Podcasts about ild

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

On this accredited episode of NP Pulse: The Voice of the Nurse Practitioner®️, join expert nurse practitioners (NPs) Jessica Glennie and Corinne Young for an insightful discussion on fibrosing interstitial lung disease (ILD) — a complex and often underrecognized condition. Learn how to identify early signs, navigate the diagnostic pathway and support patients with emerging therapies and holistic care strategies. This essential program equips NPs with the tools to improve outcomes for patients living with ILD. A participation code will be provided at the end of the podcast — make sure to write this code down. Once you have listened to the podcast and have the participation code, return to this activity in the AANP CE Center. Click on the "Next Steps" button of the activity and: Enter the participation code that was provided. Complete the posttest. Complete the activity evaluation. This will award your continuing education (CE) credit and certificate of completion. 1.2 CE, 0.4 RX, will be available through June 30, 2026. This activity is supported by an independent medical educational grant from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  

Dr. Rodolfo Estrada, is a seasoned pulmonologists currently at UT Health San Antonio with significant experience in the management of patients with different forms of pulmonary hypertension. In this episode, Dr. Estrada will discuss the technology and clinical development behind YUTREPIA™ (treprostinil) inhalation powder and why it might be a good option for some PAH and PH-ILD patients. This Special Edition episode is sponsored by Liquidia. Please see the Important Safety Information following this podcast. The Prescribing Information and Instructions for Use for YUTREPIA (treprostinil) inhalation powder are available at YUTREPIA.com.  YUTREPIA is approved for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH; WHO Group 1) and pulmonary hypertension associated with interstitial lung disease (PH-ILD; WHO Group 3) to improve the ability to exercise. Please see the Important Safety Information in the show notes. The Prescribing Information and Instructions for Use for YUTREPIA are available at YUTREPIA.com. Learn more about the INSPIRE study. Learn more about pulmonary hypertension trials at www.phaware.global/clinicaltrials. Engage for a cure: www.phaware.global/donate #phaware Share your story: info@phaware.com Like, Subscribe and Follow us: www.phawarepodcast.com. #phawareMD #PHILD @Liquidia_Corp @REstradaMD @UTHealthSA IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION Before you take YUTREPIA, tell your healthcare provider about all of your medical conditions, including if you: Have low blood pressure Have or have had bleeding problems Have asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Are pregnant or plan to become pregnant. It is not known if this product will harm your unborn baby Are breastfeeding or plan to breastfeed. It is not known if this product passes into your breast milk. Talk to your healthcare provider about the best way to feed your baby during treatment Tell your healthcare provider about all of the medicines you take, including prescription and over-the-counter medicines, vitamins, and herbal supplements. YUTREPIA and other medicines may affect each other. Especially tell your healthcare provider if you take: Medicines used to treat high blood pressure or heart disease Medicines that decrease blood clotting (anticoagulants) Water pills (diuretics) Gemfibrozil (Lopid®) or rifampin (Rimactane®, Rifadin®, Rifamate®, Rifater®) What are the possible side effects of YUTREPIA? This product can cause serious side effects, including: Low blood pressure (symptomatic hypotension). If you have low blood pressure, this product may lower your blood pressure more. Bleeding problems. This product may increase the risk of bleeding, especially in people who take blood thinners (anticoagulants). The most common side effects of YUTREPIA are cough, headache, throat irritation and pain, nausea, reddening of the face and neck (flushing), fainting or loss of consciousness, dizziness, diarrhea, and shortness of breath. Like other inhaled prostaglandins, you may have trouble breathing after taking YUTREPIA because it may cause the muscles around your airway to tighten (bronchospasm). These are not all the possible side effects. Call your doctor for medical advice about side effects or if you have trouble breathing. You may report side effects to the FDA at www.fda.gov/MedWatch or call 1–800-FDA-1088. The risk information provided here is not comprehensive. To learn more about YUTREPIA, talk with your healthcare provider. Please see Full Prescribing Information for YUTREPIA and Instructions for Use. For additional information, call 1–888–393–5732.

Decoding Pulmonary Hypertension: Echo and Cath Insights for Pulmonologists. Dr. Marc Simon shares his expertise on diagnosing pulmonary hypertension, emphasizing echocardiographic markers, right heart catheterization pitfalls, and risk stratification with the H2FPEF score. His insights help clinicians refine their diagnostic approach for better patient outcomes. This Special Edition episode is sponsored by Liquidia. View PDF Slides here.  Learn more about pulmonary hypertension trials at www.phaware.global/clinicaltrials. Engage for a cure: www.phaware.global/donate #phaware Share your story: info@phaware.com Like, Subscribe and Follow us: www.phawarepodcast.com. #phawareMD #PHILD @Liquidia_Corp @UCSFCardiology @MarcSimonMD @CalThoracic

Dr. Jean Elwing, a leading expert in pulmonary hypertension, discusses groundbreaking advancements in treating pulmonary hypertension associated with interstitial lung disease (PH-ILD). For years, patients with this condition had limited treatment options beyond oxygen therapy and symptom management. However, recent studies have introduced new hope, showing improved patient outcomes and quality of life. Dr. Elwing emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis, ongoing research, and clinical trial participation in pushing the field forward. This Special Edition episode is sponsored by Gossamer Bio and Pulmovant. Learn more about pulmonary hypertension trials at www.phaware.global/clinicaltrials. Engage for a cure: www.phaware.global/donate #phaware Share your story: info@phaware.com Like, Subscribe and Follow us: www.phawarepodcast.com. #phawareMD #PHILD  @uc_health @ElwingJean @GossamerBio #Pulmovant @accpchest  #PHOCUSstudy #PROSERAstudy

In this episode, Catherine Fahey, MD, PhD; Alexandra Leary, MD, PhD; Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD; and Zev A. Wainberg, MD, discuss the evolving safety considerations and future directions of HER2-targeted antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) across genitourinary, gastrointestinal, and gynecologic cancers.Toxicity Profiles of HER2-Targeted ADCs: Common and serious adverse events such as ILD/pneumonitis, neuropathy, and cytopenia across ADCsOn-Target vs Off-Target Effects: How linker design, payload type, and drug-to-antibody ratio (DAR) contribute to toxicityCombination Therapy Considerations: Challenges in combining ADCs with immunotherapy or chemotherapy due to overlapping toxicities and tolerability concerns Presenters:Catherine Fahey, MD, PhDAssistant ProfessorDivision of OncologyUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel Hill, North CarolinaAlexandra Leary, MD, PhDPresident, GINECO GroupCo-Director, Department of Medical OncologyMedical Oncologist GynecologyTeam Leader, Gynecologic Translational Research Lab, INSERM u981Institut Gustave RoussyVillejuif, FranceFunda Meric-Bernstam, MDChair, Department of Investigational Cancer TherapeuticsMedical Director, Institute for Personalized Cancer TherapyNellie B. Connally Chair in Breast CancerThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHouston, TexasZev A. Wainberg, MDProfessor of Medicine and SurgeryCo-Director of GI OncologyDirector, Early Phase Clinical Research ProgramJonsson Comprehensive Cancer CenterUCLA School of MedicineLos Angeles, CaliforniaLink to full program: https://bit.ly/42iEDjVTo claim credit for listening to this episode, please visit the podcast online at the link above. 

Seth Hall, MBA, RRT, takes listeners on a journey through the past, present, and future of inhaled therapies. Discover how these treatments have evolved, the life-changing benefits they offer, and the revolutionary technologies that could redefine outcomes for PAH and PH-ILD patients. This Special Edition episode is sponsored by Liquidia. Learn more about pulmonary hypertension trials at www.phaware.global/clinicaltrials. Engage for a cure: www.phaware.global/donate #phaware Share your story: info@phaware.com Like, Subscribe and Follow us: www.phawarepodcast.com. #phawareMD #PHILD @Liquidia_Corp #PRINTTechnology 

Dr. Richard Channick, dives into the evolving world within pulmonary hypertension -- interstitial lung disease (PH-ILD). He sheds light on why early diagnosis matters and how new therapies are transforming care. Learn about the latest FDA-approved treatment and what's on the horizon. This Special Edition episode is sponsored by Gossamer Bio and Pulmovant. Learn more about pulmonary hypertension trials at www.phaware.global/clinicaltrials. Engage for a cure: www.phaware.global/donate #phaware Share your story: info@phaware.com Like, Subscribe and Follow us: www.phawarepodcast.com. #phawareMD #PHILD @UCLAHealth @GossamerBio #Pulmovant @accpchest  #PHOCUSstudy #PROSERAStudy      

How does ILD typically present in women vs. men? Any noticeable difference in symptoms? Are there types of ILD that are more common in women than in men? These are the questions we discuss in this episode of the 'Pulmonary Fibrosis' podcast! Jen Wescoe and Dr. Rachel Kriner of Temple Lung Center discuss women and ILD, the mental health of women battling ILD, and great resources you can use to join clinical trials to help beat this disease! The 'Pulmonary Fibrosis' podcast is brought to you by the Wescoe Foundation for Pulmonary Fibrosis -- and the PAIPF Support Network -- visit PAIPFsupportnetwork.org!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

