Podcasts about Incyte

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2025 27:01

Dr. Diwakar Davar and Dr. Jason Luke discuss novel agents in melanoma and other promising new data in the field of immunotherapy that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Diwakar Davar: Hello. My name is Diwakar Davar, and I am welcoming you to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm an associate professor of medicine and the clinical director of the Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. Today, I'm joined by my colleague and good friend, Dr. Jason Luke. Dr. Luke is a professor of medicine. He is also the associate director of clinical research and the director of the Phase 1 IDDC Program at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. He and I are going to be discussing some key advancements in melanoma and skin cancers that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Jason, it is great to have you back on the podcast. Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks again so much for the opportunity, and I'm really looking forward to it. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Perfect. So we will go ahead and start talking a little bit about a couple of key abstracts in both the drug development immunotherapy space and the melanoma space. The first couple of abstracts, the first two, will cover melanoma. So, the first is LBA9500, which was essentially the primary results of RELATIVITY-098. RELATIVITY-098 was a phase 3 trial that compared nivolumab plus relatlimab in a fixed-dose combination against nivolumab alone for the adjuvant treatment of resected high-risk disease. Jason, do you want to maybe give us a brief context of what this is? Dr. Jason Luke: Yeah, it's great, thanks. So as almost all listeners, of course, will be aware, the use of anti–PD-1 immunotherapies really revolutionized melanoma oncology over the last 10 to 15 years. And it has become a standard of care in the adjuvant setting as well. But to review, in patients with stage III melanoma, treatment can be targeted towards BRAF with BRAF and MEK combination therapy, where that's relevant, or anti–PD-1 with nivolumab or pembrolizumab are a standard of care. And more recently, we've had the development of neoadjuvant approaches for palpable stage III disease. And in that space, if patients present, based on two different studies, either pembrolizumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab can be given prior to surgery for somewhere in the 6- to 9-week range. And so all of these therapies have improved time-to-event endpoints, such as relapse-free or event-free survival. It's worth noting, however, that despite those advances, we've had a couple different trials now that have actually failed in this adjuvant setting, most high profile being the CheckMate-915 study, which looked at nivolumab plus ipilimumab and unfortunately was a negative study. So, with RELATIVITY-047, which was the trial of nivolumab plus relatlimab that showed an improvement in progression-free survival for metastatic disease, there's a lot of interest, and we've been awaiting these data for a long time for RELATIVITY-098, which, of course, is this adjuvant trial of LAG-3 blockade with relatlimab plus nivolumab. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Great. So with that, let's briefly discuss the trial design and the results. So this was a randomized, phase 3, blinded study, so double-blinded, so neither the investigators knew what the patients were getting, nor did the patients know what they were getting. The treatment investigational arm was nivolumab plus relatlimab in the fixed-dose combination. So that's the nivolumab standard fixed dose with relatlimab that was FDA approved in RELATIVITY-047. And the control arm was nivolumab by itself. The duration of treatment was 1 year. The patient population consisted of resected high-risk stage III or IV patients. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed RFS. Stage and geography were the standard stratifying factors, and they were included, and most of the criteria were balanced across both arms. What we know at this point is that the 2-year RFS rate was 64% and 62% in the nivolumab and nivolumab-combination arms, respectively. The 2-year DMFS rate was similarly equivalent: 76% with nivolumab monotherapy, 73% with the combination. And similar to what you had talked about with CheckMate 915, unfortunately, the addition of LAG-3 did not appear to improve the RFS or DMFS compared to control in this patient population. So, tell us a little bit about your take on this and what do you think might be the reasons why this trial was negative? Dr. Jason Luke: It's really unfortunate that we have this negative phase 3 trial. There had been a lot of hope that the combination of nivolumab with relatlimab would be a better tolerated combination that increased the efficacy. So in the metastatic setting, we do have 047, the study that demonstrated nivolumab plus relatlimab, but now we have this negative trial in the adjuvant setting. And so as to why exactly, I think is a complicated scenario. You know, when we look at the hazard ratios for relapse-free survival, the primary endpoint, as well as the secondary endpoints for distant metastasis-free survival, we see that the hazard ratio is approximately 1. So there's basically no difference. And that really suggests that relatlimab in this setting had no impact whatsoever on therapeutic outcomes in terms of efficacy. Now, it's worth noting that there was a biomarker subanalysis that was presented in conjunction with these data that looked at some immunophenotyping, both from circulating T cells, CD8 T cells, as well as from the tumor microenvironment from patients who were treated, both in the previous metastatic trial, the RELATIVITY-047 study, and now in this adjuvant study in the RELATIVITY-098 study. And to briefly summarize those, what was identified was that T cells in advanced melanoma seemed to have higher expression levels of LAG-3 relative to T cells that are circulating in patients that are in the adjuvant setting. In addition to that, there was a suggestion that the magnitude of increase is greater in the advanced setting versus adjuvant. And the overall summary of this is that the suggested rationale for why this was a negative trial may have been that the target of LAG-3 is not expressed as highly in the adjuvant setting as it is in the metastatic setting. And so while the data that were presented, I think, support this kind of an idea, I am a little bit cautious that this is actually the reason for why the trial was negative, however. I would say we're not really sure yet as to why the trial was negative, but the fact that the hazard ratios for the major endpoints were essentially 1 suggests that there was no impact whatsoever from relatlimab. And this really makes one wonder whether or not building on anti–PD-1 in the adjuvant setting is feasible because anti–PD-1 works so well. You would think that even if the levels of LAG-3 expression were slightly different, you would have seen a trend in one direction or another by adding a second drug, relatlimab, in this scenario. So overall, I think it's an unfortunate circumstance that the trial is negative. Clearly there's going to be no role for relatlimab in the adjuvant setting. I think this really makes one wonder about the utility of LAG-3 blockade and how powerful it really can be. I think it's probably worth pointing out there's another adjuvant trial ongoing now of a different PD-1 and LAG-3 combination, and that's cemiplimab plus fianlimab, a LAG-3 antibody that's being dosed from another trial sponsor at a much higher dose, and perhaps that may make some level of difference. But certainly, these are unfortunate results that will not advance the field beyond where we were at already. Dr. Diwakar Davar: And to your point about third-generation checkpoint factors that were negative, I guess it's probably worth noting that a trial that you were involved with, KeyVibe-010, that evaluated the PD-1 TIGIT co-formulation of vibostolimab, MK-4280A, was also, unfortunately, similarly negative. So, to your point, it's not clear that all these third-generation receptors are necessarily going to have the same impact in the adjuvant setting, even if they, you know, for example, like TIGIT, and they sometimes may not even have an effect at all in the advanced cancer setting. So, we'll see what the HARMONY phase 3 trial, that's the Regeneron cemiplimab/fianlimab versus pembrolizumab control with cemiplimab with fianlimab at two different doses, we'll see how that reads out. But certainly, as you've said, LAG-3 does not, unfortunately, appear to have an impact in the adjuvant setting. So let's move on to LBA9501. This is the primary analysis of EORTC-2139-MG or the Columbus-AD trial. This was a randomized trial of encorafenib and binimetinib, which we will abbreviate as enco-bini going forward, compared to placebo in high-risk stage II setting in melanoma in patients with BRAF V600E or K mutant disease. So Jason, you know, you happen to know one or two things about the resected stage II setting, so maybe contextualize the stage II setting for us based on the trials that you've led, KEYNOTE-716, as well as CheckMate-76K, set us up to talk about Columbus-AD. Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks for that introduction, and certainly stage II disease has been something I've worked a lot on. The rationale for that has been that building off of the activity of anti–PD-1 in metastatic melanoma and then seeing the activity in stage III, like we just talked about, it was a curious circumstance that dating back about 7 to 8 years ago, there was no availability to use anti–PD-1 for high-risk stage II patients, even though the risk of recurrence and death from melanoma in the context of stage IIB and IIC melanoma is in fact similar or actually higher than in stage IIIA or IIIB, where anti–PD-1 was approved. And in that context, a couple of different trials that you alluded to, the Keynote-716 study that I led, as well as the CheckMate 76K trial, evaluated pembrolizumab and nivolumab, respectively, showing an improvement in relapse-free and distant metastasis-free survival, and both of those agents have subsequently been approved for use in the adjuvant setting by the US FDA as well as the European Medicines Agency. So bringing then to this abstract, throughout melanoma oncology, we've seen that the impact of anti–PD-1 immunotherapy versus BRAF and MEK-targeted therapy have had very similar outcomes on a sort of comparison basis, both in frontline metastatic and then in adjuvant setting. So it was a totally reasonable question to ask: Could we use adjuvant BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy? And I think all of us expected the answer would be yes. As we get into the discussion of the trial, I think the unfortunate circumstance was that the timing of this clinical trial being delayed somewhat, unfortunately, made it very difficult to accrue the trial, and so we're going to have to try to read through the tea leaves sort of, based on only a partially complete data set. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, in terms of the results, they wanted to enroll 815 patients, they only enrolled 110. The RFS and DMFS were marginally improved in the treatment arm but certainly not significantly, which is not surprising because the trial had only accrued 16% to 18% of its complete accrual. As such, we really can't abstract from the stage III COMBI-AD data to stage II patients. And certainly in this setting, one would argue that the primary treatment options certainly remain either anti–PD-1 monotherapy, either with pembrolizumab or nivolumab, based on 716 or 76K, or potentially active surveillance for the patients who are not inclined to get treated. Can you tell us a little bit about how you foresee drug development going forward in this space because, you know, for example, with HARMONY, certainly IIC disease is a part of HARMONY. We will know at least a little bit about that in this space. So what do you think about the stage IIB/C patient population? Is this a patient population in which future combinations are going to be helpful, and how would you think about where we can go forward from here? Dr. Jason Luke: It is an unfortunate circumstance that this trial could not be accrued at the pace that was necessary. I think all of us believe that the results would have been positive if they'd been able to accrue the trial. In the preliminary data set that they did disclose of that 110 patients, you know, it's clear there is a difference at a, you know, a landmark at a year. They showed a 16% difference, and that would be in line with what has been seen in stage III. And so, you know, I think it's really kind of too bad. There's really going to be no regulatory approach for this consideration. So using BRAF and MEK inhibition in stage II is not going to be part of standard practice moving into the future. To your point, though, about where will the field go? I think what we're already realizing is that in the adjuvant setting, we're really overtreating the total population. And so beyond merely staging by AJCC criteria, we need to move to biomarker selection to help inform which patients truly need the treatment. And in that regard, I don't think we've crystallized together as a field as yet, but the kinds of things that people are thinking about are the integration of molecular biomarkers like ctDNA. When it's positive, it can be very helpful, but in melanoma, we found that, unfortunately, the rates are quite low, you know, in the 10% to 15% range in the adjuvant setting. So then another consideration would be factors in the primary tumor, such as gene expression profiling or other considerations. And so I think the future of adjuvant clinical trials will be an integration of both the standard AJCC staging system as well as some kind of overlaid molecular biomarker that helps to enrich for a higher-risk population of patients because on a high level, when you abstract out, it's just clearly the case that we're rather substantially overtreating the totality of the population, especially given that in all of our adjuvant studies to date for anti–PD-1, we have not yet shown that there's an overall survival advantage. And so some are even arguing perhaps we should even reserve treatment until patients progress. I think that's a complicated subject, and standard of care at this point is to offer adjuvant therapy, but certainly a lot more to do because many patients, you know, unfortunately, still do progress and move on to metastatic disease. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Let's transition to Abstract 2508. So we're moving on from the melanoma to the novel immunotherapy abstracts. And this is a very, very, very fascinating drug. It's IMA203. So Abstract 2508 is a phase 1 clinical update of IMA203. IMA203 is an autologous TCR-T construct targeting PRAME in patients with heavily pretreated PD-1-refractory metastatic melanoma. So Jason, in the PD-1 and CTLA-4-refractory settings, treatment options are either autologous TIL, response rate, you know, ballpark 29% to 31%, oncolytic viral therapy, RP1 with nivolumab, ORR about 30-ish percent. So new options are needed. Can you tell us a little bit about IMA203? Perhaps tell us for the audience, what is the difference between a TCR-T and traditional autologous TIL? And a little bit about this drug, IMA203, and how it distinguishes itself from the competing TIL products in the landscape. Dr. Jason Luke: I'm extremely enthusiastic about IMA203. I think that it really has transformative potential based on these results and hopefully from the phase 3 trial that's open to accrual now. So, what is IMA203? We said it's a TCR-T cell product. So what that means is that T cells are removed from a patient, and then they can be transduced through various technologies, but inserted into those T cells, we can then add a T-cell receptor that's very specific to a single antigen, and in this case, it's PRAME. So that then is contrasted quite a bit from the TIL process, which includes a surgical resection of a tumor where T cells are removed, but they're not specific necessarily to the cancer, and they're grown up in the lab and then given to the patient. They're both adoptive cell transfer products, but they're very different. One is genetically modified, and the other one is not. And so the process for generating a TCR-T cell is that patients are required to have a new biomarker that some may not be familiar with, which is HLA profiling. So the T-cell receptor requires matching to the concomitant HLA for which the peptide is bound in. And so the classic one that is used in most oncology practices is A*02:01 because approximately 48% of Caucasians have A*02:01, and the frequency of HLA in other ethnicities starts to become highly variable. But in patients who are identified to have A*02:01 genotype, we can then remove blood via leukapheresis or an apheresis product, and then insert via lentiviral transduction this T-cell receptor targeting PRAME. Patients are then brought back to the hospital where they can receive lymphodepleting chemotherapy and then receive the reinfusion of the TCR-T cells. Again, in contrast with the TIL process, however, these T cells are extremely potent, and we do not need to give high-dose interleukin-2, which is administered in the context of TIL. Given that process, we have this clinical trial in front of us now, and at ASCO, the update was from the phase 1 study, which was looking at IMA203 in an efficacy population of melanoma patients who were refractory at checkpoint blockade and actually multiple lines of therapy. So here, there were 33 patients and a response rate of approximately 50% was observed in this population of patients, notably with a duration of response approximately a year in that treatment group. And I realize that these were heavily pretreated patients who had a range of very high-risk features. And approximately half the population had uveal melanoma, which people may be aware is a generally speaking more difficult-to-treat subtype of melanoma that metastasizes to the liver, which again has been a site of resistance to cancer immunotherapy. So these results are extremely promising. To summarize them from what I said, it's easier to make TCR-T cells because we can remove blood from the patient to transduce the T cells, and we don't have to put them through surgery. We can then infuse them, and based on these results, it looks like the response rate to IMA203 is a little bit more than double what we expect from lifileucel. And then, whereas with lifileucel or TILs, we have to give high-dose IL-2, here we do not have to give high-dose IL-2. And so that's pretty promising. And a clinical trial is ongoing now called the SUPREME phase 3 clinical trial, which is hoping to validate these results in a randomized global study. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Now, one thing that I wanted to go over with you, because you know this trial particularly well, is what you think of the likelihood of success, and then we'll talk a little bit about the trial design. But in your mind, do you think that this is a trial that has got a reasonable likelihood of success, maybe even a high likelihood of success? And maybe let's contextualize that to say an alternative trial, such as, for example, the TebeAM trial, which is essentially a T-cell bispecific targeting GP100. It's being compared against SOC, investigator's choice control, also in a similarly heavily pretreated patient population. Dr. Jason Luke: So both trials, I think, have a strong chance of success. They are very different kinds of agents. And so the CD3 bispecific that you referred to, tebentafusp, likely has an effect of delaying progression, which in patients with advanced disease could have a value that might manifest as overall survival. With TCR-T cells, by contrast, we see a very high response rate with some of the patients going into very durable long-term benefit. And so I do think that the SUPREME clinical trial has a very high chance of success. It will be the first clinical trial in solid tumor oncology randomizing patients to receive a cell therapy as compared with a standard of care. And within that standard of care control arm, TILs are allowed as a treatment. And so it will also be the first study that will compare TCR-T cells against TILs in a randomized phase 3. But going back to the data that we've seen in the phase 1 trial, what we observe is that the duration of response is really connected to the quality of the response, meaning if you have more than a 50% tumor shrinkage, those patients do very, very well. But even in patients who have less than 50% tumor shrinkage, the median progression-free survival right now is about 4.5 months. And again, as we think about trial design, standard of care options for patients who are in this situation are unfortunately very bad. And the progression-free survival in that population is probably more like 2 months. So this is a trial that has a very high likelihood of being positive because the possibility of long-term response is there, but even for patients who don't get a durable response, they're likely going to benefit more than they would have based on standard chemotherapy or retreatment with an anti–PD-1 agent. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Really, a very important trial to enroll, a trial that is first in many ways. First of a new generation of TCR-T agents, first trial to look at cell therapy in the control arm, a new standard of efficacy, but potentially also if this trial is successful, it will also be a new standard of trial conduct, a new kind of trial, of a set of trials that will be done in the second-line immunotherapy-refractory space. So let's pivot to the last trial that we were going to discuss, which was Abstract 2501. Abstract 2501 is a first-in-human phase 1/2 trial evaluating BNT142, which is the first-in-class mRNA-encoded bispecific targeting Claudin-6 and CD3 in patients with Claudin-positive tumors. We'll talk a little bit about this, but maybe let's start by talking a little bit about Claudin-6. So Claudin-6 is a very interesting new target. It's a target that's highly expressed in GI and ovarian tumors. There are a whole plethora of Claudin-6-targeting agents, including T-cell bispecifics and Claudin-6-directed CAR-Ts that are being developed. But BNT142 is novel. It's a novel lipid nanoparticle LNP-encapsulated mRNA. The mRNA encodes an anti–Claudin-6 CD3 bispecific termed RiboMAB-021. And it then is administered to the patient. The BNT142-encoding mRNA LNPs are taken up by the liver and translated into the active drug. So Jason, tell us a little bit about this agent. Why you think it's novel, if you think it's novel, and let's talk a little bit then about the results. Dr. Jason Luke: So I certainly think this is a novel agent, and I think this is just the first of what will probably become a new paradigm in oncology drug development. And so you alluded to this, but just to rehash it quickly, the drug is encoded as genetic information that's placed in the lipid nanoparticle and then is infused into the patient. And after the lipid nanoparticles are taken up by the liver, which is the most common place that LNPs are usually taken up, that genetic material in the mRNA starts to be translated into the actual protein, and that protein is the drug. So this is in vivo generation, so the patient is making their own drug inside their body. I think it's a really, really interesting approach. So for any drug that could be encoded as a genetic sequence, and in this case, it's a bispecific, as you mentioned, CD3-Claudin-6 engager, this could have a tremendous impact on how we think about pharmacology and novel drug development moving into the future in oncology. So I think it's an extremely interesting drug, the like of which we'll probably see only more moving forward. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Let's maybe briefly talk about the results. You know, the patient population was heavily pretreated, 65 or so patients, mostly ovarian cancer. Two-thirds of the patients were ovarian cancer, the rest were germ cell and lung cancer patients. But let's talk a little bit about the efficacy. The disease control rate was about 58% in the phase 1 population as a whole, but 75% in the ovarian patient population. Now tell us a little bit about the interesting things about the drug in terms of the pharmacokinetics, and also then maybe we can pivot to the clinical activity by dose level. Dr. Jason Luke: Well, so they did present in their presentation at ASCO a proportionality showing that as higher doses were administered, that greater amounts of the drug were being made inside the patient. And so that's an interesting observation, and it's an important one, right? Suggesting that the pharmacology that we classically think of by administering drugs by IV, for example, would still be in play. And that did translate into some level of efficacy, particularly at the higher dose levels. Now, the caveat that I'll make a note of is that disease control rate is an endpoint that I think we have to be careful about because what that really means is sometimes a little bit unclear. Sometimes patients have slowly growing tumors and so on and so forth. And the clinical relevance of disease control, if it doesn't last at least 6 months, I think is probably pretty questionable. So I think these are extremely interesting data, and there's some preliminary sense that getting the dose up is going to matter because the treatment responses were mostly observed at the highest dose levels. There's also a caveat, however, that across the field of CD3 bispecific molecules like this, there's been quite a bit of heterogeneity in terms of the response rate, with some of them only really generating stable disease responses and other ones having more robust responses. And so I think this is a really interesting initial foray into this space. My best understanding is this molecule is not moving forward further after this, but I think that this really does set it up to be able to chase after multiple different drug targets on a CD3 bispecific backbone, both in ovarian cancer, but then basically across all of oncology. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Perfect. This is a very new sort of exciting arena where we're going to be looking at, in many ways, these programmable constructs, whether we're looking at in vivo-generated, in this case, a T-cell bispecific, but we've also got newer drugs where we are essentially giving drugs where people are generating in vivo CAR T, and also potentially even in vivo TCR-T. But certainly lots of new excitement around this entire class of drugs. And so, what we'd like to do at this point in time is switch to essentially the fact that we've got a very, very exciting set of data at ASCO 2025. You've heard from Dr. Luke regarding the advances in both early drug development but also in advanced cutaneous melanoma. And Jason, as always, thank you so much for sharing your very valuable and great, fantastic insights with us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Jason Luke: Well, thanks again for the opportunity. Dr. Diwakar Davar: And thank you to our listeners for taking your time to listen today. You will find the links to the abstracts that we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:   Dr. Diwakar Davar   @diwakardavar   Dr. Jason Luke @jasonlukemd Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter      ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook      ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures:    Dr. Diwakar Davar:     Honoraria: Merck, Tesaro, Array BioPharma, Immunocore, Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences    Consulting or Advisory Role: Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences    Consulting or Advisory Role (Immediate family member): Shionogi    Research Funding: Merck, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CellSight Technologies, GSK, Merck, Arvus Biosciences, Arcus Biosciences    Research Funding (Inst.): Zucero Therapeutics    Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Application No.: 63/124,231 Title: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING CANCER Applicant: University of Pittsburgh–Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education Inventors: Diwakar Davar Filing Date: December 11, 2020 Country: United States MCC Reference: 10504-059PV1 Your Reference: 05545; and Application No.: 63/208,719 Enteric Microbiotype Signatures of Immune-related Adverse Events and Response in Relation to Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy    Dr. Jason Luke:    Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical, Pyxis, Alphamab Oncology, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch Oncology, Stipe, NeoTX    Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, Alphamab Oncology, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius, Tesaro, Xilio, Xencor, Alnylam, Crown Bioscience, Flame Biosciences, Genentech, Kadmon, KSQ Therapeutics, Immunocore, Inzen, Pfizer, Silicon Therapeutics, TRex Bio, Bright Peak, Onc.AI, STipe, Codiak Biosciences, Day One Therapeutics, Endeavor, Gilead Sciences, Hotspot Therapeutics, SERVIER, STINGthera, Synthekine    Research Funding (Inst.): Merck , Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma , EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring bank, Trishula, KAHR Medical, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena Oncology, Numab, Replimmune, Rubius Therapeutics, Synlogic, Takeda, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc., BioNTech AG, Scholar Rock, Next Cure    Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), and Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof)    Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio

university ai spring patients stage pittsburgh treatments phase fda iv pfizer supreme keynote gi werewolf relation cart mrna pd bayer immune abstract mg oncology merck endeavor caucasians janssen checkmate soc novartis melanoma relativity royalties lag accommodations cancer care immunotherapy gsk asco genentech orr abbvie bristol myers squibb stipe takeda drug development regeneron hla gilead sciences adverse events mek nektar rfs us fda lnp onc european medicines agency prognostic cancer immunotherapy braf eisai cd3 tils asco annual meeting pyxis iiib iic iib servier rubius cd8 t ctla ctdna rp1 incyte emd serono alnylam iiia genmab moderna therapeutics 76k braf v600e eortc ajcc tigit tesaro jason luke transcript dr array biopharma synlogic gp100

GI Cancer Research at ASCO25: Plenary Highlights and More

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 24, 2025 20:47

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

OX40: Innovative Insights and Therapeutic Potential in Pediatric Dermatology

PeDRA Pearls

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 23, 2025 51:39

This engaging and informative webinar explores the role of OX40 and OX40L in pediatric dermatology. OX40: Innovative Insights and Therapeutic Potential in Pediatric Dermatology brings together experts in the field to discuss emerging research, mechanisms of action, and the implications of targeting the OX40 pathway for treating chronic inflammatory skin diseases in children. To view the video version of this webinar, please click here. Disclosures:Lawrence Eichenfield, MD has served as a consultant, speaker, advisory board member, or investigator for AbbVie, Acrotech, Almirall, Amgen, Apogee, Arcutis, Attovia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Castle Biosciences, CorEvitas, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Forte, Galderma, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Target RWE, T-Rex, and UCB.Eric Simpson, MD reports personal fees from AbbVie, Aclaris Therapeutics, Amgen, Arcutis, Astria Therapeutics, Attovia Therapeutics, Inc., Bambusa Therapeutics Inc., Castle, CorEvitas, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Evomunne, FIDE, Impetus Healthcare, Incyte, Innovaderm Reche/ Indero, Inmagene Biopharmaceuticals, Janssen, LectureLinx (LLX), Leo, NUMAB Therapeutics AG, Pfizer, Recludix Pharma, Regeneron, Roche Products Ltd, Sanofi-Genzyme, SITRYX TherapeuticsEric Simpson, MD reports grants (or serves as Principal investigator role) for AbbVie, Acrotech, Amgen, Arcutis, ASLAN, Castle, Dermavant, CorEvitas, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Target, VeriSkinJoy Wan, MD Sun Pharmaceuticals - consulting (DMC), Astria Therapeutics - consulting (ad board), Galderma - fellowship funding (paid to Johns Hopkins)

ASCO25 Recap: CHALLENGE, DESTINY-Breast09, and More

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 19, 2025 25:45

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

california ai arizona er dna tennessee nashville hamilton southern california pfizer hispanic breast cancer gi forty latinos astrazeneca emory university abstract oncology veterans affairs annual meetings janssen novartis cancer care millenium medicare advantage asco ehr torque amgen jefferies black diamond fujifilm abbvie gmp regeneron patina harpoon her2 boehringer ingelheim pfs gilead sciences nci braf curis ild eisai asco annual meeting daiichi sankyo jazz pharmaceuticals ctdna cdk4 myriad genetics incyte emd serono medimmune idh1 artios seattle genetics pharmamar erika hamilton arvinas compugen tesaro transcript dr inspirna gsk3 arqule sermonix pharmaceuticals syros pharmaceuticals effector therapeutics acerta pharma hamilton it

From Surviving to Thriving: AYA Cancer Care with Dr. Chris Dandoy

hospitals surviving thriving associate professor young adults icu adolescents cancer care cincinnati children cancer survivorship bone marrow transplant caregiver support patient empowerment medication adherence clinical pediatrics incyte ayas lymphoma society lls aya cancer

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 18, 2025 17:43

In this episode, we sit down with Dr. Chris Dandoy, Associate Professor of Clinical Pediatrics and bone marrow transplant physician at Cincinnati Children's Hospital. Dr. Dandoy shares his deep experience working with adolescents and young adults (AYAs), focusing on the unique challenges they face during and after cancer treatment. Our conversation centers around empowering AYAs to take ownership of their healthcare journey, improving outcomes, and restoring quality of life.Dr. Dandoy introduces us to Engraft, a collaborative learning network he founded, which unites providers, patients, families, industry partners, and nonprofits to improve survival and quality of life post-stem cell transplant. Rather than each center working in isolation, Engraft allows for real-time communication and problem-solving across 15 centers, helping everyone learn from each other's best practices.A core message in our conversation is the importance of ownership—encouraging AYAs to ask questions, understand their medications, and advocate for themselves. We explore the concept of “ownership” through examples, like advocating for the removal of central lines after they're no longer medically necessary, and understanding the role and risks of medications such as immunosuppressants and anti-infectives.Dr. Dandoy walks us through strategies to support medication adherence, such as using reminder apps, setting daily routines, and involving friends or caregivers for support. He also emphasizes the temporary nature of this intense medication schedule, helping patients see it as a phase, not a life sentence.We highlight how important it is for AYAs to stay engaged—learning about their labs, asking what new medications are for, and writing down questions for their healthcare team. Chris stresses that they don't have to memorize everything; the goal is communication and awareness, not perfection.For caregivers, Chris offers validation and encouragement, reminding them this is a marathon with tough stretches, but also moments of progress. He urges caregivers to walk beside their loved ones—not behind or in front—fostering independence and shared decision-making.Dr. Dandoy closes with an inspiring story of a young survivor who endured ICU-level complications but is now back to running races and embracing life fully. It's a powerful reminder that while the transplant journey is grueling, it's also transformative.More:Engraft Learning Network: https://www.engraftlearningnetwork.org/Thanks to our Season 17 Sponsors:Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (LLS): https://lls.org/and Incyte: https://incyte.com/ National Bone Marrow Transplant Link - (800) LINK-BMT, or (800) 546-5268.nbmtLINK Website: https://www.nbmtlink.org/nbmtLINK Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/nbmtLINKFollow the nbmtLINK on Instagram! https://www.instagram.com/nbmtlink/The nbmtLINK YouTube Page can be found by clicking here.To participate in the GVHD Mosaic, click here: https://amp.livemosaics.com/gvhd

What Young Adults with Cancer Really Need: A Conversation with Emily Sarro

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 18, 2025 27:02

In this episode, we speak with Emily Long Sarro, a board-certified family nurse practitioner specializing in adolescent and young adult (AYA) care at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. We focus on the unique challenges AYAs face before, during, and after a stem cell transplant. Emily shares how this age group, defined as 15 years old to 39 years old by the National Cancer Institute, is often overlooked in the healthcare system, stuck between pediatric and adult care settings. They're navigating identity, relationships, careers, and independence—while also managing a serious illness, which can disrupt or halt life milestones.We discuss how Emily approaches AYA care with a holistic mindset—merging clinical treatment with emotional and mental health support. She emphasizes the importance of granting young patients autonomy and private space, especially when families may unintentionally overstep. She urges healthcare providers to always include mental health support in the treatment plan, noting that anxiety, depression, and even PTSD are common in this group, both during and long after treatment.Emily also stresses the need for daily coping tools like journaling, movement, and meditation to supplement infrequent counseling sessions. She encourages us to create trust by really listening, especially since many AYAs feel dismissed in early diagnostic stages due to their age.We then dive into critical but often unspoken topics: fertility preservation, sexual health, and survivorship. Emily outlines time-sensitive fertility options and highlights the emotional toll if these aren't addressed early. She covers the hidden costs of care and offers resource suggestions like Livestrong and Cancer and Careers. She also calls attention to "silent disabilities" that persist post-transplant and affect career and daily function, emphasizing self-advocacy in the workplace. Coworkers and others may not "see" these limitations, but accommodations are often necessary.We discuss milestones missed due to treatment and the emotional weight of watching peers move on through social media. Emily suggests practical ways to stay socially connected, such as virtual events and platforms like Cancer Buddy. For caregivers, she reminds us that support often means just being present and handling small tasks that feel overwhelming to the patient. It's important to hold space for patients' sadness over missing milestones, but when appropriate, the big picture remains: they may be sacrificing a few milestones now to experience many more later.The episode closes with a deeply moving survivor story—a young man from The Bronx who overcame mistrust in the medical system, underwent a transplant, and now runs a thriving music production business. His resilience and transformation encapsulate the hope and strength that defines this patient group.More:Marrow Masters Season 9, Episode 2, with fertility resources in Show Notes: https://marrowmasters.simplecast.com/episodes/preserving-fertility-through-cancer-treatmentCancerCare – https://www.cancercare.orgImerman's Angels – https://imermanangels.orgLivestrong Fertility – https://livestrong.org/how-we-help/livestrong-fertility/Worth the Wait – https://worththewaitcharity.com/Maggie's Dream (Fertility Preservation Assistance)–https://www.teammaggiesdream.org/Cancer and Careers – https://www.cancerandcareers.orgCancer Buddy App (Bone Marrow Foundation) –https://bonemarrow.org/support-and-financial-aid-2/support/about-cancerbuddyThanks to our Season 17 Sponsors:Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (LLS): https://lls.org/and Incyte: https://incyte.com/ National Bone Marrow Transplant Link - (800) LINK-BMT, or (800) 546-5268.nbmtLINK Website: https://www.nbmtlink.org/nbmtLINK Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/nbmtLINKFollow the nbmtLINK on Instagram! https://www.instagram.com/nbmtlink/The nbmtLINK YouTube Page can be found by clicking here.To participate in the GVHD Mosaic, click here: https://amp.livemosaics.com/gvhd

Elephants and Tea: Why AYAs Deserve Their Own Cancer Support Space

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 18, 2025 29:13

In this episode, we sit down with Nick Giallourakis, Executive Director of the Steven G. Cancer Foundation and co-founder of Elephants and Tea, a digital magazine and support platform for adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients and survivors. We begin by learning about Nick's brother, Steve, whose incredible journey as a five-time cancer survivor—including osteosarcoma, Secondary AML, renal cell carcinoma, and pleomorphic sarcoma—serves as the foundation and inspiration for Nick's work.Nick walks us through the origins of Elephants and Tea, which he co-founded with his mother, Angie. The platform emerged from a need for authentic, uncensored storytelling within the AYA cancer space. They pivoted from a traditional media model to a platform where survivors share their stories in their own words. This decision came from listening to survivors who didn't want their experiences diluted. The magazine's name—suggested through a contest—symbolizes the raw truth of cancer as the “elephant in the room,” while “tea” represents the comfort found in open dialogue.Nick highlights key challenges AYAs face: financial toxicity, unstable careers, insurance struggles, dating, and misdiagnoses due to age biases. He's encouraged by the growing trend of self-advocacy in this group, including the rise in second opinions. We reflect on the post-COVID landscape, noting how virtual platforms opened doors for more isolated individuals, while in-person connections remain essential for others.We touch on caregiving—especially for AYAs where roles can be filled by peers, not just parents. Nick emphasizes the importance of caregivers asking for help and delegating tasks. He also speaks candidly about the emotional toll of losing community members and the need to acknowledge and process that grief.We explore how storytelling fuels community-building at Elephants and Tea. The magazine has contributors from 15 countries, highlighting a global hunger for connection and support. Nick shares how partnerships—like their impactful collaboration with Walgreens—are making tangible changes, such as mandatory fertility counseling for patients receiving chemo for the first time. Behind the scenes, they're working with industry and medical organizations to use these stories for systemic change.As for what's next, Elephants and Tea continues to expand its in-person programming, including regional magazine release events. They're consistently surveying their audience to ensure their efforts are aligned with current needs. Nick leaves us with a heartfelt story of a late community member who, through a simple virtual Halloween hangout, helped spark deeper bonds and outreach across the cancer community.More: Elephants and Tea: https://elephantsandtea.comSteven G. AYA Cancer Research Fund: https://stevengcancerfoundation.orgCancer and Fertility Magazine produced by Elephants and Tea WITH Walgreens: https://elephantsandtea.org/cancer-fertility/YA Cancer Gabfest (Cactus Cancer Society): https://cactuscancer.org/ya-cancer-gabfestStupid Cancer: https://stupidcancer.org/Thanks to our Season 17 Sponsors:Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (LLS): https://lls.org/and Incyte: https://incyte.com/ National Bone Marrow Transplant Link - (800) LINK-BMT, or (800) 546-5268.nbmtLINK Website: https://www.nbmtlink.org/nbmtLINK Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/nbmtLINKFollow the nbmtLINK on Instagram! https://www.instagram.com/nbmtlink/The nbmtLINK YouTube Page can be found by clicking here.To participate in the GVHD Mosaic, click here: https://amp.livemosaics.com/gvhd

covid-19 halloween space executive director elephants deserve tea walgreens cancer support cancer survivorship caregiver support stupid cancer incyte ayas cancer advocacy cancer community lymphoma society lls aya cancer

Two Mothers' Love: The Touching Story of A Life Saving Donation and Transplant

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 18, 2025 40:51

In this incredible episode of Marrow Masters, we sit down with Kayla West, a stem cell donor from Texas, and Miriam Bauer, the mother of a young leukemia survivor Miley, from Oklahoma. This story is a deeply emotional journey of hope, resilience, and a connection that transcends bloodlines. Kayla and Miriam take us through the entire transplant process from both perspectives: the donor stepping up during a pandemic, and the caregiver navigating a life-threatening diagnosis in a child.We begin with Kayla's decision to join the donor registry after a chance encounter with DKMS at a Goo Goo Dolls concert. She didn't expect to be called to donate, but when she was, during COVID lockdown, she jumped at the chance to help someone—anyone—in need. That “anyone” turned out to be Miley, an eleven-year-old girl who had been diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and urgently needed a transplant after two brutal rounds of chemotherapy.Miriam recounts those terrifying early days at St. Jude, from the moment of diagnosis through the chaos of the early pandemic lockdowns. She was Miley's only caregiver during a 248-day hospital stay. Her story is filled with moments of heartbreak and triumph, from failed chemo rounds to the joy of reaching remission and finding a viable donor in Kayla. We learn how transplant coordination works, how donor cells were frozen and shipped during COVID, and how little details—like celebrating donor day or choosing a transplant date that coincides with family birthdays—brought joy in dark times.Post-transplant, Miley's life has been a mix of recovery and lingering health effects, but she's thriving. Miriam emphasizes advocacy, honesty, and self-care for caregivers. Kayla, for her part, reflects on the overwhelming emotion of learning she was a match, undergoing all the testing during COVID, and then finally meeting the recipient of her cells in an unforgettable reunion in New York. The two families, now bonded for life, meet regularly and have built a deep friendship. Next up: A trip for Kayla's family to Oklahoma to experience a powwow with Miriam, Miley, and their family!The videos below will have you reaching for the tissues and hopefully inspire many to get swabbed.Kayla also shares her decision to launch a nonprofit, SETX Leukemia Organization, focused on educating communities and recruiting new donors. Her goal is to prevent other families from facing what Miriam's did—wondering if there will be a match in time. Kayla's drive, born from her experience, continues to ripple outwards as she recruits more potential donors at local events with DKMS support.This episode isn't just about survival—it's about connection, purpose, and what can happen when strangers become family through an act of extraordinary generosity.SETX Leukemia Organization (Kayla's nonprofit): https://setxleukemia.org/DKMS (Be The Match partner organization): https://www.dkms.orgDKMS Video about Kayla, Miley, and Miriam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNhwRxXMbw8Thanks to our Season 17 Sponsors:Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (LLS): https://lls.org/and Incyte: https://incyte.com/ National Bone Marrow Transplant Link - (800) LINK-BMT, or (800) 546-5268.nbmtLINK Website: https://www.nbmtlink.org/nbmtLINK Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/nbmtLINKFollow the nbmtLINK on Instagram! https://www.instagram.com/nbmtlink/The nbmtLINK YouTube Page can be found by clicking here.To participate in the GVHD Mosaic, click here: https://amp.livemosaics.com/gvhd

