Podcasts about her2

In today's episode, we had the pleasure of speaking with Martin F. Dietrich, MD, PhD, about updates and best practices for HER2 and MET immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Dr Dietrich is a medical oncologist at Cancer Care Centers of Brevard in Rockledge, Florida; as well as an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida in Orlando.  In our exclusive interview, Dr Dietrich discussed the rationale for testing for these mutations in patients with NSCLC, standard practices for implementing these tests in the clinic, and when testing may be appropriate at disease progression. 

Featuring an interview with Dr Erika Hamilton, including the following topics: Optimal selection and sequencing of available antibody-drug conjugates for HR-positive metastatic breast cancer (0:00) Bardia A et al. Datopotamab deruxtecan versus chemotherapy in previously treated inoperable/metastatic hormone receptor-positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer: Primary results from TROPION-Breast01. J Clin Oncol 2025;43(3):285-96. Abstract  Pistilli B et al. Datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) vs chemotherapy in previously-treated inoperable or metastatic hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer: Final overall survival from the Phase III TROPION-Breast01 trial. ESMO Virtual Plenary 2025;Abstract VP1-2025. First-line use of sacituzumab govitecan in combination with pembrolizumab for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (8:02) Tolaney SM et al. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) + pembrolizumab (pembro) vs chemotherapy (chemo) + pembro in previously untreated PD-L1–positive advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC): Primary results from the randomized phase 3 ASCENT-04/KEYNOTE-D19 study. ASCO 2025;Abstract LBA109. Ongoing trials evaluating datopotamab deruxtecan in earlier lines of therapy (12:06) Dent RA et al. TROPION-Breast02: Datopotamab deruxtecan for locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Future Oncol 2023;19(35):2349-59. Abstract McArthur HL et al. TROPION-Breast04: A randomized phase III study of neoadjuvant datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) plus durvalumab followed by adjuvant durvalumab versus standard of care in patients with treatment-naïve early-stage triple negative or HR-low/HER2- breast cancer. Ther Adv Med Oncol 2025;17:17588359251316176. Abstract Bardia A et al. TROPION-Breast03: A randomized phase III global trial of datopotamab deruxtecan ± durvalumab in patients with triple-negative breast cancer and residual invasive disease at surgical resection after neoadjuvant therapy. Ther Adv Med Oncol 2024;16:17588359241248336. Abstract Schmid P et al. TROPION-Breast05: A randomized phase III study of Dato-DXd with or without durvalumab versus chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab in patients with PD-L1-high locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Ther Adv Med Oncol 2025;17:17588359251327992. Abstract Available data with and ongoing trials of sacituzumab tirumotecan for HR-positive, HER2-negative and triple-negative breast cancer (16:53) Yin Y et al. Sacituzumab tirumotecan (sac-TMT) as first-line treatment for unresectable locally advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (a/mTNBC): Initial results from the phase II OptiTROP-Breast05 study. ASCO 2025;Abstract 1019. Xu B et al. Sacituzumab tirumotecan in patients with previously treated locally recurrent or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC): Results from the Phase III Opti-TROP-Breast01 study. ASCO 2024;Abstract 104. Yin Y et al. Sacituzumab tirumotecan in previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: A randomized phase 3 trial. Nat Med 2025;31(6):1969-1975. Abstract Garrido-Castro AC et al. SACI-IO HR+: A randomized phase II trial of sacituzumab govitecan with or without pembrolizumab in patients with metastatic HR+/HER2-negative breast cancer. ASCO 2024;Abstract LBA1004. CME information and select publications

“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

Featuring an interview with Dr Hope S Rugo, including the following topics: Pharmacologic features of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) and implications for their efficacy and toxicity in HR-positive breast cancer (0:00) Clinical and biological factors influencing the sequencing of approved ADCs for HR-positive and triple-negative metastatic breast cancer (4:03) Management of common toxicities with approved ADCs (10:48) Sacituzumab govitecan as first-line therapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (18:17) Trastuzumab deruxtecan in combination with pertuzumab as first-line therapy for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (21:09) CME information and select publications

Featuring a slide presentation and related discussion from Dr Hope S Rugo, including the following topics: Current treatment landscape for and outcomes in HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) (0:00) Trastuzumab deruxtecan for HER2-low and HER2-ultralow mBC (7:49) Sacituzumab govitecan for HR-positive, HER2-negative mBC (20:44) Datopotamab deruxtecan for HR-positive, HER2-negative mBC (27:29) Novel antibody-drug conjugates under investigation for HR-positive mBC (33:19) CME information and select publications

In this episode, listen to Laura M. Spring, MD; and Shipra Gandhi, MD, MS, share their takeaways from a large educational program on available and emerging first-line treatment options for patients with HER2-positive mBC:Emerging new data from the phase IIII DESTINY-Breast09 trial of first-line treatment with trastuzumab deruxtecan ± pertuzumab vs THP for advanced HER2-positive breast cancerInteractive decision support tool with recommendations from 5 experts for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancerOutcomes data from a live webinar on applying the latest data for first-line management of HER2-positive mBC, including analyzing the latest clinical results and developing tailored interventions to address challenges with novel ADCs Program faculty:Laura M. Spring, MDBreast Medical OncologistMass General Hospital Cancer CenterHarvard Medical SchoolBoston, Massachusetts Shipra Gandhi, MD, MSAssociate ProfessorDirector, Breast Translational ResearchGlenn Family Breast CenterWinship Cancer Institute of Emory UniversityAtlanta, GeorgiaResources:To access the interactive patient cases associated with this podcast discussion, please visit the program page, to access a recording from a live webinar, and an interactive decision support tool on this topic.

In this episode, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, FASCO, and Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, discuss the most clinically relevant data in breast cancer presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including: DESTINY-Breast09: phase III trial of trastuzumab deruxtecan with or without pertuzumab vs THP as first-line treatment of HER2-positive advanced/metastatic breast cancerASCENT-04/KEYNOTE-D19: phase III trial of first-line sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab in PD-L1–positive advanced TNBCSERENA-6: phase III trial of ctDNA-guided switch to camizestrant plus CDK4/6i vs continued AI plus CDK4/6i following ESR1 mutation emergence in HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancerINAVO120: OS from phase III study of first-line inavolisib/PBO plus palbociclib plus fulvestrant in PIK3CA-mutated, HR-positive/HER2-negative, endocrine-resistant advanced breast cancerPresenters:Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, FASCO​Professor of Medicine​Louisa and Rand Glenn Family Chair in Breast Cancer Research​Winship Cancer Institute​Emory UniversityAtlanta, Georgia​Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH​Chief, Breast Oncology​Dana-Farber Cancer Institute​Associate Professor of Medicine​Harvard Medical School​Boston, Massachusetts​Content based on an online CME program supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Lilly, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Stemline Therapeutics, Inc.Link to full program: https://bit.ly/4lFS4BC

What does the future hold for breast cancer treatment? Dr. Raz is here to talk about microwaving and freezing cancers, how staging works, and the role of artificial intelligence in finding new therapies and risks. In this episode, you’ll hear: What cancer staging really means and why it matters New ways doctors might treat breast cancer with less invasive methods How AI could shape breast cancer care and risk assessment Subscribe to Let’s Talk About Your Breasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeart, and wherever you get your podcasts. Key Questions Answered 1.What is cancer, and specifically, what is breast cancer? 2. What does 'staging' mean in breast cancer, and why does it matter? 3. How is the size of a breast tumor classified, and what does that imply for its stage? 4. What is DCIS and what does stage zero breast cancer mean? 5. What is the TNM staging system in breast cancer? 6. How do receptor statuses (ER, PR, HER2) affect breast cancer treatment and prognosis? 7. What questions should a patient ask their surgeon or oncologist about a breast cancer diagnosis? 8. What is targeted therapy in breast cancer, and how does it differ from traditional chemotherapy? 9. What advancements are emerging in breast cancer imaging and treatment? 10. How is AI (artificial intelligence) contributing to the future of breast cancer detection, risk assessment, and treatment? Timestamped Overview 00:00 Uncontrolled Cell Growth Explained 03:09 Understanding Breast Cancer Staging 08:20 Cancer Staging: Impact of Receptors 12:33 Gene Editing Targets Cancer Cells 16:13 "Non-Surgical Cancer Targeted Therapy" 19:55 AI in Healthcare History Management 21:25 AI Quantifies and Accelerates ResearchSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The incidence of early onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) has been rising prompting the change in change in screening guidelines to 45 years of age for average risk patients. Join us for an in-depth discussion with guest speakers Dr. Andrea Cercek and Dr. Nancy You, where we provide a comprehensive look at the growing challenge of EOCRC. Hosts: - Dr. Janet Alvarez - General Surgery Resident at New York Medical College/Metropolitan Hospital Center - Dr. Wini Zambare – General Surgery Resident at Weill Cornell Medical Center/New York Presbyterian - Dr. Phil Bauer, Graduating Colorectal Surgical Oncology Fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center  - Dr. J. Joshua Smith MD, PhD, Chair, Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center - Dr. Andrea Cercek - Gastrointestinal Medical Oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center - Dr. Y. Nancy You, MD MHSc - Professor, Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center Learning objectives:  - Describe trends in incidence of colorectal cancer, with emphasis on the rise of EOCRC. - Identify age groups and demographics most affected by EOCRC. - Summarize USPSTF recommendations for colorectal cancer screening. - Distinguish between screening methods (e.g., colonoscopy, FIT-DNA) and their sensitivity. - Understand treatment approaches for colon and rectal cancer (CRC) - Understand the role of mismatch repair (MMR) status in guiding treatment. - Outline the importance of genetic counseling and testing in young patients. - Discuss racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in CRC incidence and outcomes. - Describe the impact of cancer treatment on fertility and sexual health. -  Review fertility preservation options. - Identify the value of integrated care teams for young CRC patients. References: 1.         Siegel, R. L. et al. Colorectal Cancer Incidence Patterns in the United States, 1974–2013. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 109, djw322 (2017). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28376186/ 2.         Abboud, Y. et al. Rising Incidence and Mortality of Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer in Young Cohorts Associated with Delayed Diagnosis. Cancers 17, 1500 (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40361427/ 3.         Phang, R. et al. Is the Incidence of Early-Onset Adenocarcinomas in Aotearoa New Zealand Increasing? Asia Pac. J. Clin. Oncol.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40384533/ 4.         Vitaloni, M. et al. Clinical challenges and patient experiences in early-onset colorectal cancer: insights from seven European countries. BMC Gastroenterol. 25, 378 (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40375142/ 5.         Siegel, R. L. et al. Global patterns and trends in colorectal cancer incidence in young adults. (2019) doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319511. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31488504/ 6.         Cercek, A. et al. A Comprehensive Comparison of Early-Onset and Average-Onset Colorectal Cancers. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 113, 1683–1692 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34405229/ 7.         Zheng, X. et al. Comprehensive Assessment of Diet Quality and Risk of Precursors of Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 113, 543–552 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33136160/ 8.         Standl, E. & Schnell, O. Increased Risk of Cancer—An Integral Component of the Cardio–Renal–Metabolic Disease Cluster and Its Management. Cells 14, 564 (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40277890/ 9.         Muller, C., Ihionkhan, E., Stoffel, E. M. & Kupfer, S. S. Disparities in Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer. Cells 10, 1018 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33925893/ 10.       US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 325, 1965–1977 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34003218/ 11.       Fwelo, P. et al. Differential Colorectal Cancer Mortality Across Racial and Ethnic Groups: Impact of Socioeconomic Status, Clinicopathology, and Treatment-Related Factors. Cancer Med. 14, e70612 (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40040375/ 12.       Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I. et al. Contribution of Screening and Survival Differences to Racial Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Rates. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 21, 728–736 (2012). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22514249/ 13.       Ko, T. M. et al. Low neighborhood socioeconomic status is associated with poor outcomes in young adults with colorectal cancer. Surgery 176, 626–632 (2024). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38972769/ 14.       Siegel, R. L., Wagle, N. S., Cercek, A., Smith, R. A. & Jemal, A. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2023. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 73, 233–254 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36856579/ 15.       Jain, S., Maque, J., Galoosian, A., Osuna-Garcia, A. & May, F. P. Optimal Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening. Curr. Treat. Options Oncol. 23, 474–493 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35316477/ 16.       Zauber, A. G. The Impact of Screening on Colorectal Cancer Mortality and Incidence: Has It Really Made a Difference? Dig. Dis. Sci. 60, 681–691 (2015). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25740556/ 17.       Edwards, B. K. et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer 116, 544–573 (2010). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19998273/ 18.       Cercek, A. et al. Nonoperative Management of Mismatch Repair–Deficient Tumors. New England Journal of Medicine 392, 2297–2308 (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40293177/ 19.       Monge, C., Waldrup, B., Carranza, F. G. & Velazquez-Villarreal, E. Molecular Heterogeneity in Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer: Pathway-Specific Insights in High-Risk Populations. Cancers 17, 1325 (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40282501/ 20.       Monge, C., Waldrup, B., Carranza, F. G. & Velazquez-Villarreal, E. Ethnicity-Specific Molecular Alterations in MAPK and JAK/STAT Pathways in Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer. Cancers 17, 1093 (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40227607/ 21.       Benson, A. B. et al. Colon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. JNCCN 19, 329–359 (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33724754/ 22.       Christenson, E. S. et al. Nivolumab and Relatlimab for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic mismatch repair proficient colorectal cancer. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40388545/ 23.       Dasari, A. et al. Fruquintinib versus placebo in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (FRESCO-2): an international, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study. The Lancet 402, 41–53 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37331369/ 24.       Strickler, J. H. et al. Tucatinib plus trastuzumab for chemotherapy-refractory, HER2-positive, RAS wild-type unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer (MOUNTAINEER): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 24, 496–508 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37142372/ 25.       Sauer, R. et al. Preoperative versus Postoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 351, 1731–1740 (2004). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15496622/ 26.       Cercek, A. et al. Adoption of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 4, e180071 (2018). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29566109/ 27.       Garcia-Aguilar, J. et al. Organ Preservation in Patients With Rectal Adenocarcinoma Treated With Total Neoadjuvant Therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 40, 2546–2556 (2022). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35483010/ 28.       Schrag, D. et al. Preoperative Treatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 389, 322–334 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37272534/ 29.       Kunkler, I. H., Williams, L. J., Jack, W. J. L., Cameron, D. A. & Dixon, J. M. Breast-Conserving Surgery with or without Irradiation in Early Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 388, 585–594 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36791159/ 30.       Jacobsen, R. L., Macpherson, C. F., Pflugeisen, B. M. & Johnson, R. H. Care Experience, by Site of Care, for Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer. JCO Oncol. Pract. (2021) doi:10.1200/OP.20.00840. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33566700/ 31.       Ruddy, K. J. et al. Prospective Study of Fertility Concerns and Preservation Strategies in Young Women With Breast Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. (2014) doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.52.8877. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24567428/ 32.       Su, H. I. et al. Fertility Preservation in People With Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update. J. Clin. Oncol. 43, 1488–1515 (2025). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40106739/ 33.       Smith, K. L., Gracia, C., Sokalska, A. & Moore, H. Advances in Fertility Preservation for Young Women With Cancer. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book 27–37 (2018) doi:10.1200/EDBK_208301. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30231357/ 34.       Blumenfeld, Z. How to Preserve Fertility in Young Women Exposed to Chemotherapy? The Role of GnRH Agonist Cotreatment in Addition to Cryopreservation of Embrya, Oocytes, or Ovaries. The Oncologist 12, 1044–1054 (2007). 35.       Bhagavath, B. The current and future state of surgery in reproductive endocrinology. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 34, 164 (2022). 36.       Ribeiro, R. et al. Uterine transposition: technique and a case report. Fertil. Steril. 108, 320-324.e1 (2017). 37.       Yazdani, A., Sweterlitsch, K. M., Kim, H., Flyckt, R. L. & Christianson, M. S. Surgical Innovations to Protect Fertility from Oncologic Pelvic Radiation Therapy: Ovarian Transposition and Uterine Fixation. J. Clin. Med. 13, 5577 (2024). 38.       Holowatyj, A. N., Eng, C. & Lewis, M. A. Incorporating Reproductive Health in the Clinical Management of Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer. JCO Oncol. Pract. 18, 169–172 (2022). ***Behind the Knife Colorectal Surgery Oral Board Audio Review: https://app.behindtheknife.org/course-details/colorectal-surgery-oral-board-audio-review Please visit https://behindtheknife.org to access other high-yield surgical education podcasts, videos and more.   If you liked this episode, check out our recent episodes here: https://app.behindtheknife.org/listen