Dr. Ioana Preston explores the emerging field of pulmonary hypertension associated with interstitial lung disease (PH-ILD). She discusses the growing recognition of PH-ILD, especially after the introduction of inhaled treprostinil as a treatment, and highlights the importance of early screening and diagnosis. Dr. Preston also delves into the challenges of treating rare diseases, the evolution of research, and the hope for future therapies that could significantly improve patients' lives. This insightful conversation sheds light on a critical yet often overlooked aspect of pulmonary care, urging clinicians to stay vigilant and informed about PH-ILD's complexities.  This Special Edition episode is sponsored by Liquidia. Learn more about pulmonary hypertension trials at www.phaware.global/clinicaltrials. Engage for a cure: www.phaware.global/donate #phaware Share your story: info@phaware.com Like, Subscribe and Follow us: www.phawarepodcast.com. #phawareMD #PHILD @Liquidia_Corp @LaheyHospital  

Dr. Raj Parikh from Hartford Hospital discusses the development of the PH-ILD Detection tool, a screening tool designed to help detect pulmonary hypertension (PH) in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) at an early stage. Early detection is critical, as there is often a significant delay in diagnosis of PH in ILD patients, leading to worsened outcomes. This Special Edition episode is sponsored by Liquidia. Learn more about pulmonary hypertension trials at www.phaware.global/clinicaltrials. Engage for a cure: www.phaware.global/donate #phaware Share your story: info@phaware.com Like, Subscribe and Follow us: www.phawarepodcast.com. #phawareMD @HartfordHealthC @Liquidia_Corp @teamphhope #PHILD

Always perform chest auscultation for respiratory complaints - the presence of lung crackles is a red flag for interstitial lung disease (ILD) requiring further investigation Refer early to respiratory specialists once ILD is suspected, to prevent permanent lung damage Partner with specialists managing ILD patients to monitor medication side effects, optimise vaccinations, and coordinate multidisciplinary care Advise patients on preventive measures, including smoking cessation, proper protection during DIY projects, and infection prevention Host: Dr David Lim | Total Time: 30 mins Experts: A/Prof Yet Hong Khor, Respiratory and Sleep Physician Register for our fortnightly FREE WEBCASTSEvery second Tuesday | 7:00pm-9:00pm AEST Click here to register for the next oneSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For decades, researchers have sought better treatments for pulmonary hypertension in interstitial lung disease, a condition that drastically impacts patients' quality of life. In this episode, Dr. Rajan Saggar dives into the latest advancements, including new inhaled medications, upcoming clinical trials, and the push for more personalized treatment approaches. This Special Edition episode is sponsored by Gossamer Bio and Pulmovant. Learn more about pulmonary hypertension trials at www.phaware.global/clinicaltrials. Engage for a cure: www.phaware.global/donate #phaware Share your story: info@phaware.com Like, Subscribe and Follow us: www.phawarepodcast.com. #phawareMD #PHILD @UCLAHealth @GossamerBio @Pulmovant #PROSERAstudy #clinicaltrial #PHOCUSstudy

Vi er gået fransk på introen, Berlingske er landet på bordet – et forræderi, der er USA's administration, Frankrig har fået nok af Trump, USA stemmer mod Vesten og med slynglerne, F-35 er et flyvende IC4 med et kill-switch, Rædselsfulde overgreb på den ukrainske befolkning med Putinske double-tap, Katastrofe af bibelske dimensioner, Ild på handelskrigen med gak-twist, en canadisk Nils Bernstein i spidsen, Tre grise i Kødbyen – modsat 25.000 døde grise om dagen, En schweizisk drømmehandel med Saxo Bank, Kør fire år uden mail, Geden er latterlig – men besøg Lykkelund Besøgsgaard, 2025 bringer os til Japan i to omgange, Ugens japanske anbefaling er Admiralgade 26, En spids og våd morgen i Japan og Samsø? Samsø er Danmarks Japan.Få 30 dages gratis prøveperiode (kan kun benyttes af nye Podimo-abonnenter): http://podimo.dk/hgdg (99 kroner herefter)Værter: Esben Bjerre & Peter Falktoft Redigering: PodAmokKlip: PodAmokMusik: Her Går Det GodtInstagram: @hergaardetgodt @Peterfalktoft @Esbenbjerre

What is the difference between Palliative Care & Hospice, and why important to discern the difference?! Dr. Kathleen Lindell of the Medical University of South Carolina joins the show to discuss why Palliative Care can be such an important piece of both the patient and caregivers role in the ILD journey. It's the 'Pulmonary Fibrosis' podcast! Brought to you the Wescoe Foundation for Pulmonary Fibrosis and the Pennsylvania IPF Support Network! Find this podcast wherever you get your podcasts! Are you interested in helping advance PF research? If so, consider joining a workgroup! Visit wescoe.org or pfpatientengagement.org for more details!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

🇺🇸🇵🇪 Tenemos OTRA base de datos sobre USAID. Esta ha sido generada con los reportes PERUANOS. Y con ella vemos los casos de Manuela Ramos y del ILD, la ONG de Hernando de Soto. MIENTRAS TANTO 🎯 Usamos nuestro propio caso para explicarles cómo usar nuestras bases de datos del dinero de USAID. ADEMÁS: Lo que se viene. Y... 🏃‍♂️🎙️ Ministroll se corre de su propia voz: se niega a pasar por el peritaje ordenado por la Fiscalía. TAMBIÉN: Oro del Banco de la Nación... ¡era cobre! **** ¿Te gustó este episodio? ¿Buscas las fuentes de los datos mencionados hoy? SUSCRÍBETE en http://patreon.com/ocram para acceder a nuestros GRUPOS EXCLUSIVOS de Telegram y WhatsApp. También puedes hacerte MIEMBRO de nuestro canal de YouTube aquí https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP0AJJeNkFBYzegTTVbKhPg/join **** Únete a nuestro CANAL de WhatsApp aquí https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaAgBeN6RGJLubpqyw29 **** Para más información legal: http://laencerrona.pe

Smiley mit Kussmund und IlD. Die Liebeserklärung heute. Wie romantisch, blumig und wortgewandt waren dagegen Liebesbriefe früher. Zum Valentinstag wiederholen wir eine Sendung von 2022 und lesen aus Briefen u.a. von Goethe, George Sand und Hans Fallada.

Smiley mit Kussmund und IlD. Die Liebeserklärung heute. Wie romantisch, blumig und wortgewandt waren dagegen Liebesbriefe früher. Zum Valentinstag wiederholen wir eine Sendung von 2022 und lesen aus Briefen u.a. von Goethe, George Sand und Hans Fallada.

In this JCO Article Insights episode, Ece Cali summarizes findings from the JCO article, "Datopotamab Deruxtecan Versus Docetaxel for Previously Treated Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Randomized, Open-Label Phase III TROPION-Lung01 Study." TRANSCRIPT Ece Cali: Hello and welcome to the JCO Article Insights. I'm your host Ece Cali and today we will be discussing the Journal of Clinical Oncology article the “Datopotamab Deruxtecan Versus Docetaxel for Previously Treated Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Randomized, Open-Label Phase III TROPION-Lung01 Study.”  Despite significant advances in non-small cell lung cancer treatment over the past decades, second line treatment options for non-small cell lung cancer without actionable genomic alterations have remained largely unchanged since 2000. Many clinical trials failed to demonstrate improved overall survival compared to docetaxel based regimens. TROPION-Lung01 is a global open label randomized phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of Dato-DXd to docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Dato-DXd is an antibody drug conjugate targeting TROP2 and delivering deruxtecan, a DNA topoisomerase 1 inhibitor, as its payload. The trial is designed with dual primary endpoints of progression free survival, as assessed by blinded independent central review, and overall survival. The initial PFS results were presented at ESMO in 2023 and this article reports more detailed data and overall survival analysis of the trial.   In the TROPION-Lung01, 299 patients were randomly assigned to receive Dato-DXd and 305 patients to receive docetaxel. Patients were stratified by the presence of actionable genomic alterations, histology, treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy as the last line of therapy, and geographical region. The baseline characteristics of the patient population were overall balanced between the treatment arms. I'd like to highlight a couple of key points here. The median age was 63 years in the Dato-DXd and 64 years in the docetaxel arm. Similar to the many clinical trials in the thoracic oncology field, this is younger than the median age of lung cancer diagnosis in the US, which is around 70. African American and Hispanic patients were underrepresented in this trial with 41% of patients identifying themselves as white and 39% as Asian. The Ddocetaxel arm had a slightly higher percentage of male patients, 69% versus 61%. The majority of the trial population, 73%, had adenocarcinoma. Patients with actionable genomic alterations were included in this trial if they received one or more targeted therapy and platinum based chemotherapy prior to the enrollment. 17% of the trial population had an actionable genomic alteration in this trial.  When it comes to the efficacy results in the full analysis set, the PFS improvement was statistically significant. The median PFS was reported as 4.4 months for the Dato-DXd, and 3.7 months for the docetaxel arm with the hazard ratio of 0.75 and a P value of 0.004. However, after a median follow up of 23 months, the trial did not meet its primary endpoint of overall survival. The median overall survival was 12.9 months for patients treated with Dato-DXd and 11.8 months for patients treated with docetaxel with the hazard ratio of 0.94 and a P value of 0.53. Objective response was a secondary endpoint and the confirmed objective response rate was 26% with Dato-DXd, and 13% with docetaxel.  Now let's take a closer look at some of the subgroup analyses. Exploratory analyses of key subgroups in TROPION-Lung01 demonstrated differences in efficacy based on histology. In the nonsquamous subgroup, Dato-DXd showed a longer progression free survival of 5.5 months compared to 3.6 months with docetaxel with a hazard ratio of 0.84. However, in the squamous subgroup, Dato-DXd performed worse with a progression free survival of 2.8 months compared to 3.9 months with docetaxel corresponding to a hazard ratio of 1.32. A similar trend was observed in the overall survival analyses, though confidence intervals crossed 1 in both histology subsets, in this case, the differences observed were not statistically significant. In the nonsquamous subset, the median overall survival was 14.6 months with Dato-DXd and 12.3 months with docetaxel with a hazard ratio of 0.84. In the squamous subset, both arms had shorter survival compared to the nonsquamous subset. The median overall survival with Dato-DXd was almost two months shorter, so 7.6 months, compared to 9.6 months with docetaxel corresponding to a hazard ratio of 1.32. While these analyses suggest the potential survival benefit for Dato-DXd in nonsquamous subset, this trial was not powered to test this hypothesis hence these analyses remain exploratory. Another subgroup analysis of note was the group with actionable genomic alterations. Patients with actionable genomic alterations achieved a median PFS of 5.7 months with Dato-DXD and 2.6 months with docetaxel corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.35. Similarly, the median overall survival was longer in patients with actionable genomic alterations by almost six months, with a median overall survival of 15.6 months with Dato-DXd and 9.8 months with docetaxel corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.65.  Now, let's talk about safety. Grade 3 or higher treatment related adverse events occurred in 26% of patients with Dato-DXd and 42% with docetaxel. The most common adverse event of any grade seen in the Dato-DXd arm were stomatitis seen in 47% of patients, nausea in 34%, and alopecia in 32%. Treatment related interstitial lung disease occurred in 8.8% of patients on Dato-DXd and 4.1% of patients on docetaxel. Of note, grade 5 drug related ILD was more frequent with Dato-DXd. Seven patients on Dato-DXd and one patient on docetaxel died secondary to drug related ILD in this trial.  In summary, TROPION-Lung01 aims to address an unmet need for patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer. For this population, the treatment options remain limited with poor survival outcomes. TROPION-Lung01 is a positive trial by design due to clinically modest improvement in PFS. However, the lack of overall survival improvement is disappointing. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggest Dato-DXd may offer survival advantage in specific subsets such as nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer and patients with actionable genomic alterations. However, these findings require further validation in a prospective trial since TROPION-Lung01 was not designed to address these questions. The data from this trial alone is not sufficient to argue for a change in clinical practice. However, it informs how the future trials using this drug should be tailored. This highlights the importance of studying potential predictive biomarkers earlier in the drug development and incorporating these biomarkers prospectively into the clinical trial designs.  Due to the lack of overall survival benefit in this trial, the biologic license application for accelerated approval of Dato-DXd for patients with previously treated nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer was voluntarily withdrawn. New BLA was submitted for Dato-DXd for patients with previously treated advanced EGFR positive non-small cell lung cancer. This BLA is based on data from TROPION-Lung05, TROPION-Lung01 and TROPION-PanTumor01. Of note, the results of TROPION-Lung05 trial have been just published in JCO.   This wraps up today's episode. Thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit asco.org/podcasts.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    

