Podcasts about egfr

Today, I'm joined by the remarkable Dr. Robin Rose—a pioneering physician, author, and survivor who refused to accept a devastating kidney disease diagnosis as her fate. Instead of waiting for dialysis, Robin dove deep into the world of diet, detoxification, peptides, and bioregulators, turning her health crisis into a calling and culminating in her groundbreaking new book on chronic kidney disease. In our conversation, Robin shares why kidneys are often the “forgotten organ,” the real reasons so many cases of kidney decline go undetected, and how lifestyle choices—from protein intake to environmental toxins—can be both the problem and the path to healing. We get personal about the subtle symptoms, practical lab markers, and actionable steps you can take right now to protect your kidney health for the long term.   FREE GIFT: I made a free gift to thank you for listening: a quick list of my Top 5 Peptides. Grab yours here natniddam.com/top5. Episode Timestamps: Robin Rose's kidney journey ... 00:02:00 Kidney disease often missed ... 00:04:00 Early detection & eGFR ... 00:10:00 High protein diet caution ... 00:16:00 Kidney-friendly diet basics ... 00:25:00 Gut toxins & kidney health ... 00:27:00 Potassium, phosphorus labs ... 00:37:00 Mindset in recovery ... 00:39:00 Top kidney supplements ... 00:43:00 Peptides & bioregulators intro ... 00:47:00 Bioregulator dosing & cycling ... 00:52:00 Clotho & aging ... 00:57:00 Book & hopeful takeaway ... 01:04:00   Our Amazing Sponsors: Qualia Senolytic - A cutting-edge formula designed to help your body eliminate senescent cells, also known as “zombie cells.” Go to qualialife.com/NATHALIE  and use promo code NATHALIE to get 15% off—and try it risk-free with their 100-day money-back guarantee.   NEW Timeline Gummies: Urolithin A supports muscle strength and cellular energy. It's about improving how your body functions at the source. Mitopure is the only clinically proven Urolithin A, giving you 6 times more than you'd get from a glass of pomegranate juice. Visit Timeline.com/nat20 and use code nat20 for 20% off your purchase.   Ultimate GI Repair by LVLUP Health - Whether you're struggling with digestive discomfort or want to strengthen your gut health, Ultimate GI Repair provides the comprehensive support your body needs to restore balance. The ingredients are unmatched! Visit https://lvluphealth.com/ and use code NAT at checkout for 20 % off.   Nat's Links:  YouTube Channel Join My Membership Community Sign up for My Newsletter  Instagram  Facebook Group

The 2025 World Conference on Lung Cancer just concluded, and there are several notable updates concerning treatment of EGFR-mutated NSCLC. 1. The COMPEL study tries to find the value of continuing osimertinib (with the addition of chemotherapy) after progression on osimertinib. The results are, well, compelling! 2/3. We now have updates on the OS benefits of osimertinib + chemotherapy (FLAURA2) and amivantamab + lazertinib (MARIPOSA) compared to osimertinib monotherapy in initial treatment of metastatic disease. 4. NEOADAURA tries to determine if neoadjuvant osimertinib has value, but longer follow-up will be needed to assess this practice.

In this special WCLC 2025 episode of Lung Cancer Considered, hosts Dr. Narjust Florez and Dr. Stephen Liu discuss highlights from the conference. Dr. Susan Scott discusses EGFR mutant NSCLC and results from PALOMA-2 and subcutaneous amivantamab. Dr. Wenfeng Fang discusses Iza-Bren (BL-D01D1), a first-in-class EGFR x HER-3 biospecific ADC linked to a novel topoisomerase I inhibitor payload, with promising preliminary activity in EGFR positive previously treated NSCLC. Dr. Biagio Ricciuti shares his insights from WCLC 2025, including the FLAURA-2 OS readout, the HARMONi trial in EGFR positive NSCLC, and his research in the use of immunotherapy in early-stage lung cancer.