In this episode, CancerNetwork® spoke with breast oncologists Heather McArthur, MD; Erika Hamilton, MD; Hope Rugo, MD; and Paolo Tarantino, MD, PhD, about advances in breast cancer. These developments included recent drug approvals and ongoing research for therapeutic approaches, particularly in the areas of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) and CDK4/6 inhibitors, based on presentations they gave at the 25th Annual International Congress on the Future of Breast Cancer (IBC) East in New York City. Initially, McArthur, Komen Distinguished Chair in Clinical Breast Cancer Research at the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, discussed immunotherapy use in high-risk triple-negative and HER2-positive disease, the evolving role of adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibition in HER2-negative breast cancer, and potentially transformative advancements in early breast cancer treatment.  She highlighted the FDA approval for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer, promising clinical trials in estrogen receptor (ER)–positive high-risk early-stage breast cancer, and data from an investigator-initiated trial to treat HER2-positive disease. Additionally, she highlighted an 8.5% improvement in pathological complete response with pembrolizumab added to immunotherapy in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-756 trial (NCT03725059), adding that a further event-free survival benefit may complicate the landscape for CDK4/6 inhibition based on lung and liver toxicities associated with the coadministration of these inhibitors with immunotherapy.1 McArthur expressed further excitement for ADC-based combinations for triple-negative disease, as well as in the high-risk residual disease setting. In addition, she highlighted potential advancements in de-escalation strategies and further considerations for ADCs in the HER2-positive and hormone receptor (HR)–positive spaces. Then, Hamilton, director of Breast Cancer and Gynecologic Cancer Research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, highlighted emerging therapies for early breast cancer, as well as her use of datopotamab deruxtecan-dlnk (dato-DXd; Datroway) and fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki (T-DXd; Enhertu) given their recent approvals in various breast cancer subtypes. She also touched upon challenges with respect to the implementation of new therapies for early breast cancer into clinical practice. She initially highlighted new data from the phase 3 VERITAC-2 trial (NCT05654623) presented at the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting.2 Specifically, findings showed that vepdegestrant, an oral proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC), exhibited an efficacy advantage over fulvestrant (Faslodex) in patients with ESR1-mutant ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic disease. Moreover, she highlighted data from the phase 3 DESTINY-Breast09 (NCT04784715) of T-DXd in various combinations for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.3 Hamilton further highlighted her implementation of T-DXd into clinical practice, citing her use of the agent in patients with metastatic disease, including those with HER2-low and HER2-ultralow breast cancer. She further differentiated dato-DXd from T-DXd, suggesting that they were different classes of drugs due to their different targets: TROP2 vs HER2. She concluded by highlighting an unmet need regarding sustained benefit from endocrine therapy in HR-positive disease, as well as for ADC sequencing and mechanisms of resistance. Afterward, Rugo, division chief of Breast Medical Oncology, Women's Cancer Program Director, and professor in the Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research at City of Hope, discussed efficacy and safety considerations for CDK4/6 inhibitors in early breast cancer treatment. Specifically, she highlighted their high tolerability despite adverse effects and costs associated with their use. Rugo further touched upon a reduction of recurrence rates associated with CDK4/6 inhibition, although longer-term follow-up data were warranted to optimize the duration of therapy and elucidate survival outcomes. Finally, Tarantino, a research fellow at the Dana-Farber Institute, concluded by discussing sequencing strategies for ADCs, as well as which breast cancer settings or patient populations will experience the greatest impact with this treatment modality. Tarantino discussed his use of the “sandwich strategy,” where he switches the mechanism of action of treatment after using a TOPO1 ADC. Furthermore, Tarantino highlighted data from the DESTINY-Breast09 and phase 3 ASCENT-04 (NCT06100874) trials, which displayed the enhanced efficacy of 2 ADC combination therapies.4 He concluded by discussing future considerations for combining multiple ADCs. References 1. Cardoso F, O'Shaughnessy J, Liu Z, et al. Pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in high-risk, early-stage, ER+/HER2- breast cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial. Nat Med. 2025;31(2):442-448. doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03415-7 2. Hamilton E, De Laurentiis M, Jhaveri K, et al. Vepdegestrant, a PROTAC estrogen receptor (ER) degrader, vs fulvestrant in ER-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced breast cancer: results of the global, randomized, phase 3 VERITAC-2 study. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 17):LBA1000. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.17_suppl.LBA1000 3. Tolaney S, Jiang Z, Zhang Q, et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) + pertuzumab (P) vs taxane + trastuzumab + pertuzumab (THP) for first-line (1L) treatment of patients (pts) with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) advanced/metastatic breast cancer (a/mBC): interim results from DESTINY-Breast09. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 17):LBA1008. 4. Tolaney SM, de Azambuja E, Kalinsky K, et al. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) + pembrolizumab (pembro) vs chemotherapy (chemo) + pembro in previously untreated PD-L1–positive advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC): Primary results from the randomized phase 3 ASCENT-04/KEYNOTE-D19 study. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 17):LBA109. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.17_suppl.LBA109

In today's episode, we had the opportunity to speak with Arndt Vogel, MD, about the European Commission's (EC's) July 2025 marketing authorization of zanidatamab-hrii (Ziihera) for the treatment of adult patients with previously treated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic HER2-positive biliary tract cancer. Dr Vogel is a faculty member at the University of Toronto Institute of Medical Science, a scientist at the Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, and a medical oncologist at the UHN–Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Canada. In our exclusive interview, Dr Vogel highlighted the clinical importance of this decision, emphasizing that it represents a significant advancement for a molecularly defined subgroup of patients with limited treatment options and historically poor outcomes. He explained that biliary tract cancers, including cholangiocarcinoma, are associated with high recurrence rates and poor survival, even in patients who undergo curative-intent surgery. For patients in the advanced setting, second-line chemotherapy offers modest clinical benefit, with objective response rates of approximately 6%, a median progression-free survival of approximately 3 months, and a median overall survival of approximately 12 months. Vogel discussed the data supporting the EC's approval, which was based on findings from the phase 2b HERIZON-BTC-01 trial (NCT04466891)—the largest study conducted to date evaluating HER2-directed therapy in this patient population. In the trial, at a median follow-up of 21.9 months, patients with centrally confirmed HER2-positive tumors (n = 80) who received zanidatamab achieved a confirmed objective response rate (cORR) of 41.3% (95% CI, 30.4-52.8). The median duration of response was 14.9 months (95% CI, 7.4-not reached), and the median overall survival reached 15.5 months (95% CI, 10.4-18.5).

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.

Cynthia was diagnosed with stage 4 incurable her2 positive breast cancer with metastases to her lymph and bones in 2020 at the very young age of 27. She wasn't expected to live to her 30th birthday.  Cynthia shared that something started to happen within her, she began to listen to the voice within. It was her intuition, and it  became her guiding light to finding balance and wellness in her life again. She has since been told she is in remission, without long-term effects from chemotherapy. The radical remission healing factors gave her hope and helped her turn her life around. She now lives off grid with her husband and 4 young children, living life more with purpose and presence. Connect with Cynthia on Instagram ______________ To learn more about the 10 Radical Remission Healing Factors, connect with a certified RR coach or join a virtual or in-person workshop visit www.radicalremission.com. To watch Episode 1 of the Radical Remission Docuseries for free, visit our YouTube channel here.  To purchase the full 10-episode Radical Remission Docuseries visit Hay House Online Learning. To learn more about Radical Remission health coaching with Liz or Karla, Click Here Follow us on Social Media: Facebook  Instagram YouTube ____________ If you've been listening to our podcast, you know just how important it is to address and release suppressed emotions. The evidence supporting this healing factor is growing, and we talked a lot about it in our podcast episode with Avinoam Lerner. Avinoam is a Cancer and Trauma specialist whose work highlights the cancer/trauma connection and addresses the root cause of suffering for enhanced immune function and more favorable treatment outcomes. He offers people facing cancer an evidence-based approach to increasing their odds of healing and recovery. Visit www.avinoamlerner.com for your personalized approach to releasing your suppressed emotions  VA link to www.avinoamlerner.com Mobilize Your Mind to Heal Your Body, Book your Free Discovery Session VA link to https://www.avinoamlerner.com/cancer-immune-enhancement Learn more about the Mindful Remission Program  VA link to https://www.avinoamlerner.com/cancer-wellness-programs 

In today's episode, we had the opportunity to speak with Henry M. Kuerer, MD, PhD, FACS, CMQ, about the potential to safely omit surgery in a subset of patients with early-stage HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer who achieve a pathologic complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Dr Kuerer is a professor of breast surgical oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. In our conversation, Dr Kuerer reviewed the rationale behind a prospective phase 2 clinical trial (NCT02945579) testing image-guided vacuum-assisted core biopsy to identify patients with no residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy. He outlined the strict technical and eligibility criteria that enabled accurate detection of pCR—including tumors downsizing to less than 2 cm and biopsy of at least 12 cores from the tumor bed—and discussed why this biopsy-based approach may be more reliable than standard surgery in detecting residual disease. He also highlighted the broader clinical implications of the findings, noting that patients with biopsy-confirmed pCR may proceed directly to radiotherapy and avoid breast surgery altogether.

Dr Haley Ellis from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Dr Christopher Lieu from the University of Colorado Cancer Center in Aurora, Dr Sara Lonardi from the Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS in Padua, Italy, and Dr Kanwal Raghav from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston discuss patient cases and provide their perspectives on clinical datasets informing the care of patients with HER2-positive gastrointestinal cancer.  CME information and select publications here.

Dr Haley Ellis from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Dr Christopher Lieu from the University of Colorado Cancer Center in Aurora, Dr Sara Lonardi from the Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS in Padua, Italy, and Dr Kanwal Raghav from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston discuss patient cases and provide their perspectives on clinical datasets informing the care of patients with HER2-positive gastrointestinal cancer.  CME information and select publications here.

Dr Haley Ellis from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Dr Christopher Lieu from the University of Colorado Cancer Center in Aurora, Dr Sara Lonardi from the Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS in Padua, Italy, and Dr Kanwal Raghav from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston discuss patient cases and provide their perspectives on clinical datasets informing the care of patients with HER2-positive gastrointestinal cancer.  CME information and select publications here.

Featuring perspectives from Dr Haley Ellis, Dr Sara Lonardi and Dr Kanwal Raghav, moderated by Dr Christopher Lieu, including the following topics: Introduction (0:00) Gastroesophageal Cancers — Dr Lonardi (1:54) Biliary Tract Cancers — Dr Ellis (39:20) Colorectal Cancer — Dr Raghav (1:07:10) CME information and select publications

First-Line Therapy—Has the Standard of Care Shifted for Good?In this episode, Dr. Sara Tolaney, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, discusses how DESTINY-Breast09 is redefining first-line treatment in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. She explores whether T-DXd plus pertuzumab should replace the long-standing THP regimen, the future role of induction-maintenance strategies, and open questions on optimal therapy duration.   Let us know what you thought of this week's episode on Twitter: @physicianswkly Want to share your medical expertise, research, or unique experience in medicine on the PW podcast? Email us at editorial@physweekly.com! Thanks for listening!