Relapse and Resolve: Two-Time Survivor Kitrena Young's Story of Grit and Growth

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 18, 2025 29:55

This episode of Marrow Masters brings us an incredible conversation with Kitrena Young, a two-time cancer survivor whose story spans decades and highlights the unique challenges faced by adolescents and young adults (AYAs). We begin by learning about Kitrena's initial diagnosis of B-cell ALL with a Philadelphia chromosome at the age of eight, followed by a shocking relapse 23 years later. Her candor about how she recognized the early signs the second time around—bruising and fatigue—underscores the importance of self-awareness and advocacy.We discuss how navigating the adult healthcare system differed drastically from her pediatric experience. Kitrena takes us through her rapid efforts to get an urgent appointment and the emotional toll of being thrust back into the cancer world. With support from her brother and eventually finding care at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) through a compassionate voice on the phone, she exemplifies what it means to be proactive in your care journey.Fertility preservation is another focal point. Kitrena recounts her decision to freeze 15 eggs before starting treatment and how her perspective on parenthood has evolved. She walks us through the emotional and physical realities of exploring surrogacy and genetic testing post-transplant—particularly the complex issue of donor DNA requiring a skin biopsy for viable results.Kitrena doesn't shy away from discussing post-treatment life: weight gain linked to early menopause, a challenging international trip filled with setbacks and triumphs, and the frustrations of altered tastes and capabilities. Despite it all, she maintains a remarkable sense of humor and determination to continue traveling and living fully.Family and caregiver dynamics are woven throughout her story. She speaks lovingly about her partner's unwavering support and the strength of her younger brother, who stepped up when needed most. Her message to caregivers includes practical advice—especially around vigilance with medical billing, noting errors she encountered from appointments she never attended.Finally, Kitrena emphasizes the growing importance of therapy for both patients and caregivers. She encourages the AYA community to use available resources to work through trauma, grief, and uncertainty—pointing to virtual options that didn't exist in her earlier experience.Kitrena's journey is one of persistence, clarity, and empowerment. She brings vital, firsthand wisdom to the AYA cancer space, reminding us that while every survivor's path is different, no one should walk it alone.Thanks to our Season 17 Sponsors:Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (LLS): https://lls.org/and Incyte: https://incyte.com/FInancial Resource from the LINK: https://www.nbmtlink.org/financebookresources/ National Bone Marrow Transplant Link - (800) LINK-BMT, or (800) 546-5268.nbmtLINK Website: https://www.nbmtlink.org/nbmtLINK Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/nbmtLINKFollow the nbmtLINK on Instagram! https://www.instagram.com/nbmtlink/The nbmtLINK YouTube Page can be found by clicking here.To participate in the GVHD Mosaic, click here: https://amp.livemosaics.com/gvhd

Caregiver Perspective: Divide and Conquer, A Father Shares The Journey

father phd advocacy caregivers mph transplants divide and conquer immunocompromised bone marrow transplant incyte lymphoma society lls david hartley

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 18, 2025 35:02

In this episode, we talk with David Hartley, PhD, MPH, who shares his deeply personal experience as both a caregiver and a scientist. David is chair of the board for Engraft, a learning network focused on improving outcomes in transplant and cellular therapy through collaboration and shared data. While he brings professional expertise in infectious diseases and epidemiology, our conversation centers on his journey as a father navigating his son Devin's stem cell transplant at age 13.We begin by discussing Devin's sudden diagnosis after months of unexplained symptoms. Despite initial medical dismissal, David's persistence—fueled by his medical background—led to a hematologist visit that quickly changed everything. From that point, their lives became dominated by a rapid series of decisions leading to a bone marrow transplant at a center hours from home. With a second child, sick parent, and full-time jobs, David and his wife adopted a "divide and conquer" strategy: she managed Devin's care in-hospital, while he held down things at home.Throughout, David stresses the overwhelming nature of transplant. It's relentless and multifaceted—emotionally, logistically, and financially. His wife tracked medications, schedules, and insurance battles. One notable success was avoiding a lawsuit thanks to her meticulous record-keeping and strong communication with their insurance provider. David's role included managing home infusions and learning as much as possible about the transplant process to mitigate risks, particularly infections. They juggled roles and adapted constantly, ensuring redundancy in caregiving in case one of them became unavailable.We delve into the emotional toll and the universality of caregiver fatigue. David admits to not managing his own stress well, noting long-term impacts. He discusses a study linking chronic stress to telomere shortening (he explains what that is- see below for the link), highlighting the physical consequences of caregiver strain. Still, he emphasizes the importance of accepting help and finding moments for self-care, however small.David shares powerful insights on advocacy, highlighting it as a team effort rather than a confrontation. He and his wife advocated for Devin's pain management, educational access, and protection from medical errors. He stresses the value of caregivers' unique skills and the importance of focusing on the outcomes that matter most to each family—whether clinical or social.Later in the episode, David offers a scientist's perspective on the variability in patient outcomes and the limitations of statistics in predicting individual experiences. His reflections underscore the complexity of transplant medicine and the value of shared data systems like Engraft. He also reminds us not to panic over single research findings, advocating for a balanced, critical view of medical literature.We close with the good news: Devin is now a healthy, wise young adult. David expresses deep gratitude to the care teams and support networks that helped them through. His story is a testament to resilience, collaboration, and the essential role of caregivers in the transplant journey.Engraft: www.engraftlearningnetwork.orgTriage Cancer: https://triagecancer.orgAARP article about Telomore: https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/elizabeth-blackburn-stress-dna-hd/Thanks to our Season 17 Sponsors:Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (LLS): https://lls.org/and Incyte: https://incyte.com/ National Bone Marrow Transplant Link - (800) LINK-BMT, or (800) 546-5268.nbmtLINK Website: https://www.nbmtlink.org/nbmtLINK Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/nbmtLINKFollow the nbmtLINK on Instagram! https://www.instagram.com/nbmtlink/The nbmtLINK YouTube Page can be found by clicking here.To participate in the GVHD Mosaic, click here: https://amp.livemosaics.com/gvhd

Season 17 Trailer: Adolescents and Young Adults (AYAs)

young adults defined adolescents national cancer institute adolescents and young adults incyte ayas lymphoma society lls

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 12, 2025 3:58

In our 17th season of the Marrow Masters podcast, we will be focusing on Adolescents and Young Adults, collectively known as AYAs. Defined as between the ages of 15 and 39 by the National Cancer Institute, these patients have a unique cancer journey. They are often too old for pediatric clinics, but feel out of place among older adults in a tradtional oncology department.This season we will talk to survivors, social workers, caregivers, and doctors. And you won't want to miss a conversation between two moms who have become family - when one made a life saving donation to the other's daughter.Thanks to our Season 17 Sponsors:Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (LLS): https://lls.org/and Incyte: https://incyte.com/ National Bone Marrow Transplant Link - (800) LINK-BMT, or (800) 546-5268.nbmtLINK Website: https://www.nbmtlink.org/nbmtLINK Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/nbmtLINKFollow the nbmtLINK on Instagram! https://www.instagram.com/nbmtlink/The nbmtLINK YouTube Page can be found by clicking here.To participate in the GVHD Mosaic, click here: https://amp.livemosaics.com/gvhd

#415: MPN Insights - A Nurse's and Patient's Perspective

Straight A Nursing

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 10, 2025 24:37

This week's episode is incredibly close to my heart, and not the usual type of episode I share since this is largely a story about me. Just a few months after becoming a nurse, I was diagnosed with a rare bone marrow disorder known as a myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN). Since then, I've shared bits of that journey here and there, but today, I'm going deeper with a very special guest: Becca Claassen, an oncology nurse with InCyte and a fellow MPN warrior. Together, Becca and I explore what it's like to live with an MPN and what nurses need to know to better care for patients with this chronic condition. Whether you've never heard of MPNs or you care for oncology patients regularly, this episode offers a powerful blend of clinical insight and personal experience. In this episode, you'll learn: What an MPN (myeloproliferative neoplasm) is and why it's so complex Common types of MPNs and how they affect the body Symptoms patients may experience How to be a more empathetic and informed nurse when caring for someone with a rare chronic illness Our personal stories of diagnosis, treatment, and day-to-day life with an MPN This isn't just a clinical overview. It's a conversation between two nurses who are also patients. I hope it helps you walk away with a better understanding of what your patients might be going through, both physically and emotionally. __________________________ ⁠Voices of MPN Mobile Tracker App⁠ - Share this tool with your MPN patients so they can track their symptoms and have more meaningful conversations with their care team.

patients voices nurses symptoms mpn incyte mpns

Real-world experience of tafasitamab and lenalidomide for the treatment of R/R DLBCL

Lymphoma Hub

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 2, 2025 8:20

The Lymphoma Hub was pleased to speak to Grzegorz S. Nowakowski, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, US, who discussed the real-world experience of tafasitamab and lenalidomide for the treatment of relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. This educational resource is independently supported by Incyte. All content is developed by SES in collaboration with an expert steering committee; funders are allowed no influence on the content of this resource. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

treatments acast real world rochester ses mayo clinic nowakowski incyte r r dlbcl

How effective is the combination of tafasitamab and lenalidomide in treating R/R DLBCL?

Lymphoma Hub

Play Episode Listen Later May 30, 2025 14:23

This educational resource is independently supported by Incyte. All content is developed by SES in collaboration with an expert steering committee; funders are allowed no influence on the content of this resource. Gilles Salles, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, US, discusses the evolving treatment landscape for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, focusing on the combination of tafasitamab and lenalidomide. He highlights how this immunotherapy regimen, targeting CD19, has shown promising efficacy, with a high overall response rate and sustained complete responses in some patients. Salles also addresses real-world data, the regimen's tolerability, and its positioning in the treatment sequence, particularly for patients who are not candidates for CAR T-cell therapy. Lastly, he emphasizes the importance of tailoring treatment strategies based on patient characteristics and emerging therapies. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

new york acast treating ses cart combination salles memorial sloan kettering cancer center cd19 incyte r r dlbcl

ASCO25 Preview: Key Research Accelerating Cancer Care

Play Episode Listen Later May 22, 2025 20:42

Dr. John Sweetenham and Dr. Erika Hamilton discuss top abstracts that will be presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including research on tech innovations that could shape the future of oncology. Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. John Sweetenham, and I'm delighted to be joined today by Dr. Erika Hamilton, a medical oncologist and director of breast cancer and gynecologic cancer research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee. Dr. Hamilton is also the chair of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting Scientific Program, and she's here to tell us about some of the key abstracts, hot topics, and novel approaches in cancer care that will be featured at this year's Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Hamilton, it's great to have you on the podcast today, and thanks so much for being here. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Thanks, Dr. Sweetenham. I'm glad to be here. Dr. John Sweetenham: Dr. Hamilton, the Presidential Theme of the Annual Meeting this year is ‘Driving Knowledge to Action: Building a Better Future,' and that's reflected in many of the sessions that will focus on action-oriented guidance to improve care for our patients. And as always, there'll be great presentations on practice-changing abstracts that will change treatment paradigms and transform care. Can you tell us about some of the hot topics this year and what you're particularly excited about? Dr. Erika Hamilton: You're right. Dr. Robin Zon's theme is ‘Driving Knowledge to Action: Building a Better Future,' and you're going to see that theme really interlaced throughout the ASCO program this year. We had a record number of submissions. Over 5,000 abstracts will be published, and there'll be about 3,000 presentations, either in oral format or poster presentations. We have 200 dynamic sessions. Many of the discussants will be highlighting key takeaways and how we can translate action-oriented guidance to better treat our patients to build a better future. Our state-of-the-art science will include a Plenary Session. This will feature presentations as well as discussion of each of the presentations for clinical late-breaking abstracts. We have Clinical Science Symposia that I'm particularly excited about this year. These will feature key abstracts as well as discussions and a foundational talk around the subject. We're covering novel antibody-drug conjugate targets, turning “cold” tumors “hot” to include CAR T, as well as the future of cancer detection. There'll be rapid oral abstracts, case-based panels, and this will also feature interactive audience polling and case discussions. I also want to highlight the community connection opportunities. There will be 13 Communities of Practice that will be meeting on-site during ASCO, and there's also really a plethora of networking opportunities for trainees and early-career professionals, a Women's Networking Center, a patient advocate space, and I'm happy to report there will also be live music out on the terrace this year at ASCO. Dr. John Sweetenham: Well, that's going to be a really great addition. I have to say, I think this is always a special time of year because excitement starts to mount as the meeting gets closer and closer. And once the abstracts are out there, I certainly personally feel that the excitement builds. Talking of abstracts, let's dive into some of the key abstracts for this year's meeting. I'd like to start out by asking you about Abstract 505. This reports on 15-year outcomes for women with premenopausal hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer in the SOFT and TEXT trials. It assesses the benefits of adjuvant exemestane and ovarian function suppression or tamoxifen and ovarian function suppression. So, could you talk us through this and tell us what you think the key takeaways from this abstract are? Dr. Erika Hamilton: Absolutely. This is essentially the SOFT and TEXT trials. They are trials that we've been following for quite some time, evidenced by the 15-year outcome. And I think it really answers two very important questions for us regarding adjuvant endocrine therapy for patients that are facing hormone receptor-positive disease. The benefit of ovarian function suppression for one, and then second, the benefit of exemestane over tamoxifen, which is our SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator]. So, in terms of the SOFT trial, when we talk about distance recurrence-free interval, which I really think is probably the most meaningful because secondary cancers, et cetera, are not really what we're getting at here. But in terms of distant recurrence-free interval, certainly with tamoxifen, using tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression adds a little bit. But where we really get additional benefits are by moving to exemestane, an aromatase inhibitor with the ovarian function suppression. So, for example, in SOFT, for distant recurrence-free interval for patients that have received prior chemotherapy, the distance recurrence-free interval was 73.5% with tamoxifen, bumped up just a tiny bit to 73.8% with ovarian function suppression. But when we used both ovarian function suppression and switched to that aromatase inhibitor, we're now talking about 77.6%. It may seem like these are small numbers, but when we talk about an absolute benefit of 4%, these are the type of decisions that we decide whether to offer chemotherapy based on. So, really just optimizing endocrine therapy really can provide additional benefits for these patients. Just briefly, when we turn to TEXT, similarly, when we look at distance recurrence-free interval for our patients that are at highest risk and receive chemotherapy, tamoxifen and ovarian function suppression, 79%; 81% with exemestane and ovarian function suppression. And when we talk about our patients that did not receive chemotherapy, it increased from 91.6% up to 94.6%—very similar that 3% to 4% number. So, I think that this is just very important information when counseling our patients about the decisions that they're going to make for themselves in the adjuvant setting and how much we want to optimize endocrine therapy. Dr. John Sweetenham: Thanks so much for your insight into that. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, absolutely. So, let's turn to hematologic malignancies. Abstract 6506 reports exciting results on the new agent ziftomenib in relapsed/refractory NPM1-mutant acute myeloid leukemia. This is a phase 1b clinical activity study and safety results. This was the pivotal KOMET-001 study. And my question is, will this new agent fulfill an unmet need in this NPM1 space? Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, great question. And I think the answer is almost certainly ‘yes'. So, just as some brief background, NPM1 mutation is known to be a driver of leukemogenesis in around 30% of patients with AML, and it's a poor prognostic factor. And typically, about 50% of these patients will relapse within a year of their first-line therapy, and only around 10% of them will get a subsequent complete remission with salvage therapy. Menin inhibitors, which disrupt the interaction between menin and KMT2A, are known to be active in NPM1-mutated as well as in KMT2A-rearranged AML. And ziftomenib is a selective oral menin inhibitor, which in this study was evaluated at a dose of 600 mg once a day, as you mentioned, a phase 1b/2 study, which is multicenter and presented by Dr. Eunice Wang from Roswell Park. It's a relatively large study of 112 patients who were treated with this standard dose with relatively short median follow-up at this time. The median age was 69 years, and median prior therapies were two, but with a range of one to seven. And I think very importantly, 60% of these patients had previously been treated with venetoclax, and 23% of them had had a prior transplant. Looking at the results overall for this study, the overall response rate was 35%, which is actually quite impressive. Specifically for those patients in the phase 2 part of the study, around 23% achieved a CR [complete remission] or CRh [complete remission with partial hematologic recovery]. What's very interesting in my mind is that the response rates were comparable in venetoclax-naive and venetoclax-exposed patients. And the drug was very well tolerated, with only 3% of patients having to discontinue because of treatment-related adverse events. And I think the authors appropriately conclude that, first of all, the phase 2 primary endpoint in the study was met, and that ziftomenib achieved deep and durable responses in relapsed and refractory NPM1-mutated AML, regardless of prior venetoclax, with good tolerance of the drug. And so, I think putting all of this together, undoubtedly, these data do support the potential use of this agent as monotherapy and as a new option for those patients who have relapsed or refractory NPM1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia. So, let's move on a little bit more now and change the subject and change gears completely and talk about circulating tumor DNA [ctDNA]. This has been a hot topic over a number of years now, and at this year's meeting, there are quite a few impactful studies on the use of ctDNA. We have time to focus on just one of these, and I wanted to get your thoughts on Abstract 4503. This is from the NIAGARA trial, which looks at ctDNA in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer who receive perioperative durvalumab. Could you tell us a little bit about this study? Dr. Erika Hamilton: So, this was the phase 3 NIAGARA trial, and this is literally looking for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer that are cisplatin-eligible, and the addition of durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. So here, this is a planned exploratory analysis of ctDNA and the association with clinical outcomes from NIAGARA. So, this is really the type of study that helps us determine which of our patients are more likely to have a good outcome and which of our patients are more likely not to. There were 1,000 randomized patients in this study, and 462 comprised the biomarker-evaluable population. There were about half in the control arm and half in the durvalumab arm. And overall, the ctDNA-positive rate at baseline was about 57%, or a little over half, and that had decreased to about 22% after neoadjuvant treatment. ctDNA clearance rates from baseline to pre-radical cystectomy was about 41% among those with durvalumab and 31% among those in control. And the non-pCR rate was 97% among patients with pre-cystectomy ctDNA-positive status. So, this really gives us some information about predicting who is going to have better outcomes here. We did see a disease-free survival benefit with perioperative durvalumab, and this was observed in post-cystectomy ctDNA-positive as well as the ctDNA-negative groups. Shifting gears now to GI cancer, Abstract 3506 is a long-term safety and efficacy study of sotorasib plus panitumumab and FOLFIRI for previously treated KRAS G12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. And this is the CodeBreaK-101 study. What are your thoughts on this study? Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, thanks. A very interesting study, and this abstract builds upon the phase 3 CodeBreaK-300 trial, which I think has just been published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This showed that the combination of sotorasib and panitumumab improved clinical outcomes in patients with chemorefractory KRAS G12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. The current abstract, as you mentioned, reports the CodeBreaK-101 trial. And this was a phase 1b trial where FOLFIRI therapy was added to sotorasib and panitumumab in previously treated patients with KRAS G12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. The abstract reports the overall and progression-free survival results, as well as some updated safety and response data. So, in this study, patients with this particular mutation who had received at least one prior systemic treatment but were KRAS G12C inhibitor-naive were enrolled into an expansion cohort of the CodeBreaK-101 protocol. And these patients received what apparently now recommended as the standard phase 2 dose of sotorasib of 960 mg daily, plus panitumumab and a standard dose of FOLFIRI. And the primary endpoint of the study was safety, and secondary endpoints included confirmed response, overall response, and progression-free survival, as assessed by the investigator. And by November of last year, 40 patients had been enrolled into this study. Common treatment-related adverse events were cutaneous; some patients developed neutropenia, and stomatitis was fairly widespread. Discontinuation of sotorasib because of adverse events was only seen in 1% of patients, although patients did have to discontinue because of toxicity from some of the other agents in the combination. Looking at the results of this study, the updated objective response rate was 57.5%, and the disease control rate was estimated at 92%, going on 93%, with a median time to response of 1.6 months and a median response duration of 6 months. After a median follow-up of 29.2 months, the median progression-free survival was 8.2 months, and the overall survival 17.9 months. So, the authors have concluded that this combination, including sotorasib, panitumumab, and FOLFIRI, does appear to show quite promising long-term efficacy in pretreated patients with this specific mutation. The ongoing phase 3 study they mentioned, CodeBreaK-301, is aiming to evaluate this combination against the standard of care in the first-line setting for patients with KRAS G12C-mutated colorectal cancer. So, promising results, and we'd be very interested to see how this particular combination performs in the frontline. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Fantastic. Thanks so much for sharing that. Let's shift gears again and really talk about digital technology. I feel that we're all going to have to get much better with this, and really, there are a lot of promises for our patients coming here. There are a lot of abstracts at ASCO that are focusing on innovations in digital technology, including a really interesting psychosocial digital application for caregivers of patients that are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Can you tell us a little bit about this? It's Abstract 11000. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah, absolutely. This abstract certainly caught my eye, and I think it's intriguing for a number of reasons, partly because it's app-based, and partly also because it specifically addresses caregiver burden and caregiver needs in the oncology setting, which I think is especially important. And although the context, the clinical context of this study, is hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, I think it has potential applications way beyond that. We all know that caregivers of patients undergoing stem cell transplantation have significant quality-of-life struggles. They are well-documented to have significant psychological and emotional strain before, during, and after stem cell transplantation. And this abstract describes an application called BMT-CARE, which is aimed at improving caregivers' quality of life, caregiver burden, mood symptoms, and coping skills, and so on. So, this was a single-center, randomized trial from MGH [Massachusetts General Hospital] of this app for stem cell transplant caregivers, compared with usual care in those individuals. And the eligible patients, or eligible individuals, were adults caring for patients with heme malignancy undergoing either an autologous or an allogeneic stem cell transplant. Patients were randomly assigned either to use the app or for usual care. And the app itself—and I think it'll be interesting to actually see this at the meeting and visualize it and see how user-friendly and so on it is—but it comprises five modules, which integrate psychoeducation, behavior change, stress management, and they're delivered through a kind of interactive platform of educational games and videos. And then participants were self-reporting at baseline and then 60 days after transplant. So, around 125 patients were enrolled in this study, of around 174 who were initially approached. So, just over 70% uptake from caregivers, which is, I think, relatively high, and evenly distributed between the two randomized arms. And the majority of the participants were spouses. And at 60 days post-stem cell transplant, the intervention participants reported a better quality of life compared with those who received usual care. If you break this down a little bit more, these participants reported lower caregiving burden, lower incidence of depression, fewer PTSD symptoms, and overall better coping skills. So, the authors conclude that this particular app, a digital health intervention, led to pretty substantial improvements in quality of life for these caregivers. So, intriguing. As I said, it'll be particularly interesting to see how this thing looks during the meeting. But if these kind of results can be reproduced, I think this sort of application has potential uses way beyond the stem cell transplant setting. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Yeah, I find that just so fascinating and very needed. I think that the caregiving role is often underestimated in how important that is for the patient and the whole family, and really giving our caregivers more tools in their toolbox certainly is quite helpful. Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely. Well, the meeting is getting closer, and as I mentioned earlier, I think anticipation is mounting. And I wanted to say thanks so much to you for chatting with me today about some of the interesting advances in oncology that we're going to see at this year's meeting. There is a great deal more to come. Our listeners can access links to the studies we've discussed today in the transcript of this episode. I'm also looking forward, Dr. Hamilton, to having you back on the podcast after the Annual Meeting to dive into some of the late-breaking abstracts and some of the other key science that's captured the headlines this year. So, thanks once again for joining me today. Dr. Erika Hamilton: Thanks so much for having me. Pleasure. Dr. John Sweetenham: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. Be sure to catch my “Top Takeaways from ASCO25.” These are short episodes that will drop each day of the meeting at 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. So, subscribe to the ASCO Daily News Podcast wherever you prefer to listen, and join me for concise analyses of the meeting's key abstracts. 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