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

Neuropathic pain affects nearly 10% of the global population, yet effective treatments remain elusive. In this episode of Spark Time, we sit down with oncologists-turned-biotech-founders Christian Kersten and Marte Cameron of Akigai to hear the remarkable story of how a serendipitous clinical observation led to a new approach for treating chronic pain.From the first wheelchair-bound patient who walked again after EGFR inhibitor therapy, to the 100+ patients who have since experienced life-changing relief, Christian and Marte share the science and the vision behind Akigai's mission: to bring effective, non-opioid solutions to millions living with neuropathic pain. This is a story of discovery, persistence, and hope for one of medicine's most stubborn challenges.

Send us a textWhat if the AI tools we trust for cancer diagnosis are not always correct? This episode of DigiPath Digest takes on the uncomfortable but critical question: can AI “lie” to us—and how do we verify its performance before adopting it in clinical practice?Highlights:[00:02:00] Foundation models in action: Deployment of a fine-tuned pathology foundation model for EGFR biomarker detection in lung cancer—reducing the need for rapid molecular tests by 43%.[00:08:41] Bone marrow AI misclassifications: Why automated digital morphology still struggles with consistency across leukemia and lymphoma cases.[00:14:45] Lossy DICOM conversion: How file format changes can subtly—but significantly—affect AI model performance.[00:21:45] Federated tumor segmentation challenge: Coordinating 32 international institutions to benchmark healthcare AI fairly across diverse datasets.[00:27:47] AI in gynecologic cytology: Reviewing AI-driven Pap smear screening—promise, limitations, and why rigorous validation remains essential.[00:32:27] Takeaway: Trust but verify—AI tools must be validated before they can support or replace clinical decisions.Resources from this EpisodeNature Medicine – Fine-tuned pathology foundation model for lung cancer EGFR biomarker detection.Scientific Reports (Germany) – Study on how DICOM conversion impacts AI performance in digital pathology.Federated Tumor Segmentation Challenge – Benchmarking AI across 32 global institutions.Acta Cytologica – Review on AI in gynecologic cytology and Pap smear screening.Support the showBecome a Digital Pathology Trailblazer get the "Digital Pathology 101" FREE E-book and join us!

Are you aware of the latest developments for treating EGFR mutation–positive advanced/metastatic NSCLC? Credit available for this activity expires: 8/29/2026 Earn Credit / Learning Objectives & Disclosures: https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/1002869?ecd=bdc_podcast_libsyn_mscpedu

Jonathan Barratt, PhD, FRCP - The Nephrology Journal Club: B-Cell Modulators and eGFR Endpoints in IgA Nephropathy

Jonathan Barratt, PhD, FRCP - The Nephrology Journal Club: B-Cell Modulators and eGFR Endpoints in IgA Nephropathy

Jonathan Barratt, PhD, FRCP - The Nephrology Journal Club: B-Cell Modulators and eGFR Endpoints in IgA Nephropathy

Jonathan Barratt, PhD, FRCP - The Nephrology Journal Club: B-Cell Modulators and eGFR Endpoints in IgA Nephropathy

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality. While the development of targeted therapies has improved outcomes for many patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC, those with rare EGFR variants often face limited treatment options, especially when the disease involves the central nervous system (CNS). A recent research paper, titled “Durable complete response in leptomeningeal disease of EGFR mutated non-small cell lung cancer to amivantamab, an EGFR-MET receptor bispecific antibody, after progressing on osimertinib” published in Volume 16 of Oncotarget, describes a patient with NSCLC harboring two uncommon EGFR mutations—G719A and A289V—who experienced a prolonged and clinically significant response to amivantamab monotherapy, after prior treatments had failed. Full blog - https://www.oncotarget.org/2025/08/26/amivantamab-monotherapy-in-rare-egfr-mutated-advanced-nsclc/ Paper DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28730 Correspondence to - Young Kwang Chae - young.chae@northwestern.edu Video short - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEiCz834a8c Sign up for free Altmetric alerts about this article - https://oncotarget.altmetric.com/details/email_updates?id=10.18632%2Foncotarget.28730 Subscribe for free publication alerts from Oncotarget - https://www.oncotarget.com/subscribe/ Keywords - cancer, amivantamab, monotherapy, rare EGFR mutation, NSCLC, leptomeningeal disease About Oncotarget Oncotarget (a primarily oncology-focused, peer-reviewed, open access journal) aims to maximize research impact through insightful peer-review; eliminate borders between specialties by linking different fields of oncology, cancer research and biomedical sciences; and foster application of basic and clinical science. Oncotarget is indexed and archived by PubMed/Medline, PubMed Central, Scopus, EMBASE, META (Chan Zuckerberg Initiative) (2018-2022), and Dimensions (Digital Science). To learn more about Oncotarget, please visit https://www.oncotarget.com and connect with us: Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/Oncotarget/ X - https://twitter.com/oncotarget Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/oncotargetjrnl/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@OncotargetJournal LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/oncotarget Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/oncotarget/ Reddit - https://www.reddit.com/user/Oncotarget/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0gRwT6BqYWJzxzmjPJwtVh MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM

In this episode of the Oncology Brothers podcast, Drs. Rohit & Rahul Gosain welcome Dr. Jacob Sands, a thoracic medical oncologist from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, to discuss the recent FDA approval of Dato-DXD (datopotamab deruxtecan) for previously treated EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Key Topics: •⁠  ⁠Overview of Dato-DXd and its FDA approval •⁠  ⁠Mechanism of action and study design of the TROPION Lung trials •⁠  ⁠Efficacy and safety profile of Dato-DXd •⁠  ⁠Management of side effects and clinical pearls •⁠  ⁠Treatment sequencing for EGFR-mutated NSCLC Join us as we dive into the details of the TROPION Lung trials that led to this significant approval, the mechanism of action of Dato-DXd, and the implications for patients with various EGFR mutations.  Dr. Sands shared insights on the study design, efficacy, and tolerability of this new antibody-drug conjugate, as well as important clinical pearls for managing side effects such as stomatitis, dry eyes, and interstitial lung disease (ILD). We also explored the current treatment landscape for EGFR-mutated NSCLC, including the sequencing of therapies and the potential role of Dato-DXd in clinical practice. Tune in for an informative discussion that highlights the exciting advancements in oncology and the hope they bring to patients. 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 check out our other episodes for more insights into the world of oncology!

BUFFALO, NY – August 15, 2025 – A new #research paper was #published in Volume 16 of Oncotarget on August 13, 2025, titled “Clinical and analytical validation of MI Cancer Seek®, a companion diagnostic whole exome and whole transcriptome sequencing-based comprehensive molecular profiling assay.” In this study, first authors Valeriy Domenyuk and Kasey Benson, along with corresponding author David Spetzler from Caris Life Sciences in Irving, Texas, introduce MI Cancer Seek, an FDA-approved test designed to deliver comprehensive tumor profiling. MI Cancer Seek demonstrated strong concordance with other FDA-approved companion diagnostics and serves as a powerful tool to guide treatment decisions in both adult and pediatric cancer patients. Cancer remains one of the most complex and diverse diseases to treat. With many targeted therapies currently FDA-approved, selecting the right one for a specific patient requires detailed genetic insights. MI Cancer Seek addresses this need by analyzing both DNA and RNA from a single tumor sample. The tool identifies key biomarkers linked to FDA-approved treatments for several major cancers, including breast, lung, colon, melanoma, and endometrial cancers. One of the most significant strengths of MI Cancer Seek is its ability to deliver accurate and reliable results from minimal tissue input (50 ng). Even when analyzing formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples, which are widely used but often degraded, the test maintained high levels of accuracy. It successfully detected important genetic alterations such as PIK3CA, EGFR, BRAF, and KRAS/NRAS mutations and measured tumor mutational burden (TMB) and microsatellite instability (MSI), both of which are key indicators for immunotherapy response. In clinical comparisons, the test achieved over 97% agreement with other FDA-approved diagnostic tools, confirming its reliability in detecting critical biomarkers. Notably, it showed near-perfect accuracy in identifying MSI status in colorectal and endometrial cancers. The researchers also demonstrated that the test maintains precision across different lab conditions and varying DNA input levels, confirming its robustness for routine clinical use. Beyond its role as a companion diagnostic, MI Cancer Seek incorporates additional features developed under its predecessor, MI Tumor Seek Hybrid. These include detection of homologous recombination deficiency, structural variants, and cancer-related viruses. It also includes advanced tools such as the Genomic Probability Score for identifying the tissue of origin in cancers of unknown primary, as well as a gene signature to guide first-line chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. “One limitation to be considered is the low PPA for ERBB2 CNA detection.” By offering deeper genetic insights from a single, small sample, MI Cancer Seek has the potential to streamline diagnostics, reduce testing costs, and connect patients to effective therapies more quickly. As precision medicine continues to expand, this assay stands out as a comprehensive and efficient solution for meeting the evolving needs of modern oncology. DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28761 Correspondence to - David Spetzler - dspetzler@carisls.com Video short - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4hd2FxCYY8 Subscribe for free publication alerts from Oncotarget - https://www.oncotarget.com/subscribe/ To learn more about Oncotarget, please visit https://www.oncotarget.com and connect with us: Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/Oncotarget/ X - https://twitter.com/oncotarget Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/oncotargetjrnl/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@OncotargetJournal LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/oncotarget Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/oncotarget/ Reddit - https://www.reddit.com/user/Oncotarget/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0gRwT6BqYWJzxzmjPJwtVh MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM

LCC in Cantonese: Novel Treatment for Advanced EGFR Mutant Lung Cancer by IASLC

Thank you for listening to The Peptide Podcast. If you enjoyed the show and want to support what we do, head over to our Partners Page. You'll find some amazing brands we trust—and by checking them out, you're helping us keep the podcast going.  Today, we're diving into one of the most talked-about topics in health and weight loss right now: GLP-1 medications like semaglutide and the newer dual GIP/GLP-1s like tirzepatide. You've probably seen the headlines, scrolled past a few TikToks, or heard a friend mention it — but with all that noise comes a lot of confusion, half-truths, and flat-out myths. Today we're breaking it all down. What's real? What's hype? And what do you actually need to know if you're using these medications — or thinking about it? Let's separate science from scare tactics and get to the truth, one myth at a time. Myth #1: GLP-1s Cause Dangerous Muscle Loss The claim:  “GLP-1s cause massive muscle loss.” Truth: This is an overstatement. Some loss of lean mass is normal with any kind of weight loss — whether it's through diet, medication, or surgery. What studies show is that with medications like semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), about 20–25% of the total weight lost comes from lean mass, and the rest is fat — which is exactly what we're targeting in obesity treatment. That 20–25% figure isn't unique to these meds; it's actually pretty typical in weight loss without focused resistance training or optimized protein intake. You may also hear “You'll lose all your muscle and become frail on GLP-1s.” Truth: You won't “lose all your muscle.” In fact, muscle loss is preventable by maintaining adequate protein intake, resistance training, and managing weight loss pace. Furthermore, many patients gain strength and mobility as excess weight comes off. And lastly, my favorite myth is “You can't preserve muscle on GLP-1s.” Truth: That's completely false — muscle loss isn't inevitable on GLP-1s if you take the right approach. You can absolutely preserve muscle by making a few intentional choices: aim for enough protein each day (a good goal is around 0.8 grams per pound of body weight), include some strength or resistance training a couple times a week, and avoid losing weight too quickly. These simple steps go a long way in protecting your lean mass while still getting all the benefits of weight loss. One study on semaglutide showed that people lost an average of about 15% of their body weight, and only around 3–4% of that was lean mass. So if someone drops 30 pounds, maybe 6 to 8 of those pounds might be lean mass—not ideal, but definitely not disastrous either, and very manageable with the right lifestyle habits.  The truth is, while some lean mass loss is expected with any type of weight loss, research shows that most of the weight lost on GLP-1s is actually fat, not muscle. For example, in the STEP 1 trial, about 80% of the weight lost on semaglutide came from fat, and only about 20% from lean tissue (as we mentioned earlier).  The SURMOUNT-1 trial with tirzepatide showed similar results—significant fat loss with relatively preserved muscle, especially when paired with resistance training. And that's important, because preserving muscle during weight loss helps protect metabolism, strength, and overall health. With good nutrition and movement, GLP-1s can lead to healthier body composition—not just a lower number on the scale. Okay, moving along to the next myth … Myth #2: GLP-1s Can Cause Blindness The truth: This myth stems from concerns about diabetic retinopathy worsening, which is tied to how quickly blood sugar drops, not to the drug itself. In the SUSTAIN-6 trial (Marso et al., NEJM, 2016), a small subset of patients with pre-existing advanced diabetic retinopathy saw transient worsening—but only in those with rapid improvements in A1c. No increased rates of blindness or new-onset retinopathy have been found in non-diabetic patients using GLP-1s for weight loss. The bottom line is that those without advanced diabetic eye disease, there's no increased risk of blindness. Patients with diabetic retinopathy should be monitored closely—but this is about glycemic management, not a direct effect of the medication. Myth #3: GLP-1s Cause Kidney or Liver Damage The truth: This is false. In fact, GLP-1 agonists may protect kidney and liver function—especially in patients with diabetes or fatty liver disease. The most recent notable study showing kidney‑protective effects of a GLP‑1 receptor agonist is the FLOW trial, which evaluated semaglutide in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). This double‑blind, randomized, placebo‑controlled trial included 3,533 participants followed for a median of 3.4 years and found that semaglutide reduced the risk of major kidney‑related events—including kidney failure, substantial eGFR decline, and death from renal or cardiovascular causes—by 24% compared to placebo. A 2025 meta-analysis of multiple randomized controlled trials (11 studies, 85,373 participants) concluded that GLP‑1 receptor agonists reduced the risk of composite kidney failure outcomes by 18%, kidney failure by 16%, and all‑cause death by 12%. And let's not forget the SMART trial, involving obese patients with kidney disease but without diabetes, found that semaglutide protected kidney function in this non‑diabetic, CKD‑affected population.  When it comes to the liver, there's actually growing evidence they're actually helping reverse non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). The STEP 1 MRI substudy and SURPASS-3 MRI substudy have shown people on these medications can reduce liver fat by 30 to even 50% and in some cases, completely resolve liver inflammation — that more serious form called NASH, where fat is combined with inflammation and early scarring. The LEAN trial found that nearly 60% of people taking semaglutide had resolution of NASH, without worsening their liver scarring. That's huge. And even better, we're seeing these effects even in people who don't have diabetes. Just losing weight helps fatty liver, but these meds seem to do more than that — they actually target inflammation and fat storage in the liver itself.. The bottom line is GLP-1s are not nephrotoxic or hepatotoxic. In fact, they may be organ-protective—especially for people with underlying metabolic issues. Myth #4: These Drugs Lead to Bone Loss The claim: “You'll get osteoporosis from losing too much weight!” The truth: While extreme weight loss can affect bone density, GLP-1s themselves do not cause bone loss, and may even have neutral or protective effects on bone. A 2022 study in Bone found no significant change in BMD (bone mineral