or efficacy. And observations like the one that you described that led to this study are extremely critical in trying to help answer these questions.  From a data standpoint, and you allude to it to some extent in your manuscript, the trials that are trying to address combination of KRAS-G12C with immunotherapy, especially sotorasib or adagrasib, can you elaborate on that data, what has been published so far and summarize it for our listeners? Dr. Hatim Husain: So there is data from clinical trials looking at patients actually who have received concomitant immune therapy and sotorasib. What was seen in this, in a real world analysis, was that some patients actually who had received sotorasib within a close proximity of immune therapy, as well as a larger study actually which showed in combination there were higher rates of hepatotoxicity in that context. In fact, there were rates of grade 3 hepatotoxicity. And I think built upon that data there's a recognition in the field that we have to be very diligent in terms of even the clinical trial designs in how to understand the pairing between immune therapy and selective G12C inhibitors. There are many trials that are ongoing, one of the studies that is ongoing is known as the KRYSTAL-7 study, which is evaluating adagrasib in combination with pembrolizumab in the first line. And we await more information on that strategy as well. In the context of sotorasib, because of some of the trials that have shown higher rates of hepatotoxicity, there are some additional trials now looking at sotorasib in combination with chemotherapy, and those also have some information that have been reported as well. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: From a drug development standpoint, as you mentioned, there's always a tendency to combine something with something else. And in my practice, and I'm sure in your practice too, when we do early phase trials, many trials are still focused on choosing the maximum tolerated dose, which may be something that we need to gradually move away from as we try to implement these combinations of multiple antibodies plus some of these target agents from maybe the biological optimal dose rather than the maximal tolerant dose is a better way to look at the drugs, the pharmacokinetic profile, and then see what is likely the safest combination with the most appropriate target engagement. Do you have any thoughts on that or insights on that from a drug development perspective? Dr. Hatim Husain: It's a wonderful question and I think it is a very insightful question and understanding of where we are in space right now. And I agree with you that historically, cancer drug development was really hinged upon medicines that perhaps required higher doses to see a benefit or to inch out kind of marginal increases upon where we were at. Now, in combination with medicines that have non-overlapping mechanisms of action, the concept is: Can there actually be more synergy across an approach using combinatorial strategies rather than just additive effects? And I think that in some cases this is being studied with immune therapy, in some cases actually even in the context of other novel mechanisms for cancer therapy. I think that in my practice, I will really try to see how a patient at an approved dose will respond. But definitely I'm open to the concept that there may be a dose that doesn't have to be the maximally tolerated dose, but rather the dose that responses can be seen and perhaps actually at a lower dose than what drives many toxicities. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I often describe this to my patients as individual patient dose optimization outside of a clinical trial, where I'm sure you've probably done this, where in older adults maybe a lower dose of osimertinib is tolerated better, or a lower dose of sotorasib or adagrasib for that matter, tolerated better with perhaps a similar level of efficacy, since we don't have comparisons between doses and efficacy so far.  So I think in the bigger picture, as we discussed in a nutshell, what I would really like the listeners to understand is as we try to move towards this field of precision medicine targeting more and more of the undruggable genes, there's bound to be a certain level of toxicity patterns that we'll start observing. So I think these real world scenarios which may not be addressed using clinical trials because it is in the real world setting where you cycle one treatment after another after another, which may or may not be allowed in most trials and the real world setting can inform, in certain cases, subsequent trial designs. So I think the most important message, at least that I took from your manuscript, was that these real world observations can make a huge difference and inform practice, even though the data sets may be small. Of course, you want to validate some of these findings in a bigger, broader setting, but proof of concept is there. And I think next time I see an individual in my clinic where I see better toxicity, I'll definitely try to talk to them about subsequent treatment with another KRAS inhibitor, maybe adagrasib or something else, if and when appropriate.  Do you have any closing thoughts on some of these things that we discussed? Dr. Hatim Husain: I just want to leave the audience actually with this concept that sometimes we group targeted therapy side effects as being class effects unanimously. And I do think actually that each inhibitor may have different off target effects on where medicine may act. We don't truly understand the mechanism of hepatotoxicity in the context of selective KRAS-G12C inhibitors. One of the hypotheses may be due to off target cysteine reactivity in the numerous off target binding sites that certain medicines may have over others. And just even qualitatively which off target binding sites there may be, and how that may lead to either immunogenic responses and other organs or such. So I do think that we do need more research to understand the mechanism. But I think where we are at right now in this space is not assuming that all medicines are going to have the exact same toxicity. I think especially when patients may not have other options, this is something to consider as well. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much. Now, outside of the scientific insights, Hatim, I know you a little bit from before. And knowing the kind of work that you've done in precision medicine, I'm really interested to know about where you started, how you started, how things have been, and what kind of advice you have for junior faculty fellows who are interested in this field of precision medicine that is becoming more and more exciting as we progress in the oncology space. Dr. Hatim Husain: Thank you, Rafeh. I will say, actually as a medical student, I was actually very interested in oncology, partly because it was then and still remains one disease or a constellation of diseases that just has such a high psychological burden on patients. And through the experiences I've had, I really can understand and relate with that concept. I did my medical school at Northwestern, residency at the University of Southern California, and then my oncology fellowship at Johns Hopkins University.  And now I've been on faculty at University of California, San Diego, for about 12 years now. It's been a great experience paralleled with the fact that during these last 12 years, I've really seen how the developments in precision oncology, both targeted therapy as well as immune therapy, have really blossomed and unfolded. A large area of my research in my career has kind of focused on cancer genome and integration of novel technologies to really see how they may have clinical application. When I was in my fellowship and as a young faculty, the liquid biopsy was actually coming into development. And this was hinged upon information that had come forward in the prenatal space where some patients actually who were undergoing prenatal testing during pregnancy were found to have complex karyotypes and genomic alterations and then retrospectively found to have cancer.  And doing my fellowship at Johns Hopkins, some of the pioneers in liquid biopsy were my mentors and really kind of instilled in me that passion for really thinking through how cancer genomics can be integrated through time. And some of the research that I have been doing has been looking at clonal evolution of cancer, how cancer is changing over time, and how we can think through the right surveillance strategies to really understand how that change is occurring. The dynamics of ctDNA in retrospective cohorts have been studied and shown that, you know, there can be associations between progression-free survival and other clinical endpoints. The current paper that we are speaking about parallels that in a certain way where, rather than say, looking at clonal evolution and say, the efficacy answer of sotorasib first and then adagrasib and how frequently can adagrasib salvage patients, this looks at it from a different angle around toxicity. And I think that is a key point because, at my core, I really do enjoy the clinical aspect of complex decision making on behalf of patients weighing efficacy and toxicity that they may have as they try to get the best quality of life through this journey. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you again, Hatim, for all those insights, both from the scientific perspective as well as personal perspective. We appreciate that you chose JCOPO as the destination for your work.  And thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Dr. Hatem Husain Disclosures Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Foundation Medicine, Janssen, NeoGenomics Laboratories, Mirati Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Janssen Institution Research Funding: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, Lilly Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Janssen, Foundation Medicine  