women research practice tennessee nashville ptsd journal patients hamilton shifting communities pleasure soft pfizer breast cancer gi cart astrazeneca accelerating pcr abstract serm oncology niagara annual meetings better future janssen healthtech novartis cancer care millenium aml asco torque amgen jefferies black diamond fujifilm abbvie top takeaways regeneron harpoon boehringer ingelheim gilead sciences clinical oncology komet menin curis discontinuation plenary session eisai asco annual meeting crh daiichi sankyo jazz pharmaceuticals ctdna myriad genetics incyte emd serono roswell park medimmune artios seattle genetics pharmamar erika hamilton arvinas compugen tesaro transcript dr folfiri inspirna npm1 arqule effector therapeutics sermonix pharmaceuticals syros pharmaceuticals acerta pharma

Pharma and Biotech Daily: Navigating the Latest Industry News and Challenges

Pedscases.com: Pediatrics for Medical Students

Play Episode Listen Later May 20, 2025 1:45

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma and Biotech world.Regeneron has acquired ownership of 23andme for $256 million, promising to comply with consumer privacy policies. Makary's proposed rare disease pathway has sparked hope but raised questions among experts. At the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy meeting, the first personalized in vivo CRISPR therapy was reported. The FDA has cleared the first Alzheimer's blood test, potentially boosting uptake of Alzheimer's disease therapies. Bio-Rad's new Center for Excellence is redefining antibody discovery with their Pioneer Antibody Discovery Platform. FDA regulations are unlikely to save money for the industry, and Applied Therapeutics' rare disease treatment has failed in late-stage trials. The memory gap in forgotten diseases is making a dangerous comeback, and Novo CEO's sudden exit has raised concerns among analysts.FDA Commissioner Marty Makary's proposal for a 'conditional approval' pathway for rare diseases has sparked hope among biopharma companies, but experts are raising concerns about safety, access, and liability due to a lack of details. The FDA and NIH are accelerating the shift away from animal research, which has raised questions about safety and implementation. Meanwhile, FDA cuts have led to chaos in planning for upcoming advisory committee meetings. The Trump administration's efforts to slash regulations may not necessarily benefit the industry as anticipated. Sarepta is seeking to strengthen its case for Elevidys with data in older kids, while other companies such as Incyte and Lilly are making progress with their drug approvals. Overall, the biopharma industry is facing challenges and uncertainties in navigating the evolving regulatory landscape.

donald trump news challenges navigating excellence alzheimer's disease fda american society pharma nih biotech crispr industry news regeneron cell therapy sarepta incyte bio rad applied therapeutics

Congenital Hemangiomas

Play Episode Listen Later May 14, 2025 18:48

This episode of PedsCases will give you an approach to congenital hemangiomas. By the end of this podcast, listeners will be able to 1) define hemangiomas and congenital hemangiomas, 2) explain the genetics and environmental factors associated with congenital hemangiomas, 3) describe the pathogenesis of congenital hemangiomas, 4) classify congenital hemangiomas, and 5) discuss the diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and management strategies for congenital hemangiomas. Today's episode was created by Emilie Wang, a medical student at the University of British Columbia, in collaboration with Dr. Joseph Lam, a pediatric dermatologist at BC Children's Hospital. An author of this podcast has financial support and has received speaker bursaries from Johnson & Johnson, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Valeant, Sanofi Genzyme, Incyte, La Roche Posay Canada, Beiersdorf Canada and serves on advisory committees for Johnson & Johnson, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Valeant, Sanofi Genzyme. They also serve as Associate Editor of Pediatric Dermatology Journal, and have been contributors to UpToDate, Medscape, BMJ Updates, and Eczema Society of Canada.

university canada hospitals british columbia pfizer associate editor johnson johnson uptodate congenital medscape bc children valeant sanofi genzyme incyte joseph lam

Incyte Corporation v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.

Oral Arguments for the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 9, 2025 19:18

Incyte Corporation v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.

corporations pharmaceutical industry incyte sun pharmaceutical industries ltd

inMIND trial: Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide and rituximab for R/R FL

Lymphoma Hub

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 1, 2025 6:20

During the 66th American Society of Hematology (ASH) Meeting and Exposition, the Lymphoma Hub was pleased to speak to Stefano Luminari, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, IT. We asked about the latest updates from the inMIND trial of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide and rituximab for R/R FL. In this interview, Luminari shares data from the phase III inMIND (NCT04680052) trial of patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma treated with tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide and rituximab. Luminari covers key outcomes, highlighting promising efficacy and safety data. He concludes that the data are encouraging and supports using this combination for patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma in the second-line setting.This educational resource is independently supported by Incyte. All content is developed by SES in collaboration with an expert steering committee; funders are allowed no influence on the content of this resource. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

university trial acast ses american society exposition modena reggio emilia rituximab incyte

Scrip's Five Must-Know Things - 24 March 2025

Pharma Intelligence Podcasts

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 24, 2025 15:41

Audio roundup of selected biopharma industry content from Scrip over the business week ended 21 March 2025. In this episode: Pfizer tops pharma leaderboard; AstraZeneca buys into in vivo cell therapy; Almirall looks to dominate derma spectrum; Incyte's HS contender looks approvable; and MSD's Williams says pharma should shorten tech adoption cycles. https://insights.citeline.com/scrip/podcasts/scrips-five-must-know-things/quick-listen-scrips-five-must-know-things-EGD3MLOIVJDKRCE32KV376CJ5Q/ This episode was produced with the help of AI text-to-voice and voice emulation tools. Playlist: soundcloud.com/citelinesounds/sets/scrips-five-must-know-things

ai playlist pfizer astrazeneca hs must know msd scrip incyte almirall

Análisis de la sesión en Wall Street

Mercado Abierto

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 17, 2025

Miramos a valores como el Índice manufacturero Empire State de marzo, Incyte, RBC Capital, DuPont, FedEx, Nike y GE AEROSPACE. Con Ignacio Vacchiano, responsable de distribución en España de Leverage Shares.

wall street espa fedex dupont empire state miramos la sesi ge aerospace incyte

#76 Medikamente, Behandlungsfehler: Diese Rechte habt ihr als Patienten

Auf Herz und Nieren – Der Podcast für ein gutes Körpergefühl

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 4, 2025 62:29

Wenn es um Medikamente geht, habt ihr als Patientinnen und Patienten mehr Rechte als ihr denkt. Oftmals lohnt es sich beim Arzt nachzufragen, um ein neueres Medikament oder einen besser passenden Wirkstoff zu bekommen. Und wie sieht es eigentlich mit Medikamenten aus, die noch gar nicht zugelassen sind - können sie zum Beispiel bei lebensbedrohlichen Erkrankungen trotzdem eingesetzt werden? Darüber sprechen wir mit Bibiane Schulte-Bosse, Fachanwältin für Medizinrecht. Sie erklärt, warum Mediziner Erkrankungen wie die Weißfleckenkrankheit Vitiligo manchmal fälschlicherweise als Lifestyle-Erkrankung einstufen und sich nicht trauen Medikamente zu verordnen, obwohl das möglich wäre und wie Patienten dann am besten vorgehen. Außerdem klären wir, was ihr tun könnt, wenn ihr den Verdacht habt, dass euer Arzt einen Behandlungsfehler gemacht hat.

Exploring the Urgency to Treat Patients with Atopic Dermatitis

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 27, 2025 14:47

Join Prof. Lisa Beck as she explores the chronic and persistent burden of AD as well as the concept of early intervention. ADVENT is a medical education non-promotional resource for healthcare professionals organized by Sanofi and Regeneron. Learn more at ADVENTprogram.com. This podcast is intended for healthcare professionals only. Disclaimer: This program is non-promotional and is sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The speakers are being compensated and/or receiving an honorarium from Sanofi and Regeneron in connection with this program. The content contained in this program was jointly developed by the speakers and Sanofi and Regeneron and is not eligible for continuing medical education (CME) credits. Speaker disclosures: Lisa Beck MD, consults for Abbvie, Allakos, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Aslan Pharma, Astria Therapeutics, Celldex, Dermavent, DermTech, Escient Pharma, Eli Lilly Company, Evelo Biosciences, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Merck, Nektar Therapeutics, Numab Therapeutics, Pfizer, Proteologix, Rapt Therapeutics, Regeneron, Ribon Therapeutics, Sanofi/Genzyme, Sanofi-Aventis, Sitryx Therapeutics, Stealth BioTherapeutics, Trevi Therapeutics, Union Therapeutics, Xencor and Yuhan and has been an Investigator for Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca, DermTech, Kiniksa, Pfizer, Regeneron, Ribon Therapeutics and Sanofi. © 2025 Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. All Rights Reserved. MAT-GLB-2407353 – 1.0 – 02/2025 MAT-US-2501683 v1.0 - P Expiration Date: 02/24/2027

speaker patients advent treat pfizer urgency astrazeneca investigators merck janssen cme sanofi abbvie regeneron atopic dermatitis galderma regeneron pharmaceuticals sanofi genzyme incyte sanofi aventis leo pharma arena pharmaceuticals lisa beck

Episode 122 - November 22, 2024

Biotech Clubhouse

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 23, 2025 60:07

On this episode of Biotech Hangout, Eric Schmidt, Bruce Booth, Yaron Werber, Tim Opler and Mike Yee begin the show discussing the highlights from the Jefferies Healthcare Conference before taking a look at public investor sentiment this week. The discussion turns to Atlas Venture's 2024 Year in Review and transitions into the emerging themes for 2025. The hosts also recap ACR Convergence including Amgen's Phase 3 data as well as data from cell therapies for SLE, SSC, IMNM. The group also discuss lipid readouts from Eli Lilly, Silence Therapeutics and NewAmsterdam Pharma. Other topics covered include the Incyte and Escient deal collapse, Kura Oncology's pact with Kyowa Kirin, and perspectives on Trump's nomination of Dr. Mehmet Oz to lead the CMS. This episode aired on November 22, 2024.

donald trump phase year in review cms eli lilly eric schmidt amgen mehmet oz ssc sle incyte kyowa kirin acr convergence

Pharma and Biotech Daily: Latest News and Updates in the Industry

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 16, 2024 0:47

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma e Biotech world.Private equity firms Blackstone and Bain Capital are close to finalizing a potential $3 billion deal for Mitsubishi's pharma unit, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma. In other news, five drugs have been flagged for unjustified price hikes in 2023 by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Incyte and Iteos are cutting drug candidates from their cancer pipelines due to disappointing data, while the FDA advisory committee has called for more research on Moderna's RSV vaccine after safety issues arose. Layoffs have been announced at Intercept and Editas, and there has been a slowdown in M&A activity in the pharma industry this year. US Pharmacopeia is looking for expert volunteers to work on medicine quality challenges.

news institute private fda clinical moderna layoffs pharma biotech blackstone latest news rsv intercept mitsubishi bain capital drug prices private equity firms incyte economic review us pharmacopeia

Hematologic Malignancies and Clinical Trial Participations: A Shared Decision-Making Approach

Rare Disease Discussions

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 27, 2024 34:27

This 30-minute CME-accredited program, hosted by John Kuruvilla, MD, discusses best practices for talking to patients with hematologic malignancies about possibly participating in clinical trials.Jointly Provided by American Academy of CME and CheckRare CE.Support for this accredited continuing education activity has been made possible through educational grant from Merck.Estimated time to complete: 0.5 hours Start date: November 30, 2024End date: November 30, 2025 Activity FacultyJohn Kuruvilla, MDHematologist / Clinical InvestigatorPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreProfessor of MedicineUniversity of Toronto Target AudienceThis activity has been designed to meet the educational needs of physicians specializing in hematology-oncology. Other healthcare providers, including NPs and PAs, may also participate. Learning ObjectivesAfter participating in the activity, learners should be better able to- Describe the importance of clinical trials in furthering the science of hematologic malignancies treatment.- Describe and utilize best practices for engaging patients in shared decision making regarding clinical trial participation. Accreditation and Credit DesignationIn support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by American Academy of CME, Inc. and CheckRare CE. American Academy of CME, Inc. is Jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team. PhysiciansAmerican Academy of CME, Inc., designates this enduring material for a maximum of 0.5 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditsTM. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Other HCPsOther members of the care team will receive a certificate of participation. Disclosure StatementAccording to the disclosure policy of the Academy, all faculty, planning committee members, editors, managers and other individuals who are in a position to control content are required to disclose any relationships with any ineligible company(ies). The existence of these relationships is not viewed as implying bias or decreasing the value of the activity. Clinical content has been reviewed for fair balance and scientific objectivity, and all of the relevant financial relationships listed for these individuals have been mitigated.Disclosure of relevant financial relationships are as follows: Faculty Educator/PlannerDr. Kuruvilla discloses the following relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies:Honoraria: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Beigene, Genmab, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle GeneticsConsultant: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences/Kite, Merck, Roche, Seattle GeneticsGrant/Research Support: AstraZeneca, Kite, Merck, Novartis, RocheData Safety Monitoring Board: KaryopharmPlanners for this activity have no relevant financial relationships with any ineligible companies. This activity will not review off-label or investigational information. The opinions expressed in this educational activity are those of the faculty, and do not represent those of the Academy or CheckRare CE. This activity is intended as a supplement to existing knowledge, published information, and practice guidelines. Learners should appraise the information presented critically, and draw conclusions only after careful consideration of all available scientific information. Method of ParticipationThere are no fees to participate in the activity. Participants must review the activity information including the learning objectives and disclosure statements, as well as the content of the activity. To receive CME credit for your participation, please go to https://checkrare.com/learning/p-hematologic-malignancies-and-clinical-trial-participation-a-shared-decision-making-approach/ PrivacyFor more information about the American Academy of CME privacy policy, please access http://www.academycme.org/privacy.htm For more information about CheckRare's privacy policy, please access https://checkrare.com/privacy/ContactFor any questions, please contact: CEServices@academycme.org