density) in adults treated with semaglutide for obesity. While the SUSTAIN and PIONEER programs found no increased risk of fractures in semaglutide-treated patients versus placebo. Truly, concerns about bone loss are more relevant in extreme calorie restriction or eating disorders—not evidence-based GLP-1 treatment with appropriate nutrition. Myth #5: Everyone Gets Gastroparesis The claim: “These medications paralyze your stomach” The truth: GLP-1s slow gastric emptying, which is part of how they work—making you feel full longer. But this is dose-dependent and typically reversible. A 2023 FDA safety review found that true gastroparesis is extremely rare and resolves when the drug is stopped. Reality check: Nausea, early satiety, and mild bloating are common but manageable side effects. True, lasting gastroparesis is not typical, especially when doses are titrated gradually. Myth #6: GLP-1s Make Your Hair Fall Out The claim: “You'll lose a ton of hair—just like with crash diets” The truth: Hair shedding is not directly caused by GLP-1 medications. Instead, it's often a temporary, non-scarring condition called telogen effluvium, which can happen with any rapid weight loss, regardless of the method. A 2023 analysis from the American Academy of Dermatology emphasized that telogen effluvium is common with surgical or medical weight loss, especially if patients lose more than 10% of their body weight within a few months. In clinical trials like STEP and SURMOUNT, hair loss was not listed as a common side effect, but patient-reported data show it occurs occasionally—likely tied to nutritional stress, not the drug itself. So why does hair loss happen? We've talked about this before, but I don't want to leave this important information out.  Hair follicles are sensitive to internal stress. Rapid changes in caloric intake, nutrient levels (like iron, zinc, and biotin), or hormone balance can push hairs into the shedding phase. This is a delayed effect, often showing up 2–3 months after weight loss begins, and it typically resolves within 6–12 months. What helps is slower, sustained weight loss, prioritizing protein intake, supplementing iron, zinc, and biotin if deficient, and avoiding very low-calorie diets and over-restriction. Myth #6: GLP-1s Cause Dehydration It's a common myth that GLP-1 medications cause dehydration — but that's not exactly true. The medication itself doesn't directly dehydrate you. What can happen is that some people experience nausea, vomiting, or a reduced appetite early on, which can lead to drinking less water without realizing it. That's where the dehydration risk comes in. A good general rule for staying hydrated is to aim for half your body weight in ounces of water per day. So, for example, if you weigh 160 pounds, try to drink around 80 ounces daily — more if you're active or live in a hot climate. Electrolytes can also be really helpful, especially if you're feeling tired, dizzy, or crampy. I like LMNT packets — they're a clean option with no sugar and a good balance of sodium, magnesium, and potassium. The sodium in LMNT packets helps keep you hydrated by pulling water into your cells and helping your body retain the fluids it needs to function properly. Just one a day can make a big difference in how you feel. Myth #7: You Have to Stay on GLP-1s Forever or You'll Gain All the Weight Back The claim: “As soon as you stop taking it, all the weight comes back” The truth: Yes—some weight regain is likely after stopping GLP-1 medications. But that doesn't mean they're ineffective or that you're doomed to rebound completely. The same pattern happens after any type of weight loss intervention, whether it's a diet, surgery, or medication. The STEP 4 trial (Wilding et al., 2022) showed that participants who stopped semaglutide after 20 weeks regained an average of 6% of their weight loss over the next year. But it's important to note that they still weighed less than at baseline—and many continued to experience improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol, and insulin sensitivity. Similarly, in SURMOUNT-4, patients who stopped tirzepatide also regained weight, but less than they lost. So why does this weight gain happen? I feel like the answer to this is obvious, but I've found that it's not.  GLP-1s change your appetite and hunger cues. Once the medication is stopped, your body's baseline hunger signals return—and often with increased intensity, due to metabolic adaptation. But this isn't unique to GLP-1s. The same thing happens after crash diets, keto, intermittent fasting, or bariatric surgery if long-term changes aren't made. The real issue isn't the drug—it's the lack of a plan after the drug. To help make results sustainable, we need to use the medication as a tool, not a crutch. We should use it to help us lose weight and understand our hunger cues, while transitioning to a whole foods, protein based diet coupled with resistance training to help preserve and build muscle.  Just remember, if you're coming off a GLP-1 and want to keep the momentum going, the key is to approach it thoughtfully. Tapering slowly under medical supervision can help your body adjust and reduce the chances of weight regain. At the same time, this is a great moment to double down on the habits that helped you feel your best while on the medication. Think ongoing support—like working with a health coach, joining a support group, or even doing behavioral therapy—to help reinforce those long-term lifestyle changes. It's not just about what you stop; it's about what you keep doing that matters most. You don't necessarily have to stay on GLP-1s forever—but if you stop without a plan, some weight regain is very likely. Think of them like glasses: they help you see clearly while you build the habits to eventually navigate without them. For some, that may mean staying on a lower maintenance dose long-term—just like with blood pressure or cholesterol meds. What are my final thoughts? I want to be clear—GLP-1s aren't magic. But they are powerful tools when paired with education, support, and smart lifestyle changes.  Myths like ‘you'll go blind,' ‘you'll lose all your hair,' or ‘you'll be stuck on these meds forever' aren't just misleading and downright false—they discourage people from getting real help.  So if you're thinking about these medications, get informed, ask the hard questions, and make your decision based on science—not fear. Thank you for listening to The Peptide Podcast. If you enjoyed the show and want to support what we do, head over to our Partners Page. You'll find some amazing brands we trust—and by checking them out, you're helping us keep the podcast going.  Until next time, be well, and as always, have a happy, healthy week.