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/RDK865. CME/MOC/CC/AAPA credit will be available until February 25, 2026.Targeting Higher Standards in Resectable NSCLC: The Surgery-Oncology Coalition for Tailoring Care in EGFR & ALK TKI Therapy 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 through independent educational grants from AstraZeneca and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group.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/RDK865. CME/MOC/CC/AAPA credit will be available until February 25, 2026.Targeting Higher Standards in Resectable NSCLC: The Surgery-Oncology Coalition for Tailoring Care in EGFR & ALK TKI Therapy 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 through independent educational grants from AstraZeneca and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group.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/RDK865. CME/MOC/CC/AAPA credit will be available until February 25, 2026.Targeting Higher Standards in Resectable NSCLC: The Surgery-Oncology Coalition for Tailoring Care in EGFR & ALK TKI Therapy 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 through independent educational grants from AstraZeneca and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group.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/RDK865. CME/MOC/CC/AAPA credit will be available until February 25, 2026.Targeting Higher Standards in Resectable NSCLC: The Surgery-Oncology Coalition for Tailoring Care in EGFR & ALK TKI Therapy 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 through independent educational grants from AstraZeneca and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

Featuring perspectives from Dr Enriqueta Felip and Dr Helena Yu, including the following topics: Introduction (0:00) First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Disease (2:34) Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Therapy (22:31) EGFR Exon 20 Insertion Mutations (34:21) Antibody-Drug Conjugates (42:45) CME information and select publications

In this episode of Lung Cancer Considered, host Dr. Stephen Liu moderates a Virtual Tumor Board case involving drug resistance in EGFR mutant NSCLC. This discussion takes the listener through the treatment of EGFR mutant NSCLC after acquired resistance to osimertinib. Guest: Dr. Yasushi Goto from National Cancer Center, Japan in Tokyo Guest: Dr. Rachel Sanborn, the Earle A. Chiles Research Institute of the Providence Cancer Institute in Portland, Oregon