In this episode, Michael goes it alone, welcoming an old friend of the show, Dr Belinda Yeo, to discuss highlights in early breast cancer from ASCO 2025. The pair discuss an exciting new medication to assist with vasomotor symptoms from endocrine therapy, the ongoing follow up from the pivotal SOFT/TEXT study, an escalation strategy for abemaciclib and a de-escalation strategy for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in HER2 positive breast cancer.Studies discussed in this episodeOASISSOFT/TEXT, 15 year updateTRADENeoCARHPFor more episodes, resources and blog posts, visit www.inquisitiveonc.comPlease find us on Twitter @InquisitiveOnc!If you want us to look at a specific trial or subject, email us at inquisitiveonc@gmail.comArt courtesy of Taryn SilverMusic courtesy of AlisiaBeats: https://pixabay.com/users/alisiabeats-39461785/Disclaimer: This podcast is for educational purposes only. If you are unwell, seek medical advice.Oncology for the Inquisitive Mind is recorded with the support of education grants from our foundation partners Pfizer, Gilead Pharmaceuticals and Merck Pharmaceuticals. Our partners have access to the episode at the same time you do and have no editorial control over the content. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This episode of Integrative Cancer Solutions Dr. Michael Karlfeldt features an interview with Jackie Rosett Zafke on where she shares her powerful journey of how thermography saved her life. Jackie explains that mammography failed her for over a decade, leading her to seek alternative screening methods. She discovered thermography, a non-invasive, radiation-free imaging technique that detects temperature changes in breast tissue. This method revealed vascular activity that confirmed her suspicion of a cancerous tumor, something that traditional mammograms had missed for years. Jackie's diagnostic journey was challenging, involving multiple ultrasounds, mammograms, and eventually an MRI that showed a high bi-rad score indicating malignancy. After receiving her biopsy results showing ER+, PR+, HER2-, and a specific Ki-67 score, she made the difficult decision to undergo a bilateral mastectomy. The surgery involved removing 47 lymph nodes, and the immediate pathology report confirmed the presence of cancer. Throughout this process, Jackie emphasizes her gratitude for her surgeon's quick decision-making and thorough approach. Following her surgery, Jackie focused on comprehensive healing and recovery, working with Dr. Susan Silverstein to create an integrative healing team. Her approach included physical therapy to address lymphedema challenges, dietary changes based on food sensitivity tests, and incorporating various holistic practitioners and therapies. She made a significant decision regarding chemotherapy, choosing to stop after one dose following what she describes as an audible message from the Lord, and instead focused on natural and integrative healing methods while avoiding radiation and pharmaceuticals. Jackie's experience transformed her into a certified integrative nutrition health coach and holistic cancer coach, allowing her to support others facing similar challenges. Jackie emphasizes the importance of addressing root causes of cancer through consistent self-care, proper nutrition, exercise, and emotional well-being. Her website, bestforyouhealth.com, serves as a resource for those seeking healing and support. Jackie's story demonstrates the value of persistence in seeking alternative diagnostic methods and the power of integrative approaches to cancer treatment and recovery.Jackie Rosett Zafke shares how thermography, a non-invasive radiation-free imaging technique, successfully detected her breast cancer after mammograms failed to identify it for over a decade.Following her cancer diagnosis confirmed through biopsy results showing ER+, PR+, HER2- markers, Jackie chose to undergo a bilateral mastectomy with removal of 47 lymph nodes.Jackie made the personal decision to stop chemotherapy after just one dose, citing a spiritual message, and instead focused on natural and integrative healing methods while avoiding radiation and pharmaceuticals.Her recovery approach included working with Dr. Susan Silverstein to build a comprehensive healing team, incorporating physical therapy, dietary changes based on food sensitivity testing, and various holistic practitioners.Jackie's experience led her to become a certified integrative nutrition health coach and holistic cancer coach, now helping others through her website bestforyouhealth.com and emphasizing the importance of addressing cancer's root causes through consistent self-care.----Grab my book A Better Way to Treat Cancer: A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding, Preventing and Most Effectively Treating Our Biggest Health Threat - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CM1KKD9X?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860 Unleashing 10X Power: A Revolutionary Approach to Conquering Cancerhttps://store.thekarlfeldtcenter.com/products/unleashing-10x-power-Price: $24.99-100% Off Discount Code: CANCERPODCAST1Healing Within: Unraveling the Emotional Roots of Cancerhttps://store.thekarlfeldtcenter.com/products/healing-within-Price: $24.99-100% Off Discount Code: CANCERPODCAST2----Integrative Cancer Solutions was created to instill hope and empowerment. Other people have been where you are right now and have already done the research for you. Listen to their stories and journeys and apply what they learned to achieve similar outcomes as they have, cancer remission and an even more fullness of life than before the diagnosis. Guests will discuss what therapies, supplements, and practitioners they relied on to beat cancer. Once diagnosed, time is of the essence. This podcast will dramatically reduce your learning curve as you search for your own solution to cancer. To learn more about the cutting-edge integrative cancer therapies Dr. Karlfeldt offer at his center, please visit www.TheKarlfeldtCenter.com

Drs. Yuan and Callahan discuss data presented at ASCO 2025 about DESTINY-Breast06, SHR-A1811, and TQB2101, along with real-world data on rechallenging patients with T-DXd post grade 1 ILD.

Join us as we sit down with Paul Romness of OS Therapies to explore an exciting breakthrough in OST-HER2 targeted therapies for osteosarcoma—a rare and aggressive bone cancer. Learn how this innovative approach is offering new hope to patients, advancing precision medicine, and pushing the boundaries of rare disease treatment, not just for humans but for dogs too.Joining the discussion as always is host Owen Bryant, along with George Rack and guest presenter and P4A's MA Oncology expert, Rosa Faria Matthews.Don't miss this powerful conversation on the frontlines of rare cancer research.Tune in now—because every rare voice matters.  #LetsTalkRare #Osteosarcoma #OSTHER2 #RareDisease #OSTherapies

Drs. Callahan and Yuan discuss data presented at ASCO 2025 on DESTINY-Breast09, PATINA, and MINI Trial, the utility of PFS-2 as an endpoint, and sequencing of treatments after first-line therapy.

BUFFALO, NY – June 27, 2025 – A new #research paper was #published in Volume 16 of Oncotarget on June 17, 2025, titled “Molecular landscape of HER2-mutated non-small cell lung cancer in Northeastern Brazil: Clinical, histopathological, and genomic insights.” In this study, researchers led by first authors Cleto Dantas Nogueira from the Federal University of Ceará and Argos Pathology Laboratory and Samuel Frota from Argos Pathology Laboratory, along with corresponding author Fabio Tavora from the previously mentioned institutions and Messejana Heart and Lung Hospital, investigated how HER2 gene mutations appear in cases of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Northeastern Brazil. The team found that HER2 mutations showed significant genetic diversity and were often associated with other cancer-related genetic changes. These findings revealed diagnostic and treatment challenges in a population that is rarely studied, emphasizing the need for expanded access to molecular testing and targeted therapies. HER2 mutations are a known factor in several cancers, including breast and gastric cancers. In lung cancer—particularly NSCLC—these mutations are less common but remain clinically significant. Most existing research on HER2-mutated lung cancer focuses on high-income countries, leaving important gaps in knowledge about underrepresented regions such as Latin America. This study helps fill that gap by analyzing 13 patients with HER2-mutated NSCLC using clinical, pathological, and genomic data. The patients ranged in age from 34 to 82 years, and more than half were women. About half had never smoked. Their tumors often displayed complex genetic profiles, including additional mutations in genes such as TP53, KRAS, and STK11. The most common HER2 mutation identified was an insertion in exon 20, a known hotspot for activating mutations. “Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) is the first HER2-targeted agent to show clinical efficacy in HER2-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (HER2m NSCLC).” Treatment strategies among the patients varied. Only one individual received HER2-targeted therapy. Most were treated with surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or a combination of these approaches. Outcomes also differed, with some patients surviving for years and others dying within months of diagnosis. These findings reinforce the need for early diagnosis and improved access to advanced treatments, particularly in low-resource settings. The study emphasizes the value of comprehensive molecular profiling in NSCLC. Because HER2 mutations often occur alongside other genetic alterations, full genomic analysis is crucial for guiding treatment decisions. Yet, such testing is not always available. The researchers propose a tiered diagnostic approach, beginning with basic screening and expanding to more advanced tests when necessary, to enhance patient care. This study provides valuable insights into the molecular characteristics of HER2-mutated NSCLC in a Brazilian population, highlighting the complexity and clinical relevance of these alterations. Larger studies are needed to clarify the prevalence and prognostic significance of HER2 mutations, as well as their impact on treatment response and survival. This knowledge is essential for advancing effective HER2-targeted therapies. The findings also support broader implementation of international clinical guidelines in Latin America and highlight the critical need to include underrepresented populations in cancer research. DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28737 Correspondence to - Fabio Tavora - stellacpak@outlook.com Video short - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr5R9iDBFFI To learn more about Oncotarget, please visit https://www.oncotarget.com. MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM

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

In this episode of MedNews Week's Oncology Unplugged, host Chandler Park, MD, a medical oncologist at Norton Cancer Institute in Louisville, Kentucky, was rejoined by Midhun Malla, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Allegheny Health Network in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to discuss treatment personalization in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), with a focus on BRAF V600E–mutant tumors, HER2-altered disease, and the clinical implications of tumor sidedness.

In today's episode, supported by Daiichi Sankyo, we had the pleasure of speaking with Misako Nagasaka, MD, PhD, about the use of fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki (T-DXd; Enhertu) in pretreated patients with HER2-mutated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Dr Nagasaka is an associate professor in the Division of Hematology and Oncology and the Division of Medicine at the University of California Irvine School of Medicine. In our exclusive interview, Dr Nagasaka discussed current second-line treatment standards for patients with HER2-mutated NSCLC, how the use of T-DXd in this setting may evolve with the emergence of investigational agents, and the importance of integrating HER2 immunohistochemistry testing into clinical practice.

In this episode, OncLive On Air® partnered with Two Onc Docs to bring discussion of data from the phase 3 SERENA-6 trial (NCT04964934), which were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. SERENA-6 evaluated switching to camizestrant plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor vs continuing with a standard-of-care aromatase inhibitor plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the frontline setting in patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer whose tumors harbor an emergent ESR1 mutation. Drs Armstrong and Tawagi highlighted key efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes from the study. They also noted the clinical implications of these findings, including how they might be currently applicable to clinical practice, as well as limitations of the research that warrant further investigation. 