A New Standard of Care for Cervical Cancer: Assessing the KEYNOTE-A18 Study

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 21, 2024 13:55

Dr. Linda Duska and Dr. Domenica Lorusso discuss the practice-changing results of the phase 3 ENGOT-cx11/GOG-3047/KEYNOTE-A18 study, which evaluated pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy as treatment for previously untreated, high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Linda Duska: Hello, I'm Linda Duska, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and serve as the associate dean for clinical research at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. On today's episode, we'll be discussing a new standard of care for previously untreated, high- risk locally advanced cervical cancer. This follows the ENGOT-cx11/GOG-3047/KEYNOTE-A18 study, which I will be referring to as KEYNOTE-A18 for the rest of this podcast, which demonstrated that pembrolizumab plus chemoradiotherapy improved both progression-free and overall survival compared to chemoradiotherapy alone. I was a co-author of this study, and I'm delighted to be joined today by the study's lead investigator, Dr. Domenica Lorusso, for today's discussion. She is also a professor of obstetrics and gynecology. She's at Humanitas University Rosano and the director of the Gynecologic Oncology Unit at the Humanitas Hospital San Pio in Milan, Italy. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Lorusso, it's great to be speaking with you today. Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Thank you, Linda. It's a great pleasure to be here. Thank you. Dr. Linda Duska: So I was hoping you could start us out with some context on the challenges associated with treating patients with high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer. Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Yes. I have to make a disclosure because in my experience as a gynecologist, cervical cancer patients are the most difficult patients to treat. This is a tumor that involves young patients [who often have] small kids. This is a very symptomatic tumor. More than 50% of patients report pain. Sometimes the pain is difficult to control because there is an infiltration of the pelvic nerves and also a kind of vaginal discharge, so it's very difficult to treat the tumor. Since more than 25 years, we have the publication of 5 randomized trials that demonstrate that when we combine platinum chemotherapy to radiation treatment, we increase overall survival by 6%. This is the new standard of care – concurrent chemoradiation plus brachytherapy. This is a good standard of care because particularly modern, image-guided radiotherapy has reported to increase local control. And local control in cervical cancer translates to better overall survival. So modern radiotherapy actually is able to cure about 75% of patients. This is what we expect with chemoradiation right now. Dr. Linda Duska: So what are the key takeaways of A18? This is a really exciting trial, and you've presented it a couple of times. Tell us what are the key takeaways that you want our listeners to know. Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Linda, this is our trial. This is a trial that we did together. And you gave me the inspiration because you were running a randomized phase 2 trial exploring if the combination of pembrolizumab to concurrent chemoradiation was able to give signals of efficacy, but also was feasible in terms of toxicity. There were several clinical data suggesting that when we combine immunotherapy to radiotherapy, we can potentially increase the benefit of radiotherapy because there is a kind of synergistic effect between the two strategies. Radiotherapy works as a primer and immunotherapy works better. And you demonstrated that it was feasible to combine immunotherapy to concurrent chemoradiation. And KEYNOTE-A18 was based on this preliminary data. We randomized about 1,060 patients to receive concurrent chemoradiation and brachytherapy or concurrent chemoradiation and brachytherapy in combination with pembrolizumab followed by pembrolizumab for about two years. Why two years? Because in more than 80% of cases, recurrence in this patient population occurred during the first two years. So the duration of treatment was based on the idea to provide protection to the patient during the maximum time of risk. And the trial had the two primary endpoints, progression free and overall survival, and met both the endpoints, a significant 30% reduction in the risk of progression that was confirmed. At the 3-year follow up, the observation was even better, 0.68. So 32% reduction in the risk of progression. And more importantly, because this is a curative setting, 33% reduction in the risk of death was reported in the experimental arm when pembro was combined with chemoradiation. Dr. Linda Duska: That's amazing. I wanted to ask you, a prior similar study called CALLA was negative. Why do you think A18 was positive? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Linda, there are several discussions about that. I had the possibility to discuss several times with the PI of CALLA, Brad Monk. The idea of Brad is that CALLA was negative because of using durvalumab instead of PD-1 inhibitor, which is pembrolizumab. I do not have exactly the same impression. My idea is that it's the kind of patient population enrolled. The patient population enrolled in KEYNOTE-A18 was really a high-risk population; 85% of that patient were node positive, where the definition of node positivity was at least 2 lymph nodes in the pelvis with a short diameter of 1.5. So, we are very confident this patient was node-positive, 55% at the grade 3 and 4 diseases. So this is really a high-risk population. I remember at the first presentation of CALLA, I was honored to discuss the CALLA trial when it was first presented at IGCS a few years ago. And when I received the forest plot of Calla, it was evident to me that in patients with stage III and node positive there was a signal of efficacy. And we have a huge number of patients with node positive. So in my opinion this is the reason why KEYNOTE-A18 is positive. Dr. Linda Duska: Yeah, I agree with you. I've thought about it a lot and I think you're right about that. The INTERLACE trial results were recently published. How should we interpret these results in the context of A18? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: So it's very difficult to compare the 2 trials. First of all, in terms of population. The population enrolled in INTERLACE is a low-risk, locally advanced but low risk population; 76% were stage II, 10% were stage I, 60% were node-negative patients. So, first of all, the population is completely different. Second is the type of radiotherapy that was provided. INTERLACE is a 10-year long trial, but in 10 years the quality and the technique of radiotherapy completely changed. Only 30% of patients in INTERLACE received what we call the modern image-guided brachytherapy, which is important because it provides local control and local control increases overall survival. And third, we read the paper. I'm not a methodologist, but there are some methodological biases in the paper. All the statistical design of the trial was based on PFS, but PFS was evaluated at physician description. And honestly, I never saw a trial that had no pre-specified timeline for radiological evaluation. It's very difficult to evaluate progression in cervical cancer because the fibrosis related to radiotherapy changes the anatomy in the pelvis. And I think that the radiological evaluation is important to address if the patient is progressing or not. Particularly, because the conclusion of CALLA is that the PFS was mainly in favor of distant metastasis. So really, it's difficult for me to understand how distant metastasis may be evaluated with the vagina visit. So really, it's very difficult to compare the two trials, but I have some concerns. And also because of toxicity in the study, unfortunately 30% of patients did not complete concurrent chemoradiation because of residual toxicity due to induction chemotherapy. So I wanted to be sure in the context of modern radiotherapy, if really induction chemo adds something to modern radiotherapy. Dr. Linda Duska: Well, I have two more questions for you. As we move immunotherapy into the front line, at least for these high risk locally advanced cervical cancer patients that were eligible for A18, what does that mean then for hopefully those few that develop recurrence in terms of second line therapy? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Well, Linda, this is a very important question. We do not have data about immuno after immuno, but I would not completely exclude this hypothesis because in KEYNOTE-A18, the patient received treatment for a well-defined time period. And for those patients not progressing during immunotherapy, I really guess if there is a space for the reintroduction of immunotherapy at the time of recurrence. In this moment we have 30% of patients in KEYNOTE-A18 in the control arm that receive immunotherapy after progression, but still we have 11% of patients that receive immunotherapy in combination with concurrent chemoradiation and then receive, again, immunotherapy in later line of therapy. I think we need to collect these data to capture some signals and for sure we have the new drug. We have antibody drug conjugate. The trials are ongoing exploring the role of antibody drug conjugate, particularly in immune pretreated patients. So I think this is a very interesting strategy. Dr. Linda Duska: I was going to ask you, “What are the next steps,” but I think you already answered that question. You talked about the second line. If you were going to redesign a study in the frontline, what would it look like? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Probably one question that I would like to answer – there are two questions in my opinion in KEYNOTE-A18 – one is induction immunotherapy. Linda, correct me if I'm wrong, you reported very interesting data about the immune landscape change when you use induction immunotherapy. And I think this is something that we need to explore in the future. And the second question is the duration of maintenance. Because, again, we decided for two years based only on the epidemiology of recurrence, but I guess if one year may be enough. Dr. Linda Duska: I think this sequencing question is really important, that the induction immunotherapy was actually GY017. I can't take credit for that, but I think you're right. I think the sequencing question is really important. Whether you need the concurrent IO or not is an important question. And then to your point about the 2 years, the length of the need for maintenance therapy is a question that we don't know the answer to. So there are lots of really important questions we can continue to ask. I want to thank you so much for sharing your valuable insights with us on the podcast today. You're always so thoughtful about this particular study and cervix cancer in general and also for your great work to advance the care for patients with GYN cancers. Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Thank you, Linda. It's our work - we progress together. Dr. Linda Duska: Yes. And we thank the patients as well. The over 1,000 patients that went on this trial during a pandemic. Right? Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Absolutely. Without their generosity and their trust, we would not be able to do this trial. Dr. Linda Duska: So we're very grateful to them and we thank our listeners for your time today. 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. Thank you all. 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. Follow today's speakers: Dr. Linda Duska @Lduska Dr. Domenica Lorusso Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn  Disclosures:  Dr. Linda Duska: Consulting or Advisory Role: Regeneron, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Ellipses Pharma Research Funding (Inst.): GlaxoSmithKline, Millenium, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Aeterna Zentaris, Novartis, Abbvie, Tesaro, Cerulean Pharma, Aduro Biotech, Advaxis, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Leap Therapeutics Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: UptToDate, Editor, British Journal of Ob/Gyn Dr. Domenica Lorusso: Consulting or Advisory Role: PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Genmab, Seagen, Immunogen, Oncoinvest, Corcept, Sutro Biopharma, Novartis, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, MSD, ImmunoGen, Seagen Research Funding (Inst.): PharmMar, Clovis, GSK, MSD, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, Seagen, Immunogen, Incyte, Roche, Pharma&, Corcept Therapeutics, Alkermes Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, Menarini

Advances in Immunotherapy for Melanoma and Beyond

Pedscases.com: Pediatrics for Medical Students

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 31, 2024 18:03

Dr. Ryan Augustin and Dr. Jason Luke discuss neoadjuvant immunotherapy and the importance of multidisciplinary team coordination, promising new TIL therapy for advanced melanoma, and the emerging role of CD3 engagers in treatment strategies. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Ryan Augustin: Hello, I'm Dr. Ryan Augustin, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a medical oncology fellow at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Joining me today is Dr. Jason Luke, an associate professor of medicine and the director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutic Center at the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center. I had the privilege of working as a postdoc in Jason's translational bioinformatics lab, where we investigated mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy in melanoma and other cancers. Today, we'll be discussing 3 important topics, including neoadjuvant immunotherapy and the importance of multidisciplinary team coordination, the impact and practical considerations for incorporating TIL therapy into melanoma, and the current and future use of CD3 engagers in both uveal and cutaneous melanoma. You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode. Jason, it's great to have this opportunity to speak with you today. Dr. Jason Luke: Absolutely. Thanks, Ryan. It's great to see you. Dr. Ryan Augustin: So, to kick things off, Jason, we, of course, have seen tremendous advances in cancer immunotherapy, not only in metastatic disease but also the perioperative setting. Recent data have shown that the use of neoadjuvant therapy can provide not only critical prognostic information but can also help individualize post-resection treatment strategies and potentially even eliminate adjuvant therapy altogether in patients who achieve a pathologic, complete response. This signifies a conceptual shift in oncology with the goal of curing patients with immunotherapy. In triple-negative breast cancer, the KEYNOTE-522 regimen with pembrolizumab is standard of care. In non-small cell lung cancer, there are now four FDA approved chemo-IO regimens in both the neoadjuvant and perioperative settings. And, of course, in melanoma, starting with SWOG S1801 utilizing pembro mono therapy, and now with combined CTLA-4 PD-1 blockade based on results from the NADINA trial, neoadjuvant IO is the new standard of care in high-risk, resectable melanoma. It's important to highlight this because whereas other tumor types have more mature multidisciplinary care, for example, patients with breast cancer are reviewed by the whole team in every center, and every patient with lung cancer certainly benefits from multidisciplinary care conferences, that's not always the case with melanoma, given the relative frequency of cases compared to other tumor types. Jason, would you say that we have now moved into an era where the integration of a multidisciplinary team and melanoma needs to be prioritized. And why is it important to have multidisciplinary team coordination from the onset of a patient's diagnosis? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, I think those are great questions, Ryan, and I think they really speak to the movement in our field and the great success that we've had integrating systemic therapy, particularly immunotherapy, into our treatment paradigms. And so, before answering your question directly, I would add even a little bit more color, which is to note that over the last few years, we've additionally seen the development of adjuvant therapy into stages of melanoma that, historically speaking, were considered low-risk, and medical oncologists might not even see the patient. To that, I'm speaking specifically about the stage 2B and 2C approvals for adjuvant anti-PD-1 with pembrolizumab or nivolumab. So this has been an emerging complication. Classically, patients are diagnosed with melanoma by either their primary care doctor or a dermatologist. Again, classically, the next step was referral to a surgeon who had removed the primary lesion, with discussion around nodal evaluation as well. And that paradigm has really changed now, where I think integration of medical oncology input early on in the evaluation of the appropriate treatment plan for patients with melanoma is quite a pressing issue now, both because we have FDA approvals for therapeutics that can reduce risk of recurrence, and whether or not to pursue those makes a big difference to the patient for discussion early on. And, moreover, the use of systemic therapies now, prior to surgery, of course, then, of course, requires the involvement of medical oncology. And just for an emphasis point on this, it's classically the case, for good reason, that surgeons complete their surgery and then feel confident to tell the patient, “Well, we got it all, and you're just in really good shape.” And while I understand where that's coming from, that often leaves aside the risk of recurrence. So you can have the most perfect surgery in the world and yet still be at very high risk of recurrence. And so it's commonly the case that we get patients referred to us after surgery who think they're just in totally good shape, quite surprised to find out that, in fact, they might have a 20% to 50% risk of recurrence. And so that's where this multidisciplinary integration for patient management really does make a big difference. And so I would really emphasize the point you were making before, which is that we need multidisciplinary teams of med onc with derm, with surgery early on, to discuss “What are the treatment plans going to be for patients?” And that's true for neoadjuvant therapy, so, for palpable stage 3, where we might give checkpoint inhibitors or combinations before surgery. But it's true even in any reasonably high-risk melanoma, and I would argue in that state, anything more than stage 1 should be discussed as a group, because that communication strategy with the patient is so important from first principles, so that they have an expectation of what it's going to look like as they are followed out over time. And so we're emphasizing this point because I think it's mostly the case at most hospitals that there isn't a cutaneous oncology disease management meeting, and I think there needs to be. It's important to point out that usually the surgeons that do this kind of surgery are actually either the GI surgeons who do colon cancer or the breast surgeons. And so, given that melanoma, it's not the most common kind of cancer, it could easily be integrated into the existing disease review groups to review these cases. And I think that's the point we really want to emphasize now. I think we're not going to belabor the data so much, but there are enormous advantages to either perioperative or adjuvant systemic therapy in melanoma. We're talking about risk reduction of more than 50%, 50-75% risk reduction. It's essential that we make sure we optimally offer that to patients. And, of course, patients will choose what they think is best for their care. But we need to message to them in a way that they can understand what the risks and benefits of those treatments are and then are well set up to understand what that treatment might look like and what their expectations would be out over time. So I think this is a great art of medicine place to start. Instead of belaboring just the details of the trial to say, let's think about how we take care of our patients and how we communicate with them on first principles so that we can make the most out of the treatments that we do have available. Dr. Ryan Augustin: That's great, Jason. Very insightful points. Thank you. So, shifting gears now, I'd also like to ask you a little bit about TIL therapy in melanoma. So our listeners will be aware that TIL is a promising new approach for treating advanced melanoma and leverages the power of a patient's cytotoxic T cells to attack cancer cells. While we've known about the potential of this therapy for some time, based on pioneering work at the NCI, this therapy is now FDA approved under the brand AMTAGVI (Lifileucel) from Iovance Biotherapeutics, making it the first cellular therapy to be approved for a solid tumor. Now, I know TIL therapy has been administered at your institution, Jason, for several years now, under trial status primarily for uveal melanoma using an in-house processing. But for many cancer centers, the only experience with cellular therapy has come under the domain of malignant hematology with CAR T administration. At our institution, for example, we have only recently started administering TIL therapy for melanoma, which has required a tremendous multidisciplinary effort among outpatient oncology, critical care, and an inpatient hematology service that has expertise in cytokine release syndrome. Jason, where do you see TIL therapy fitting into the metastatic space? Which patients do you think are truly candidates for this intensive therapy? And what other practical or logistical considerations do you think we should keep in mind moving forward? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, thanks for raising this. I think the approval of lifileucel, which is the scientific name for the TIL product that's on the market now. It really is a shift, a landscape shift in oncology, and we're starting in melanoma again, as seems to be commonly the case in drug development. But it's really important to understand that this is a conceptually different kind of treatment, and therefore, it does require different considerations. Starting first with data and then actualization, maybe secondarily, when we see across the accelerated approval package that led to this being available, we quote patients that the response rate is likely in the range of 30%, maybe slightly lower than that, but a meaningful 25% to 30% response rate, and that most of those patients that do have response, it seems to be quite durable, meaning patients have been followed up to four years, and almost all the responders are still in response. And that's a really powerful thing to be able to tell a patient, particularly if the patient has already proceeded through multiple lines of prior standard therapy. So this is a very, very promising therapy. Now, it is a complicated therapy as well. And so you highlighted that to do this, you have to have a tumor that's amenable for resection, a multidisciplinary team that has done a surgery to remove the tumor, sent it off to the company. They then need to process the TIL out of the tumor and then build them up into a personalized cell product, bring it back, you have to lympho-deplete the patient, re-introduce this TIL. So this is a process that, in the standard of care setting under best circumstances, takes roughly six weeks. So how to get that done in a timely fashion, I think, is evolving within our paradigms. But I think it is very important for people who practice in settings where this isn't already available to realize that referring patients for this should be a strong consideration. And thinking about how you could build your multidisciplinary team in a way to be able to facilitate this process, I think is going to be important, because this concept of TIL is relevant to other solid tumors as well. It's not approved yet in others, but we kind of assume eventually it probably will be. And so I think, thinking through this, how could it work, how do you refer patients is very important. Now, coming back to the science, who should we treat with this? Well, of course, it's now an air quotes “standard of care option”, so really it ought to be available to anybody. I will note that currently, the capacity across the country to make these products is not really adequate to treat all the patients that we'd want. But who would we optimally want to treat, of course, would be people who have retained a good performance status after first line therapy, people who have tumors that are easily removable and who have not manifested a really rapid disease progression course, because then, of course, that six-week timeline probably doesn't make sense. The other really interesting data point out of the clinical trials so far is it has looked like the patients who got the least amount of benefit from anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, in other words, who progressed immediately without any kind of sustained response, those patients seem to have the best response to TILs, and that's actually sort of a great biomarker. So, this drug works the best for the population of patients where checkpoint inhibitors were not effective. And so as you think about who those patients might be in your practice, as you're listening, I think prioritizing it for primary progression on anti PD-1, again and giving it ahead thought about how would you get the patient through this process or referred to this process very quickly is really important because that lag time is a problem. Patients who have melanoma tend to progress reasonably quickly, and six weeks can be a long time in melanoma land. So, thinking ahead and building those processes is going to be important moving into the future Dr. Ryan Augustin: Definitely appreciate those practical considerations. Jason, thank you. Moving on to our final topic, I was hoping to discuss the use of immune cell engagers in melanoma. So, similar to CAR T therapy, bispecific T-cell engagers, or BiTEs, as they're commonly known, are standard of care in refractory myeloma and lymphoma. But these antibodies engaging CD-3 on T cells and a tumor specific antigen on cancer cells are relatively new in the solid tumor space. Tarlatamab, which is a DLL-3 and CD-3 bispecific antibody, was recently approved in refractory small cell lung cancer, and, of course, tebentafusp, an HLA-directed CD-3 T cell engager was approved in uveal melanoma in 2022. Both T and NK cell engaging therapies are now offering hope in cancers where there has historically been little to offer. However, similar to our discussion with TIL therapy, bispecifics can lead to CRS and neurotoxicity, which require considerable logistical support and care coordination. Jason, I was wondering if you could briefly discuss the current landscape of immune cell engagers in melanoma and how soon we may see these therapies enter the treatment paradigm for cutaneous disease. Dr. Jason Luke: I think it is an exciting, novel treatment strategy that I think we will only see emerge more and more. You alluded to the approval of tebentafusp in uveal melanoma, and those trials were, over the course of a decade, where those of us in solid tumor land learned how to manage cytokine release syndrome or the impact of these C3 bispecifics, in a way that we weren't used to. And what I'll caution people is that CRS, as this term, it sounds very scary because people have heard of patients that, of course, had difficult outcomes and hematological malignancies, but it's a spectrum of side effects. And so, when we think about tebentafusp, which is the approved molecule, really what we see is a lot of rash because GP100, the other tumor antigen target, is in the skin. So, patients get a rash, and then people do get fevers, but it's pretty rare to get more than that. So really what you have to have is the capacity to monitor patients for 12 hours, but it's really not more scary than that. So it really just requires treating a few people to kind of get used to these kinds of symptoms, because they're not the full-on ICU level CRS that we see with, say, CAR T-cells. But where is the field going? Well, there's a second CD3 bispecific called brenetafusp that targets the molecule PRAME, that's in a phase 3 clinical trial now for frontline cutaneous melanoma. And tebentafusp is also being evaluated in cutaneous melanoma for refractory disease. So, it's very possible that these could be very commonly used for cutaneous melanoma, moving into, say, a two-to-four-year time horizon. And so therefore, getting used to what are these side effects, how do you manage them in an ambulatory practice for solid tumor, etc., is going to be something everyone's going to have to learn how to deal with, but I don't think it should be something that people should be afraid of. One thing that we've seen with these molecules so far is that their kinetics of treatment effect do look slightly different than what we see with more classic oncology therapies. These drugs have a long-term benefit but doesn't always manifest as disease regression. So, we commonly see patients will have stable disease, meaning their tumor stops growing, but we don't see that it shrank a lot, but that can turn into a very meaningful long-term benefit. So that's something that we're also, as a community, going to have to get used to. It may not be the case we see tumors shrink dramatically upfront, but rather we can actually follow people with good quality- of-life over a longer period of time. Where is the field going? You mentioned tarlatamab in small cell lung cancer, and I think we're only going to see more of these as appropriate tumor antigens are identified in different tumors. And then the other piece is these CD3 engagers generally rely upon some kind of engagement with a T cell, whether CD3 engagers, and so they can be TCR or T-cell receptor-based therapies, although they can be also SCFV-based. But that then requires new biomarkers, because TCR therapy requires HLA restriction. So, understanding that now we're going to need to profile patients based on their germline in addition to the genomics of the tumor. And those two things are separate. But I would argue at this point, basically everybody with cutaneous melanoma should be being profiled for HLA-A(*)0201, which is the major T-cell receptor HLA haplotype that we would be looking for, because whether or not you can get access immediately to tebentafusp, but therefore clinical trials will become more and more important. Finally, in that T-cell receptor vein, there are also T cell receptor-transduced T cells, which are also becoming of relevance in the oncology community and people listening will be aware in synovial sarcoma of the first approval for a TCR-transduced T cell with afamitresgene autoleucel. And in melanoma, we similarly have TCR-transduced T cells that are coming forward in clinical trials into phase 3, the IMA203 PRAME-directed molecule particularly. And leveraging our prior conversation about TILs, we're going to have more and more cellular based therapies coming forward, which is going to make it important to understand what are the biomarkers that go with those, what are the side effect profiles of these, and how do you build your practice in a way that you can optimally get your patients access to all of these different treatments, because it will become more logistically complicated, kind of as more of these therapies come online over the next, like we said, two to four years kind of time horizon. So, it's very exciting, but there is more to do, both logistically and scientifically. Dr. Ryan Augustin: That's excellent. Thanks, Jason, and thank you so much for sharing your great insight with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks so much for the opportunity. Dr. Ryan Augustin: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode, and you can follow Dr. Luke on X, formerly known as Twitter, @jasonlukemd. And you can find me, @RyanAugustinMD. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers: @ryanaugustinmd Dr. Jason Luke @jasonlukemd Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Ryan Augustin: No relationships to disclose Dr. Jason Luke: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical, Pyxis, Alphamab Oncology, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch Oncology, Stipe, NeoTX Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, Alphamab Oncology, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius, Tesaro, Xilio, Xencor, Alnylam, Crown Bioscience, Flame Biosciences, Genentech, Kadmon, KSQ Therapeutics, Immunocore, Inzen, Pfizer, Silicon Therapeutics, TRex Bio, Bright Peak, Onc.AI, STipe, Codiak Biosciences, Day One Therapeutics, Endeavor, Gilead Sciences, Hotspot Therapeutics, SERVIER, STINGthera, Synthekine Research Funding (Inst.): Merck , Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma , EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring bank, Trishula, KAHR Medical, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena Oncology, Numab, Replimmune, Rubius Therapeutics, Synlogic, Takeda, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc., BioNTech AG, Scholar Rock, Next Cure Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), and Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof) Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio

university ai starting moving spring minnesota patients cd fda pfizer rochester keynote gi icu werewolf advances cart io bites mayo clinic pd bayer oncology merck 2b endeavor janssen novartis melanoma nk royalties accommodations cancer care immunotherapy asco genentech crs abbvie bristol myers squibb classically stipe takeda regeneron hla gilead sciences tcr nci nektar onc prognostic sclc cancer immunotherapy eisai dll cd3 immuno oncology tils pyxis nadina rubius servier ctla incyte emd serono alnylam genmab moderna therapeutics tesaro jason luke transcript dr array biopharma synlogic gp100

Morphea

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 5, 2024 15:52

This podcast will discuss an approach to morphea. The podcast was created by Amir Pourghadiri, a fourth-year medical student at the University of British Columbia, Jeffrey Toy, a dermatology resident at the University of British Columbia, and Dr. Joseph Lam, a pediatric dermatologist at the BC Children's Hospital. An author of this podcast has financial support from Johnson & Johnson, serves on an advisory board for Galderma, Johnson & Johnson Inc, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme, Valeant, Health Plexus, and Incyte, and also received a speaker bursary from Johnson & Johnson Inc. Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Valeant, La Roche Posay, and Beiersdorf.

university hospitals british columbia pfizer johnson johnson beiersdorf bc children galderma valeant sanofi genzyme incyte joseph lam morphea

139. Peds derm discussions with Dr. Lisa Swanson! - Infant gut microbiota and risk for allergic disease - Maternal vitamin D and atopic dermatitis - Tocilizumab for H syndrome

Dermasphere - The Dermatology Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 2, 2024 60:23

Peds derm discussions with Dr. Lisa Swanson! - Infant gut microbiota and risk for allergic disease - Maternal vitamin D and atopic dermatitis - Tocilizumab for H syndrome - Nadolol = or > propranolol for hemangiomas Lisa Swanson can be found at lisaswansonmd@gmail.com Want to donate to the cause? Do so here!Donate to the podcast: uofuhealth.org/dermasphereCheck out our video content on YouTube:www.youtube.com/@dermaspherepodcastand VuMedi!: www.vumedi.com/channel/dermasphere/The University of Utah's DermatologyECHO: ⁠physicians.utah.edu/echo/dermatology-primarycare -⁠ Connect with us!- Web: ⁠dermaspherepodcast.com/⁠ - X: @DermaspherePC- Instagram: dermaspherepodcast- Facebook: www.facebook.com/DermaspherePodcast/- Check out Luke and Michelle's other podcast,SkinCast! ⁠healthcare.utah.edu/dermatology/skincast/⁠Dermasphere has received an unrestricted educational grant from Incyte Corporation. Thanks, Incyte!Check out our friends at:- ⁠Kikoxp.com ⁠(a social platform for doctors to share knowledge)- ⁠www.levelex.com/games/top-derm⁠ (A free dermatology game to learnmore dermatology!

university risk utah web disease syndrome vitamins infants vitamin d maternal der m peds allergic atopic dermatitis gut microbiota incyte tocilizumab lisa swanson

Pharma and Biotech Daily: The Latest in Gene Therapy, Drug Pricing, and Cancer Research

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 16, 2024 4:24

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma e Biotech world.Evotec is exiting the gene therapy field and cutting jobs due to a slowdown in research spending. Merck has made a $700 million bet on an antibody drug for immune diseases, while Lilly has opened a new R&D hub in Boston. Ovid and Lexicon have laid off staff, and Merck's TIGIT drug has failed another trial. Intellia's therapy for hereditary angioedema has succeeded in a study. The gene therapy market is growing, particularly in cancer care, with companies continuing to invest in improving cell therapies. Cabaletta Bio's shares have sunk on safety concerns, while Vertex has secured reimbursement for Casgev in England. The world's priciest drug may save lives, but there are concerns about whether children can access it in time. Overall, the gene therapy industry is experiencing various developments and challenges as companies navigate the evolving landscape.The Biden administration announced that negotiated drug prices through the IRA program are expected to save Medicare $6 billion in 2026, although the actual savings may not be as significant as claimed. Gilead's investment in CymaBay paid off with FDA approval for a drug to treat autoimmune liver disease. Evotec is the latest biopharma company to announce layoffs in August. In other news, Incyte received a second FDA approval for a drug to treat graft-versus-host disease, while bluebird is experiencing slow uptake of its gene therapies for sickle cell and beta-thalassemia. The role of quality assurance and regulatory affairs (QARA) professionals is evolving, with strategies and best practices being discussed. Various marketing campaigns and strategies are being discussed, including Lobos 1707 casting LeBron James as a spy in new ads, Martha Stewart playing an intern in a Fiverr campaign, and US Bank celebrating black achievement with zines in The New York Times. Additionally, Allbirds' CMO talks about the importance of brand building in the company's turnaround plan. The text also includes information about first-party data strategies, an upcoming webinar on the state of marketing and print projects in 2024, and other relevant industry news and resources.In the healthcare industry, Medicare revealed the results of drug price negotiations, which are expected to save taxpayers $6 billion. Kaiser Permanente has implemented an AI documentation tool from Abridge to summarize medical information from patient-clinician conversations. Meanwhile, Medicaid has surpassed Medicare Advantage as a challenge for health insurers in the second quarter, but many still reported significant earnings. In other news, there are updates on healthcare worker strikes and unsealed court filings detailing a Department of Justice investigation into Prospect Medical for possible false claim act violations.The text discusses the health disparities highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among minority groups, and how these disparities were exacerbated during the crisis. It also explores the importance of building trust among patients of color in the healthcare system despite historical injustices and ongoing disparities. Dr. Reed Tuckson, a leader in public health outreach to people of color, shares lessons learned from the pandemic and discusses how pharma can better serve these communities.The U.S. government has unveiled the prices it will pay for 10 widely used medicines as part of its efforts to lower prescription drug costs through Medicare negotiations. These prices will not take effect until 2026, but the announcement marks a significant step in a process established by the Inflation Reduction Act. Biopharma Dive provides detailed coverage of this development and other industry news, offering insight into topics such as clinical readouts, FDA approvals, gene therapy, druSupport the Show.

Exploring PN as a Distinct and Unique Disease

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 15, 2024 30:37

Dr. Sonja Ständer and Dr. Shawn Kwatra discuss the unique characteristics of prurigo nodularis (PN) and its clinical definition and explore how some of these characteristics are shared with atopic dermatitis, including underlying type 2 inflammation. They also discuss the need to raise awareness of this disease among both physicians and patients and educate that this is not a psychodermatological disorder. ADVENT is a medical education non-promotional resource for healthcare professionals organized by Sanofi and Regeneron. Learn more at ADVENTprogram.com. This podcast is intended for healthcare professionals only. Disclaimer: This program is non-promotional and is sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The speakers are being compensated and/or receiving an honorarium from Sanofi and Regeneron in connection with this program The content contained in this program was jointly developed by the speakers and Sanofi and Regeneron and is not eligible for continuing medical education (CME) credits Speaker disclosures: Dr. Shawn Kwatra is an advisory board member/consultant for Abbvie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Dermavant, Galderma, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Sonja Ständer was speaker and/or consultant and/or Investigator and/or has received research funding from AbbVie, Almirall, Beiersdorf, BMS, Clexio, Eli Lilly, FomF, Galderma, German Research Foundation (DFG), Integrity CE, Kiniksa, Leo Pharma, L'Oréal, MEDahead, Moroscience, NACCME, Novartis, Omnicuris, P.G. Unna Academy, Pfizer, Sanofi, TouchIME, UCB, Vifor, and WebMD. © 2024 Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. All Rights Reserved. MAT-GLB-2400085- 1.0 - 08/2024 MAT-US-2408113 v1.0-P Expiration Date: 08/13/2026

Charting a New Course: The Frontier of Early Intervention and Disease Modification in AD

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 8, 2024 23:04

Join Drs. April Armstrong and Lisa Beck for a conversation around the long-term burden and effects of AD. They will discuss the underlying pathophysiology of AD and how early intervention may impact disease course. ADVENT is a medical education non-promotional resource for healthcare professionals organized by Sanofi and Regeneron. Learn more at ADVENTprogram.com. This podcast is intended for healthcare professionals only. Disclaimer: This program is non-promotional and is sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The speakers are being compensated and/or receiving an honorarium from Sanofi and Regeneron in connection with this program The content contained in this program was jointly developed by the speakers and Sanofi and Regeneron and is not eligible for continuing medical education (CME) credits Speaker disclosures: April Armstrong, MD, MPH has served as a research investigator, scientific advisor, or speaker to AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, Arcutis, ASLAN, Beiersdorf, BI, BMS, EPI, Incyte, Leo, UCB, Janssen, Lilly, Mindera, Nimbus, Novartis, Ortho, Sun, Dermavant, Dermira, Sanofi, Takeda, Organon, Regeneron, Pfizer and Ventyx Lisa Beck MD, consults for Abbvie, Allakos, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Aslan Pharma, Astria Therapeutics, Celldex, Dermavent, DermTech, Escient Pharma, Eli Lilly Company, Evelo Biosciences, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Merck, Nektar Therapeutics, Numab Therapeutics, Pfizer, Proteologix, Rapt Therapeutics, Regeneron, Ribon Therapeutics, Sanofi/Genzyme, Sanofi-Aventis, Sitryx Therapeutics, Stealth BioTherapeutics, Trevi Therapeutics, Union Therapeutics, Xencor and Yuhan and has been an Investigator for Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca, DermTech, Kiniksa, Pfizer, Regeneron, Ribon Therapeutics and Sanofi. © 2024 Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. All Rights Reserved. MAT-GLB-2401395 - 1.0 - 07/2024 MAT-US-2407636 v1.0 - P Exp Date: 07/31/2026

md sun advent disease pfizer bi mph frontier astrazeneca investigators charting merck janssen novartis ucb aslan sanofi modification early intervention amgen new course abbvie nimbus takeda bms ortho regeneron beiersdorf organon galderma regeneron pharmaceuticals sanofi genzyme incyte almirall sanofi aventis leo pharma arena pharmaceuticals lisa beck april armstrong dermira

DESTINY-Breast06 and A-BRAVE: Advances in Breast Cancer Research

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 8, 2024 15:12

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

philadelphia fish brave pfizer keynote advances astrazeneca pcr janssen novartis millenium immunotherapy asco torque amgen jefferies black diamond fujifilm abbvie regeneron harpoon her2 boehringer ingelheim pfs gilead sciences parp cdk adcs breast cancer research pd l1 ihc curis ild jefferson health eisai tils asco annual meeting daiichi sankyo jazz pharmaceuticals myriad genetics incyte emd serono medimmune artios seattle genetics pharmamar erika hamilton t dxd sidney kimmel cancer center arvinas compugen tesaro transcript dr inspirna arqule sermonix pharmaceuticals syros pharmaceuticals effector therapeutics acerta pharma

Atypical Graft Versus Host Disease Presentations Examined with Dr. Doris Ponce of MSKCC

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 8, 2024 27:31

Dr. Doris Ponce from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center delves into atypical presentations of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD). As an associate member, co-chair of the Center for Hematologic Malignancies, and director of the Graft-Versus-Host Disease Program, Dr. Ponce provides an in-depth understanding of this complex condition.Dr. Ponce emphasizes the diverse symptoms of GVHD that often overlap with other conditions, making diagnosis challenging. She outlines the eight organs typically affected by GVHD: skin, mouth, eyes, musculoskeletal, genitourinary, lungs, liver, and gastrointestinal tract. However, she highlights that GVHD can also present atypically in organs such as the kidneys, nervous system, muscles, heart, and pancreas, causing symptoms such as serositis, effusions, nephrotic syndrome, and autoimmune disorders like vitiligo.Atypical presentations of GVHD are rare and require exclusion of other conditions such as drug side effects or infections before diagnosis. Dr. Ponce stresses the importance of patients communicating any new or unusual symptoms with their clinicians, as these might not initially seem connected to GVHD.Focusing on skin-related GVHD, Dr. Ponce describes common and atypical manifestations, including tight skin (sclerodermatous changes), pigmentation loss, dryness, and psoriasis-like appearances. Treatment varies but often involves topical steroids or immune suppression tailored to individual symptoms. For daily skincare, she advises avoiding frequent hot showers, using lukewarm water, and selecting gentle, fragrance-free products to prevent skin irritation.Regarding sun exposure, Dr. Ponce recommends using broad-spectrum sunscreen with SPF 30 or higher, and wearing protective clothing to prevent rashes exacerbated by sunlight. She also discusses the use of chemical and mineral sunscreens, noting that mineral sunscreens, despite being thicker, are better suited for sensitive skin.Peggy and Dr. Ponce discuss the Long Good Feel Better program that the American Cancer Society provides. For patients wanting to wear makeup, Dr. Ponce suggests choosing products designed for sensitive skin, avoiding those with harsh ingredients or multiple components, and replacing makeup regularly to prevent contamination. She also warns against using organic or preservative-free makeup due to infection risks.Haircare after GVHD often involves managing hair loss and changes in texture. Dr. Ponce advises infrequent washing, using gentle products, and considering supplements like biotin. For wigs, she cautions against those requiring glue and suggests alternatives like clip-on wigs or scarves. Hair dyeing is permissible with ammonia-free products.Nail care post-transplant includes using nail hardeners and avoiding acrylic nails. Dr. Ponce also emphasizes checking for underlying issues like vitamin deficiencies that may affect nail health.In closing, Dr. Ponce highlights the holistic approach to patient care at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, addressing both medical and psychological aspects to support patients' overall well-being. She encourages patients to communicate any concerns, as seemingly minor symptoms might significantly impact their health and recovery. Dr. Ponce's dedication to improving patients' lives extends beyond treating their conditions, fostering confidence and quality of life throughout their recovery journey.More:Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's Tips for Managing GVHD (created by Dr. Ponce and dermatologist) Dr. Alina Markova:https://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/patient-education/tips-managing-graft-versus-host-disease-gvhdAmerican Cancer Society's Look Good Feel Better Program: https://lookgoodfeelbetter.org/Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Website: https://www.mskcc.org/Sally Hansen Nail Hardener: https://www.sallyhansen.com/en-us/nail-care/nail-care/mega-strength-hardenerSurvivor recommended clothing brands that have SPF/UPF clothing:Coolibar: https://www.coolibar.com/Columbia: https://www.columbia.com/c/sun-protection/Baleaf: https://www.baleaf.com/collections/upf50This season is made possible thanks to donations from Syndax and Incyte.https://syndax.com/https://incyte.com/ Follow the nbmtLINK on Instagram! https://www.instagram.com/nbmtlink/