Imagine you've been on the kidney transplant waitlist for years, hoping for a second chance at life. Then, one day, you find out that your estimated wait time was longer than it should have been—not because of your health, but because your kidney function was calculated using a race coefficient. That was the reality Black kidney patients faced. Now, that's changing. Dr. Vinay Nair, the Medical Director at North Shore University Hospital and Northwell Health, Morgan Reid, NKF's former Senior Transplant Policy and Strategy Director, and two kidney warriors Michele Bibby and Brittany Dickerson are here to break down the impact of removing race from eGFR and what that means for transplant patients   In today's episode we spoke to:  Dr. Vinay Nair, is an Associate Professor of Medicine at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/ Northwell and the medical director of kidney transplantation for Northwell Health. Dr. Nair's clinical and research interests include novel immunosuppressive protocols, kidney paired exchange and infectious and malignant complications after transplantation. He serves as part of CERCA (coalition to end racism in clinical algorithms), the editorial board and reviewer of several nephrology and transplant journals, and has served in the UNOS kidney transplantation committee. Dr. Nair has published on various transplant related topics and co-authored book chapters on immunosuppression and post-transplant malignancy. He is an advocate for equality in medicine and has spoken at several community outreach events on the importance of chronic kidney disease recognition and kidney transplantation. Michele Bibby is President of MAB Consulting Services. Michele provides mental health education, advocacy, and policy analysis to public and private entities. Michele designs and delivers mental health workshops and training.  Michele delivers public speeches and presentations on mental health topics. Michele Bibby previously enjoyed a successful career in Human Resources Management in the Private and Public Sector.  Michele has a Professional in Human Resources (PHR) Certification. Michele is a Certified Peer Specialist and a Certified Mediator. Michele serves as Board Chair for Via Hope a Texas Mental Health Nonprofit.  Michele also serves on the National Kidney Foundation “Kidney Advocacy Committee” and the “Health Equity Sub Committee”. Michele holds a B.A. in Government from The University of Texas at Austin (1984).  Morgan Reid is the Regional Patient Advocacy Manager for Ardelyx, Inc.  Previously, she worked at the National Kidney Foundation as the Senior Director of Healthcare Policy and Strategy. She is a tireless patient advocate and also a kidney recipient herself. Brittany Dickerson- I am a dedicated mother, motivational speaker, and compassionate life coach living with Polycystic Kidney Disease (PKD). I use my kidney failure battle to educate and help others regarding kidney disease and transplantation. My personal journey has fueled my passion for helping others navigate life's challenges with courage and grace. Through partnership with the National Kidney Foundation, I have had the opportunity to mentor others and to be a guest for the National Kidney Foundation Podcast channel. My dedication to kidney awareness has led me to pursue becoming a National Kidney Foundation Advocate. I use my voice to spread my powerful message of perseverance and hope. My goal is to continue making an impact on individuals facing adversity, offering guidance, support, and being a shining example of strength in the face of hardship.    Additional Resources: Removing Race-Based eGFR   Do you have comments, questions, or suggestions? Email us at NKFpodcast@kidney.org. Also, make sure to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts.  