Thank you for joining us for our 2nd Cabral HouseCall of the weekend! I'm looking forward to sharing with you some of our community's questions that have come in over the past few weeks…   Anne: Listen to your podcast everyday and I learned so many helpful health tips. Thank you. I have recently developed dry mouth at night while I'm sleeping. I drink a lot of water during the day and I have not started any new medication. What is the cause of dry mouth and what natural remedies would you suggest. Thank you                                                       Fred: Hi Dr Cabral My name is fred and have been listening to you for the last year I truly believe your are in this t help . I have recently purchased the vitamin. And heavy metal detox tests for my wife and myself I am 63 years old and unfortunately had h pylori and was on antibiotics for 2 weeks about 2 months ago I not sure the impact but it has seemed to have worked My concern is that I have a eGFR of 46 I have an enlarged liver  I am a non drinker and starting to eat better I went off my statin and am on blood pressure medication I do not sleep well at all Hoping to afford to do the big 5 one day I am Canadian and our dollar is very bad What can I do to save my kidneys naturally                                                 Kristin: I've heard that Ashwaganda supplements are not good for those with Hashimotos. Is this accurate? I've also read and experienced so many benefits from it.                                                                                                                                      Mandy: High creatinine level question. Hi, I greatly appreciate all the wonderful info that you and your team provide to those of us that want to live our best and healthy life!m Is there a causal relationship between menopause and an increase in creatinine? Recently had my labs done and my creatinine was 1.24, BUN 19, and GFR 54. Any advice and recommendations to bring my level down would be greatly appreciated. I'm an active 49 yr old. Thank you for your help. Mandy                                                                                                                                                                                         Mandy: Hi! Do you recommend mattress vacuums (specifically Jigoo, Jimmy, or Ranvoo)?Also, we just heard about the Apollo 2nd Generation Do you recommend it?   Thank you for tuning into this weekend's Cabral HouseCalls and be sure to check back tomorrow for our Mindset & Motivation Monday show to get your week started off right! - - - Show Notes and Resources: StephenCabral.com/3292 - - - Get a FREE Copy of Dr. Cabral's Book: The Rain Barrel Effect - - - Join the Community & Get Your Questions Answered: CabralSupportGroup.com - - - Dr. Cabral's Most Popular At-Home Lab Tests: > Complete Minerals & Metals Test (Test for mineral imbalances & heavy metal toxicity) - - - > Complete Candida, Metabolic & Vitamins Test (Test for 75 biomarkers including yeast & bacterial gut overgrowth, as well as vitamin levels) - - - > Complete Stress, Mood & Metabolism Test (Discover your complete thyroid, adrenal, hormone, vitamin D & insulin levels) - - - > Complete Food Sensitivity Test (Find out your hidden food sensitivities) - - - > Complete Omega-3 & Inflammation Test (Discover your levels of inflammation related to your omega-6 to omega-3 levels) - - - Get Your Question Answered On An Upcoming HouseCall: StephenCabral.com/askcabral - - - Would You Take 30 Seconds To Rate & Review The Cabral Concept? The best way to help me spread our mission of true natural health is to pass on the good word, and I read and appreciate every review!  

Year in Review: Clinical Investigator Perspectives on the Most Relevant New Datasets and Advances in EGFR-Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer | Faculty Presentation 2: Other Relevant Topics in EGFR Mutation-Positive NSCLC, Such as Nonmetastatic Disease, Exon 20 Insertion Mutations and Novel Agents — Helena Yu, MD CME information and select publications

Year in Review: Clinical Investigator Perspectives on the Most Relevant New Datasets and Advances in EGFR-Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer | Faculty Presentation 1: Management of Metastatic EGFR Mutation-Positive NSCLC — Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD CME information and select publications

Pierre was born and lived in the UK until 1970, when he moved to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where he stayed for 15 years. He returned to the UK from 1985 to 1992, then moved back to São Paulo, Brazil, until 1998. In 1998, he relocated to Fort Lauderdale, USA, and became a US citizen in 2006. He is now retired and lives near Fort Lauderdale, Florida.   Pierre's wife is Brazilian. They married in Rio in January 1972 and recently celebrated their 53rd anniversary. They have three sons: the oldest are identical twins (45), and the youngest is 41. His youngest son served in the US Army Reserve and later in the US Airborne. They have five grandchildren so far.   Pierre developed psoriasis in his early twenties, which worsened over time. He also experienced minor intestinal issues that gradually became more severe, leading to serious inflammation and infections. In 1993, he was diagnosed with diverticulitis, which he assumes is linked to autoimmune disorders.   In 1999, Pierre underwent a successful sigmoid colon resection in the USA for diverticulitis. Post-surgery, he was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D). For 19 years, he followed ADA guidelines under the care of an endocrinologist, but his T2D progressed to the point where he required insulin. At his peak, he was taking 240 units of insulin daily, which contributed to his weight reaching 280 lbs (he is 5'7”).   In November 2018, after watching videos by Dr. Jason Fung, Pierre adopted a low-carb, healthy fats diet, primarily keto, with intermittent fasting (16:8). Last year, he transitioned to a 98% carnivore diet, eliminating most plants. The results have been remarkable.   Over the years, Pierre has lost approximately 98 lbs (with about 20 lbs left to lose), improved his eGFR, stabilized his psoriasis, and reduced his medications from 7-9 to just two: 10 mg Lisinopril and insulin as needed. His Triglyceride/HDL ratio improved from 4.78 to under 1, with triglycerides dropping from 220 to under 75 and HDL rising from 46 to the high 90s.   Recently, Pierre struggled to keep his A1c below 6% without 50 units of insulin daily, which caused weight gain. Determined to reduce his insulin dependency, he joined Revero and is now under the care of Dr. Jarrouge, who has been incredibly supportive. While he has successfully reversed some weight gain, it's clear that his pancreas has suffered over the years and can no longer produce sufficient insulin. As a result, he needs a baseline insulin dose to maintain an A1c of 6% or below. Timestamps: 00:00 Trailer and introduction   05:03 Keto and psoriasis   07:46 Keto after health scare   12:23 Health improvements post-hospital recovery   13:01 Stopping statins   16:08 Health issues and nutrition   22:20 Influenced by Ivor Cummins   22:54 Unexpectedly high calcium score concerns   26:38 Scan results   29:19 Improved mobility for life quality   33:28 Keto journey without doctor's guidance   38:07 Optimizing triglyceride-HDL ratio   42:00 Navigating healthcare with online support   43:01 Low carb-savvy physicians   47:42 Low carb for marathon stamina   49:21 Where to find Pierre Join Revero now to regain your health: https://revero.com/YT Revero.com is an online medical clinic for treating chronic diseases with this root-cause approach of nutrition therapy. You can get access to medical providers, personalized nutrition therapy, biomarker tracking, lab testing, ongoing clinical care, and daily coaching. You will also learn everything you need with educational videos, hundreds of recipes, and articles to make this easy for you. Join the Revero team (medical providers, etc): https://revero.com/jobs ‪#Revero #ReveroHealth #shawnbaker  #Carnivorediet #MeatHeals #AnimalBased #ZeroCarb #DietCoach  #FatAdapted #Carnivore #sugarfree Disclaimer: The content on this channel is not medical advice. Please consult your healthcare provider.