QD clinics - lessons from the Clinic brought to you by RheumNow Live 2025 QD 269 CREST or More? https://youtu.be/GSBfr2S9iL4 Is this CREST or Diffuse PSS? Features Dr. Jack Cush.  QD270 Acute Neck & Back Pain https://youtu.be/qWTGvqL9-wY Acute onset febrile, polyarthritis, neck and low back pain Features Dr. Jack Cush.  QD271 - Treating Overlap with ILD https://youtu.be/eR7O-oy_O_g Polyarthritis, ILD, Dermatomyositis - how to treat? Features Dr. Jack Cush.  QD272 - Natural RA https://youtu.be/Ie1u-_KqxVE PsO/PsA patient avoiding DMARDs and Biologics, and wants Natural therapies Features Dr. Jack Cush.  QD Clinics - lessons from the clinic, sponsored by RNL2025 in Dallas, TX; Feb 8 & 9, 2025  Register at RheumNow.live

2024 was an AMAZING year for the 'Pulmonary Fibrosis' podcast! We have been downloaded in 74 countries around the world, and can't wait to continue to explore all avenues that connect the ILD community! Jen Wescoe of the Wescoe Foundation for Pulmonary Fibrosis joins Crockett to discuss some of the tremendous moments of 2024, and what's in store for 2025! Brought to you the Wescoe Foundation for Pulmonary Fibrosis and the Pennsylvania IPF Support Network! Learn more at PAIPFsupportnetwork.org!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to another episode of the Oncology Brothers! In this episode, hosts Drs. Rahul and Rohit Gosain dive into the complexities of managing side effects associated with antibody drug conjugates (ADCs). Joined by expert guests Dr. Tian Zhang, a GU medical oncologist from UT Southwestern, and Dr. Erika Hamilton from Sarah Cannon Research Institute, the discussion focuses on three key ADCs: Enfortumab vedotin, Sacituzumab govitecan, and Trastuzumab deruxtecan (TDXD). Episode Highlights: •⁠  ⁠Enfortumab vedotin: Learn about the common side effects such as skin toxicities, hyperglycemia, and neuropathy, and how to manage them effectively in clinical practice. •⁠  ⁠Sacituzumab govitecan: Explore the challenges of neutropenia, diarrhea, and fatigue, and the importance of individualized patient care. •⁠  ⁠Trastuzumab deruxtecan (TDXD): Understand the critical side effects including nausea, fatigue, and interstitial lung disease (ILD), and the strategies for prevention and management. This episode emphasizes the importance of recognizing and acting on side effects that can significantly impact patient outcomes. Whether you're a healthcare professional or someone interested in oncology, this discussion will provide valuable insights into toxicity management for ADCs. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and check out more episodes for in-depth discussions on oncology topics! Website: http://www.oncbrothers.com/ X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers Contact us at info@oncbrothers.com

A New ACR:Dr. Cush Are we under-monitoring in scleroderma ILD?:Dr. Janet Pope Cancer Survival in RA:Dr. Eric Dein interviews Joshua Hsieh Continuing or Stopping Low Dose Glucocorticoids in GPA:Dr. Mike Putman  COVID Associated Immune Disease:Dr. Len Calabrese How to Master ACR Meetings:Dr. Cush

Lynette Chambers, a 9-year PAH (pulmonary arterial hypertension) patient, has also been diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis (PF). She shares her journey, from struggling with daily activities to being admitted to the hospital with severely low oxygen levels. Lynette discusses the emotional challenges of facing a terminal illness and the difficulty of balancing work and family time. Despite the hard reality, Lynette emphasizes the importance of gratitude, making others feel better, and being the best version of oneself. She finds strength in her family, especially her grandchildren, and strives to create lasting memories and make a positive impact on those around her. Learn more about pulmonary hypertension trials at www.phaware.global/clinicaltrials. Engage for a cure: www.phaware.global/donate #phaware Share your story: info@phaware.com Like, Subscribe and Follow us: www.phawarepodcast.com. @phacanada

How is the Veteran community impacted by Interstitial Lung Disease? What are some helpful resources to help Veterans navigate ILD? Dr. Dean (Trey) Kellogg of UT Health San Antonio joins the show to discuss Veterans and ILD! It's the 'Pulmonary Fibrosis' podcast! Hosted by Kevin Crockett. Brought to you the Wescoe Foundation for Pulmonary Fibrosis and the Pennsylvania IPF Support Network! Learn more at PAIPFsupportnetwork.org!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For more information regarding this CME/CE activity and to complete the CME/CE requirements and claim credit for this activity, visit:https://www.mycme.com/courses/circling-the-wagons-to-care-fibrosing-ilds-9649SummaryNavigating the challenges of fibrosing ILDs requires a team approach. In this podcast, explore the "Dream Team" of healthcare professionals who collaborate to address the diverse needs of patients with IPF, SSc-ILD, and PPF. From pulmonologists to therapists and beyond, uncover the critical roles each plays in managing comorbidities, symptoms, and overall well-being. Gain valuable insights on when to refer to a specialized ILD center for comprehensive care.Learning ObjectiveAt the conclusion of this activity, participants should be better able to:Integrate multidisciplinary management for patients with fibrosing ILDs to manage comorbidities and monitor for the need for specialty center referralThis activity is accredited for CME/CE CreditThe National Association for Continuing Education is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The National Association for Continuing Education designates this enduring material for a maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.The National Association for Continuing Education is accredited by the American Association of Nurse Practitioners as an approved provider of nurse practitioner continuing education. Provider number: 121222. This activity is approved for 0.25 contact hours, which includes 0 hours of pharmacology.For additional information about the accreditation of this program, please contact NACE at info@naceonline.com.Summary of Individual DisclosuresPlease review faculty and planner disclosures here.Disclosure of Commercial SupportThis activity is supported by an independent medical educational grant from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Please visit http://naceonline.com to engage in more live and on demand CME/CE content.

Dr. Jack Cush reviews the news and journal reports from the past week on RheumNow.com, noting his concerns about diet, cancer, ILD, death and dosing challenges.