In a discussion with CancerNetwork®, Jacob Sands, MD, assistant professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, thoracic oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and investigator of the phase 2 TROPION-Lung05 trial (NCT04484142) and phase 3 TROPION-Lung01 trial (NCT04656652), which supported the accelerated approval of datopotamab deruxtecan-dlnk (dato-DXd; Datroway) in pretreated EGFR-mutant metastatic NSCLC in June 2025, discussed safety and efficacy considerations for the agent's use.1-3 He began by outlining a combined cohort of the TROPION-Lung05 and TROPION-Lung01 trials, which collectively showed an efficacy benefit with dato-DXd in patients with EGFR-mutant disease vs docetaxel. In the combined cohort, the median progression-free survival with dato-DXd reached 5.8 months, and the median overall survival was 15.6 months. Additional efficacy data revealed an objective response rate of 45% (95% CI, 35%-54%) and a median duration of response of 6.5 months (95% CI, 4.2-8.4).  Furthermore, Sands highlighted the most common toxicities observed with dato-DXd in this population, which included stomatitis, interstitial lung disease (ILD), and ocular toxicities. He also reviewed management strategies to mitigate their incidence and severity. Specifically, remedies include prophylaxis, oral hygiene, and dose reductions for stomatitis; using preservative-free eye drops and ophthalmology visits for ocular toxicity management and prevention; and monitoring for any incidence of high-grade ILD. He then touched upon next steps for research in this disease state, including the phase 2 ORCHARD trial (NCT03944772) evaluating dato-DXd with osimertinib (Tagrisso) in the second-line setting after progression on osimertinib and the phase 3 TROPION-Lung15 trial (NCT06417814), which is evaluating chemotherapy vs dato-DXd alone or with osimertinib.4,5 Sands concluded by discussing the implications for toxicity management in patients who experience responses that exceed median outcomes, suggesting that the toxicity profile may be more severe for this group. Emphasizing the broadness of outcomes with any drug, he expressed that patients with experiences that deviate from the observed median outcome are an important consideration for clinical practice. References Sands J, Ahn MJ, Lisberg A, et al. Datopotamab deruxtecan in advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with actionable genomic alterations: results from the phase II TROPION-Lung05 study. J Clin Oncol. Published online January 6, 2025. doi:10.1200/JCO-24-01349 Ahn MJ, Tanaka K, Paz-Ares L, et al. Datopotamab deruxtecan versus docetaxel for previously treated advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: the randomized, open-label phase III TROPION-Lung01 study. J Clin Oncol. Published online September 9, 2024. doi:10.1200/JCO-24-01544  FDA grants accelerated approval to datopotamab deruxtecan-dlnk for EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer. News release. FDA. June 23, 2025. Accessed July 29, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/mtay7ab9 Yu HA, Goldberg SB, Le X, et al. Biomarker-directed phase II platform study in patients with EGFR sensitizing mutation-positive advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer whose disease has progressed on first-line osimertinib therapy (ORCHARD). Clin Lung Cancer. 2021;22(6):601-606. doi:10.1016/j.cllc.2021.06.006 A study to investigate the efficacy and safety of dato-DXd with or without osimertinib compared with platinum based doublet chemotherapy in participants with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (TROPION-Lung15). ClinicalTrials.gov. Updated July 16, 2025. Accessed July 29, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/56z3dmsp