Show notes at pharmacyjoe.com/episode998. In this episode, I’ll discuss why the NKF says its OK to use race-free eGFR to make renal dose adjustments. The post 998: Why the NKF Says Its OK to Use Race-Free eGFR to Make Renal Dose Adjustments appeared first on Pharmacy Joe.

Dr. Shaalan Beg and Dr. David Wang discuss key abstracts in GI cancers from the 2025 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, including major advances in CRC, neoadjuvant approaches in esophageal cancer, and innovative studies on ctDNA. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg. I'm a medical oncologist and an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Today, we're bringing you some key highlights from the 2025 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, and I'm delighted to be joined by the chair of GI25, Dr. David Wang. Dr. Wang is a GI medical oncologist at the University of Michigan. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. Wang, thanks for coming on the podcast today. Dr. David Wang: Well, thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: GI25 featured major therapeutic advances across the spectrum of GI malignancies, and it was exciting to hear about innovations and novel approaches that are shaping the future of our field. Before we start talking about specific abstracts, could you share some of your key highlights from the meeting? Dr. David Wang: Sure. Our theme this year was “Breaking Boundaries to Enhance Patient Centered Care.” Past years' themes have focused more on precision oncology, but we wanted to broaden our focus on patients and to be more holistic, which kind of led us into some of the Intersection [sessions] that we had. Each day started with a different Intersection. The first one was “Emerging Therapies in GI Cancers”, where invited speakers talked about bispecific antibody drug conjugates, theranostics, CAR T and other cell-based therapies. The second day was on “Personalized Risk Assessment for GI Cancers,” and this included looking at polygenic risk scores for colorectal cancer, microRNAs and liquid biopsies such as exosomes and pancreatic cancer and non-endoscopic screening modalities in esophageal cancer. And on our final day, we wanted to talk about “Integrative Oncology and Integrative Medicine,” looking at evidence-based uses of acupuncture and supplements in patients who are receiving treatment for cancer, mindfulness-based practices and exercise. And of course, we had a fantastic keynote talk by Dr. Pamela Kunz from the Yale School of Medicine titled, “Disrupting Gastrointestinal Oncology: Shattering Barriers with Inclusive Science.” She highlighted the intersection of science, patient care, and health and gender equity. And I would encourage your podcast listeners to access the lecture in ASCO's Meeting Library if they haven't yet had a chance to hear Dr. Kunz's wonderful lecture.  We were really happy this year because the attendance hit a new record. We had over 5,000 people attend either in person or virtually from their home or office, and we had almost 1,000 abstracts submitted to the meeting, so these were either record or near record numbers. We offered a lot of different networking opportunities throughout the meeting, and attending found these to be incredibly rewarding and important and this will continue to be an area of emphasis in future meetings. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Let's take a deeper dive into the exciting studies presented at GI25. The late breaking abstract LBA143 was CheckMate-8HW. This was the first results of NIVO + IPI versus NIVO monotherapy for MSI-high metastatic colorectal cancer. What are your thoughts about this study? Dr. David Wang: Yeah, so we know that colorectal cancer patients with MSI-high tumors don't necessarily respond well to chemotherapy. And we were fortunate because last year CheckMate-8HW actually looked at two different arms – so this was NIVO + IPI compared to standard of care chemotherapy and showed its very significant improvement in median progression-free survival. And that was actually published in the New England Journal of Medicine back in November of 2024. This year's presentation actually focused now on NIVO + IPI versus NIVO monotherapy. And as you know IPI+NIVO can be quite toxic. So this was an important analysis to be done. So we know that NIVO is definitely more easily tolerated. So what was interesting was that the 2-year and 3-year progression-free survival not surprisingly favored IPI+NIVO and this was statistically significant. And the overall response rate was also better with IPI+NIVO versus NIVO alone. I know we're always concerned about toxicities and there were higher grade 3 and 4 toxicity incidences in the combination arm versus the monotherapy arm, but overall, only about 28 additional events in several hundred patients treated. So I think that's well-tolerated. Our discussant Dr. Wells Messersmith actually said that, with this new data, he would consider doing combination immunotherapy in any patient that presented in the front line with MSI-high or deficient mismatch repair colorectal cancer that was metastatic. Dr. Shaalan Beg: One of the focuses for directing first-line therapy for colorectal cancer has been right and left sided colon cancer because we know these are two different cancers with their own unique molecular subtypes. We heard on Abstract 17, the DEEPER trial, the final analysis of modified FOLFOXIRI plus cetuximab versus bevacizumab for RAS wild-type and left sided metastatic colorectal cancer. How do you summarize the findings of this study and what should our readers be aware of? Dr. David Wang: Interestingly, this was a phase 2 study and the emphasis of the abstract was actually a subgroup analysis of those patients with RAS wild-type and BRAF wild-type as well as left sided cancers. So, I think the entire study enrolled 359 patients, but the analysis that was discussed at the meeting really focused on 178 patients that fit that characteristic. Very similar to what we've seen in prior studies, left-sided tumors have better response to cetuximab versus bevacizumab. And if you flip it so that you now are looking at right sided tumors, targeting EGFR is actually detrimental. The depth of response was better with cetuximab in these left sided RAS and BRAF mutant tumors. And so the lead author actually suggested that this could be a new first-line standard of care. And the question is, is there a benefit of doing this triple agent regimen with modified FOLFIRINOX? We know there's a lot more toxicity with that. Not clear that there's a benefit for that over FOLFOX, maybe in younger patients that could tolerate it. When our discussant, again Dr. Wells Messersmith, spoke about this, he said that, in his practice he would, again, favor cetuximab over bevacizumab in combination with chemo, these left-sided RAS and BRAF wild-type tumors, but that he would actually prefer a doublet versus a triplet chemo regimen, and that is consistent with the current NCCN guidelines. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Another area where colorectal cancer has been a wonderful model to study new technology has been in the area of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). And the BESPOKE CRC trial is looking to see if ctDNA can inform adjuvant treatment decisions for stage II and III colorectal cancer. And in Abstract 15, we heard final results of the BESPOKE CRC sub-cohort. What were the findings there? Dr. David Wang: BESPOKE CRC is another one of these important ctDNA studies. It was an observational study, not a randomized trial, but it did provide a lot of different insights to us. We know that there were over 1,700 patients enrolled, and so it was reported that this is the largest ctDNA study in colorectal cancer performed in the United States. And they were able to analyze over 1,100 patients.  Some of the key findings were that postoperative adjuvant therapy management decisions actually changed in 1 out of 6 patients, so that's pretty significant. In terms of surveillance, we know that patients who have ctDNA positivity, this is prognostic of recurrence. In terms of patients who have positive ctDNA post-surgery, it looked like, at least in this observational study, the majority of patients who received any benefit were those who had positive ctDNA. So adjuvant therapy, even in stage II and stage III patients seemed to only benefit those patients who have positive ctDNA. I think that does raise the question, and this also was brought up in the discussion, which is “Can we de-escalate adjuvant therapy in terms of patients who are ctDNA-negative post-op?” And Dr. Richard Kim from Moffitt felt that we are not yet there. Obviously, we need randomized control trials where we are taking ctDNA results and then randomizing patients to receive adjuvant or non-adjuvant to really know the difference.  Other questions that come up with use of ctDNA include: What do you do with these patients who turn positive? This study for BESPOKE actually followed patients out to two years after surgery. So what you do with a positive ctDNA result wasn't really clear. It seems to suggest that once you turn positive, patients go on to more intensive surveillance. You know, again as an observation, patients who did turn positive were able to go to metastasis-directed therapy much more quickly. And again, this was supposedly to improve their curative intent therapy. And I think the other question that has been brought up all the time is, is this really cost effective? Patients want to know, and we want to give patients that information, but I think we're still stuck with what to do with a positive ctDNA level in a patient that's on surveillance because no randomized control studies have actually suggested that we need to start systemic therapy right away. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah. And I guess in terms of practice informing or practice changing, these results may not give us a clear answer. But because a lot of patients are asking for these tests, it does give us some real world experiences on what to expect in terms of conversion of these positive into negative and the outcome so we can have a shared decision making with our patients in the clinic and then come up with a determination on whether ctDNA for molecular residual disease is something which would be worthwhile for the care of our patient. But more to come, I guess, in coming years to answer different problems around this challenge. Dr. David Wang: Yes, I agree. Dr. Shaalan Beg: The BREAKWATER trial looked at the use of encorafenib, cetuximab and chemotherapy for BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer. We've covered this combination for a second- third-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer previously. Abstract 16 from GI25 was evaluating the use of this regimen in the first-line space. Everyone was looking forward to these results, and what did the investigators present? Dr. David Wang: I think this is, as you mentioned, a nice follow up to later lines of therapy where Dr. Kopetz from MD Anderson pioneered use of encorafenib, cetuximab and binimetinib in the BEACON trial. Everybody was kind of curious what would happen now if you use encorafenib plus cetuximab plus chemotherapy in the first-line setting. And so this is an interim analysis that was pre-planned in the phase 3 open label BREAKWATER trial. And even though there were three arms, and so the three arms were encorafenib plus cetuximab, encorafenib plus cetuximab plus FOLFOX, or standard of care chemo, only two arms were presented in the abstract. So basically looking at encorafenib plus cetuximab and FOLFOX-6 versus standard of care therapy, and the overall response rate was statistically significant with a 60.9% overall response rate encorafenib plus cetuximab plus chemo arm versus standard of care chemo was only 40%. The interim overall survival also was different. It was 92% versus 87% at 6 months and 79% versus 66% at 12 months, again favoring the chemotherapy plus encorafenib plus cetuximab. In terms of the statistics, the p was 0.0004. However, the pre-plan analysis required the p-value to be 1x10 to the -8. And so even though this looks really good, it hasn't quite met its pre-specified significance level. The good thing is that this is only interim analysis and the study is ongoing with future analysis planned.  So the real question is: Does it matter when we actually use this regimen? We know that the regimen's approved in the second third-line setting. What about in the first line? And there was some preclinical data that the discussant reviewed that shows that patients actually benefit if this is done in the first-line setting. For example, there was some preclinical data showing that even FOLFIRI, for example, can upregulate RAS, which would make tumors more resistant to this combination. This was thought to be practice-changing in a patient that has B600E showing up treatment naive that we should probably consider this regimen. And actually this did receive accelerated FDA approval about a month ago. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and for what it's worth, I put up a Twitter poll asking my Twitter followers on how the BREAKWATER trial results will change their approach for newly diagnosed BRAF mutated colorectal cancer. We got 112 responses; 72% said that they will incorporate encorafenib, cetuximab, FOLFOX for their frontline BRAF mutated patients. But 23% said that they would like to wait for overall survival results. Dr. David Wang: Wow, that's interesting. They really want that 1x10 to the -8. Dr. Shaalan Beg: I guess so. All right. Let's change gears and talk about esophageal cancer. LBA329 was the SCIENCE study which presented preliminary results from a randomized phase 3 trial comparing sintilimab and chemoradiotherapy plus sintilimab versus chemoradiotherapy for neoadjuvant resectable locally advanced squamous esophageal cancer. Where are we in this space? Dr. David Wang: Okay. So, yeah, this was an interesting trial. Again, just to set the context, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is more prevalent in Asia. And the study sites as well as the patients were mostly from Asia. So this was again a phase 3 trial with interim results. They only rolled 146 out of the planned 420 for this interim analysis. And yeah, they're using immune checkpoint inhibitor that we don't use in the United States, sintilimab, combined with their two standards of neoadjuvant therapy, either chemotherapy, which is more common in Asia, or or chemoradiation, which is more common in the US and Western Europe, versus chemoradiation. And so they actually had two primary endpoints, but only were reporting one. So their two primary endpoints were pathCR and the other one was event-free survival. The event-free survival, again, was not reported at the meeting.  What they found was that in terms of pathCR rate, if you take the two arms that are really informative about that, chemoradiation plus sintilimab versus chemoradiation alone, the pathCR rate was 60% versus 47%. We know that chemo alone doesn't induce as much of a pathCR rate, and that was 13%. So it was found that the delta in terms of pathCR between the chemoradiation arms, one with sintilimab and one without, was significant. And this actually confirms data again from Asia, like for the ESCORT-NEO trial where it used another immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab in addition to neoadjuvant chemo.  So as our discussant for this abstract said, yes, we know that radiation combined with chemotherapy improves pathCR rates, but we have recent data from the ESOPEC trial, we don't know that that necessarily will translate to overall survival. So again, waiting for additional enrollments and longer term follow up before incorporating this into clinical care here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: So David, how do the results of the SCIENCE trial compare with our practice in the United States and ongoing studies asking questions for neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal carcinoma in the United States? Dr. David Wang: I think obviously immune checkpoint inhibitor in the new adjuvant setting is important. Jennifer Eads at UPenn is running that EA2174 which is looking at chemoradiation plus or minus nivolumab, and then in non-pathCR responders randomized to adjuvant nivolumab per CheckMate 577 or nivolumab with intensification adding ipilimumab. We know that the ESOPEC trial just came out, and was published actually during the meeting, and that really focuses on adenocarcinomas. So adenocarcinomas of the GE junction, distal esophagus, now, we would probably treat very similarly to gastric using perioperative FLOT. However, the standard in the US for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma remains neoadjuvant chemoradiation. We know that squamous cell carcinomas are more exquisitely sensitive to radiotherapy. And then obviously in those patients who don't achieve a pathologic complete response, the expectation would be that they would go on to receive nivolumab per CheckMate 577. Again, the thought is that these tumors are more sensitive to immunotherapy given their higher incidences of mutational changes. And so again, this kind of goes along with the positive results seen in the SCIENCE trial that we just discussed with sintilimab but also EFFECT-neo with pembrolizumab. Obviously, we await the results of Jennifer's trial. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And the last abstract I was hoping we could get your perspective on was Abstract 652, which is a Phase 3 study of everolimus plus lanreotide versus everolimus monotherapy for unresectable or recurrent gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, the STARTER-NET trial. What were the results of this study? Dr. David Wang: So, I just want to give a shout out because we did have a session at this year's GI ASCO that looked at more rare tumors. So appendiceal tumors, neuroendocrine tumors, those kinds of things. So again, I would encourage your listeners to listen to that session if they have interest in that. Another type of rare tumor was adenosquamous tumors.  But in terms of the STARTER-NET trial, this was again an interim analysis of his phase 3trial and it was looking at combining everolimus plus lanreotide versus everolimus. So we know that in pancreatic-gastric neuroendocrine tumors, if you have low Ki-67, a well differentiated tumor, that the standard of care really is a somatostatin analog, and sometimes if they're more aggressive, we kind of consider molecular targeted therapy with everolimus. This was asking the question of whether we should do the combination on the frontline. And what was interesting is in this study, the patients were actually more of a poor prognostic set. So they had Ki-67 up to 20% or these were patients that actually had multiple liver lesions. And what they found was a median for progression free survival was improved with a combination out to 29.7 months versus 11.5 months with the somatostatin analog alone, and that the overall response rate was 23% versus 8.3%, again, favoring the combination. If you looked at subgroup analysis, it was actually those patients who had Ki-67 greater than 10%, so the more aggressive tumors, or those with diffuse liver lesions that had the most benefit. So I think that would be the patient population I would consider this new combination with using would be those patients again with poorer prognosis neuroendocrine tumor phenotype. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Thank you very much, Dr. Wang, for sharing your insights with us today and your great work to build a robust GI Cancers Symposium this year. Dr. David Wang: Well, thank you. I mean that really is a cooperative effort. We appreciate all the members of the GI25 Program Committee as well as the ASCO staff that just made it an outstanding meeting. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to all our listeners for your time today. You'll find links to the abstracts discussed today on the transcript of this episode.  Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:  Dr. Shaalan Beg @ShaalanBeg  Dr. David Wang Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on Twitter  @ASCO on BlueSky ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures:  Dr. Shaalan Beg:  Employment: Science 37  Consulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Cancer Commons, Legend Biotech, Foundation Medicine  Research Funding (Inst.): Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck Serono, Five Prime Therapeutics, MedImmune, Genentech, Immunesensor, Tolero Pharmaceuticals  Dr. David Wang: Honoraria:  Novartis Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Cardinal Health, Bristol-Myers Squibb, BeiGene, Eisai  