I interviewed Thomas Finn, who runs the podcasts, Jeg skal lige forstå (  @Jegskalligeforstå  ) on Masculinity Danish and Ild i Hjertet (  @Ildihjertetpodcast  ) focused on bringing fire and heart to relationships. When I contacted him, I had no idea that his life was so similar to mine, and especially that he had also converted to Christianity. So while there are certainly many differences between Thomas and I, not least in our approach to Christianity, I appreciated this as a great conversation and Thomas and I will certainly be talking again. Thomas and Maniphesto discussed various topics related to masculinity, fatherhood, and the impact of traditional values on society. They also expressed their concerns about the promotion of 'toxic masculinity', the subversion of Western society, and the negative effects of black-and-white thinking. Lastly, they discussed the paradox of modern society's pursuit of material comfort and its impact on overall well-being, the importance of maintaining a natural lifestyle, and the weakening of masculinity. Timestamps: 00:00 The Danish Manosphere - going Christian? 0:35 Exploring Masculinity and Christianity 05:46 Fatherhood's Impact on Individuals and Society 08:54 The Negative Impact of 'Toxic Masculinity' on Society 18:56 Concerns About Equality, Equity, and COVID-19 Vaccine 26:27 Black-and-White Thinking, Perspective, and Masculinity 38:02 Material Comfort, Nature, and Spirituality 50:44 Productive Discussion and Future Plans

Dr. Allison Zibelli and Dr. Erika Hamilton discuss the results of the DESTINY-Breast06 trial in HR+, HER2-low and HER2-ultralow metastatic breast cancer and the A-BRAVE trial in early triple-negative breast cancer, the results of which were both presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Allison Zibelli: Hello, I'm Dr. Allison Zibelli, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm an associate professor of medicine and breast medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center of Jefferson Health in Philadelphia. My guest today is Dr. Erika Hamilton, a medical oncologist and director of breast cancer research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute. We'll be discussing the DESTINY-Breast06 trial, which showed a progression-free advantage with the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) compared to chemotherapy in hormone receptor-positive HER2-low or HER2-ultralow metastatic breast cancer. We'll address the implications of this study for the community, including the importance of expanding pathology assessments to include all established subgroups with HER2 expression, and the promise of expanding eligibility for antibody-drug conjugates. We'll also highlight advances in triple-negative breast cancer, focusing on the A-BRAVE trial, the first study reporting data on an immune checkpoint inhibitor avelumab in patients with triple-negative breast cancer with invasive residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Erika, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Thanks so much, Allison. Happy to join. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Antibody-drug conjugates are rapidly changing the treatment landscape in breast cancer. The data from the DESTINY-Breast06 trial suggests that trastuzumab deruxtecan may become a preferred first-line treatment option for most patients with HER2-low or HER2-ultralow metastatic breast cancer after progression on endocrine therapy. First, could you remind our listeners, what's the definition of HER2-ultralow and what were the findings of this trial? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, those are fantastic questions. Ultralow really has never been talked about before. Ultralow is part of a subset of the IHC zeros. So it's those patients that have HER2-tumor staining that's less than 10% and incomplete but isn't absolutely zero. It's even below that +1 or +2 IHC that we have classified as HER2-low. Now, I think what's important to remember about D-B06, if you recall, D-B04 (DESTINY-Breast04) was our trial looking at HER2-low, is that D-B06 now included HER2-low as well as this HER2-ultralow category that you asked about. And it also moved trastuzumab deruxtecan up into the frontline. If you recall, D-B04 was after 1 line of cytotoxic therapy. So now this is really after exhausting endocrine therapy before patients have received other chemotherapy. And what we saw was an improvement in progression-free survival that was pretty significant: 13.2 months versus 8.1 months, it was a hazard ratio of 0.62. And you can ask yourself, “well, was it mainly those HER2-low patients that kind of drove that benefit? What about the ultralow category?” And when we look at ultralow, it was no different: 13.2 months versus 8.3 months, hazard ratio, again, highly significant. So I think it's really encouraging data and gives us some information about using this drug earlier for our patients with hormone receptor-positive but HER2-negative disease.  Dr. Allison Zibelli: I thought this study was really interesting because it's a patient population that I find very difficult to treat, the hormone receptor-positive metastatic patient that's not responding to endocrine therapy anymore. But it's important to mention that T-DXd resulted in more serious toxicities compared to traditional chemotherapy in this study. So how do you choose which patients to offer this to? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, those are both great points. So you're right, this is after endocrine therapy. And in fact, about 85% of these patients had received at least 2 prior lines of endocrine therapy. So I have some people kind of asking, “Well, if endocrine therapy really isn't benefiting everyone in the second-line setting post-CDK, should we just move to the ADCs?” And, no, probably we should really make sure that we're exhausting endocrine therapies for those patients that are going to benefit. And once we determine somebody has endocrine-resistant disease, that's when we would think about switching. In terms of the side effects, I think you're right. It's mainly ILD that's probably the more serious side effect that we worry about a little bit with trastuzumab deruxtecan. The good news is, through multiple trials, we've gotten a little bit better at managing this. We've pretty much all but eliminated any fatal cases of ILD, definitely less than 1% now. ILD rates, depending on what study you look for, kind of ranges in that 10% to 15% range. Any grade ILD on D-B06 was 11.3%. So really kind of making sure that we look for ILD at scans, making sure that patients are educated to tell us about any new pulmonary symptoms: cough, exertional dyspnea, shortness of breath at rest, etc. But I think the most common side effects that we really deal with on a daily basis with trastuzumab deruxtecan, luckily, is nausea, which we've gotten better at managing with the 2- or 3-drug antiemetic regimen, and probably a little bit of fatigue as well. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Thank you. So, I think for most people in the community, the sticking point here will be expanding pathology assessments to include all of the subgroups, including the ultralow. Most patients in the community are not testing for HER2-low and HER2-ultralow now. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Historically, we kind of all did HER2 IHC, right? And then as FISH became available, there were a lot of institutions that moved to FISH and maybe didn't have IHC anymore. And now, at least in my institution, we do both. But I think it's a very important point that you made that IHC was really designed to pick out those patients that have HER2-high, the 3 pluses or the FISH amplified cases. It was not to tell the difference between a 1+ or a 2+ or a 0 that's not quite a 0 and a 1+. So I think you're right. I think this is tough. I probably have a little bit more of an interesting take on this than some people will. But data from ASCO, not this year but in 2023, there was actually a pretty eloquent study presented where they looked at serial biopsies in patients, and essentially, if you got up to 4 or 5 biopsies, you were guaranteed to have a HER2-low result. Now, this didn't even include ultralow, which is even easier. If we know we include ultralow, we're really talking about probably 85% to 90% of our patients now that have some HER2 expression. But if we biopsy enough, we're guaranteed to get a HER2 low.  And so I think the question really is, if we know IHC wasn't really designed to pick out these ultralows, and we know kind of greater than 90% of patients are going to have some expression, did we kind of develop this drug a little bit backwards? Because we thought we understood HER2, and the reality is this drug is a little bit more like a sacituzumab govitecan, where we don't test for the TROP2. Should we really be kind of serial biopsying these patients or should maybe most patients have access to at least trying this drug?  Dr. Allison Zibelli: So I don't think that most of my patients will really be happy to sign up for serial biopsies. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Agreed. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Do we have any emerging technologies for detecting low levels of HER2? You talked about how the IHC test isn't really designed to detect low levels of HER2. Do you think newer detection techniques such as immunofluorescence will make a difference, or will we have liquid biopsy testing for this? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, I think liquid biopsy may be a little bit hard, just because some of those circulating tumor cells are more of a mesenchymal-type phenotype and don't necessarily express all of the same receptors. Normally, if they're cytokeratin-positive, they do, but certainly there is a lot out there looking at more sensitive measures. You mentioned immunofluorescence, there are some even more quantitative measures looking at lower levels of HER2. I definitely think there will be. I guess, ultimately, with even the IHC zeros that are the less than 10% incomplete staining, having a PFS that was absolutely no different than the HER2 low, I guess the question is, how low can we really go? We know that even the IHC zeros doesn't mean that there's no HER2 expression on the cell surface. It just means that maybe there's a couple of thousand as opposed to 10,000 or 100,000 copies of HER2. And so it really appears that perhaps this drug really is wedded to having a lot of HER2 expression. So ultimately, I wonder how much we're going to have to use those tests, especially with what we know about tumor heterogeneity. We know that if we biopsy 1 lesion in the liver, biopsy a lymph node, or even another lesion in the liver, that the HER2 results can have some heterogeneity. And so ultimately, my guess is that most people have some HER2 expression on their breast cancer cells. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So maybe we're going to be using this for everybody in the future. Dr. Erika Hamilton: It certainly seems like we keep peeling back the onion and including more and more patients into the category that are eligible to receive this. I agree. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Let's move on to triple-negative breast cancer, namely the A-BRAVE trial. This was an interesting trial for patients that did not get neoadjuvant immunotherapy and testing 2 groups. The first group was those with residual disease after neoadjuvant conventional chemotherapy. The second group was people with high-risk disease identified upfront that had upfront surgery. The study found that adjuvant avelumab did not improve disease-free survival versus observation, which was the study's primary endpoint. But interestingly, there was a significant improvement in 3-year overall survival and distant disease-free survival. Can you give us your thoughts on that? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, I think this study was really interesting. Right now, the standard for our patients with larger or node-positive triple-negative cancers is KEYNOTE-522. It's a pretty tough regimen. It's kind of 2 sequential uses of 2 chemotherapies, so 4 chemotherapy agents total with pembrolizumab. But you're right, this study looked at those that had residual disease after neoadjuvant that didn't include immunotherapy, or those patients that didn't get neoadjuvant therapy, went to surgery, and then were receiving chemotherapy on the back end. I'm going to give you the numbers, because you're right. The 3-year disease-free survival rates were not statistically significant. It was 68.3% among those that had avelumab, 63.2% with those that had observation only. So the difference was 5.1% in favor of avelumab, but it wasn't statistically significant. A p value of 0.1, essentially. But when we looked at the 3-year overall survival rates, we saw the same pattern, those patients with the avelumab doing better, but it was 84.8% overall survival and not, unfortunately, dying, versus 76.3%. So the magnitude of benefit there was 8.5%, so about 3% higher than we saw for disease-free survival, and this was statistically significant.  So is this going to change practice for most patients? I probably don't think so. I think for our patients that have larger tumors that's recognized upfront or have node positivity, we're probably going to want to use neoadjuvant chemo. Being able to get a PCR is very prognostic for our patients and enables us to offer things on the back end, such as PARP inhibitors or further chemotherapy of a different type of chemotherapy. But for our patients that go to surgery and maybe the extent of their disease just isn't recognized initially, this could be an option. Dr. Allison Zibelli: I agree. I think this will be a really useful regimen for patients where we get the surprise lymph node that we weren't expecting, or somebody who comes to us, maybe without seeing the medical oncologist, who got upfront surgery. So I thought this was really interesting. What kind of translational studies do you think we're going to do to try and understand which patients would benefit from avelumab? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, I think that's a great question, and honestly, it's a question that we haven't really answered in the neoadjuvant setting either. Immunotherapy in breast cancer is just a little bit different than it is in some other diseases. We have a benefit for those patients that are PD-L1 positive in the first line. We really haven't seen benefit for metastatic outside of first line. And then in neoadjuvant, it was among all comers. We don't have to test for PD-L1. And now we have this avelumab data from A-BRAVE. I think the question is, is there's probably a subset of patients that are really getting benefit and a subset that aren't. And I don't know that PD-L1 testing is the right test. We know a lot of people are looking at TILs, so kind of lymphocytes that are infiltrating the tumor, a variety of other kind of immunologic markers. But my guess is that eventually we're going to get smart enough to tease out who actually needs the immunotherapy versus who isn't going to benefit. But we're not quite there yet. Dr. Allison Zibelli: Thank you, Erika, for sharing your valuable insights with us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Thanks so much for having me.  Dr. Allison Zibelli: And thank you to our listeners for joining us. 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 value our insights, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps other people to find us. So thank you very much for listening today.   Disclaimer:   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    Find out more about today's speakers:  Dr. Allison Zibelli Dr. Erika Hamilton @ErikaHamilton9   Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures: Dr. Allison Zibelli:  None Disclosed   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