LCC in Romanian: Management of Unresectable, EGFR-mutated Stage III Lung Cancer in Romania by IASLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FDA Approval: Datopotamab Deruxtecan for EGFR NSCLC by IASLC

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

FDA Approval: Sunvozertinib for EGFR Exon 20 by IASLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome back to Solving the Puzzle with Dr. Datis Kharrazian, the podcast where evidence-based functional medicine meets real-world application. In this episode, Dr. Joseph Pizzorno, a pioneering voice in environmental medicine and toxicology dives into the hidden world of environmental toxins—discussing the staggering number of chemicals we're exposed to every day, why testing for toxins can be more complex than most realize, and which common exposures may be silently sabotaging our health.Dr. Pizzorno reveals the challenges in accurately measuring toxic load, the wide differences in our bodies' abilities to detoxify, and why focusing on exposure and biological damage is often more useful than hunting for specific chemicals in the blood or urine. You'll learn about practical strategies for identifying and reducing toxin exposure, the synergistic effects of multiple chemicals, and simple steps you can take to support your body's natural defenses.Whether you're a clinician wanting clinical pearls or someone seeking to optimize your health in an increasingly toxic world, this episode will empower you with the knowledge and tools to take action.For patient-oriented courses, visit https://drknews.com/online-courses/For CE and CME practitioner courses, visit https://kharrazianinstitute.com/For patient-oriented courses, visit https://drknews.com/online-courses/For CE and CME practitioner courses, visit https://kharrazianinstitute.com/00:00 Assessing Exposure and Detox Challenges03:37 "Assessing Synergistic Environmental Toxins"07:09 "Toxic Load vs. Disease Correlation"11:24 Tea Habits and Water Concentration16:24 Chemical Impact on Neurological Health17:48 Persistent Human-Made Molecules23:20 Bisphenols Lowering Children's IQ26:18 Chemical Food Sources & Glyphosate Exposure28:26 Cerrillini's Impact on Glyphosate Regulation32:50 "Assessing Kidney Toxicity via EGFR"36:44 "Enhancing Body Detoxification"37:42 "Detox Strategy: Sweat and Monitor"Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/solving-the-puzzle-with-dr-datis-kharrazian. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.