Dr. Shaalan Beg and Dr. Kristen Ciombor discuss practice-changing studies in GI cancers and other novel treatment approaches that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Transcript Dr. Shaalan Beg: Hello, I'm Dr. Shaalan Beg, welcoming you to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm a medical oncologist and an adjunct associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. There were some remarkable advances in gastrointestinal cancers that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, and I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Kristen Ciombor to discuss some exciting GI data. Dr. Ciombor is the Ingram Associate Professor of Cancer Research and a co-leader of Translational Research and the Interventional Oncology Research Program at the Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Ciombor, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Thanks, Dr Beg. It's great to be here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Alright, let's kick it off. Big year for GI cancers. We'll start off with LBA1. This was the ATOMIC study sponsored by NCI and the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and the Alliance group. This is a randomized study of standard chemotherapy alone or combined with atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy for stage III mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: I think this study was really definitely practice-changing, as you can tell because it was a Plenary. But I do have some concerns in terms of how we're actually going to implement this and whether this is the final answer in this disease subtype. So, as you said, the patients were enrolled with stage III resected mismatch repair deficient colon cancer, and then they were randomized to either modified FOLFOX6 with or without atezolizumab. And that's where it starts to become interesting because not many of us give FOLFOX for 6 months like was done in this study. Obviously, the study was done over many years, so that was part of that answer, but also the patients received atezolizumab for a total of 12 months. So the question, I think, that comes from this abstract is, is this practical and is this the final answer? I do think that this is practice-changing, and I will be talking to my patients with resected mismatch repair deficient colon cancer about FOLFOX plus atezolizumab. I think the big question is, do these patients need chemotherapy? And can we do a neoadjuvant approach instead? And that's where we don't have all the answers yet. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, but it has been great to see immunotherapy make its way into the adjuvant space after having made such a big impact in the metastatic space, but still some unanswered questions in terms of the need for chemotherapy and then the duration of therapy, which I guess we'll have to stay tuned in for the next couple of years to to get a lot of those questions answered. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, but a big congratulations to the study team, to the NCTN, the NCI. I mean, this is really a great example of federally funded research that needs to continue. So, great job by the study team. The DFS 10% difference is really very large and certainly a practice-changing study. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and and sticking with colon cancer, and and this another federally funded study, but this time funded by a Canadian cancer clinical trials group was LBA3510. This is the CHALLENGE study. It's a randomized phase 3 trial of the impact of a structured exercise program on disease-free survival for stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer. This study got a lot of buzz, a lot of mainstream press coverage, and a lot of discussions on what that means for us for the patients who we're going to be seeing next week in our clinic. What was your takeaway? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, this is a really interesting study, and I was so glad to see it presented because this partially answers one of the questions that patients always have for us in clinic, right? You know, once they've completed their standard chemotherapy and surgery, what else can they do to help prevent recurrence? And so we've always known and sort of extrapolated that healthy lifestyle habits are good, but now we have data, particularly in these patients. Most of them were stage III colon cancer patients, those had high-risk stage II cancer. And basically, the goal was to increase their physical activity by at least 10 MET hours per week. So, my big question, of course, as I came into this presentation was, “Okay, what does that mean exactly? How does that translate to real life?” And really what the author presented and explained was that basically most patients could hit their target by adding a 45- to 60-minute brisk walk 3 to 4 times a week. So I think this is very approachable.  Now, in the confines of the study, this was a structured exercise program, so it wasn't just patients doing this on their own. But I do think kind of extrapolating from that, that this is very achievable for most patients. And not only did this prevent recurrence of their prior cancer, but actually the rate of new primary cancer diagnoses, was less, which is really interesting, especially in the breast and prostate cancer. So this was a really interesting, and I think practice-changing study as well, especially given that this is something that most patients can do. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and there was a lot of discussion in the hallways after the presentation in terms of how this really changes our existing practice because most folks already recommend exercise as a way for improving outcomes in cancer patients. So we've already been doing that. Now we have some data on how much it can impact the benefit. But there was some discussion about what the actual degree of impact was. There was a drop-off rate in terms of how long folks were able to stick with this exercise regimen. But you've seen this in clinic when someone have their surgery, they have their chemotherapy, they've been so intimately involved with the oncology world, with the oncology practice, and they somehow feel that they're being let loose into this mean, angry world without any guidance and they're looking for something to do. “What more can I do in terms of my lifestyle?” And then here we have very solid data, as solid as can be for an intervention like exercise, showing that there is an impact and you can give a prescription for exercise when someone wraps up their chemotherapy for colon cancer, thanks to the study. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah. It was a great study. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Moving to gastroesophageal cancer, another late-breaking abstract. This is LBA5. The MATTERHORN trial was a phase 3 trial of durvalumab plus FLOT for resectable GE junction and gastric cancer. And again, another area where immunotherapy has made an impact, and here we're seeing it move closer for earlier-stage disease. What was your take-home for the MATTERHORN trial? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, so this study looked at neoadjuvant perioperative durvalumab plus our current standard chemotherapy of FLOT versus placebo plus FLOT. And this was a large study, almost 1,000 patients were randomized. And the primary endpoint was event-free survival, and it was definitely met in favor of the D + FLOT arm, as Dr. Klempner discussed after Dr Janjigian's presentation. I do think there are still some unanswered questions here. Overall survival is not yet mature, so we do have to wait and see how that shakes out. But it's very interesting and kind of is reflective of what, as you said, we're looking at earlier and earlier lines of therapy, particularly with immunotherapy, in these GI cancer spaces. So it makes a lot of sense to test this and and to look at this. So the toxicity was pretty similar to what we would expect. Primary endpoint was met, but again, we'll have to wait and see what the survival data looks like. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, and in oncology, we know, especially for treatment that does add additional cost, it does add additional potential toxicity that we want to see that overall survival nudged. I did see some polls on social media asking folks whether their practices changed from this, and I think the results were favoring adding durvalumab for this group of patients but understanding that there are caveats to the addition of treatments and the eventual FDA approval in that indication as well. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Exactly. I completely agree with that. Dr. Shaalan Beg: All right. How about we stick with gastroesophageal cancer? LBA4002 was trastuzumab deruxtecan versus ramucirumab plus paclitaxel for second-line treatment in HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer or GE junction cancer. This was the DESTINY-Gastric04 study. And again, antibody-drug conjugates making a big impact across different diseases. And here we have more data in the HER2-positive gastric cancer space. Your thoughts on this study? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, so this is a really important space in gastroesophageal cancer because the HER2 positivity rate is fairly high as compared to some of our other tumor types. So, I do think one of the important things was that patients did have biopsy confirmation of HER2 status, which was very important, and then they were randomized to either T-DXd versus the kind of second-line standard of ramucirumab-paclitaxel. So this was a great practical study and really answers a question that we had for a while in terms of does anti-HER2 therapy in the second-line really impact and improve survival. So we did see a statistically significant improvement favoring T-DXd. I do think it's always important to look at toxicity, though, too. And there was about almost 14% rate of interstitial lung disease, which of course is the most feared toxicity from some of these antibody-drug conjugates, especially T-DXd. So I do think it's important to keep that in mind, but this is definitely a great addition to the armamentarium for these HER2-positive patients. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And pancreas cancer was on the stage after a very long time with a positive clinical trial. This is Abstract 4006. These were preliminary results from a phase 2 study of elraglusib in combination with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel alone for previously untreated metastatic pancreas cancer. This is a frontline clinical trial of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel plus/minus the study drug. There were other cohorts in this study as well, but they reported the results of their part 3B arm. And great to see some activity in the pancreas space. And your thoughts? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah, we definitely need better treatments in pancreas cancer. This was a very welcome presentation to see. The elraglusib is an inhibitor of GSK-3beta, and it's thought that that mediates drug resistance and EMT. And so this is, I think, a perfect setting to test this drug. So patients basically were randomized. Patients with metastatic pancreas cancer were randomized 2: 1 to gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel plus or minus this elraglusib. So, what we saw was that overall survival was better with the addition of this new drug. And overall, not only the 1-year overall survival, but also median overall survival.  The thing that was interesting, though, was that we saw that the overall survival rates were 9.3 months with the combination versus 7.2 months with just gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. And that's a little bit lower than we've seen in other studies. So, not sure what was going on there. Was it the patients that were a bit sicker? Was it a patient selection, you know, thing? I'm not really sure how to explain that so much. Also, the toxicity profile was much higher in terms of visual impairment, with over 60% of patients being treated with the combination versus 9% with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. So these were mild, grade 1 and 2, but still something to be cautious about. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And especially with this being a phase 2 trial, making sure that in a larger study we're able to better evaluate the toxicity and see if the control arm in the larger confirmatory study performs differently will be really important before this compound makes it to the clinic in our space. But very exciting to see these kinds of results for pancreas adenocarcinoma. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Yeah. Dr. Shaalan Beg: We've talked, it seems, a couple of times on this podcast about the BREAKWATER clinical trial. We did hear PFS and updated OS data, updated overall survival data on first-line encorafenib plus cetuximab plus modified FOLFOX6 for BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer. This was LBA3500. And eagerly anticipated results – we have all previously heard the progression-free survival results – but here we heard updated overall survival results, and very well-received study it seemed from the audience that time. So what are your takeaways on the updated results for BREAKWATER? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: In my opinion, this was one of the most practice-confirming studies. As you mentioned, we've already seen some of the preliminary data of BREAKWATER at prior meetings. But really what was particularly impactful for me was the median overall survival with the BREAKWATER regimen. So, again, patients received FOLFOX, encorafenib cetuximab in the first line if they had BRAF-mutated V600E-mutated colorectal cancer. And the median PFS was 12.8 months, which was actually really remarkable in this traditionally very aggressive, poor prognosis subtype of tumors. So, by seeing a median overall survival of 30.3 months was just incredible, in my opinion. Just a few years ago, that was considered the median overall survival for all comers for metastatic colorectal cancer. And we know the median overall survival was more in the less than 12 months range for BRAF. So this was incredibly impactful, and I think should be absolutely practice-changing for anyone who is eligible for this regimen.  I think again, where the practice meets the study is what's kind of important to think about too, how long did patients get FOLFOX, and certainly it adds toxicity to add a BRAF-targeted regimen on top of FOLFOX already. So, one of the other interesting things about the study, though, was that even though it didn't complete treatment, they actually did look at encorafenib/cetuximab alone and in the first line without chemotherapy. And those preliminary results actually looked okay, especially for patients who might not be able to tolerate chemotherapy, which we certainly see in practice. So, overall, definitely more data. And I agree that it's certainly practice-changing. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And it completely, as you mentioned, changes the outlook for a person who's diagnosed with BRAF-mutated metastatic colon cancer today versus even 7 or 8 years ago. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: And we're seeing this over and over in other subtypes too, but how you choose to treat the patient up front really matters. So really giving the right regimen up front is the key here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And along the same lines, Abstract 3501 wanted to answer the question on whether people with MSI-high metastatic colorectal cancer need double checkpoint inhibitor therapy or is single therapy enough. So this [CheckMate-8HW] study compared nivo plus ipi with nivo alone, nivo monotherapy for MSI-high metastatic colorectal cancer. And we've known that both of these are fairly active regimens, but we also know the chance of immune-related adverse events is significantly higher with combination therapy. So this was a much-needed study for this group of patients. And what were your takeaways here? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: This, of course, has been really nivo-ipi in the first-line MSI-high metastatic colorectal cancer is now a standard of care. And not everybody is eligible for it, and there could be reasons, toxicity reasons, and other things too. But as we've been seeing for the last couple of years, immunotherapy clearly beats chemo in this space. And now looking at doublet versus single immunotherapy treatment in the first line, I think really nivo-ipi does beat out monotherapy. I will say, however, there is a caveat in that we still haven't seen the nivo-ipi versus nivo in the first line. So what has been presented thus far has been across all lines of therapy, and that does muddy the waters a little bit. So definitely looking forward and and we've asked this many times and based on the statistical plan and and what not, you know, we just haven't seen that data yet. But I do think it's becoming increasingly important to consider doublet immunotherapy for these patients as long as there are no contraindications. With the again, with the caveat that we have to have these toxicity discussions in the clinic with patients because many patients can tolerate it, you know, this regimen fairly well, but there can be very severe toxicities. So, I think an informed discussion should really be had with each patient before moving forward. Dr. Shaalan Beg: Yeah, informed decision, making them aware of the potential of real significant toxicities, immune-related toxicities with double therapy. But I am curious in your practice, how often do you see people choosing doublet therapy as frontline? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: So patients are really savvy, and a lot of times they've heard this data before or have come across it in patient advocacy groups and other things, and it's really nice to be able to have that conversation of the risk versus benefit. So I will say not all of my patients choose doublet, and many of them are still cured with immunotherapy monotherapy. So the big question there is, will we ever understand who actually needs the doublet versus who can still be cured or have very good long-term outcomes with just the single agent? And that has not been answered yet. Dr. Shaalan Beg: What a great point. So the last abstract I was hoping we could talk about is POD1UM-303 or the INTERAACT2 subgroup analysis and impact of delayed retifanlimab treatment for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. What were your thoughts here? Dr. Kristen Ciombor: This was a study, actually we saw at ESMO, we saw the primary data at ESMO last year, and this was an update with some exploratory analyses. But this was really an important study because once again, we're looking at immunotherapy in later lines of therapy. That's how we started looking at and investigating immunotherapy, and now we're moving it up and up in the treatment course. So this was a study of carboplatin/paclitaxel plus or minus retifanlimab. Actually it was retifanlimab versus placebo. And it was a positive study, as we heard last year. This actually led to FDA approval of this regimen last month, just before ASCO, and it has now been incorporated in the NCCN guidelines as the preferred first-line option.  So what I thought was important from the additional data presented at ASCO was looking at the different subgroups, it did not appear that patients with liver mets or not had different outcomes. So that was really good to see because sometimes in colon cancer we see that immunotherapy doesn't work as well when patients have liver mets. And interestingly, because we use immunotherapy in anal cancer without any biomarkers, unlike with colon cancer or some of the other tumor types, also the authors looked at PD-L1 status, and it did look like maybe patients did a little bit better if they had higher PD-L1 expression, but patients still could benefit even if they were PD-L1 negative. So that was important, I think, and we will continue to see further data come out from this study. I want to mention also that EA2176 just completed accrual, so that was carbo-taxol plus or minus nivolumab. And so we should be seeing that data sometime soon, which will hopefully also confirm the ongoing role for immunotherapy in the first-line setting for anal cancer. Dr. Shaalan Beg: That was a fantastic review. Thank you, Dr Ciombor. Thanks for sharing your valuable insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Thanks for having me here. Dr. Shaalan Beg: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And if you value the insights that you hear on the podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe, wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. More on today's speakers:   Dr. Shaalan Beg  @ShaalanBeg  Dr. Kristen Ciombor @KristenCiombor Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter   @ASCO on BlueSky  ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures:   Dr. Shaalan Beg:   Consulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Cancer Commons, Foundation Medicine, Science37, Nant Health, Lindus Health Speakers' Bureau: Sirtex Research Funding (Inst.): Delfi Diagnostics, Universal Diagnostics, Freenome Dr. Kristen Ciombor: Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Incyte, Exelixis, Bayer, ALX Oncology, Tempus, Agenus, Taiho Oncology, Merck, BeiGene Research Funding (Inst.): Pfizer, Boston Biomedical, MedImmune, Onyx, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Incyte, Amgen, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, Incyte, Daiichi Sankyo, Nucana, Abbvie, Merck, Pfizer/Calthera, Genentech, Seagen, Syndax Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Incyte, Tempus