What defines a "rural" area? What step has to been taken to assess rural healthcare & ILD needs? Find out in a new episode of the 'Pulmonary Fibrosis' podcast! Brought to you the Wescoe Foundation for Pulmonary Fibrosis and the Pennsylvania IPF Support Network! This episode, we're joined by Dr. Teja Kulkarni of UAB and Dr. Jessica Shore of the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation to discuss the impact on patients living in rural areas! Learn more at PAIPFsupportnetwork.org!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Drs. Vela and Adegunsoye share their insights into racial disparities in pulmonary fibrosis, including the impact of characterizing groups based on skin color or race, the concept of cultural humility, and best practices for diagnosing ILD while taking into account these disparities.

In this episode, the team from the Henry Ford Health System to discuss their award winning submission to the ASHP Best Practices.  They will share how the addition of a pharmacist to the multidisciplinary interstitial lung disease (ILD) team, along with the robust collaboration with a specialty pharmacy, improved the quality of patient care in ILD and generated significant revenue for their health system. The information presented during the podcast reflects solely the opinions of the presenter. The information and materials are not, and are not intended as, a comprehensive source of drug information on this topic. The contents of the podcast have not been reviewed by ASHP, and should neither be interpreted as the official policies of ASHP, nor an endorsement of any product(s), nor should they be considered as a substitute for the professional judgment of the pharmacist or physician.

Drs. Claudine Isaacs and Filipa Lynce conclude their discussion on the highlights of ASCO 2024 Annual Meeting, with a focus on HER2+ breast cancer. They discussed results from the Destiny Breast 07 trial, highlighting the efficacy of TDXD alone and in combination with pertuzumab in first-line treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. The study showed high overall response rates and promising progression-free survival rates with both regimens. ILD was identified as a concerning toxicity. Additionally, an upcoming presentation on the ACE Breast-02 study, which evaluated a novel antibody-drug conjugate against lapatinib and capecitabine in heavily pre-treated HER2-positive patients, was discussed. This novel ADC showed improved progression-free survival compared to the standard regimen but had a different toxicity profile.

Welcome to MorningCoach® with JB Glossinger, where we dive into strategies for living a fulfilling life through intelligent life design (ILD). In Episode 5351, JB discusses the importance of taking back your time and focusing on designing a life that aligns with your passions and values.He shares insights on creating multiple income streams, the concept of residual and passive income, and the significance of continuous growth and personal development. Join us as we explore the foundations of ILD and discover how to build a life that you never want to retire from.Tune in as we embark on this journey of self-discovery and intentional living with JB Glossinger on MorningCoach®.

Dr. Jack Cush reviews the news and journal reports from the past 2 weeks.  This weeks question - Can we prevent gout, ILD or psoriasis?

Interstitial lung disease (ILD), characterized by inflammation and fibrosis of the lungs, is associated with progressive dyspnea and results in approximately 25 000 to 30 000 deaths in the US each year. Toby M. Maher, MD, MSc, PhD, of Keck Medicine of USC, discusses the diagnosis and management of ILD with JAMA Deputy Editor Mary McGrae McDermott, MD. Related Content: Interstitial Lung Disease

Dr. Jack Cush reviews regulatory reports, news and novel journal articles - this week focusing on Sjogrens, ILD, Gout and Uveitis.

In this episode, Dr. Rajan Saggar, a pulmonologist at the University of California in Los Angeles, discusses the complications of pulmonary hypertension in various lung diseases. He explains that pulmonary hypertension can either be its own disease or can complicate other conditions such as heart disease or lung tissue diseases like emphysema or fibrosis. Dr. Saggar mentions a recent FDA-approved medication for pulmonary hypertension complicating lung tissue diseases, and ongoing research to develop more treatments.  Learn more about pulmonary hypertension trials at www.phaware.global/clinicaltrials. Follow us on social @phaware Engage for a cure: www.phaware.global/donate #phaware Share your story: info@phaware.com #phawareMD @UCLAHealth

Delightful. That is the best way to describe our guest for this episode -- Dr. Aberdeen Allen! Dean, as he likes to be called, discusses the experience living with ILD, and what Patient Voice is, and means to him! It's the 'Pulmonary Fibrosis' podcast! Brought to you the Wescoe Foundation for Pulmonary Fibrosis and the Pennsylvania IPF Support Network! Learn more at PAIPFsupportnetwork.org!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NACE is excited to provide you with this podcast episode from our educational collaborator, The Association of Pulmonary Advanced Practice Providers (APAPP).  APAPP is the first  association of Advanced Practice Providers (APPs), both Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants, who work in the field of pulmonary medicine. APAPP's mission is to work together for the advancement of the profession and for the well-being of  patients with pulmonary diseases. To learn more about APAPP and to get involved, please visit https://www.pulmapp.com.GuestCori Fratelli, RN, MSN, FNP-CNurse PractitionerDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care & Sleep MedicineDepartment of MedicineI have a unique background in both basic science and clinical research, which has informed my interest in clinical medicine. My past basic science research includes asthma, airway hyperresponsiveness, cystic fibrosis, and lung cancer. My past clinical research includes COPD and interstitial lung disease (ILD). Presently, I am interested in how research translates into personalized medicine. My clinical focus is mainly ILD, but I also see general pulmonary medicine patients, as needed.HostCorinne R. Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCPDirector of APP and Clinical Services, Colorado Springs Pulmonary ConsultantsPresident, APAPP, Colorado Springs, COCorinne Young is a Nurse Practitioner began working in the area of pulmonary disease in California in 2005. Since 2011, she has worked in a private pulmonary practice in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Involvement and the representation of advanced practice providers in the pulmonary world has been an important priority for Corinne.  To that end,  Corinne is the Founder and President of the Association of Pulmonary Advanced Practice Providers.In addition to her work with APAPP, Corinne is currently one of ten NPs nationwide to become a Fellow of the American College of Chest Physicians. She works closely with the American College of Chest Physicians CHEST programs, and serves on the Interprofessional Team Network, Clinical Research Network, and on the Executive Programing Committee. Additionally, Corinne serves on the American Board of Internal Medicine Pulmonary Disease Board.This Podcast episode does not offer CME/CE Credit.Please visit http://naceonline.com to engage in more live and on demand CME/CE content.Please visit http://naceonline.com to engage in more live and on demand CME/CE content.