Men's Sexual Health and GVHD w Dr. Jose Flores Ramirez of MSK

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 8, 2024 28:26

This epsiode includes content related to reproductive organs and sexual health and may not be suitable for all listeners.In this podcast, we welcome Dr. Jose Flores, an expert in sexual and reproductive medicine at New York's Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. We dive deep into the often challenging but crucial topic of male sexuality, particularly in the context of cancer treatment and graft versus host disease (GVHD).Dr. Flores begins by distinguishing between sexual dysfunction and erectile dysfunction (ED). He emphasizes that sexual dysfunction encompasses various issues beyond just achieving erections, such as ejaculation problems, orgasm issues, decreased sex drive, and changes in penile shape. This broader understanding is essential when discussing sexual health with patients.The prevalence of ED after cancer treatment is notably high, with up to 60-70% of men experiencing it post-chemotherapy, and even higher rates following pelvic surgery, specifically. Low testosterone levels also contribute significantly to sexual dysfunction, particularly after treatments targeting the pelvic area.A critical aspect of addressing ED is breaking the wall of silence around it. Dr. Flores stresses the importance of open communication between patients and healthcare providers. Initiating conversations about sexual health can lead to better assessments and treatments. He outlines the initial steps in diagnosing ED, including patient questionnaires and lab tests, and underscores the need for healthcare providers to proactively ask patients about their sexual health.The discussion then shifts to the impact of GVHD on sexual function. Dr. Flores notes that about 70% of men post-bone marrow or stem cell transplant suffer from low testosterone and ED. Unfortunately, without intervention, these issues do not typically resolve on their own. Patients must seek help to explore treatment options.Dr. Flores explains the ED treatment model, which follows a stepwise approach. The first step includes lifestyle modifications and the use of PDE-5 inhibitors like Viagra and Cialis. If these are ineffective, injection therapy is the next step, followed by mechanical aids like penile pumps and, as a last resort, penile implants.Myths and realities of PDE-5 inhibitors are addressed, clarifying that these medications require proper usage, including an empty stomach for Viagra and sufficient time for absorption for Cialis, along with sexual stimulation to be effective. Proper education on these aspects can significantly enhance their effectiveness.Low testosterone, particularly after cancer treatment, is another major topic. Dr. Flores discusses the complexities of testosterone replacement therapy (TRT), including potential risks like polycythemia, effects on fertility, and the necessity of screening for conditions like sleep apnea and prostate cancer before starting treatment. He advises patients to preserve fertility before undergoing cancer treatments and outlines options for those with compromised fertility post-treatment.The conversation concludes with Dr. Flores urging patients to be proactive about their sexual and reproductive health. He highlights the importance of seeking specialized care and the positive impact it can have on overall quality of life. Throughout the discussion, Dr. Flores's compassionate approach underscores the importance of addressing these sensitive issues openly and effectively.Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: https://www.mskcc.orgInternational Index of Erectile Dysfunction: https://www.uptodate.comTestosterone Replacement Therapy Information: https://www.urologyhealth.orgThis season is made possible thanks to donations from Syndax and Incyte.https://syndax.com/https://incyte.com/ Follow the nbmtLINK on Instagram! https://www.instagram.com/nbmtlink/

Caregiver Perspective: Chronic Graft Versus Host Disease: Meet Angie Giallourakis of Elephants and Tea

meditation cancer drawing elephants tea chronic motivated caregivers stress management caregiving yoga nidra aml graft complementary medicine bone marrow transplant osteosarcoma gvhd host disease incyte

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 8, 2024 37:24

In today's podcast, we have the pleasure of speaking with Angie Giallourakis, a dedicated advocate and founder of the Steven G. Cancer Foundation and Elephants and Tea. Angie shares her powerful story of being a caregiver to her son Steven, who battled cancer twice. Steven was first diagnosed with stage four osteosarcoma in 2006, and later with secondary acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) in 2008, necessitating a bone marrow transplant.Angie recounts the emotional and physical toll of Steven's journey, describing the intense periods of treatment and the unexpected challenges they faced. After his bone marrow transplant, Steven experienced graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Angie shares vivid anecdotes, including a harrowing moment when Steven's salivary glands swelled, causing his face to balloon. This incident, among others, highlights the unpredictable nature of GVHD and the constant vigilance required from caregivers.Angie emphasizes the importance of stress management for caregivers. She advocates for finding personal ways to cope, whether through exercise, yoga, meditation, or prayer. Her own methods include Yoga Nidra, a type of meditation, and seeking solace in prayer. She also stresses the importance of good nutrition and staying hydrated, which can be challenging during long hospital stays.Drawing from her experiences, Angie advises caregivers to seek help when needed and to communicate openly with their loved ones and medical teams. She underscores the necessity of validating the patient's pain and symptoms, as Steven's experience with inflammation throughout his body was initially dismissed by some as psychological.The conversation shifts to Angie's founding of the Steven G. Cancer Foundation. Motivated by the outdated treatments Steven received, she aimed to raise awareness and fund research for adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer. She also talks about Elephants and Tea, a magazine by and for cancer patients, founded with her son Nick. The magazine provides a platform for unfiltered stories from cancer patients and has expanded to include workshops, community support, and therapeutic resources.Angie's message to new caregivers is clear: understand the potential challenges, communicate effectively, and don't hesitate to ask for and accept help. She highlights the importance of social support, both for patients and caregivers, to navigate the emotional and physical demands of cancer treatment.As we wrap up, Angie encourages listeners to reach out to organizations, consume available resources, and connect with others in similar situations. Her final words resonate with a message of hope and validation: you are not alone in this journey.More:Steven G. Cancer Foundation: https://www.stevengcancerfoundation.orgElephants and Tea: https://www.elephantsandtea.comNational Bone Marrow Transplant Link - (800) LINK-BMT, or (800) 546-5268.nbmtLINK Website: https://www.nbmtlink.org/nbmtLINK Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/nbmtLINKnbmtLINK YouTube Page can be found by clicking here.This season is made possible thanks to donations from Syndax and Incyte.https://syndax.com/https://incyte.com/ Follow the nbmtLINK on Instagram! https://www.instagram.com/nbmtlink/

Navigating Psychological Distress of Graft Versus Host Disease: Insights from Dr. Hermi Amonoo

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 8, 2024 27:13

In this episode, we speak with Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute's Dr. Hermioni "Hermi" Amonoo, an esteemed psychiatrist, psychosocial oncologist, and associate professor at Harvard Medical School. Our discussion centers on the psychological distress associated with graft versus host disease (GVHD) following a bone marrow stem cell transplant. Dr. Amonoo sheds light on the significant psychological challenges patients with GVHD face, noting that approximately 50% experience clinically significant depression, and about a third suffer from anxiety. This psychological distress permeates various aspects of daily life, affecting routines, relationships, and social roles.Dr. Amonoo uses a powerful analogy to describe psychological well-being, likening it to a toolbox filled with various tools and equipment essential for managing distress. Key components of this toolbox include psychotherapeutic interventions, health behaviors such as good nutrition and physical activity, medication when necessary, and professional help from specialty mental health clinicians. Social support and meaningful relationships also play a crucial role in enhancing wellbeing. Peer support, for instance, can offer valuable lived experiences and tips for thriving despite the challenges posed by GVHD.We also delve into the importance of the clinical team in managing cGVHD. The clinical team helps patients understand the disease, manage symptoms, and connect with resources. Dr. Amonoo emphasizes the importance of patients communicating openly with their clinical team, urging them not to hesitate in asking questions or expressing concerns about new symptoms.Pacing oneself is another critical aspect discussed. GVHD is not a static condition, and symptoms can evolve over time. Patients should give themselves grace, avoid overexertion, and maintain a sustainable pace to manage their energy levels effectively. Dr. Amonoo compares this to running a marathon, where pacing is essential to avoid burnout.Caregivers, who play a vital role in the patient's journey, must also prioritize their own well being. Dr. Amonoo stresses that caregiver well being directly impacts patient well being, encouraging caregivers to practice self-care and seek help when needed. Communication between caregivers and patients is crucial, especially as relationships and priorities may evolve during the recovery journey.As we conclude, Dr. Amonoo offers final advice to listeners: don't worry alone. Leverage your clinical team and support networks to navigate the challenges of recovery. This collaborative approach can significantly enhance the quality of life for both patients and caregivers.More:GVHD Upside Down Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/gvhdupsidedownElephants and Tea: https://elephantsandtea.comNational Bone Marrow Transplant Link - (800) LINK-BMT, or (800) 546-5268.nbmtLINK Website: https://www.nbmtlink.org/nbmtLINK Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/nbmtLINKnbmtLINK YouTube Page can be found by clicking here.This season is made possible thanks to donations from Syndax and Incyte.https://syndax.com/https://incyte.com/ Follow the nbmtLINK on Instagram! https://www.instagram.com/nbmtlink/

Surviving & Thriving: JR Brandt's Journey with Chronic Graft Versus Host Disease

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 8, 2024 28:29

In this episode, we chat with JR Brandt of Montana, an acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) survivor, about his journey through diagnosis, treatment, and living with chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD). JR shares his initial diagnosis story, describing how what he thought was a minor infection led to a leukemia diagnosis complicated by the Philadelphia Positive chromosome. He underwent 26 days of chemotherapy and was eventually cleared for a bone marrow stem cell transplant at Stanford University in March 2017.JR discusses the onset of chronic GVHD symptoms about a year after his transplant, beginning with skin changes. He was treated with Rituxan infusions, which provided temporary relief. Over the years, as symptoms re-emerged, JR continued Rituxan treatments and adjusted his care plan, even after moving from California to Montana. He highlights the importance of finding and continuing care with familiar healthcare professionals, like his physician who (fortunately) moved to Billings Clinic.Beyond skin issues, JR describes experiencing joint tightness, dry eyes, dysphagia, and dry mouth. He mentions practical solutions like using Biotene toothpaste for dry mouth and preservative-free Refresh Plus eyedrops for dry eyes. JR also shares the importance of physical and occupational therapy, which helped him develop a personalized exercise routine. Over time, he transitioned to aquatic aerobics and massage therapy, finding these methods more effective for managing his symptoms.JR emphasizes the significance of staying active, despite physical limitations, by adapting activities like biking with an e-bike and engaging in water aerobics. He also discusses the importance of sun protection and practical tips for managing GVHD symptoms, like using a sun hat and sunblock.JR addresses the mental health challenges of living with chronic illness, equating his experiences to PTSD and stressing the importance of setting goals and making plans to stay motivated. He shares how maintaining an active lifestyle and staying connected with his family helps him manage anxiety and stress.When discussing his career, JR explains how his background in healthcare was both a benefit and a challenge. He advises others with disabilities to utilize vocational rehabilitation services to explore new career paths. JR also encourages being your own patient advocate, ensuring all medical information is shared among healthcare providers to provide comprehensive care.JR concludes with the importance of using available resources, like the Americans with Disabilities Act, for mobility aids and other accommodations (link below). He highlights the need for continuous learning and resourcefulness in managing chronic GVHD and living life to the fullest. Products mentioned by JR in this episode:Refresh Eye Drops: https://www.refresheyedrops.com/Biotene for Dry Mouth: https://www.biotene.com/DaBrim Helmet/SunShade: https://dabrim.com/Oofos shoes: https://www.oofos.com/Mechanix Gloves: https://www.mechanix.com/Dycem Non-Slip tape: https://www.dycem-ns.com/Tryvaya (Prescription) Nasal Spray for Dry Eye: https://www.tyrvaya.com/Full list of Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies for all 50 states: https://rsa.ed.gov/about/statesAmericans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements for Power-Driven Mobility Devices: https://www.ada.gov/resources/opdmds/This season is made possible thanks to donations from Syndax and Incyte.https://syndax.com/https://incyte.com/ Follow the nbmtLINK on Instagram! https://www.instagram.com/nbmtlink/

Season 14 Trailer: The Parts of cGVHD We Don't Often Talk About

new york spotify apple montana elephants tea cleveland clinic memorial sloan kettering cancer center dana farber cancer institute gvhd incyte

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 2, 2024 3:19

Season 14 of the Marrow Masters podcast produced by the National Bone Marrow Transplant Link will be out soon, focusing on the parts of chronic graft versus host disease we don't often talk about. We'll cover male and female sexuality, and atypical presentations of chronic GVHD. We'll share a patient and caregiver perspective related to chronic GVHD and take a deep dive into the psychosocial and emotional struggles of those with this rare and sometimes debilitating disease.Guests include Dr. Doris Ponce and Dr. Jose Flores Ramirez of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, Dr. Hermioni "Hermi" Amonoo of Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and Dr. Oluwatosin Goje of Cleveland Clinic. We also speak with JR Brandt of Montana, an inspiring ALL Survivor, and Angie Giallourakis, caregiver and founder of Elephants and Tea.Season 14 of the Marrow Masters podcast will offer survivors insight, compassion, and answers to infrequently discussed subjects. The Marrow Masters podcast is produced by the National Bone Marrow Transplant Link and sponsored this season by Incyte and Syndax. Look for all six episodes coming soon on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you're listening right now.And for more, visit the National Bone Marrow Transplant Link at nbmtlink.org or follow the link below. Follow the nbmtLINK on Instagram! https://www.instagram.com/nbmtlink/

Biotech Buzz: The Latest in Pharma and Biotech News

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 31, 2024 3:23

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma and Biotech world.The biotech industry is experiencing significant growth, with drugmakers in the U.S. and Europe raising $6.8 billion in venture capital funding in the first three months of the year. This trendline explores the evolving biotech market and highlights hotspots of startup activity. Stories included focus on an unorthodox investment firm supporting biotech's 'infrastructure', the rise in private biotech funding, and insights from biotech landlord Alexandria on research clusters and the sector's recovery.A study presented at the Alzheimer's Association International Conference showed that Novo Nordisk's GLP-1 drug liraglutide may slow cognitive decline in Alzheimer's patients by 18% compared to placebo over one year of treatment. Additionally, Novo's diabetes drug Ozempic was found to be linked to a lower risk for tobacco use disorder. Pfizer and Merck reported strong second-quarter earnings exceeding Wall Street expectations. Novo Nordisk's Ozempic was also found to potentially help diabetics quit smoking according to new research. Other news includes AstraZeneca's Calquence achieving positive results in a Phase III trial for CLL and Ventyx ending development of a Tyk2 inhibitor after a Phase II flop in Crohn's disease.Pfizer has decided to quit its Duchenne gene therapy program, resulting in the termination of 150 staff members. Incyte has also trimmed its cancer drug pipeline by discontinuing the development of five experimental treatments. The biotech market is seeing an increase in M&A activity, with companies like Boehringer making deals to add to their cancer drug pipeline. Overall, the industry is evolving with a focus on efficiency, effectiveness, and ethical innovation in clinical research.Sanofi's recent record sales quarter for its immunology drug Dupixent has boosted the company's confidence in its long-term strategy, following a previous dip in share value due to growth target adjustments. The company's spinoff of its consumer unit Opella is part of a trend among big pharma companies to focus on biopharma futures. Sanofi's Dupixent, with an expanding list of indications, is showing long-term value for the company and has the potential to become one of the best-selling drugs in the world by the end of the decade.Cleveland Clinic has appointed its first Chief AI Officer, Ben Shahshahani, to lead the health system's AI strategy, focusing on managing safety, ethics, and data security concerns. Healthcare organizations are facing obstacles in increasing patient response rates through phone communication. Healthcare Dive provides insights and news for healthcare leaders, covering various topics such as health IT, policy & regulation, insurance, digital health, payer-provider partnerships, and value-based care.GSK has partnered with Flagship to help find new drugs and vaccines, similar to recent alliances with Pfizer and Novo Nordisk. Boehringer has acquired startup Nerio for up to $1.3 billion to expand its cancer drug pipeline. Autobahn raised $100 million for neuropsych drugs, while a startup led by former J&J executives, Third Arc Bio, raised $165 million for cancer and immune disease drugs. The competitive market for obesity drugs is growing, with analysts expecting significant revenue from drugs like Novo's and Eli Lilly's.Biopharma Dive provides in-depth coverage of industry news and trends, covering topics from clinical trials to drug pricing and research partnerships.Support the Show.

europe ai stories growth news healthcare wall street alzheimer's disease pfizer buzz novo ozempic astrazeneca pharma crohn biotech glp merck cleveland clinic autobahn eli lilly flagship sanofi novo nordisk gsk phase ii phase iii duchenne cll investment firm boehringer incyte dupixent association international conference

Advocacy, Education, and Managing a Rare Blood Cancer

The Mighty Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 17, 2024 31:56

Donna, a retired speech-language pathologist and public-speaking teacher who has been living with polycythemia vera (PV), a rare, chronic blood cancer known as a myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN), joins Peg Squier, M.D., Ph.D., Group Vice President, U.S. Medical Affairs at Incyte, to discuss Donna's journey with PV since diagnosis. Tune in as they share advice for patients who are looking for new options to help manage their MPN and the importance of being an advocate. This episode of The Mighty Podcast is sponsored by Incyte. Episode Transcript: https://bit.ly/3y3LQYO

education managing advocacy rare pv medical affairs group vice president blood cancer mpn incyte mighty podcast