Dr. Allison Zibelli and Dr. Rebecca Shatsky discuss advances in breast cancer research that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including a potential new standard of care for HER2+ breast cancer, the future of ER+ breast cancer management, and innovations in triple negative breast cancer therapy. Transcript Dr. Allison Zibelli: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Allison Zibelli, your guest host of the podcast today. I'm an associate professor of medicine and a breast medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Jefferson Health. There was a substantial amount of exciting breast cancer data presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, and I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Rebecca Shatsky today to discuss some of these key advancements. Dr. Shatsky is an associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego and the head of breast medical oncology at the UC San Diego Health Moores Cancer Center, where she also serves as the director of the Breast Cancer Clinical Trials Program and the Inflammatory and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Program.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Shatsky, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Thanks, Dr. Zibelli. It's wonderful to be here. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, we're starting with DESTINY-Breast09, which was trastuzumab deruxtecan and pertuzumab versus our more standard regimen of taxane, trastuzumab pertuzumab for first-line treatment of metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. Could you tell us a little bit about the study? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, absolutely. So, this was a long-awaited study. When T-DXd, or trastuzumab deruxtecan, really hit the market, a lot of these DESTINY-Breast trials were started around the same time. Now, this was a global, randomized, phase 3 study presented by Dr. Sara Tolaney from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute of Harvard in Boston. It was assessing essentially T-DXd in the first-line setting for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer in addition to pertuzumab. And that was randomized against our standard-of-care regimen, which was established over a decade ago by the CLEOPATRA trial, and we've all been using that internationally for at least the past 10 years. So, this was a large trial, and it was one-to-one-to-one of patients getting T-DXd plus pertuzumab, T-DXd alone, or THP, which mostly is used as docetaxel and trastuzumab and pertuzumab every three weeks for six cycles. And this was in over 1,000 patients; it was 1,159 patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. This was a very interesting trial. It was looking at the use of trastuzumab deruxtecan, but patients were started on this treatment for their first-line metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer with no end date to their T-DXd. So, it was, you know, you were started on T-DXd every 3 weeks until progression. Now, CLEOPATRA is a little bit different than that, though, as we know. So, CLEOPATRA has a taxane plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab. But generally, patients drop the taxane after about six to seven cycles because, as we know, you can't be really on a taxane indefinitely. You get pretty substantial neuropathy as well as cytopenias, other things that end up happening. And so, in general, that regimen has sort of a limited time course for its chemotherapy portion, and the patients maintained after the taxane is dropped on their trastuzumab and their pertuzumab, plus or minus endocrine therapy if the investigator so desires. And the primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival by blinded, independent central review (BICR) in the intent-to-treat population. And then it had its other endpoints as overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, objective response rates, and duration of response, and of course, safety. As far as the results of this trial, so, I think that most of us key opinion leaders in breast oncology were expecting that this was going to be a positive trial. And it surely was. I mean, this is a really, really active drug, especially in HER2-positive disease, of course. So, the DESTINY-Breast03 data really established that, that this is a very effective treatment in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. And this trial really, again, showed that. So, there were 383 patients that ended up on the trastuzumab plus deruxtecan plus pertuzumab arm, and 387 got THP, the CLEOPATRA regimen. What was really interesting also to note of this before I go on to the results was that 52% of patients on this trial had de novo metastatic disease. And that's pretty unusual for any kind of metastatic breast cancer trial. It kind of shows you, though, just how aggressive this disease is, that a lot of patients, they present with de novo metastatic disease. It's also reflecting the global nature of this trial where maybe the screening efforts are a little bit less than maybe in the United States, and more patients are presenting as later stage because to have a metastatic breast cancer trial in the United States with 52% de novo metastatic disease doesn't usually happen. But regardless, the disease characteristics were pretty well matched between the two groups. 54% of the patients were triple positive, or you could say hormone-positive because whether they were PR positive or ER positive and PR negative doesn't really matter in this disease. And so, the interim data cutoff was February of this year, of 2025. So, the follow-up so far has been about 29 months, so the data is still really immature, only 38% mature for progression-free survival interim analysis. But what we saw is that T-DXd plus pertuzumab, it really improved progression-free survival. It had a hazard ratio that was pretty phenomenal at 0.56 with a confidence interval that was pretty narrow of 0.44 to 0.71. So, very highly statistically significant data here. The progression-free survival was consistent across all subgroups. Overall survival, very much immature at this time, but of course, the trend is towards an overall survival benefit for the T-DXd group. The median durable response with T-DXd plus pertuzumab exceeded 3 years. Now, importantly, though, I want to stress this, is grade 3 or above treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in both subgroups pretty equally. But there were 2 deaths in the T-DXd group due to interstitial lung disease. And there was a 12.1% adjudicated drug-induced interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis event rate in the T-DXd group and only 1%, and it was grade 1-2, in the THP group. So, that's really the caveat of this therapy, is we know that a percentage of patients are going to get interstitial lung disease, and that some may have very serious adverse events from it. So, that's always something I keep in the back of my mind when I treat patients with T-DXd. And so, overall, the conclusions of the trial were pretty much a slam dunk. T-DXd plus pertuzumab, it had a highly statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus the CLEOPATRA regimen. And that was across all subgroups for first-line metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer here. And so, yeah, the data was pretty impressive. Just to go into the overall response rate, because that's always super important as well, you had 85.1% of patients having a confirmed overall RECIST response rate in the T-DXd plus pertuzumab group and a 78.6 in the CLEOPATRA group. The complete CR rate, complete response was 15.1% in the T-DXd group and 8.5 in the CLEOPATRA regimen. And it was really an effective regimen in this group, of course. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, the investigators say at the end of their abstract that this is the new standard of care. Would you agree with that statement? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, that was a bold statement to make because I would say in the United States, not necessarily at the moment because the quality of life here, you have to think really hard about. Because one thing that's really important about the DESTINY-Breast09 data is that this was very much an international trial, and in many of the countries where patients enrolled on this, they were not able to access T-DXd off trial. And so, for them, this means T-DXd now or potentially never. And so, that is a really big difference whereas internationally, that may mean standard of care. However, in the US, patients have no issues accessing T-DXd in the second- or third-line settings. And right now, it's the standard of care in the second line in the United States, with all patients basically getting this second-line therapy except for some unique patients where they may be doing a PATINA trial regimen, which we saw at San Antonio Breast Cancer in 2024 of the triple-positive patients getting hormonal therapy plus palbociclib, which had a really great durable response. That was super impressive as well. Or there is the patient that the investigator can pick KADCYLA because the patient really wants to preserve their hair or maybe it's more indolent disease. But the quality of life on T-DXd indefinitely in the first-line setting is a big deal because, again, that CLEOPATRA regimen allows patients to drop their chemotherapy component about five to six months in. And with this, you're on a drug that feels very chemo-heavy indefinitely. And so, I think there's a lot more to investigate as far as what we're going to do with this data in the United States because it's a lot to commit a patient in the first-line metastatic setting. These de novo metastatic patients, some of them may be cured, honestly, on the HER2-targeting regimen. That's something we see these days. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, very interesting trial. I'm sure we'll be talking about this for a long time.  So, let's move on to SERENA-6, which was, I thought, a very interesting trial. This trial took patients with ER positive, advanced breast cancer after six months on an AI (aromatase inhibitor) and a CDK4/6 inhibitor. They did ctDNA every two to three months, and when they saw an ESR1 mutation emerge, they changed half of the patients to camizestrant plus CDK4/6 and kept the other half on the AI plus CDK4/6. Can you talk about that trial a little bit, please? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, so this was a big trial at ASCO25. This was presented as a Plenary Session. So, this was camizestrant plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and it could have been any of the three, so palbo, ribo, or abemaciclib in the first-line metastatic hormone-positive population, and patients were on an AI with that. They were, interestingly, tested by ctDNA at baseline to see if they had an ESR1 mutation. So, that was an interesting feature of this trial. But patients had to have already been on their CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI for at least 6 months to enroll. And then, as you mentioned, they got ctDNA testing every 2 to 3 months. This was also a phase 3, double-blind, international trial. And I do want to highlight again, international here, because that's important when we're considering some of this data in the U.S. because it influences some of the results. So, this was presented by Dr. Nick Turner of the Royal Marsden in the UK. So, just a little bit of background for our listeners on ESR1 mutations and why they're important. This is the most common, basically, acquired resistance mutation to patients being treated with aromatase inhibitors. We know that treatment with aromatase inhibitors can induce this. It makes a conformational change in the estrogen receptor that makes the estrogen receptor constitutively active, which allows the cell to signal despite the influence of the aromatase inhibitor to decrease the estrogen production so that the ligand binding doesn't matter as much as far as the cell signaling and transcription is concerned. And camizestrant, you know, as an oral SERD, just to explain that a little bit too; these are estrogen receptor degraders. The first-in-class of a selective estrogen receptor degrader to make it to market was fulvestrant. And that's really been our standard-of-care estrogen degrader for the past 25 years, almost 25 years. And so, a lot of us are just looking for some of these oral SERDs to replace that. But regardless, they do tend to work in the ESR1-mutated population. And we know that patients on aromatase inhibitors, the estimates of patients developing an ESR1 mutation, depending on which study you look at, somewhere between 30% to 50% overall, patients will develop this mutation with hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer. There is a small percentage of patients that have these at baseline without even treatment of an aromatase inhibitor. The estimates of that are somewhere between 0.5 and up to 5%, depending on the trial you look at and the population. But regardless, there is a chance someone on their CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI at 6 months' time course could have had an ESR1 mutation at that time. But anyway, so they got this ctDNA every 2 to 3 months, and once they were found to develop an ESR1 mutation, the patients were then switched to the oral SERD. AstraZeneca's version of the oral SERD is camizestrant, 75 mg daily. And then their type of CDK4/6 inhibitor was maintained, so they didn't switch the brand of their CDK4/6 inhibitor, importantly. And that was looked at then for progression-free survival, but these were patients with measurable disease by RECIST version 1.1. And the data cut off here was November of 2024. This was a big trial, you know, and I think that that's influential here because this was 3,256 patients, and that's a lot of patients. So, they were all eligible. And then 315 patients ended up being randomized to switch to camizestrant upon presence of that ESR1 mutation. So, that was 157 patients. And then the other half, so they were randomized 1:1, they continued on their AI without switching to an oral SERD. That was 158 patients. They were matched pretty well. And so, their baseline characteristics, you know, the two subgroups was good. But this was highly statistically significant data. I'm not going to diminish that in any way. Your hazard ratio was 0.44. Highly statistically significant confidence intervals. And you had a median progression-free survival in those that switched to camizestrant of 16 months, and then the non-switchers was 9.2 months. So, the progression-free survival benefit there was also consistent across the subgroups. And so, you had at 12 months, the PFS rate was 60.7% for the non-treatment group and 33.4% in the treatment group. What's interesting, though, is we don't have overall survival data. This is really immature, only 12% mature as far as overall survival. And again, because this was an international trial and patients in other countries right now do not have the access to oral SERDs that the United States does, the crossover rate, they were not allowed to crossover, and so, a very few patients, when we look at progression-free survival 2 and ultimately overall survival, were able to access an oral SERD in the off-trial here and in the non-treatment group. And so, that's really important as far as we look at these results. Adverse events were pretty minimal. These are very safe drugs, camizestrant and all the other oral SERDs. They have some mild toxicities. Camizestrant is known for something weird, which is called photopsia, which is some flashing lights in the periphery of the eye, but it doesn't seem to have any serious clinical significance that we know of. It has a little bit of bradycardia, but it's otherwise really well tolerated. You know, I hate to say that because that's very subjective, right? I'm not the one taking the drug. But it doesn't have any serious adverse events that would cause discontinuation. And that's really what we saw in the trial. The discontinuation rates were really low. But overall, I mean, this was a positive trial. SERENA-6 showed that switching to camizestrant at the first sign of an ESR1 mutation on CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI improved progression-free survival. That's all we can really say from it right now. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, let's move on to ASCENT-04, which was a bit more straightforward. Sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab in PD-L1-positive, triple-negative breast cancer. Could you talk about that study? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, so this was also presented by the lovely Sara Tolaney from Dana-Farber. And this study made me really excited. And maybe that's because I'm a triple-negative breast cancer person. I mean, not to say that I don't treat hundreds of patients with hormone- positive, but our unmet needs in triple negative are huge because this is a disease where you have got to throw your best available therapy at it as soon as you can to improve survival because survival is so poor in this disease. The average survival with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in the United States is still 13-18 months, and that's terrible. And so, for full disclosure, I did have this trial open at my site. I was one of the site PIs. I'm not the global PI of the study, obviously. So, what this study was was for patients who had had at least a progression-free survival of 6 months after their curative intent therapy or de novo metastatic disease. They were PD-L1 positive as assessed by the Dako 22C3 assay of greater than or equal to a CPS score of 10. So, that's what the KEYNOTE-355 trial was based on as well. So, standard definition of PD-L1 positive in breast cancer here. And basically, these patients were randomized 1:1 to either their sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab, day 1 they got both therapies, and then day 8 just the saci, as is standard for sacituzumab. And then the other group got the KEYNOTE-355 regimen. So, that is pembrolizumab with – your options are carbogem there, paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel. And it's up to investigator's decision which upon those they decided. They followed these patients for disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. It was really an impressive trial in my opinion because we know already that this didn't just improve progression-free survival, because survival is so poor in this disease, of course, we know that it improved overall survival. It's trending towards that very much, and I think that's going to be shown immediately. And then the objective response rates were better, which is key in this disease because in the first-line setting, you've got a lot of people who, especially your relapsed TNBC that don't respond to anything. And you lose a ton of patients even in the first-line setting in this disease. And so, this was 222 patients to chemotherapy and pembro and 221 to sacituzumab plus pembro. Median follow-up has only been 14 months, so it's still super early here. Hazard ratio so far of progression-free survival is 0.65, highly statistically significant, narrow confidence intervals. And so, the median duration of response here for the saci group was 16.5 months versus 9.2 months. So, you're getting a 7-month progression-free survival benefit here, which in triple negative is pretty fantastic. I mean, this reminds me of when we saw the ASCENT data originally come out for sacituzumab, and we were all just so happy that we had this tool now that doubled progression-free and overall survival and made such a difference in this really horrible disease where patients do poorly. So, OS is technically immature here, but it's really trending very heavily towards improvement in overall survival. Importantly, the treatment-related adverse events in this, I mean, we know sacituzumab causes neutropenia, people who are experienced with this drug know how to manage it at this point. There wasn't any really unexpected treatment-related adverse events. You get some people with sacituzumab who have diarrhea. It's usually pretty manageable with some Imodium. So, it was cytopenias predominantly in this disease in this population that were highlighted as far as adverse events. But I'm going to be honest, like I was surprised that this wasn't the plenary over the SERENA-6 data because this, in my mind, there we have a practice-changing trial. I will immediately be trying to use this in my PD-L1 population because, to be honest, as a triple-negative breast cancer clinical specialist, when I get a patient with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who's PD-L1 positive, I think, "Oh, thank God," because we know that part of the disease just does better in general. But now I have something that really could give them a durable response for much longer than I ever thought possible when I started really heavily treating this disease. And so, this was immediately practice-changing for me. Dr. Allison Zibelli: I think that it's pretty clear that this is at least an option, if not the option, for this group of patients. Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, the duration of responses here was – it's just really important because, I mean, I do think this will make people live longer. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, moving on to the final study that we're going to discuss today, neoCARHP (LBA500), which was neoadjuvant taxane plus trastuzumab, pertuzumab, plus or minus carbo(platin) in HER2-positive early breast cancer. I think this is a study a lot of us have been waiting for. What was the design and the results of this trial? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: I was really excited about this as well because I'm one of those people that was waiting for this. This is a Chinese trial, so that is something to take note of. It wasn't an international trial, but it was a de-escalation trial which had become really popular in HER2-positive therapy because we know that we're overtreating HER2-positive breast cancer in a lot of patients. A lot of patients we're throwing the kitchen sink at it when maybe that is not necessary, and we can really de-escalate and try to personalize therapy a little bit better because these patients tend to do well. So, the standard of care, of course, in HER2-positive curative intent breast cancer with tumors that are greater than 2 cm is to give them the TCHP regimen, which is docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab. And that was sort of established by several trials in the NeoSphere trial, and now it's been repeated in a lot of different studies as well. And so, that's really the standard of care that most people in the United States use for HER2-positive curative intent breast cancer. This was a trial to de-escalate the carboplatin, which I was super excited about because many of us who treat this disease a lot think carbo is the least important part of the therapy you're giving there. We don't really know that it's necessary. We've just been doing it for a long time, and we know that it adds a significant amount of toxicity. It causes thrombocytopenia, it causes severe nausea, really bad cytopenias that can be difficult in the last few cycles of this to manage. So, this trial was created. It randomized patients one to one with stage 2 and 3 HER2-positive breast cancer to either get THP, a taxane, pertuzumab, trastuzumab, similar to the what we do in first-line metastatic HER2-positive versus the whole TCHP with a carboplatin AUC of 6, which is what's pretty standard. And it was a non-inferiority trial, so important there. It wasn't to establish superiority of this regimen, which none of us, I think, were looking for it to. And it was a modified intent-to-treat population. And so, all patients got at least one cycle of this to be assessed as a standard for an intent-to-treat trial. And so, they assumed a pCR rate of about 62.8% for both groups. And, of course, it included both HER2-positive triple positives and ER negatives, which are, you know, a bit different diseases, to be honest, but we all kind of categorize them and treat them the same. And so, this trial was powered appropriately to detect a non-inferiority difference. And so, we had about 380 patients treated on both arms, and there was an absolute difference of only 1.8% of those treated with carbo versus those without. Which was fantastic because you really realized that de-escalation here may be something we can really do. And so, the patients who got, of course, the taxane regimen had fewer adverse events. They had way fewer grade 3 and 4 adverse events than the THP group. No treatment-associated deaths occur, which is pretty standard for- this is a pretty safe regimen, but it causes a lot of hospitalizations due to diarrhea, due to cytopenias, and neutropenic fever, of course. And so, I thought that this was something that I could potentially enact, you know, and be practice-changing. It's hard to say that when it's a trial that was only done in China, so it's not necessarily the United States population always. But I think for patients moving forward, especially those with, say, a 2.5 cm tumor, you know, node negative, those, I'd feel pretty comfortable not giving them the carboplatin here. Notes that I want to make about this population is that the majority were stage 2 and not stage 3. They weren't necessarily your inflammatory HER2-positive breast cancer patients. And that the taxane that was utilized in the trial is a little different than what we use in the United States. The patients were allowed to get nab-paclitaxel, which we don't have FDA approval for in the first-line curative intent setting for HER2-positive breast cancer in the United States. So, a lot of them got abraxane, and then they also got paclitaxel. We tend to use docetaxel every 3 weeks in the United States. So, just to point out that difference. We don't really know if that's important or not, but it's just a little bit different to the population we standardly treat. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, are there patients that you would still give TCHP to? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, great question. I've been asked that a lot in the past like week since ASCO. I'd say in my inflammatory breast cancer patients, that's a group I do tend to sometimes throw the kitchen sink at. Now, I don't actually use AC in those because I know that that was the concern, but I think the TRAIN-2 trial really showed us you don't need to use Adriamycin in HER2-positive disease unless it's like refractory. So, I don't know that I would throw this on my stage 3C or inflammatory breast cancer patients yet because the majority of this were not stage 3. So, in your really highly lymph node positive patients, I'm a little bit hesitant to de-escalate them from the start. This is more of a like, if there's serious toxicity concerns, dropping carbo is absolutely fine here. Dr. Allison Zibelli: All right, great.  Thank you, Dr. Shatsky, for sharing your valuable insights with us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Thanks so much, Dr. Zibelli and ASCO Daily News. I really want to thank you for inviting me to talk about this today. It was really fun, and I hope you find my opinions on some of this valuable. And so, I just want to thank everybody and my listeners as well. Dr. Allison Zibelli: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find the links to all the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you like this podcast and you learn things from it, please take a moment to rate, review, and describe because it helps other people find us wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you again. 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. Allison Zibelli Dr. Rebecca Shatsky @Dr_RShatsky Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  @ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures: Dr. Allison Zibelli: No relationships to disclose Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Consulting or Advisory Role: Stemline, Astra Zeneca, Endeavor BioMedicines, Lilly, Novartis, TEMPUS, Guardant Health, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Pfizer Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Greenwich LifeSciences, Briacell, Gilead, OnKure, QuantumLeap Health, Stemline Therapeutics, Regor Therapeutics, Greenwich LifeSciences, Alterome Therapeutics  