What are ILD guidelines? How are they developed, and what major role do patients play in the process? Dr. Sindhu Johnson of the University of Toronto joins Crockett to discuss the ins-and-outs of ILD guidelines in this episode of the Pulmonary Fibrosis podcast! Brought to you the Wescoe Foundation for Pulmonary Fibrosis and the Pennsylvania IPF Support Network! Learn more at PAIPFsupportnetwork.org!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Drs. Hope Rugo and Sara Tolaney discuss the promise of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in the treatment of breast cancer, highlighting key trials that shed light on matching the right ADC to the right patient in the right setting. They also explore how combinations and sequencing of ADCs can augment their efficacy, the mechanisms of resistance, and the future potential of biomarkers to predict patient response. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello, I'm Dr. Hope Rugo, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of medicine and director of breast oncology and clinical trials education at the University of California, San Francisco's Comprehensive Cancer Center. Antibody-drug conjugates, or ADCs, are rapidly changing the treatment landscape for patients with breast cancer. ADCs consist of antibodies that target tumor-specific antigens on the cell surface, chemical linkers, and cytotoxic payloads that can act powerfully to kill cancer cells. On today's episode, we'll be discussing advances in research to match the right ADC to the right patients and in the right setting. We'll also talk about the next steps, assessing how combinations and sequencing of ADCs can augment their efficacy, improve options for patients, and identify biomarkers in the future to predict how patients will respond so that we can match the right treatment to the right patient and their tumor. We need to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms of resistance that occur upfront as well as under the pressure of treatment.  Joining me for this important discussion is Dr. Sara Tolaney. Dr. Tolaney is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, associate director of the Susan Smith Center for Women's Cancer, and chief of the Division of Breast Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.  You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode and disclosures of all guests on the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod. Dr. Tolaney, we're delighted to have you on the podcast today. Thanks for being here. Dr. Sara Tolaney: Thank you so much for having me. I'm looking forward to the discussion. Dr. Hope Rugo: Great! So, we'll move forward, and because we're friends and colleagues, I'm going to refer to you as Sara, and I'm Hope, since we'll dispense with formalities in our discussion.  A lot of the talks that we give about ADCs start out with “a revolution in breast cancer therapy.” And indeed, this is a really exciting time with ADCs as treatment for breast cancer, and we're rapidly moving these agents into earlier disease settings. Can you tell us a little bit about the possibilities and challenges of using ADCs for the treatment of breast cancer today? Dr. Sara Tolaney: It's interesting that you say antibody-drug conjugates as revolutionizing outcomes of breast cancer, which I think is true. But on the flip side, I think it's also bringing up a lot of questions about how to use them, when to use them, and how to manage side effects. So there are a lot of good strengths for these antibody-drug conjugates, but a lot of unknowns that we're still trying to figure out. We had an older antibody-drug conjugate T-DM1 that we were all very familiar with that for years had been a treatment that we used very commonly in metastatic disease and now even use in early breast cancer, and I think has changed outcomes for patients. But over time, we've been able to develop newer antibody-drug conjugates as the technology has really evolved so that these agents now are able to deliver a lot of chemotherapy into a cancer cell. We're seeing very high drug-to-antibody ratios, and we're also seeing that these drugs can function via bystander effect, whereas T-DM1, for example, was not able to do that. But our newer ADCs, like sacituzumab govitecan or trastuzumab deruxtecan, are agents that do allow chemotherapy to get into that cancer cell, but also to get into neighboring cells.  And I think the technology evolution in being able to build these so-called next-generation ADCs has allowed for really unprecedented efficacy that we've not seen before. And it's also allowed us to develop these drugs in a way that's been different. Originally, we were developing T-DM1 to turn off HER2 signaling and to deliver chemotherapy into a HER2 cell. At least that's what we thought originally. And now we're really evolving so that we can just find a tiny bit of protein on a cancer cell and use it as a target, really in a subtype-agnostic way. And I think it's just a different way of thinking about how to use these agents to really deliver a lot of chemotherapy into cancer cells and have very robust efficacy. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yes, it is fascinating that some of the suppositions that we made with the first ADC don't seem to really hold true as well. And maybe they hold true in varying levels for the different ADCs. For example, this bystander effect is thought to allow us to target cells that have very low expression of the receptor that can be internalized even lower than our ability to detect these receptors by immunohistochemistry. And maybe we'll talk about that in a little bit.   But first, you mentioned already sacituzumab and trastuzumab deruxtecan, the ADCs that are currently approved for breast cancer. But can you tell us a little more about those ADCs and the key trials that have led to approval of these targeted agents? Dr. Sara Tolaney: Yes, I think when we first saw the data that came out with T-DXd and DESTINY-Breast01, I think my jaw dropped because I had never seen a waterfall plot like that. This was a single-arm study that looked at T-DXd in patients with very heavily pretreated metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer and saw very high response rates of over 60% and a clinical benefit rate of almost 98%, meaning that almost every single patient who got the drug and had a median of six prior lines of therapy had reduction in tumor size. And that's unreal. I think it was revolutionary in the sense that we had never seen that kind of activity in such a pretreated population. The agent was studied in other registration trials, DESTINY-Breast03, which looked at T-DXd and compared it head to head with T-DM1 in a predominantly second-line metastatic HER2-positive population, and here, again, unprecedented results. I've never seen a p value like that or a hazard ratio of, again unreal, of a little under 0.3 and seeing a 28-month PFS with T-DXd relative to just a little under 7 months PFS with T-DM1. We have never seen patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer have a PFS that long. Even in CLEOPATRA, it's a little under 19 months in the first-line setting, where people were predominantly naïve to HER2-directed therapies. This, again, is really changing outcomes for patients.   But then, I think, when we go to the next step, we studied T-DXd in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and it had again these unprecedented results. But there was some early data suggesting that it could even work in tumors that weren't truly HER2-positive but what we call HER2-low, meaning that they weren't HER2/3+, they weren't HER2-0 but they were 1+ to 2+ and not FISH amplified. And so even with a little bit of protein there, they were seeing activity in the early phase studies and so it led to DESTINY-Breast04, which compared T-DXd to chemotherapy of physician's choice in people who had had one or two prior lines of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. It was predominantly geared to look at outcomes in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. But there was a small group of 58 patients with triple-negative disease that were also included in that trial. And here again, a very unprecedented outcome seeing a response rate of about 50%, which, again, we never see in pretreated hormone receptor-positive disease. And a PFS of 10 months, and again, these are people who already had one or two prior lines of chemotherapy. So it's, again, really changing outcomes. And so now I think it leads us to a lot of other questions that we are addressing in trials - can this drug work even if the tumor has maybe no HER2 expression, what about HER2-0, what about HER2-ultra low, meaning a little bit of staining but not quite 1+. And so these are questions that I think we will need to address and there are studies that will help us address that. On the flip side, we saw sacituzumab govitecan get developed in breast cancer. Initially, we saw very impressive results from a single arm study of sacituzumab in metastatic triple-negative disease where we saw response rates of a little over 30%. These are patients who were very heavily pretreated with metastatic triple negative breast cancer where, unfortunately, response rates end up being in a 5% range so it was a home run in that setting. So that led to the ASCENT trial, which compared sacituzumab govitecan to treatment of physician's choice therapy and that study really enrolled people who were, in essence, second line and beyond in the metastatic triple-negative setting and showed almost triple progression free survival, in essence, doubled overall survival. So again, very robust efficacy leading to confirming its approval. And then we saw data from TROPiCS-02, which looked at sacituzumab in metastatic hormone receptor-positive disease and also showed improvements in both progression free and overall survival. And this was in pre-treated populations of 2 to 4 prior lines of chemotherapy. These agents, again, have established robust efficacy, and so now the idea is can we move these drugs earlier in development into earlier line settings and can we even move these agents into the early disease setting and potentially cure more patients? So hopefully, we'll figure out ways to make that happen. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, that was a great summary of this exciting data. And I think we really got an idea of what waterfall plots could tell us from DESTINY-Breast01 where you could count the number of patients whose cancers grew with therapy on one hand. It's been a huge advance. I think it's where we get this “revolution” even in patients with a median of 4 lines of prior chemo, and, in the ASCENT trial, we were able to see this improvement and survival in the hardest-treated subset of metastatic breast cancer triple negative disease. And then the remarkable data in HER2-positive and HER2-low breast cancer hormone receptor positive disease. We're really covering all of the subset of breast cancers.   When we introduce new therapies though, and of course, our interest is moving them earlier as lines of therapy in the metastatic setting, we really have to think about the adverse events and how those are going to affect their patients, and balancing the risk benefit ratio. Obviously when the benefit is so huge, we're more thinking about how do we proactively manage these side effects, educate our patients, use prophylaxis when possible. Can you share with us some of your insights on management strategies for toxicities?  Dr. Sara Tolaney: You bring up a very good point, and I will say the ADCs were designed with the idea being that we could deliver a ton of chemotherapy into a cancer cell. So obviously, my hope had been that we weren't going to see a lot of chemotherapy-like side effects because the goal was to try to spare normal cells of these side effects. But unfortunately, we do see that these agents do have real toxicities, and I think that is an important message. So, for example, with sacituzumab, for people who have hair going into it, they will lose their hair during the course of treatment, and so that's important to make patients aware of. It can lower blood counts, and about 50% of patients who are on sacituzumab will end up needing growth factor support while they're on treatment. So, that is again something that needs to be monitored and managed. But usually, we're pretty good at managing neutropenia, and with the growth factor support, I find that it actually works really well.  Another thing with sacituzumab is the potential risk of diarrhea, but most of the diarrhea is low-grade diarrhea. It's rare that you get someone who has high-grade diarrhea with sacituzumab. Usually, I find it works to just instruct patients to use loperamide as needed. And again, usually that works well. And certainly when needed, dose modification can also help with these side effects and so it is important to keep in mind that this is another option. With T-DXd, one thing that we do have to keep in mind as an unusual side effect is the potential risk of interstitial lung disease. We see that in about 10% to 15% of patients getting T-DXd. That is something that we do have to be very mindful of. For the most part it is low-grade ILD. But there are rare occasions where there have been deaths from ILD. And we're seeing with some of the newer trials, the death rate is usually under 1%, but it is a real potential risk. And so it is really important to counsel patients when getting T-DXd about this potential side effect, that way they are good about communicating with you if they get any new symptoms, such as shortness of breath or dry cough, to get you aware of it and can work it up and get imaging certainly if that occurs.  And then I think the management for ILD is a little unique and a little different truthfully than the way we manage pneumonitis from other drugs. Normally, when I am treating patients who develop pneumonitis, even if it is mildly symptomatic, we often will hold treatment, give steroids, and rechallenge them when it gets better. But with T-DXd, if anyone develops symptomatic pneumonitis, you actually have to permanently discontinue the T-DXd per the guidelines because we just don't know the safety of being able to rechallenge that patient once that pneumonitis resolves. For grade 1 ILD, meaning someone who has, for example, ground glass changes seen on imaging but doesn't have any symptoms, you have to hold the drug and wait until those imaging findings resolve and then you can restart. I usually do treat grade 1 ILD patients with steroids with the hope being that maybe it will allow for the pneumonitis to resolve more quickly, although in truth I don't know if that's the case. I have just taken that approach because I don't like leaving patients off the drug for too long if not needed. Again, I typically treat them with steroids, reimage in three to four weeks, and see if I'm able to restart. If they resolve within 28 days, you can restart at the same dose. If it takes longer to resolve, you need to dose modify.  And then I think the other big thing with T-DXd is to know that it is categorized as a highly emetogenic agent. Most of us are using three-drug prophylaxis, which I think works really well. It is also important to realize that there can be some delayed nausea, which is a little unusual with some of our other agents. And so to warn patients about that and I find that use of olanzapine or ondansetron for the delayed nausea tends to work pretty well.  Hope, do you have any pearls for us? Obviously, you are very experienced in using these agents; are there any things you would recommend for the management of ADCs?  Dr. Hope Rugo: Yes, it's such a great question and an important area because, particularly as we are using these agents earlier, we really need to have strategies for both how long to continue as well as manage the toxicities. I agree with the nausea, olanzapine has been really a great addition, and using a triplet as initial premedication makes a big difference for T-DXd and other deruxtecan ADCs that are in the pipeline. And then I think that the ILD issue, we're really learning more about the risk factors as well as retreatment. And hopefully, we'll have more data this year at ESMO Breast and maybe ASCO on retreatment for grade 1. We certainly now do not have any data on the safety of retreatment for grade 2, so that is really not accepted now. For sacituzumab, I think the interesting area is the metabolism and the impact. So with neutropenia, as we move the drug earlier, it's easier and easier to manage, we see less severe neutropenia. We can give growth factors, which we are all good at in oncology. But I think the question about managing diarrhea and who is at risk still exists. Understanding pharmacogenomics and UGT1A1 is an interesting area where patients who have diarrhea could be tested to see if they are poor metabolizers which affects a little under 10% of the overall population. Because in that group, you could give less drug and get the same benefit with less toxicity. So I think this is all very interesting. It is important for providers and patients to be educated so that we can manage this appropriately. And I think you gave an excellent overview.   We have new agents in the pipeline also and maybe we'll talk about those next, and then we'll talk a little bit about sequencing and resistance, as well as the unmet need for brain metastases. So lots of areas to talk about. There are a number of TROP-2 ADCs that are in the pipeline, and one that has presented phase III data, datopotamab deruxtecan. But other studies are being developed with new TROP-2 ADCs as well. But then there are a huge number of ADCs there with new targets, for example, immune effector targets, and new payloads, even immunotherapy and two different payloads or bispecific antibodies. And then there is interest in combining ADCs with immunotherapy and PARP inhibitors. We saw data in bladder cancer, I think it was bladder cancer, with combined 2 different ADCs at ESMO in 2023. So a lot of new approaches. How are we going to manage this moving forward? And where do you think we are going to position some of these next sort of "me-too" drugs?  Dr. Sara Tolaney: It's an excellent question, and you're right, the field is exploding with new antibody- drug conjugates. So, it's going to leave us with this conundrum of what to do. And you brought up the really interesting example of the fact that we have an approved TROP-2 ADC, we have as sacituzumab govitecan, and for example, we've recently seen some really exciting data come out from TROPION-Breast01 looking at another TROP-2 ADC, datopotamab deruxtecan or Dato-DXd where that ADC performed better than chemotherapy in a head-to-head trial in terms of progression-free survival in a hormone receptor-positive population. Then there's another TROP-2 ADC, moving forward in development moving to phase III that Merck is developing MK-2870. All three of these ADCs are targeting TROP-2 and have a TOPO 1 payload. So, it leaves you with the question of how do you think about that? Is there going to be a role for using serial TROP-2 ADCs? Could one work after the other, even when they have very similar payloads? How are we going to incorporate them? How do you pick one over the other? So, it is going to be tricky for us as we get more and more of these agents. I think we're all excited about seeing ADCs that may have different targets and different payloads, where maybe we will see that sequential utilization will have robust efficacy if we swap things out. Again, we don't have data here yet, but I think there are other agents in development. For example, you could think of like, disitamab vedotin targets HER2 and has an MMAE payload. So, could it be that someone progresses on T-DXd for HER2-low, but then could go on to disitamab vedotin? How will that work? So, we have a lot to learn, but it's really nice to have so many options.  Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, it'll be interesting to see whether or not we select the ADC based on a rational understanding of the tumor and the patient, or whether it's simply what's easier to give and has the right toxicity for that patient.  So, that sort of brings us to our next topic, which is how are we going to sequence these agents? How are we going to understand the mechanisms of ADC resistance? At San Antonio in 2023, we saw a presentation where there was a top-alteration, and the patient had a really long response to a top-directed ADC, or an agent that carried a topoisomerase inhibitor. And that really struck me that we're going to see these alterations. There was a fresh autopsy study that suggested that the alterations may be different in different organ sites of disease. How are we going to figure this out? Dr. Sara Tolaney: Yeah, I also was really puzzled to see those data from San Antonio where we've sort of simplified ADC resistance in our heads to say, well, maybe someone becomes resistant because they lose target expression, or maybe someone becomes resistant because they've developed resistance to the payload, kind of like the way we think of someone developing resistance to getting chemotherapy. But obviously, it's probably far more complex than that. With these ADCs, they need to be able to internalize the ADC and could there be mechanisms of resistance related to the internalization process? So, I think there are lots of potential areas where resistance could be occurring. I think, we don't understand it very well. We've seen patients, for example, who have responded. This is just anecdotal, but we have data, for example looking at, Dato-DXd in the phase 1 triple-negative study where there were some patients who responded despite having progressed on sacituzumab. Well, why is that? You would think if it's target resistance or payload resistance, it would be the same target and a very similar payload. So, why would those drugs work one after the other? And that's why I think we just don't understand this well enough at this point in time.   So, it's clearly an area where more research is needed because it does have significant implications on how we think about using these drugs sequentially. We will need to understand these resistance mechanisms because there do seem to be some rare patients who benefit from these sequencing strategies and then others who don't. So, it would be nice to be able to figure this out and hopefully in the future, we'll be able to test patients and know what drugs to give them. But I think we're far off from that, unfortunately, right now. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, it does seem to be a relatively elusive approach, and I think, in part, it's due to the heterogeneity of cancer. And maybe, as we're better and better at analyzing tumor cells in the blood, which are a rare group, and ctDNA, which, of course, we do now to look for mutations, maybe that'll be an approach that we'll be able to take. And also, of course, moving the drugs earlier into the disease setting with less heterogeneity and mechanisms of resistance might help as well.  I was fascinated by the fact that although the PFS to the first ADC seems to be overall much greater than the PFS to the second ADC, when you sequence them, there are a few patients who have a longer PFS with the second, even if these are just sacituzumab T-DXd sequencing in various directions. So, it's clearly very complex. And right now, I think we're just sequencing and we don't really know how to do it. We just choose what we think is best for that patient first and go on to the next one later, which is interesting. And one of the choices might be treating brain metastases, which of course remains a huge unmet need. And if we could find effective treatment for brain metastases, maybe we could also prevent them in some patients more. What do we know about the central nervous system (CNS) penetration of ADCs and the clinical results? Dr. Sara Tolaney: At first, we were not optimistic that these drugs would have activity in the brain because we thought that these were very large agents that probably couldn't penetrate into the blood-brain barrier. But in fact, I think we were all very excited to see that there is actually data suggesting that these drugs can actually have robust efficacy in the CNS in patients who have active brain metastases. And so what we've seen so far is data with trastuzumab deruxtecan or T-DXd, there have been some trials that have been done, including studies like DEBRA and TUXEDO, which have looked at T-DXd in patients who have active brain metastases and are showing very robust response rates within the CNS. So, we're seeing intracranial response rates on the order of 40% to 50%. And clinically, this is what we're seeing as well. These are smaller studies and there's a larger trial, DESTINY-Breast12, which will hopefully validate the robust efficacy in the CNS with T-DXd. So, again, it's really nice to see this.  To your point, though, one area that I'm curious about, as you were alluding to, is will these drugs be able to prevent CNS disease? And I think that is a very different question because here the blood-brain barrier is not intact when patients have progressive brain metastases, and so these ADCs are causing robust activity. But if you look, for example, and I'll be curious to see what happens, DESTINY-Breast05 is looking at T-DXd in the post preoperative setting for patients who have residual disease and comparing it to T-DM1. And unfortunately, we saw that T-DM1 was not able to prevent brain metastases when looking at data from KATHERINE, where in fact, rates of CNS as the first site of recurrence were similar with T-DM1 and trastuzumab. So, now we'll be interested to see, will it be any different with T-DXd? Will T-DXd be able to have any role in prevention? I think we haven't seen anything like that with ADCs to date, so that would be a paradigm shift in our way of thinking.  Right now, there are strategies being taken from a prevention standpoint of trying to add a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in that early-stage setting, such as what is being done in the COMPASS-RD trying to add tucatinib to T-DM1 to see if that would do it. But again, we really need to understand, again, how these drugs work, particularly when the blood-brain barrier may not be intact. But again, very exciting data with T-DXd in an ongoing trial, actually through SWOG looking at sacituzumab for patients with CNS disease. And we've seen some preliminary data with sacituzumab showing that it actually does penetrate into the brain when they've looked at drug levels in the tumor in the brain, comparing it to plasma, it actually looks similar. So, we know it's getting in there and we'll have more robust efficacy data, hopefully coming soon. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, that was a great summary of that data. It's been exciting also to see some responses in patients with leptomeningeal disease as well, where we've really been struggling with anything that works for more than a few weeks or months at the most. So I'm holding out great hope that we're going to see a big difference because even though TDM-1 had some efficacy, it was nothing like what we're seeing with T-DXd. So we'll see. And the same with sacituzumab with triple negative disease, where sometimes brain metastases can be an isolated site of recurrence, even in patients who have a pathologic complete response. So it has been a big challenge.  So I think that what we've learned from you is a lot about the mechanisms and the data about these new ADCs, the tremendous hope that these are bringing to our patients, but also the really exciting new approaches with new payloads, new targets of drugs that are in development, as well as potentially some different ADCs that have the same target and similar mechanisms of action of this payload. Really fascinating to hear about this, the future work on sequencing, on mechanisms of resistance, and on brain metastases. We have, of course, 2 prospective trials that we'll be looking at sequencing, one with T-DXd and Dato-DXd, and one registry trial with T-DXd and sacituzumab govitecan in the US. So that's also going to, I think, provide us with some important information.  We could talk for a long time about this, but I just wonder if you have any closing comments to sum up your thoughts.  Dr. Sara Tolaney: I think you did a great job leading us through thinking about ADCs, and I think it'll be really interesting to see what happens in the future. While again, these agents have become a standard for us for patients with metastatic disease, I'm going to be curious to see how everything evolves and to see if we'll be able to substitute chemotherapy with ADCs in early disease settings and change outcomes. Will we be able to have novel combinations? Will we be able to sequence these drugs one after another? Will we actually have biomarker predictors to help us sort out which drug to give when? So, still a lot to learn, but clearly a very exciting field right now. Dr. Hope Rugo: Indeed. Sara, thank you for sharing your valuable insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast on your great work to develop novel therapies for breast cancer. It's always a pleasure to talk to you, and even greater to work with you on the future progress of treatment for breast cancer. Dr. Sara Tolaney: Thank you so much, Hope. Again, really nice to always discuss these data with you. I always learn a lot, so thank you. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find a link to all of the studies discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and 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, experiences, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of a product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow today's speakers:   Dr. Hope Rugo  @hoperugo  Dr. Sara Tolaney @stolaney1     Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:   Dr. Hope Rugo:  Consulting or Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Puma Biotechnology, Mylan, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Genentech, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Astellas Pharma, Talho Oncology, Veru, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-LaRoche AG/Genentech, Inc, Stemline Therapeutics Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck, AstraZeneca   Dr. Sara Tolaney: Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Immunomedics/Gilead, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna Therapeutics, Zymeworks, Zentalis, Blueprint Medicines, Reveal Genomics, ARC Therapeutics, Umoja Biopharma, Menarini/Stemline, Aadi Bio, Artio Biopharmaceuticals, Incyte Corp, Zetagen, Bayer, Infinity Therapeutics, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Natera, Tango Therapeutics, Systimmune, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Hengrui Pharmaceutical (USA), Sumitovant Biopharma Research Funding (Inst.): Genentech/Roche, Merck, Exelixis, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, AstraZeneca, NanoString Technologies, Seattle Genetics, OncoPep, Gilead Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Gilead Sciences