Dr Enriqueta Felip from the Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, Spain, and Dr Helena Yu from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, discuss current and emerging treatment approaches for patients with EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer. CME information and select publications here

Dr Enriqueta Felip from the Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, Spain, and Dr Helena Yu from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, discuss current and emerging treatment approaches for patients with EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer. CME information and select publications here

This episode of Lung Cancer Considered covers the recent FDA approval of Osimertinib after chemo-radiation in EGFR positive NSCLC based on the LAURA trial which was presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Host Dr. Narjust Florez goes in depth with podcast guest Dr. Pamela Samson about the LAURA Trial and its implications for patients and clinicians. Guest: Dr. Pamela Samson is an assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Samson specializes in the care of thoracic malignancies and ways to deliver appropriate radiation therapy without compromising efficacy and diminishing toxicities.

In today's episode, we had the pleasure of speaking with David Gerber, MD, a professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, a member of its Division of Hematology/Oncology, and co-director of Education and Training for the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center in Dallas. In our exclusive interview, Dr Gerber discussed the evolving role of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), focusing on findings from key clinical trials. He highlighted results from the phase 3 TROPION-Lung01 trial (NCT04656652), which demonstrated a modest improvement in progression-free survival with datopotamab deruxtecan-dlnk (Datroway), a TROP2-directed ADC, compared with docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC. He also emphasized the toxicity profile of TROP2-directed ADCs, particularly gastrointestinal toxicities and myelosuppression. Dr Gerber also reviewed the phase 2 HERTHENA-Lung01 trial (NCT04619004) evaluating patritumab deruxtecan in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC and the phase 2 DESTINY-Lung02 trial (NCT04644237) assessing fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki (Enhertu) in those with HER2-mutant NSCLC. Dr Gerber reflected on the shared DXd payload of these ADCs, highlighting its implications for toxicity and efficacy, as well as open questions regarding treatment sequencing and resistance mechanisms.