In the wake of the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, CancerNetwork® put together an X Spaces discussion hosted by Stephen Liu, MD, and Joshua Sabari, MD, to highlight the most intriguing and practice-changing lung cancer abstracts. Discussed topics ranged from long-term follow-up with commonplace therapies to an analysis of what time of day is the best to administer immunochemotherapy.  Liu, an associate professor of Medicine at Georgetown University, and the director of Thoracic Oncology and head of Developmental Therapeutics at the Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Sabari, an assistant professor in the Department of Medicine at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, and the director of High Reliability Organization Initiatives at the Perlmutter Cancer Center, shared expert insights on the latest non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) breakthroughs. Trials of note that they discussed included: The phase 3 DeLLphi-304 trial (NCT05740566) - Tarlatamab (Imdelltra) versus chemotherapy (CTx) as second-line (2L) treatment for small cell lung cancer (SCLC): primary analysis of Ph3 DeLLphi-304.1 The phase 3 IMforte trial (NCT05091567) - Lurbinectedin (Zepzelca; lurbi) + atezolizumab (Tecentriq; atezo) as first-line (1L) maintenance treatment (tx) in patients (pts) with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC): primary results of the phase 3 IMforte trial.2 The phase 3 CheckMate 816 trial (NCT02998528) - Overall survival with neoadjuvant nivolumab (Opdivo; NIVO) + chemotherapy (chemo) in patients with resectable NSCLC in CheckMate 816.3 The phase 3 PACIFIC15 trial (NCT05549037) - Randomized trial of relevance of time-of-day of immunochemotherapy for progression-free and overall survival in patients with non–small cell lung cancer.4 The phase 3 Beamion LUNG-1 trial (NCT04886804) - Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) evaluating physical functioning and symptoms in patients with pretreated HER2-mutant advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): results from the Beamion LUNG-1 trial.5 The phase 3 ARTEMIA trial (NCT06472245) - Phase 3 trial of the therapeutic cancer vaccine OSE2101 versus docetaxel in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer and secondary resistance to immunotherapy. References Rudin C, Mountzios G, Sun L, et al. Tarlatamab versus chemotherapy (CTx) as second-line (2L) treatment for small cell lung cancer (SCLC): primary analysis of Ph3 DeLLphi-304. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 17):LBA8008. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.17_suppl.LBA8008 Paz-Ares L, Borghaei H, Liu SV, et al. Lurbinectedin (lurbi) + atezolizumab (atezo) as first-line (1L) maintenance treatment (tx) in patients (pts) with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC): primary results of the phase 3 IMforte trial. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 16):8006. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.16_suppl.8006 Forde PM, Spicer JD, Provencio M, et al. Overall survival with neoadjuvant nivolumab + chemotherapy in patients with resectable NSCLC in CheckMate 816. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 17):LBA8000. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.17_suppl.LBA8000 Zhang Y, Huang Z, Zeng L, et al. Randomized trial of relevance of time-of-day of immunochemotherapy for progression-free and overall survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 16):8516. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.16_suppl.8516 Sabari JK, Nadal E, Hendriks L, et al. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) evaluating physical functioning and symptoms in patients with pretreated HER2-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): results from the Beamion LUNG-1 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 16):8620. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.16_suppl.8620 Liu SV, Guibert C, Tostivint EP, et al. Phase 3 trial of the therapeutic cancer vaccine OSE2101 versus docetaxel in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and secondary resistance to immunotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 16):TPS8651. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.16_suppl.TPS8651

Welcome to the Oncology Brothers podcast! In this episode, Drs. Rahul and Rohit Gosain are joined by Dr. Erika Hamilton from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute to discuss the latest breakthroughs in breast cancer presented at the ASCO 2025 annual meeting. We dived into five key abstracts that could change the landscape of breast cancer treatment: 1.⁠ INAVO120: observed overall survival data with the combination of inavolisib, with palbociclib and fulvestrant for patients with PIK3CA mutated hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. 2.⁠ ⁠SERENA-6: camizestrant use in patients with emerging ESR1 mutations using ctDNA, showed significant improvement in progression-free survival. 3.⁠ ⁠VERITAC-2: vepdegestrant showed superior progression-free survival compared to fulvestrant, particularly in ESR1 mutated patients. 4.⁠ ⁠DESTINY-Breast09: significant improvement in progression-free survival with TDXd plus pertuzumab in frontline HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, challenging the traditional CLEOPATRA regimen THP. 5.⁠ ⁠ASCENT-04: promising results of sacituzumab combined with pembrolizumab in PD-L1 positive triple-negative breast cancer. Join us for an insightful discussion on these practice changing/informing studies and their implications for clinical practice.  YouTube: https://youtu.be/5XvrOn2p0jc 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 updates on treatment algorithms, recent approvals, and conference highlights!

Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. Erika Hamilton highlight key abstracts that were presented at ASCO25, including advances in breast and pancreatic cancers as well as remarkable data from the use of structured exercise programs in cancer care. Transcript Dr. Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. John Sweetenham. Today, we'll be discussing some of the key advances and novel approaches in cancer care that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. I'm delighted to be joined again by the chair of the Meeting's Scientific Program, Dr. Erika Hamilton. She is a medical oncologist and director of breast cancer and gynecologic cancer research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Hamilton, congratulations on a fantastic meeting. From the practice-changing science to the world-renowned speakers at this year's Meeting, ASCO25 really reflected the amazing progress we're seeing in oncology today and the enormous opportunities that lie ahead of us. And thanks for coming back on to the podcast today to discuss some of these advances. Dr. Hamilton: Thanks, Dr. Sweetenham. I'm happy to join you today. It really was an impactful ASCO Annual Meeting. I probably am biased, but some great research was presented this year, and I heard lots of great conversations happening while we were there. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. There was a lot of buzz, as well as a lot of media buzz around the meeting this year, and I think that's probably a good place to start. So I'd like to dive into abstract number LBA3510. This was the CHALLENGE trial, which created a lot of buzz at the meeting and subsequently in the media. This is the study that was led by the NCI Canada Clinical Trials Group, which was the first randomized phase 3 trial in patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer, which demonstrated that a post-treatment structured exercise program is both feasible and effective in improving disease-free survival in this patient group. The study was performed over a long period of time and in many respects is quite remarkable. So, I wonder if you could give us your thoughts about this study and whether you think that this means that our futures are going to be full of structured exercise programs for those patients who may benefit. Dr. Hamilton: It's a fantastic question. I think that this abstract did create a lot of buzz. We were very excited when we read it. It was highlighted in one of the Clinical Science Symposium sessions. But briefly, this was a phase 3 randomized trial. It was conducted at 55 centers, so really a broad experience, and patients that had resected colon cancer who completed adjuvant therapy were allowed to participate. There were essentially 2 groups: a structured exercise program, called ‘the exercise group,' or health education materials alone, so that was called just ‘the health education group.' And this was a 3-year intervention, so very high quality. The primary end point, as you mentioned, was disease-free survival. This actually accrued from 2009 to 2024, so quite a lift, and almost 900 patients underwent randomization to the exercise group or the health education group. And at almost 8 years of follow-up, we saw that the disease-free survival was significantly longer in the exercise group than the health education group. This was essentially 80.3% of patients were disease-free in exercise and 73.9% in the health education group. So a difference of over 6 percentage points, which, you know, at least in the breast cancer world, we make decisions about whether to do chemotherapy or not based on these kind of data. We also looked at overall survival in the exercise group and health education group, and the 8-year overall survival was 90.3% in the exercise group and 83.2% in the health education group. So this was a difference of 7.1%. Still statistically significant. I think this was really a fantastic effort over more than a decade at over 50 institutions with almost 900 patients, really done in a very systematic, high-intervention way that showed a fantastic result. Absolutely generalizable for patients with colon cancer. We have hints in other cancers that this is beneficial, and frankly, for our patients for other comorbidities, such as cardiovascular, etc., I really think that this is an abstract that deserved the press that it received. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely, and it is going to be very interesting, I think, over the next 2 or 3 years to see how much impact this particular study might have on programs across the country and across the world actually, in terms of what they do in this kind of adjuvant setting for structured exercise. Dr. Hamilton: Absolutely.  So let's move on to Abstract 3006. This was an NCI-led effort comparing genomic testing using ctDNA and tissue from patients with less common cancers who were enrolled in but not eligible for a treatment arm of the NCI-MATCH trial. Tell us about your takeaways from this study. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, so I thought this was a really interesting study based, as you said, on NCI-MATCH. And many of the listeners will probably remember that the original NCI-MATCH study screened almost 6,000 patients to assess eligibility for those who had an actionable mutation. And it turned out that about 60% of the patients who went on to the study had less common tumors, which were defined as anything other than colon, rectum, breast, non–small cell lung cancer, or prostate cancer. And most of those patients lacked an eligible mutation of interest and so didn't get onto a trial therapy. But with a great deal of foresight, the study group had actually collected plasma samples from these patients so that they would have the opportunity to look at circulating tumor DNA profiles with the potential being that this might be another way for testing for clinically relevant mutations in some of these less common cancer types. So initially, they tested more than 2,000 patients, and to make a somewhat complicated story short, there was a subset of five histologies with a larger representation in terms of sample size. And these were cholangiocarcinoma, small cell lung cancer, esophageal cancer, pancreatic, and salivary gland cancer. And in those particular tumors, when they compared the ctDNA sequencing with the original tumor, there was a concordance there of around 84%, 85%. And in the presentation, the investigators go on to list the specific mutated genes that were identified in each of those tumors. But I think that the other compelling part of this study from my perspective was not just that concordance, which suggests that there's an opportunity there for the use of ctDNA instead of tumor biopsies in some of these situations, but what was also interesting was the fact that there were several clinically relevant mutations which were detected only in the circulating tumor DNA. And a couple of examples of those included IDH1 for cholangiocarcinoma, BRAF and p53 in several histologies, and microsatellite instability was most prevalent in small cell lung cancer in the ctDNA. So I think that what this demonstrates is that liquid biopsy is certainly a viable screening option for patients who are being assessed for matching for targeted therapies in clinical trials. The fact that some of these mutations were only seen in the ctDNA and not in the primary tumor specimen certainly suggests that there's some tumor heterogeneity. But I think that for me, the most compelling part of this study was the fact that many of these mutations were only picked up in the plasma. And so, as the authors concluded, they believe that a comprehensive gene profiling with circulating tumor DNA probably should be included as a primary screening modality in future trials of targeted therapy of this type. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I think that that's really interesting and mirrors a lot of data that we've been seeing. At least in breast cancer, you know, we still do a biopsy up front to make sure that our markers, we're still treating the right disease that we think we are. But it really speaks to the utility of using ctDNA for serial monitoring and the emergence of mutations. Dr. Sweetenham: Absolutely. And you mentioned breast cancer, and so I'd like to dwell on that for a moment here because obviously, there was a huge amount of exciting breast cancer data presented at the meeting this year. And in particular, I'd like to ask you about LBA1008, the DESTINY-Breast09 clinical trial, which I think has the potential to establish a new first-line standard of care for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. And that's an area where we haven't seen a whole lot of innovation for around a decade now. So can you give us some of the highlights of this trial and what your thinking is, having seen the results? Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, absolutely. So this was a trial in the first-line metastatic HER2 setting. So this was looking at trastuzumab deruxtecan. We certainly have had no shortage of reports around this drug, initially approved for later lines. DESTINY-Breast03 brought it into our second-line setting for HER2+ disease and we're now looking at DESTINY-Breast09 in first-line. So this actually was a 3-arm trial where patients were randomized 1:1:1 against standard taxane/trastuzumab/pertuzumab in one arm; trastuzumab deruxtecan with pertuzumab in another arm; and then a third arm, trastuzumab deruxtecan alone. And what we did not see reported was that trastuzumab deruxtecan-alone arm. But we did have reports from the trastuzumab deruxtecan plus pertuzumab versus the chemo/trastuzumab/pertuzumab. And what we saw was a statistically significant improvement in median progression-free survival, 26.9 months up to 40.7, so an improvement of 13.8 months, over a year in PFS. Not to mention that we're now in the 40-month range for PFS in first-line disease. Really, across all subgroups, we really weren't able to pick out a subset of patients that did not benefit. We did see about a 12% ILD rate with trastuzumab deruxtecan. That really is on par with what we've seen in other studies, around 10%-15%. I think that this is going to become a new standard of care in the first-line. I think it did leave some unanswered questions. We saw some data from the PATINA trial this past San Antonio Breast, looking at the addition of endocrine therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor, palbociclib, for those patients that also have ER+ disease, after taxane has dropped out in the first-line setting. So how we're going to kind of merge all this together is, I suspect that there are going to be patients that we or they just don't have the appetite to continue 3 to 4 years of trastuzumab deruxtecan. And so we're probably going to be looking at a maintenance-type strategy for them, maybe integrating the PATINA data there. But how we really put this into practice in the first-line setting and if or when we think about de-escalating down from trastuzumab deruxtecan to antibody therapy are some lingering questions. Dr. Sweetenham: Okay, so certainly is going to influence practice, but watch this space for a little bit longer, it sounds as though that's what you're saying. Dr. Hamilton: Absolutely.  So let's move on to GI cancer. Abstract 4006 reported preliminary results from the randomized phase 2 study of elraglusib in combination with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus the chemo gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. Can you tell us more about this study? Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. As you mentioned, elraglusib is actually a first-in-class inhibitor of GSK3-beta, which has multiple potential actions in pancreatic cancer. But the drug itself may be involved in mediating drug resistance as well as in some tumor immune response modulation. Some of that's not clearly understood, I believe, right now. But certainly, preclinical data suggests that the drug may be effective in preclinical models and may also be effective in combination with chemotherapy and potentially with immune-modulating agents as well. So this particular study, as you said, was an open-label, randomized phase 2 study in which patients with pancreatic cancer were randomized 2:1 in favor of the elraglusib plus GMP—gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel—versus the chemotherapy alone. And upon completion of the study, which is not right now, median overall survival was the primary end point, but there are a number of other end points which I'll talk about in just a moment. But the sample size was planned to be around 207 patients. The primary analysis included 155 patients in the combination arm versus 78 patients in the gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel arm. Overall, the 1-year overall survival rate was 44.1% for the patients in the elraglusib-containing arm versus 23.0% in the patients receiving gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel only. When they look at the median overall survival, it was 9.3 months for the experimental arm versus 7.2 months for chemotherapy alone. So put another way, there's around a 37% reduction in the risk of death with the use of this combination arm. The treatment was overall well-tolerated. There were some issues with grade 1 to 2 transient visual impairment in a large proportion of the patients. The most common treatment-related adverse effects with the elraglusib/GMP combination was transient visual impairment, which affected around 60% of the patients. Most of the more serious treatment-related adverse events included neutropenia, anemia, and fatigue in 50%, 25%, and 16% of the patients, respectively. So the early results from this study show a significant benefit for 1-year overall survival and for median overall survival with, as I mentioned above, a significant reduction in the risk of death. The authors went on to mention that the median overall survival for the control arm in this study is somewhat lower than in other comparable trials, but they think that this may be related to a more advanced disease burden in this particular study. Of interest to me was that right now: there is no apparent difference in progression-free survival between the 2 arms of this study. The authors described this as potentially indicating that this may be related in some way to immune modulation and immune effects on the tumor, which, if I'm completely honest, I don't totally understand. And so, the improvement in overall survival, as far as I can see at the moment, is not matched by an improvement in progression-free survival. So I think we probably need to wait for more time to elapse to see what happens with the study. And so, I think it certainly is an interesting study, and the results are intriguing, but I think it's probably a little early for it to actually shift the treatment paradigm in this disease. Dr. Hamilton: Fantastic. I think we've been waiting for advances in pancreatic cancer for a long time, but this, not unlike others, we learn more and then learn more we don't realize, so. Dr. Sweetenham: Right. Let's shift gears at this point and talk about a couple of other abstracts in kind of a very different space. Let's start out with symptom management for older adults with cancer. We know that undertreated symptoms are common among the older patient population, and Abstract 11002 reported on a randomized trial that demonstrated the effects of remote monitoring for older patients with cancer in terms of kind of symptoms and so on. Can you tell us a little bit about this study and whether you think this approach will potentially improve care for older patients? Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I really liked this abstract. It was conducted through the Veterans Affairs, and it was based in California, which I'm telling you that because it's going to have a little bit of an implication later on. But essentially, adults that were 75 years or older who were Medicare Advantage beneficiaries were eligible to participate. Forty-three clinics in Southern California and Arizona, and patients were randomized either into a control group of usual clinic care alone, or an intervention group, which was usual care plus a lay health worker-led proactive telephone-based weekly symptom assessment, and this was for 12 months using the validated Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. So, there was a planned enrollment of at least 200 patients in each group. They successfully met that. And this lay health worker reviewed assessments with a physician assistant, who conducted follow-up for symptoms that changed by 2 points from a prior assessment or were rated 4 or greater. So almost a triage system to figure out who needed to be reached out to and to kind of work on symptoms. What I thought was fantastic about this was it was very representative of where it enrolled. There were actually about 50% of patients enrolled here that were Hispanic or Latinos. So some of our underserved populations and really across a wide variety of tumor types. They found that the intervention group had 53% lower odds of emergency room use, 68% lower odds of hospital use than the control group. And when they translated this to actual total cost of care, this was a savings of about $12,000 U.S. per participant and 75% lower odds of a death in an acute care facility. So I thought this was really interesting for a variety of reasons. One, certainly health care utilization and cost, but even more so, I think any of our patients would want to prevent hospitalizations and ER visits. Normally, that's not a fantastic experience having to feel poorly enough that you're in the emergency room or the hospital. And really showing in kind of concrete metrics that we were able to decrease this with this intervention. In terms of sustainability and scalability, I think the question is really the workforce to do this. Obviously, you know, this is going to take dedicated employees to have the ability to reach out to these patients, etc., but I think in value-based care, there's definitely a possibility of having reimbursement and having the funds to institute a program like this. So, definitely thought-provoking, and I hope it leads to more interventions. Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, we've seen, over several years now, many of these studies which have looked at remote symptom monitoring and so on in this patient population, and many of them do show benefits for that in kinds of end points, not the least in this study being hospitalization and emergency room avoidance. But I think the scalability and personnel issue is a huge one, and I do wonder at some level whether we may see some AI-based platforms coming along that could actually help with this and provide interactions with these patients outside of actual real people, or at least in combination with real people. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, that's a fantastic point.  So let's talk a little bit about clinical trials. So eligibility assessment for oncology clinical trials, or prescreening, really relies on manual review of unstructured clinical notes. It's time-consuming, it's prone to errors, and Abstract 1508 reported on the final analysis of a randomized trial that looked at the effect of human-AI teams prescreening for clinical trial eligibility versus human-only or AI-only prescreening. So give us more good news about AI. What did the study find? Dr. Sweetenham: Yeah, this is a really, a really interesting study. And of course, any of us who have ever been involved in clinical trials will know that accrual is always a problem. And I think most centers have attempted, and some quite successfully managed to develop prescreening programs so that patients are screened by a health care provider or health care worker prior to being seen in the clinic, and the clinical investigator will then already know whether they're going to be eligible for a trial or not. But as you've already said, it's a slow process. It's typically somewhat inefficient and requires a lot of time on the part of the health care workers to actually do this in a successful way. And so, this was a study from Emory University where they took three models of ways in which they could assess the accuracy of the prescreening of charts for patients who are going to be considered for clinical trials. One of these was essentially the regular way of having two research coordinators physically abstract the charts. The second one was an AI platform which would extract longitudinal EHR data. And then the third one was a combination of the two. So the AI would be augmented by the research coordinator or the other way around. As a gold standard, they had three independent oncology reviewers who went through all of these charts to provide what they regarded as being the benchmark for accuracy. In a way, it's not a surprise to me because I think that a number of other systems which have used this combination of human verification of AI-based tools, it actually ultimately concluded that the combination of the two in terms of chart accuracy was for the most part better than either one individually, either the research coordinator or the AI alone. So I'll give you just a few examples of where specifically that mattered. The human plus AI platform was more accurate in terms of tumor staging, in terms of identifying biomarker testing and biomarker results, as well as biomarker interpretation, and was also superior in terms of listing medications. There are one or two other areas where either the AI alone was somewhat more accurate, but the significant differences were very much in favor of a combination of human + AI screening of these patient charts. So, in full disclosure, this didn't save time, but what the authors reported was that there were definite efficiency gains, and presumably this would actually become even more improved once the research coordinators were somewhat more comfortable and at home with the AI tool. So, I thought it was an interesting way of trying to enhance clinical trial accrual up front by this combination of humans and technology, and I think it's going to be interesting to see if this gets adopted at other centers in the future. Dr. Hamilton: Yeah, I think it's really fascinating, all the different places that we can be using AI, and I love the takeaway that AI and humans together are better than either individually. Dr. Sweetenham: Absolutely.  Thanks once again, Dr. Hamilton, for sharing your insights with us today and for all of the incredible work you did to build a robust program. And also, congratulations on what was, I think, a really remarkable ASCO this year, one of the most exciting for some time, I think. So thank you again for that. Dr. Hamilton: Thanks so much. It was really a pleasure to work on ASCO 2025 this year. Dr. Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find links to all the abstracts we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Be sure to catch up on all of our coverage from the Annual Meeting. You can catch up on my daily reports that were published each day of the Annual Meeting, featuring the key science and innovations presented. And we'll have wrap-up episodes publishing in June, covering the full spectrum of malignancies from ASCO25. If you value the insights you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   More on today's speakers: Dr. John Sweetenham   Dr. Erika Hamilton @erikahamilton9   Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:     Dr. John Sweetenham:     No relationships to disclose    Dr. Erika Hamilton: Consulting or Advisory Role (Inst): Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Mersana, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Ellipses Pharma, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Stemline Therapeutics, Tubulis, Verascity Science, Theratechnologies, Accutar Biotechnology, Entos, Fosun Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Medical Pharma Services, Hosun Pharma, Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Jefferies, Tempus Labs, Arvinas, Circle Pharma, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson   Research Funding (Inst): AstraZeneca, Hutchison MediPharma, OncoMed, MedImmune, Stem CentRx, Genentech/Roche, Curis, Verastem, Zymeworks, Syndax, Lycera, Rgenix, Novartis, Millenium, TapImmune, Inc., Lilly, Pfizer, Lilly, Pfizer, Tesaro, Boehringer Ingelheim, H3 Biomedicine, Radius Health, Acerta Pharma, Macrogenics, Abbvie, Immunomedics, Fujifilm, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Merus, Nucana, Regeneron, Leap Therapeutics, Taiho Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, ArQule, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, CytomX Therapeutics, InventisBio, Deciphera, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Zenith Epigentics, Arvinas, Harpoon, Black Diamond, Orinove, Molecular Templates, Seattle Genetics, Compugen, GI Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Dana-Farber Cancer Hospital, Shattuck Labs, PharmaMar, Olema Pharmaceuticals, Immunogen, Plexxikon, Amgen, Akesobio Australia, ADC Therapeutics, AtlasMedx, Aravive, Ellipses Pharma, Incyte, MabSpace Biosciences, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pionyr, Repetoire Immune Medicines, Treadwell Therapeutics, Accutar Biotech, Artios, Bliss Biopharmaceutical, Cascadian Therapeutics, Dantari, Duality Biologics, Elucida Oncology, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Relay Therapeutics, Tolmar, Torque, BeiGene, Context Therapeutics, K-Group Beta, Kind Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, Oncothyreon, Orum Therapeutics, Prelude Therapeutics, Profound Bio, Cullinan Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squib, Eisai, Fochon Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Inspirna, Myriad Genetics, Silverback Therapeutics, Stemline Therapeutics

Featuring articles on mismatch repair–deficient tumors, generalized myasthenia gravis, HER2-mutant non–small-cell lung cancer, a Corynebacterium diphtheriae outbreak, and hereditary and sporadic papillary kidney cancer; a review article on unruptured intracranial aneurysms; a case report of a man with respiratory failure and shock after kidney transplantation; and Perspectives on medical AI and clinician surveillance, on pathobiology, and on unrest.

In this podcast, expert Hope Rugo, MD, discusses her approach to treating patients with hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative breast cancer from the early-stage to metastatic disease. Consideration of these complex clinical scenarios taken from tumor board discussions at the 42nd Annual Miami Breast Cancer Conference® highlight evolving strategies in breast cancer care and clinical decision-making.

Commentary by Kazuhiro Sase.

In this episode, we unpack game-changing insights from ASCO 2025 with a spotlight on breast cancer. Joining us is Dr. Adam Brufsky, a trailblazing oncologist and professor at the University of Pittsburgh, with 30 years of experience, whose expertise has helped shape the direction of treatment. Trials discussed include the SERENA-6 trial, which examines camizestrant plus CDK4/6 inhibitors in HR-positive, ESR1 mutation breast cancer; the DESTINY-Breast09 trial, highlighting trastuzumab deruxtecan in combination with pertuzumab; and the INAVO120 trial, revealing inavolisib's triplet therapy response in PIK3CA-mutated, HR-positive, HER2-negative disease. Join us for a deep dive into these game-changing findings and their impact on patient care.Studies discussed in the episode:SERENA-6DESTINY BREAST 09INAVO 120For more episodes, resources and blog posts, visit www.inquisitiveonc.comPlease find us on Twitter @InquisitiveOnc!If you want us to look at a specific trial or subject, email us at inquisitiveonc@gmail.comArt courtesy of Taryn SilverMusic courtesy of AlisiaBeats: https://pixabay.com/users/alisiabeats-39461785/Disclaimer: This podcast is for educational purposes only. If you are unwell, seek medical advice.Oncology for the Inquisitive Mind is recorded with the support of education grants from our foundation partners Pfizer, Gilead Pharmaceuticals and Merck Pharmaceuticals. Our partners have access to the episode at the same time you do and have no editorial control over the content. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to another episode of the Oncology Brothers podcast! In this episode, Drs. Rahul and Rohit Gosain are joined by Dr. Cathy Eng, a renowned GI medical oncologist from the Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, to discuss the most impactful updates from the ASCO 2025 annual meeting, specifically focusing on gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies. Join us as we dive into five pivotal abstracts that are set to change the landscape of GI cancer treatment: 1.⁠ ⁠DYNAMIC III: Discover how ctDNA-guided adjuvant chemotherapy in stage 3 colon cancer did not improve outcomes, highlighting questionable role of escalating approach with ctDNA positivity. 2.⁠ ⁠ATOMIC: Learn about the addition of atezolizumab to FOLFIRI in MSI-H disease stage 3 colon cancer, which improved disease-free survival with a hazard ratio of 0.50. 3.⁠ ⁠BREAKWATER: Explore how the combination of encorafenib, cetuximab, and FOLFOX has established a new standard of care for BRAF V600E mutant metastatic colorectal cancer, doubling overall survival from 15 months to 30.3 months. 4.⁠ ⁠MATTERHORN: Understand the use of durvalumab in the perioperative and postoperative setting with the FLOT regimen for resectable gastric and GE junction adenocarcinoma, showing significant improvements in event-free survival. 5.⁠ ⁠DESTINY Gastric04: Delved into the findings that confirm TDXd as a preferred option in the second line and beyond for HER2 positive metastatic gastric cancer or GE junction adenocarcinoma. YouTube: https://youtu.be/hllyI5S2Dqg 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 insightful discussion that will keep you updated on the latest advancements in GI oncology! Don't forget to subscribe for more episodes on treatment algorithms, FDA approvals, and conference highlights.