Show NotesNACE is excited to provide you with this podcast episode from our educational collaborator, The Association of Pulmonary Advanced Practice Providers (APAPP).  APAPP is the first  association of Advanced Practice Providers (APPs), both Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants, who work in the field of pulmonary medicine. APAPP's mission is to work together for the advancement of the profession and for the well-being of  patients with pulmonary diseases. To learn more about APAPP and to get involved, please visit https://www.pulmapp.com.GuestCori Fratelli, RN, MSN, FNP-CNurse PractitionerDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care & Sleep Medicine Department of MedicineI have a unique background in both basic science and clinical research, which has informed my interest in clinical medicine. My past basic science research includes asthma, airway hyperresponsiveness, cystic fibrosis, and lung cancer. My past clinical research includes COPD and interstitial lung disease (ILD). Presently, I am interested in how research translates into personalized medicine. My clinical focus is mainly ILD, but I also see general pulmonary medicine patients, as needed. HostCorinne R. Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCPDirector of APP and Clinical Services, Colorado Springs Pulmonary ConsultantsPresident, APAPP, Colorado Springs, COCorinne Young is a Nurse Practitioner began working in the area of pulmonary disease in California in 2005. Since 2011, she has worked in a private pulmonary practice in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Involvement and the representation of advanced practice providers in the pulmonary world has been an important priority for Corinne.  To that end,  Corinne is the Founder and President of the Association of Pulmonary Advanced Practice Providers.In addition to her work with APAPP, Corinne is currently one of ten NPs nationwide to become a Fellow of the American College of Chest Physicians. She works closely with the American College of Chest Physicians CHEST programs, and serves on the Interprofessional Team Network, Clinical Research Network, and on the Executive Programing Committee. Additionally, Corinne serves on the American Board of Internal Medicine Pulmonary Disease Board.This Podcast episode does not offer CME/CE Credit.Please visit http://naceonline.com to engage in more live and on demand CME/CE content.