Welcome to another episode of the Oncology Brothers podcast! In this episode, Drs. Rahul and Rohit Gosain are joined by Dr. Pashtoon Kasi from City of Hope to discuss the management of side effects associated with key treatments utilized in colorectal cancer, but also in other tumor types.  We dived deep into two important drug classes: Bevacizumab, an anti-VEGF antibody, and the anti-EGFR antibodies, Panitumumab and Cetuximab. Dr. Kasi provided a comprehensive overview of these targeted therapies, their mechanisms of action, and the common side effects that patients may experience. Key topics covered in this episode included: •⁠  ⁠Overview of Bevacizumab and its side effects, including hypertension, proteinuria, and risk of bleeding. •⁠  ⁠Clinical pearls for managing side effects associated with Bevacizumab. •⁠  ⁠Discussion on the skin toxicities, nail changes, and electrolyte imbalances related to Panitumumab and Cetuximab. •⁠  ⁠The importance of preemptive strategies in managing skin rashes and other side effects. •⁠  ⁠Insights into infusion reactions with Cetuximab and considerations for patient safety. Join us for this informative discussion that aims to enhance your understanding of these critical therapies and improve patient outcomes.  Follow us on social media: •⁠  ⁠X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers •⁠  ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers Don't forget to check out our other episodes in the Tox Check series, where we explore antibody-drug conjugates and CAR T therapies. Subscribe to our channel for more insights on oncology treatments and patient care!

Synopsis: Adverse reactions involving the skin, nails, and hair are common among patients undergoing treatment for cancer and are often underreported and overlooked. These reactions directly impact patient quality of life and may be the reason for interruptions in lifesaving antineoplastic treatment. To address these toxicities, the Association of Cancer Care Centers (ACCC) is leading an initiative that aims to educate providers and other cancer care team members about the optimal management of dermatologic side effects.     In this episode, CANCER BUZZ speaks with Julie Ryan Wolf, PhD, MPH and C.J.G. (Corina) van den Hurk, PhD, the chair and vice chair of the Oncodermatology Study Group at the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) about common oncodermatological toxicities including radiation dermatitis, hair loss, and nail changes unique to EGFR-inhibitors. Also discussed are strategies to increase provider collaboration to intervene at an early stage to improve quality of life for patients receiving cancer treatment.   “If we have symptom monitoring on a regular basis throughout the course of treatment, we'll be able to intervene sooner… helping improve [patient] quality of life” – Julie Ryan Wolf, PhD, MPH   “In effect, almost each patient has a dermatologic side effect at the end of the treatment, or has experienced that during the treatment, and they are all very interfering.” – CJG (Corina) van den Hurk, PhD                     Julie Ryan Wolf, PhD, MPH   Chair, Oncodermatology Study Group  Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)  Associate Professor, Department of Dermatology, Department of Radiation Oncology   University of Rochester Medical Center   Rochester, NY      CJG (Corina) van den Hurk, PhD   Vice Chair, Oncodermatology Study Group  Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)  Senior Researcher, Santeon Hospitals   Netherlands         Thank you to Johnson & Johnson for their support of this program.     Additional Reading/Sources     Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Home  Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Oncodermatology Study Group   MASCC Study Group Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines   ACCC Supportive Care Strategies for Dermatologic Toxicities Related to Cancer Therapies  Oncology Issues – Supportive Oncodermatology: Addressing dermatologic adverse events associated with oncologic therapies  Dermatologic Adverse Events of Systemic Anticancer Therapies: Cytotoxic Chemotherapy, Targeted Therapy, and Immunotherapy  Oncodermatology: Advancing the Science and Care of Cancer Patients and Survivors  Supportive oncodermatology-a narrative review of its utility and the way forward =

The NP sees  a 44-year-old male of African ancestry with a BMI=34 kg/m2 and recently diagnosed  type 2 diabetes mellitus. He works on a rotating shift in healthcare and reports eating irregularly. He was started on metformin therapy 4 months ago, is at maximum recommended dose, and states he is tolerating the medication well. His initial A1c was 9.8%, with today's A1c=8.7%. eGFR is within acceptable parameters and he is feeling well, stating, “I was so thirsty and needed to urinate all the time before I started that pill”. Physical exam reveals extensive acanthosis nigricans.  He mentions that his health insurance. “Does not pay for all that much. I'm OK with paying for the pill I am taking now, but really cannot afford expensive medicines. “ Which of the following is the most appropriate next step? A. Prescribe weekly injectable semaglutide.  B. Adding post-meal sliding scale rapid acting insulin.C. Add a daily dose of pioglitazone.D. Add glipizide on days when his eating schedule is predictable.  ---YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyh0ld2l9_M&list=PLf0PFEPBXfq592b5zCthlxSNIEM-H-EtD&index=103Visit fhea.com to learn more!