In today's episode, we spoke with Paolo Tarantino, MD, about key updates in HER2-positive breast cancer presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting

In our second plenary episode, we're spotlighting two pivotal phase 3 trials: SERENA-6, which explores ctDNA-guided treatment with camizestrant to delay progression in HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer with ESR1 mutations, and NIVOPOSTOP, a landmark study showing improved disease-free survival with adjuvant nivolumab in high-risk, resected head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Join us as we unpack these practice-changing findings with expert insight and a couple of dad jokes along the way.Studies discussed in the episode:SERENA-6NIVOPOSTOPFor more episodes, resources and blog posts, visit www.inquisitiveonc.comPlease find us on Twitter @InquisitiveOnc!If you want us to look at a specific trial or subject, email us at inquisitiveonc@gmail.comArt courtesy of Taryn SilverMusic courtesy of AlisiaBeats: https://pixabay.com/users/alisiabeats-39461785/Disclaimer: This podcast is for educational purposes only. If you are unwell, seek medical advice.Oncology for the Inquisitive Mind is recorded with the support of education grants from our foundation partners Pfizer, Gilead Pharmaceuticals and Merck Pharmaceuticals. Our partners have access to the episode at the same time you do and have no editorial control over the content. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

Drs. Scott and Liu discuss the safety of treatments for HER2-mutant lung cancer, including key toxicities, management strategies, and how prior therapies might affect treatment decisions.

Stephen V. Liu, MD and Susan C. Scott, MD discuss advances in treating HER2-mutant lung cancer. Until recently, treatments for HER2-mutant lung cancer primarily involved chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and HER2-targeted therapies, with mixed results. Now, the treatment landscape of HER2-mutant lung cancer is changing.

The 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting featured five days of presentations and educational sessions on all types of cancer. Dr. Eleonora Teplinsky, a board-certified medical oncologist at the Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center in Paramus, NJ, summarizes the top breast cancer research. Listen to the episode to hear Dr. Teplinsky discuss: The SERENA-6 trial, which found that if metastatic hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer develops ESR1 mutations during first hormonal therapy treatment, switching to camizestrant from an aromatase inhibitor before the cancer grows improves outcomes. Results from the DESTINY-Breast09 trial showing that the combination of Enhertu (chemical name: fam-trastuzumab-deruxtecan-nxki) and Perjeta (chemical name: pertuzumab) is a better first treatment for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer than the current standard of THP chemo.  The ASCENT-04/KEYNOTE-D19 trial, which found that people with metastatic, PD-L1-positive, triple-negative breast cancer fared better with the combo of Trodelvy (chemical name: sacituzumab govitecan-hziy) and Keytruda (chemical name: pembrolizumab) as a first treatment compared to people who received chemotherapy and Keytruda.

Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 2 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including new data on the treatment of ER+/HER2-negative breast cancer and potentially practice-changing results for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence.  Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, your host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, welcoming you to our special coverage of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Today, I'll be bringing you my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 2 of the Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Today's selection features important, new data on the treatment of ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, the use of tumor treating fields in combination with chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer, and potentially practice-changing results for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma at high-risk of recurrence.  Our first selected abstract is LBA1000. This important phase 3 study was presented by Dr. Erika Hamilton from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville and evaluated the use of a novel agent, vepdegestrant, in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer, which had progressed after first-line endocrine therapy. Vepdegestrant is a selective oral PROTAC estrogen receptor degrader, which targets wild-type and mutant estrogen receptor through a novel mechanism of action which directly harnesses the ubiquitin-proteasome system to degrade ER. It has potential advantages over fulvestrant, a selective ER degrader which has to be administered intramuscularly and has limited benefit in patients who progress after endocrine therapy plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor.  Building on the encouraging results from the initial phase 1/2 study of vepdegestrant, Dr. Hamilton reported results from the VERITAC-2 global phase 3 trial, comparing this agent with fulvestrant. The patients in the study had already received treatment with hormone therapy and a CDK inhibitor and were randomly assigned to receive treatment with either vepdegestrant (313 patients) or fulvestrant (311 patients). The vepdegestrant was taken orally each day, while the fulvestrant was given intramuscularly on days 1 and 15 of the first cycle of treatment and day 1 of each subsequent treatment cycle. Patients were stratified by the presence of wild-type ER or ESR1 mutation. A total of 43.3% of patients had ESR1 mutations; 136 of those were in the vepdegestrant group and 134 in the fulvestrant group.   For patients with ESR1 mutations, vepdegestrant significantly increased progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant. For patients who received vepdegestrant, the median PFS was 5 months versus 2.1 months for those who received fulvestrant. The clinical benefit rate was 42.1% in the vepdegestrant group vs. 20.2% in the fulvestrant group. The overall response rate was 18.6% in the vepdegestrant group compared with only 4% in the fulvestrant group.  The PFS and response benefits of vepdegestrant were largely restricted to the population with ESR1 mutations. Overall survival data are currently immature. The safety profile was favorable, with fewer than 5% of patients having dose reductions or discontinuation due to toxicity. The most frequent toxicities were fatigue, nausea, and elevated transaminases.  The authors concluded that oral vepdegestrant demonstrates statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant in this group of patients with ESR1-mutated ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer who have progressed after endocrine therapy and a CDK inhibitor. Patients with recurrent disease in this context are now routinely tested for ESR1 mutations, and this agent is for sure a potential treatment option for them.  The next study on today's episode, LBA4005, reports on the use of tumor treatment fields for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Tumor treatment fields are electric fields which disrupt cell division and may also induce an enhanced immune response, using a non-invasive portable device attached to the skin, and are already approved for the treatment of some cancers, including GBM and non-small cell lung cancer. A previous phase 2 trial, PANOVA-2, confirmed the feasibility and safety of using this approach in combination with gemcitabine plus or minus nabpaclitaxel in pancreatic cancer. In today's presentation, Dr. Vincent Picozzi from the Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle presented the results of the PANOVA-3 trial, a phase 3 study comparing gemcitabine and nabpaclitaxel with the same chemotherapy plus tumor treatment fields in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.  Five hundred and seventy-one eligible patients were enrolled in the study with a total of 405 (198 in the treatment field group and 207 in the standard arm) comprising the modified intent- to-treat population. The duration of chemotherapy treatment was comparable in both study arms, and patients receiving treatment fields had a median exposure of almost 27 weeks.  Statistically significant improvements were observed for several study endpoints, including overall survival (a median of 16.2 versus 14.2 months), distant PFS (at 13.9 versus 11.5 months) and pain-free survival (at 15.2 versus 9.1 months), all in favor of the treatment fields arm. Although quality of life data were not reported in detail, the authors noted a significant improvement in global health status in the treatment fields arm. Safety data showed a higher level of skin adverse events in the treatment fields arm but were otherwise as expected for the GnP combination.  These are quite remarkable results which add to the growing evidence base for tumor treatment fields and are particularly compelling in this patient group given the substantial improvement in pain-free survival. It will be especially interesting to see the mature analysis of the quality-of-life endpoints in a subsequent report.  The final selection today is Abstract 6001, which describes the C-POST trial, a phase 3 trial of adjuvant cemiplimab versus placebo in patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the skin. This study was presented by Dr. Danny Rischin from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.   Although surgical resection with or without adjuvant radiation is curative in 90% of patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, high-risk features, including nodal disease, skin and subcutaneous metastases, perineural invasion and bone involvement, predict for an inferior prognosis.  Cemiplimab, a PD-1 targeting antibody is standard therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who are not candidates for curative surgical resection or radiation therapy, with an overall response rate of almost 50%.  The C-POST study evaluated the use of cemiplimab as adjuvant therapy following surgery and radiation in high-risk patients, compared with placebo. Treatment was administered at 3-week intervals for 12 weeks, and then 6-week intervals for a further 36 weeks, with a primary endpoint of disease-free survival. Four hundred and fifteen patients were randomized in the study, 209 to cemiplimab and 206 to placebo. With median follow-up at 24 months, Dr. Rischin reported a highly significant improvement in disease-free survival for the cemiplimab arm, 49.4 months for placebo versus not reached for cemiplimab, with improvements also observed in the rates of locoregional recurrence and distant recurrence at 80% and 60% reductions, respectively. No new safety signals were observed.  This study is potentially practice-changing and provides strong evidence that cemiplimab should be considered the new standard of care in this clinical context.  Thanks for listening today and join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.  Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speaker:   Dr. John Sweetenham   Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter   @ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures:   Dr. John Sweetenham:   No relationships to disclose  

Our Landmarks of OncoPharm series returns to discuss the CLEOPATRA study, which established docetaxel, trastuzumab, pertuzumab (THP) as a standard first-line regimen for metastatic HER2-amplified breast cancer.

Featuring an interview with Dr Rinath M Jesselsohn, including the following topics: Evaluating first-line treatment of metastatic ER-positive, HER2-positive breast cancer: heredERA Breast Cancer study (0:00) Kuemmel S et al. heredERA Breast Cancer: A phase III, randomized, open-label study evaluating the efficacy and safety of giredestrant plus the fixed-dose combination of pertuzumab and trastuzumab for subcutaneous injection in patients with previously untreated HER2-positive, estrogen receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2024;24(1):641. Abstract  Treatment outcomes with CDK4/6 inhibitors and with elacestrant in real-world studies (4:13) Lloyd MR et al. CDK4/6 inhibitor efficacy in ESR1-mutant metastatic breast cancer. NEJM Evid 2024;3(5). Abstract  Lloyd M et al. Impact of prior treatment, ESR1 mutational (ESR1m) landscape, and co-occurring PI3K pathway status on real-world (RW) elacestrant outcomes in patients (pts) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (aBC). San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024;Abstract PS7-05.  Evaluating the CNS activity of imlunestrant, an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) (8:06) VandeKopple M et al. Preclinical characterization of imlunestrant, an oral brain-penetrant selective estrogen receptor degrader with activity in a brain metastasis (BM) model. ESMO Breast 2023;Abstract 41P.  Selective review of trials of oral SERDs in the adjuvant setting (11:27) A study of imlunestrant versus standard endocrine therapy in participants with early breast cancer (EMBER-4). NCT05514054 CME information and select publications

Featuring an interview with Dr Rinath M Jesselsohn, including the following topics: Imlunestrant with or without abemaciclib in advanced breast cancer: Results of the Phase III EMBER-3 trial (0:00) Jhaveri KL et al. Imlunestrant with or without abemaciclib in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2025;392(12):1189-202. Abstract  Jhaveri KL et al. Imlunestrant, an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), as monotherapy & combined with abemaciclib, for patients with ER+, HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC), pretreated with endocrine therapy (ET): Results of the Phase 3 EMBER-3 trial. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024;Abstract GS1-01. Comprehensive genomic profiling of ESR1, PIK3CA, AKT1 and PTEN in HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: Prevalence along treatment course and predictive value for endocrine therapy resistance in real-world practice (7:00) Bhave MA et al. Comprehensive genomic profiling of ESR1, PIK3CA, AKT1, and PTEN in HR(+)HER2(-) metastatic breast cancer: Prevalence along treatment course and predictive value for endocrine therapy resistance in real-world practice. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2024;207(3):599-609. Abstract Camizestrant, a next-generation oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), versus fulvestrant for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (SERENA-2): A multi-dose, open-label, randomized, Phase II trial (10:25) Oliveira M et al. Camizestrant, a next-generation oral SERD, versus fulvestrant in post-menopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (SERENA-2): A multi-dose, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2024;25(11):1424-39. Abstract Latest on SERDs: An education session at San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024 (13:57) Jeselsohn RM. Latest on selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs). San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024;Education Session 5. CME information and select publications

This featured podcast includes a discussion with 3 experts on managing patients with hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) from a satellite symposium held in conjunction with the 42nd Annual Miami Breast Cancer Conference® in March 2025. In observational studies of treatment patterns in older women with mBC, approximately half of the patients were undertreated, and only half received a CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i)-based regimen in the first-line setting. Reasons for undertreatment include concerns about the patient's age, perceived frailty, and underlying health issues. Aging is a heterogeneous process; older patients must receive individualized treatment that is not based solely on their age but on a comprehensive assessment that objectively assesses their overall health and ability to tolerate treatment. This program is designed to help clinicians assess the fitness of older patients with HR+/HER2– mBC, review the efficacy and safety of CDK4/6i in this patient population, and individualize treatment decision-making appropriately. Acknowledgment of Educational Grant Support This activity is supported by an educational grant from Pfizer Inc. Today's faculty are: Hope S. Rugo, MD Director, Women's Cancers Program Division Chief, Breast Medical Oncology Professor, Department of Medical Oncology & Therapeutics Research City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center Duarte, CA Professor Emeritus, UCSF Disclosures: Grant/Research Support: Ambrx; AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG/Genentech, Inc; Gilead Sciences, Inc; Lilly; Merck & Co., Inc; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; OBI Pharma; Pfizer; Stemline Therapeutics. Consultant: Napo Therapeutics; Puma Biotechnology; Sanofi. Honoraria: Chugai; Mylan/Viatris. Neil M. Iyengar, MD Associate Attending, Breast Medicine Service Program Lead, MSK Healthy Living Department of Medicine Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Associate Professor of Medicine Weill Cornell Medical College New York, NY Disclosures: Consultant/Adviser: Arvinas, AstraZeneca, BD Life Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Menarini-Stemline, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, Seagen, TerSera Therapeutics. Speaker: Cardinal Health, Curio Sciences, DAVA Oncology, IntrinsiQ Health. Editorial Position: npj Breast Cancer, Oncology®. Equity/Ownership: Complement Theory, Bettering Company. Research Support (to institution): American Cancer Society, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Conquer Cancer Foundation, Kat's Ribbon of Hope, National Cancer Institute/National Institutes of Health. Contracted Research: Novartis, SynDevRx. Komal Jhaveri, MD, FACP Patricia and James Cayne Chair for Junior Faculty Associate Attending Physician, Breast Medicine Service and Early Drug Development Service Section Head, Endocrine Therapy Research Program Clinical Director, Early Drug Development Service Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine Weill Cornell Medical College New York, NY Disclosures: Consultant/Advisory Board: AbbVie Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo Inc, Eisai Inc, Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, Gilead Sciences Inc, Jounce Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company, Menarini Group, Novartis, Olema Oncology, Pfizer Inc, Scorpion Therapeutics, Seagen Inc, Stemline Therapeutics Inc, Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company Ltd, Taiho Oncology Inc. Research Funding: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Debiopharm, Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, Gilead Sciences Inc, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Puma Biotechnology Inc, Scorpion Therapeutics, Zymeworks Inc. The staff of Physicians' Education Resource®, LLC, have no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies. PER® mitigated all COI for faculty, staff, and planners prior to the start of this activity by using a multistep process. Off-Label Disclosure and Disclaimer This activity may or may not discuss investigational, unapproved, or off-label use of drugs. Learners are advised to consult prescribing information for any products discussed. The information provided in this accredited activity is for continuing education purposes only and is not meant to substitute for the independent clinical judgment of a health care professional relative to diagnostic, treatment, or management options for a specific patient's medical condition. The opinions expressed in the content are solely those of the individual faculty members and do not reflect those of PER® or any company that provided commercial support for this activity.