In a JAMA 2020 systematic review of palliative care for non-cancer serious illness, Kieran Quinn found many positives, as we discussed on our podcast and in our editorial.  He also found gaps, including very few studies of patients with lung disease, and little impact of trials on quality of life.  The article we discuss today, also published in JAMA, addresses these two gaps. David Bekelman conducted a RCT of a nurse and social worker telephone intervention (ADAPT intervention) for people with heart failure and lung disease (COPD or ILD).  David has been conducting outpatient trials in this space for some time, such as the CASA study he mentions today, learning important lessons along the way.  This is the first study that is unequivocally positive, improving overall quality of life and depression.  Today we unpack this study, with the help of Lyndsay Degroot, a postdoc and nurse researcher focused on identifying the core aspects of the study and eventually testing the study in more diverse populations.  In the accompanying editorial written by Ashwin Kotwal, Lauren Hunt, and the guy singing on today's podcast, we talk about the strengths and limitations of this study, something we “get into” with the authors toward the end of today's podcast. We are also joined by Diah Martina, a palliative care doctor trying to grow palliative care in Indonesia, in part by starting a palliative care podcast in Indonesian (she was observing today). You can also listen to an audio interview with Alex and JAMA Deputy Editor Preeti Malani about this study and the other RCT of default palliative care for hospitalized older adults with noncancer serious illness published in the same issue. Stay tuned for a GeriPal podcast with the authors of the other study next week. Credit to my wife Cindy for piano on the audio-only version of Ben Rector's The Best is Yet to Come. Enjoy! -@AlexSmithMD  

Hernando De Soto is the Founder and President of the Institute for Liberty and Democracy (ILD) in Peru – CIPE's first developing-country partner. ILD and De Soto shaped Peru's economic modernization by influencing some 400 state initiatives, regulations and laws; CIPE replicated this success by forming thousands of partnerships with business associations, think tanks and civil society groups worldwide. For this podcast, De Soto joins CIPE Executive Director Andrew Wilson to discuss the importance of the informal economy, the central role of property rights, and the early successes of the ILD-CIPE partnership. 

Full article: https://www.ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.23.30300  In this podcast, Alessandro Micelli, MD discusses an article on safety and efficacy of percutaneous ablations in patients with ILD and NSCLC are analyzed, taking into consideration the appearance and grading of adverse events and local tumor control. 

Featuring an interview with Dr David M O'Malley, including the following topics: Prevalence of HER2 positivity among various gynecologic cancer subtypes; current testing recommendations (0:00) Trastuzumab and other HER2-targeted therapies as a component of treatment for HER2-positive gynecologic cancers (15:17) Key efficacy outcomes achieved with trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) among patients with advanced ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancers in the DESTINY-PanTumor02 study (18:05) Incidence of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and other toxicities with T-DXd in the DESTINY-PanTumor02 trial; strategies to manage ILD associated with HER2-directed antibody-drug conjugates (27:59) Case: A woman in her mid-60s with HER2-low (IHC 1+) recurrent uterine carcinosarcoma receives T-DXd on a clinical trial (34:26) Case: A woman in her mid-70s with recurrent uterine serous cancer and history of Crohn's disease (51:05) Case: A woman in her mid-60s with Stage IIIC primary uterine serous cancer receives carboplatin/paclitaxel/trastuzumab followed by maintenance trastuzumab with no evidence of disease 4 years later (56:50) CME information and select publications

The weekend of Convergence 2023 continues! Dr. Sindhu Johnson presented the new 2023 ACR Interstitial Lung Disease Guidelines (which can be found here ) and joins us today as its first author. Learn all about the recommendations, monitoring, how to approach treatment and when to change it as well as what gaps were noticed that inspired the new guidelines and the intent of the guidelines going forward. Enjoy, and we'll see you tomorrow for another great episode at Convergence!