Immunotherapy at ASCO24: NADINA and Other Key Studies

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 19, 2024 34:51

Dr. Diwakar Davar and Dr. Jason Luke discuss advances in the neoadjuvant immunotherapy space that were presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, including promising outcomes in high-risk melanoma from the NADINA trial, as well as other new treatment options for patients with advanced cancers. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Diwakar Davar: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your guest host, Dr. Diwakar Davar, and I am an associate professor of medicine and the clinical director of the Melanoma Skin Cancer Program at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. I am delighted to have my colleague and friend Dr. Jason Luke on the podcast today to discuss key late-breaking abstracts and advances in immunotherapy that were presented at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Dr. Luke is an associate professor of medicine, the associate director of clinical research, and the director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutic Center at the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center. You will find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode. Jason, it's always a pleasure to hear your insights on the key trials in these spaces and to have you back as a guest on this podcast that highlights some of the work, especially advances, that were just presented. Dr. Jason Luke: Well, thanks very much for the invitation. I always love joining the podcast. Dr. Diwakar Davar: We'll start very quickly by talking about some advances and really interesting things that happened both in the context of melanoma but also in immunotherapy in general. And we'll start with what I think was certainly one highlight for me, which was LBA2, the late-breaking abstract on the NADINA trial. It was featured in the Plenary Session, and in this abstract, Dr. Christian Blank and colleagues reported on the results of this phase 3 trial of neoadjuvant ipi-nivo. This is the flipped dose of ipi1/nivo3 versus adjuvant nivolumab in PD-1 naive, macroscopic, resectable, high-risk stage 3 melanoma. By way of background, neoadjuvant immunotherapy for those listening is an area of increasing interest for drug developers and development for both approved and novel agents. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy has been studied with multiple approved agents, including PD-1 monotherapy, PD-1 LAG-3, PD-1 CTLA-4, T-VEC, as well as investigational agents and multiple randomized and non-randomized studies. The benchmark pathologic response rates with these agents range from 17% PCR with PD-1 monotherapy, 45% to 55% PCR with PD-1 CTLA-4 combination therapy, and slightly higher 57% PCR with PD-1 LAG-3 has recently reported by Dr. Rodabe Amaria from MD Anderson. However, as we embark on phase 3 comparisons for various neoadjuvant compared to adjuvant immunotherapy trials and combinations, we're increasingly moving towards event-free survival as the primary endpoint for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant studies. And this was most recently studied in the context of SWOG S1801, a study that was led by Dr. Sapna Patel. So, Jason, before we start on NADINA, can you briefly summarize the SWOG S1801 trial and the event-free survival statistic reported by Dr. Patel and her colleagues? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, absolutely. And these data were reported at ESMO about two years ago and then in the New England Journal last year. The S1801 study answered a very simple question: What would happen if you took three of the doses of standard adjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab and moved them prior to surgery? And on a high level, the study is as simple as that. And many of us were somewhat skeptical of this trial design because we thought that just moving the doses earlier may not actually have a major impact. In the study, you alluded to the event-free survival statistic, and that alludes to what was considered an event. And so, without reading all of it, there were several different aspects that were included in terms of time, based on the date of randomization until the first of a series of events, such as disease progression, toxicity from treatment, if the patient was unable to go to surgery or had surgical complications, or if they had delay in starting the adjuvant therapy due to toxicity, and obviously, recurrence of melanoma or death from any cause. In that context, merely moving the 3 doses of pembrolizumab to the neoadjuvant setting saw an improvement in this two-year event free survival to 72% for the neoadjuvant therapy compared to 49% for the adjuvant therapy. That was quite an outstanding change. And again, noting the power of neoadjuvant treatment, really dictating the impact of anti PD-1, again, just with 3 doses moving from adjuvant into the neoadjuvant setting, and I think all of us were somewhat surprised to see that magnitude of a benefit. But it set up the current study very well, where we now look at combination therapy. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So let's move on to the phase 3 NADINA trial. Do you want to perhaps discuss the study design, particularly focusing on the EFS primary endpoint and maybe also touching on the different schedules? So, SWOG S1801 was a neoadjuvant study of 3 cycles of pembrolizumab and how did that compare and contrast to the neoadjuvant combination that was studied in NADINA? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, as you alluded to, NADINA investigated the regimen of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and compared that against adjuvant therapy with nivolumab alone. So, in the study, as you alluded, the dose and schedule of the two drugs used was nivolumab at 3 milligrams per kilogram, and ipilimumab with 1 milligram per kilogram. That was based on a series of signal finding and safety studies that had been previously done by the same group of authors identifying that as the optimal treatment regimen. And it's worth noting that's slightly different than the labeled indication that's generally used for those same drugs for metastatic melanoma, albeit that the NCCN also endorses this schedule. So, in the trial, 423 patients were randomized, 1:1 to receive either neoadjuvant therapy with those 2 doses of nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with standard adjuvant therapy with nivolumab following surgery. Now, one interesting tweak was that there was an adaptive nature to the study, meaning that patients had a fiducial placed at the index lymph node, and after the neoadjuvant therapy in that arm, that lymph node was removed. And if the patient had a major pathological response, they did not go on to receive the adjuvant portion of the treatment. So it was adaptive because those patients who did very well to the neoadjuvant did not require the adjuvant portion. And in those patients who did not achieve a major pathological response, they could go on to have the adjuvant therapy. And that also included the BRAF therapy for those whose tumors were BRAF mutants. It's also worth pointing out that the definition of event free survival was slightly different than in the S1801 study that was alluded to just a second ago. And here, EFS was defined from the date of randomization until progression due to melanoma or due to treatment. So that's slightly different than the definition in the S1801 trial. So, a somewhat complicated study, but I really applaud the authors because I think this study does mirror what we would likely be doing in actual clinical practice. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, just to briefly summarize the efficacy, and then to get your comments on this, the path response, the PCR rate was 47%. The major pathologic response rate, which is the proportion of patients with between 0% to 1/10% of residual viable tumors, was about 12%. And for a major pathologic response rate of 0% to 10% of 59%. And then the rest of the patients had either pathologic partial response, which was 10% to 50%, or pathologic non response or 50% or greater residual viable tumor, all assessed using central pathology grades. The one year RFS was 95% in the FDR patient population versus 76% in the pathologic partial response patient population, 57% in the pathologic non response patient population. So how do you view these results? Can you context the FDR rates and the EFS rates from NADINA relative to nivo-rela and also potentially SWOG 1801? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, I think these are very exciting results. I think that for those of us that have been following the field closely, they're actually not especially surprising because they mirror several studies that have come before them. When we put them in context with other studies, we see that these rates of major pathological response are consistent with what we've seen in phase 2 studies. They're relatively similar. Or I should say that the results from nivolumab and relatlimab, which was also pursued in a phase 2 study of somewhat similar design, are somewhat similar to this. So, combination immunotherapy does look to deliver a higher major pathological response than pembrolizumab alone, as was known in S1801. Which of course, the caveat being is these are cross control comparisons that we need to be careful about. So I think all of these are active regimens, and I think adding a second agent does appear to enhance the major pathologic response rates. When we look at the event free survival, we see something similar, which is that numerically it looks to be that combination immunotherapy delivers a higher event free survival rate. And that looks to be rather meaningful given the difference in the hazard ratios that were observed between these various studies. And here in the NADINA study, we see that 0.3 hazard ratio for EFS is just extremely impressive. So the abstract then, from ourselves, out of these specific studies, what does this mean more broadly in the real world, where patients exist and the rest of the landscape for clinical trials? I think we can't take enough time to stop for a second and just think about what a revolution we've come forward in with immune checkpoint blockade and melanoma. When I started my career, now, more than 15 years ago, melanoma was the cancer that made cancer bad. And now here we say, in the highest risk of perioperative patients, we can deliver 2 doses of nivolumab and ipilimumab, and essentially half of the patients then don't need to go on, and more than half the patients don't need to go on to have a full surgery and don't need adjuvant therapy. And from what we could tell of a very, very low risk of every heavy recurrence of melanoma. Of course, there's the other half of patients where we still need to do better, but these are just fantastic results and I think highly meaningful for patients. In the context of ongoing clinical trials, another abstract that was presented during the meeting was the update to the individualized neoantigen therapy, or V940 with pembrolizumab or against pembrolizumab alone. That's the KEYNOTE-942 study. In that study, they presented updated data at two and a half years for relapse free survival, noting a 75% rate without relapse. So those results are also highly intriguing. And these are in a similar population of very high risk patients. And so I think most of us believe that neoadjuvant therapy with this study in NADINA is now confirmed as the priority approach for patients who present with high-risk stage 3 disease. So that would be bulky disease picked up on a scan or palpable in a clinic. I think essentially all of us now believe patients should get preoperative immunotherapy. We can debate which approach to take, and it may vary by an individual patient's ability to tolerate toxicity, because, of course, multi agent immunotherapy does have increased toxicity relative to anti PD-1 alone. But we'll have to wait now for the full phase 3 results from the V940 individualized neoantigen therapy. And if those come forward, that will be an extremely attractive approach to think about for patients who did not achieve a major pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy, as well as of course to the other populations of patients with melanoma where we otherwise currently give adjuvant therapy stage 2B all the way through stage 4 resected. It's an amazing time to think about perioperative therapy in melanoma. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So this is clearly outstanding data, outstanding news. Congratulations to the investigators for really doing what is an investigative initiated trial conducted across multiple continents with a huge sample size. So this clearly appears to be, at this point in time at least, a de facto standard. But is this going to be FDA-approved, guideline-approved, or is it possible in your mind? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, that's an interesting question. This study was not designed with the intent to necessarily try to register this treatment regimen with the FDA. One would have to take a step back and say, with how powerful these data appear, it sort of seemed like it would be too bad if that doesn't happen. But all the same, I think the community and those of us who participate in guideline recommendations are fully supportive of this. So, I think we will see this move into compendium listings that support insurance approval, I think, very, very quickly. So, whether or not this actually becomes formally FDA approved or is in the guidelines, I think this should become the standard approach that is considered for patients, again presenting with high-risk stage 3 disease. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Fantastic. So now we're going to go in and talk about a slightly different drug, but also from the melanoma context, and that is the safety and efficacy of RP1 with nivolumab in the context of patients with melanoma who are PD-1 failures. So, this is Abstract 9517. And in this abstract, our academic colleagues essentially talked about these data, and we'll start by describing what RP1 is. RP1 essentially is a HSV-1 based oncolytic immunotherapy. And RP1 expresses GM-CSF as well as a fusogenic protein, GALV-GP-R-. And in this abstract, Dr. Michael Wong from MD Anderson and colleagues are reporting the results of IGNYTE, which is a phase I trial of intratumoral RP1 co-administered with systemic nivolumab in patients with advanced metastatic treatment refractory cutaneous melanoma. And the data presented in this abstract represents data from a registration directed, abbreviated as RD, registration directed cohort of RP1 plus nivolumab in PD-1 refractory melanoma. So, let's start with the description of the cohort. Dr. Jason Luke: Right. So, in this study, there were a total of 156 patients who were presented, and that included an initial safety and dose finding group of 16, as well as the RD cohort, as you noted, of 140 patients. And it's important to point out that this was a cohort that was selected for a very strict definition of progression on anti PD-1, or a combination immunotherapy as their immediately prior treatment. So, all of the patients in the cohort had exposure to anti PD-1, and 46% of them had anti PD-1 plus anti CTLA4, nivolumab and ipilimumab as their immediately prior therapy. This was also a group of relatively high-risk patients when one considers stage. So, within the stage 4 population, the entry here included 51% who had stage M1B, C, and D melanoma. And that is worth pointing out because this is an injectable therapy. So, trials like this in the past have tended to be biased towards earlier stage, unresectable or metastatic melanoma, meaning stage 3B, 3C, 3D and then stage 4m1a. Again, to emphasize the point here, these were pretreated patients who had a strict definition of anti PD-1 resistance, and over half of them, in fact, had high-risk visceral metastatic disease. In that context, it's very interesting to observe that the overall response rate was described in the total population, as 31%, and that included 12% who achieved complete response. And so, again, to make sure it's clear, we're talking about a treatment where the oncolytic virus is injected into one or multiple sites of recurrent disease, and then the patients administer nivolumab as per standard. And so, I think these data are quite intriguing. Again, such a high- risk population and their maturity now, with a follow-up of over a year, I think, makes this look to be a very interesting treatment option. Dr. Diwakar Davar: I guess on that topic of mature follow-up, it probably would be important for us to inform our audience that the top line data for the primary analysis was actually just released, I think, earlier today, and wherein the central confirmed objective response rate was 34% by modified RECIST and 33% by RECIST, clearly indicating that these responses, as you noted, very treatment refractory patient population, these responses were clearly very durable. So, you mentioned that there were responses seen in uninjected visceral lesions, responses seen in both PD-1 and PD-1 CTLA-4 refractory patients. Can you talk a little bit about the response rate in these high-risk subgroups, the uninjected visceral lesions, the patients who had both combination checkpoint and epidural refractory response rate by primary PD-1 resistance. Dr. Jason Luke: Sure. You know, I think, again, to emphasize this point in the study, we saw that there were responses in the non-injected lesions, and I think it's really important to emphasize that. Some have referred to this as a putative abscopal like effect, similar to what is described in radiation. But it implies that local treatment with the oncolytic virus is triggering a systemic immune response. In the higher risk patient population, we'll note that whereas the overall response rate in PD-1 refractory patients was 34%, in the combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 refractory patients, the response rate was 26%. So, [this is] still very good. And when we looked at that split by stage, as I alluded to before, in the population of patients that had, what you might call earlier unresectable diseases, so 3B through 4A, the response rate was 38%, and in the stage 4 M1b through M1d, it was 25%. So slightly lower, but still very good. And that would be as expected, because, of course, the patients with visceral metastatic disease have more advanced disease, but those response rates look quite good. Again, looking at the combination refractory population as well as the more high-risk disease. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, clearly, these are very promising data and exciting times for multiple investigators in the field and the company, Replimune, as well. So, what are the next steps? I believe that a registration trial is planned, essentially, looking at this with the goal of trying to get this combination registered. Can you tell us a little bit about IGNYTE-3, the trial design, the control arm, and what you foresee this trial doing over the next couple of years? Dr. Jason Luke: So, as this agent has been maturing, it's worth pointing out that the company that makes this molecule, called RP1, but I guess now we'll have to get used to this name vusolimogene oderparepvec as the actual scientific term, they have been having ongoing discussions with the FDA, and there is the potential that this agent could come forward on an accelerated path prior to the results being released from a phase 3 trial. That being said, the phase 3 confirmatory study, which is called the IGNYTE-3 study, is in the process of being launched now. And that's a study investigating this molecule in combination with nivolumab, as was alluded to earlier, and a randomized phase 3 design, where that combination is compared with a physician's choice, essentially a chemotherapy-based option. In that study, it will be 400 patients with stage 3B through stage 4; patients will have progressed on anti PD-1, either as a combination or in sequence, and then come on the study to be randomized to either vusolimogene oderparepvec plus nivolumab versus that physician's choice. And the physician's choice includes chemotherapy agents, but also nivolumab plus relatlimab as another option, or an anti PD-1 monotherapy, if that's deemed to be a reasonable option by the treating investigator. And the primary endpoint of that study is overall survival. And unfortunately, in this highly refractory patient population, that's something that may not take long to identify with key secondary endpoints of progression free survival, as well as overall response rate. I'm quite enthusiastic about this study, given these data, which have now been centrally confirmed as you alluded to before. I think this is a very exciting area of investigation and really crossing my fingers that this may be perhaps the first locally administered therapy which does appear to have a systemic impact that can hold up in phase 3. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Very, very, very exciting results. And I guess it's worthwhile pointing out that this company also has got, I think, multiple studies planned with both RP1 and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in a solid organ transplant patient population where single agent activity has already been reported by Dr. Migden at prior meetings, as well as a novel trial of potentially RP2 metastatic uveal melanoma. So we'll now pivot to Abstract 6014. So, 6014 is a drug by a company known as Merus. Essentially, it's a very novel agent. Merus essentially is a company that is specialized in making bicyclics and tricyclics. And these are not bicycles or tricycles, but rather drugs that essentially are bispecific antibodies. And Merus essentially has come up with petosemtamab. I think we're going to have to figure out better names for all of these drugs at some point. But petosemtamab, or MCLA-158, essentially is a bicyclic, targeting both EGFR as well as LGR-5. So EGR-5, of course, is a known oncogenic driver in multiple tumor types, squamous, including non small cell lung cancer, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, but also head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. And LGR-5 essentially is leucine-rich repeat-containing G-protein coupled receptor 5, but it's a receptor in cancer stem cells and certainly highly expressed in head neck squam. And MCLA-158, or petosemtamab is a IgG one bispecific with ADCC-activity because of IgG1 backbone co-targeting EGFR and LGR5. Merus had earlier results that evaluated petosemtamab monotherapy. They defined the RP2D and second- and third-line head and neck blastoma patients with a respectable response rate of 37% investigator-assessed ORR with six months median DoR, and this was published by Ezra Cohen about a year or so ago. In this abstract, Dr. Fayette and colleagues report on the results of the MCLA-158-CL01 trial, which is a trial of pembrolizumab plus petosemtamab in one front line head and neck squamous cell population. So maybe let's start with the description of the cohort. And it is a small trial, but we'll be able, I think, to dig into a little bit about why this might be exciting. Dr. Jason Luke: Yes. So, as alluded to, it's not the biggest trial as yet, but there were 26 patients with anti PD-1 treatment naive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. And all the patients in the study did receive, as you alluded to, pembrolizumab plus petosemtamab. Based on the label for pembrolizumab, all the patients in this study were PDL-1 positive. So that's one point that it's worth pointing out to make sure that that's understood. This is the population of patients who would be expected to benefit from pembrolizumab in the first place. Now, in the abstract, they reported out only 10 response evaluable patients, but they updated that in the actual slides of presentation at the meeting. So among 24 patients that were alluded to, 67% were described as having had a response, although some of those were yet to be confirmed responses. And when it was evaluated by PDL-1 status, there didn't seem to be a clear enrichment of response in the PD-1 positive more than 20% group, as compared to the 1-19% group. That isn't especially surprising because that was a trend that one would see, presumably with pembrolizumab alone. But overall, I think these data are pretty exciting in terms of a preliminary study. Dr. Diwakar Davar: You know, you mentioned that the objective response rate was high, almost 60-something%. The prognosis of these patients is generally poor. The OS is typically thought of as between 6-15 months. And based on KEYNOTE-048, which was led by Dr. Burtness and colleagues, the standard of care in the setting is pembrolizumab +/- platinum based chemotherapy regimens. Allowing for the fact that we only have 10 patients here, how do you think these results stack up against KEYNOTE-048? And you made a very important point earlier, which was, by definition, pembro is on label only for the CPS. So PDL-1 score, at least in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma CPS and not TPS. But in the CPS 1% or greater patient population, where pembro is on label, how do these results stack up against the KEYNOTE-048 results. Dr. Jason Luke: Right. KEYNOTE-048 is considered the seminal study that dictates frontline treatment in head and neck cancer. And before we dive into this too far, we do want to acknowledge that here we're comparing 26 patients versus a phase 3 trial. So, we're not trying to get too far ahead of ourselves, but this is just a preliminary comparison. But in KEYNOTE-048, as you alluded to, two regimens were superior to chemotherapy. One was the pembrolizumab monotherapy, as well as pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy. So again, the study overall survival, of course, was much higher, the PDL-1 positive subgroup, which is what dictated the unlabeled use of this. But response to pembro monotherapy in that population of patients is still modest. We're talking about upwards of 20-30%. So, if you compare that to, again, preliminary evidence here from this trial of only 24 patients, that response rate of 60% seems extremely high. And so even if that were to come down somewhat in a larger data series of patients, that still looks to be quite promising as a treatment regimen, that might eventually even be chemotherapy sparing for this population of patients. I think this raises a lot of eyebrows that perhaps this dual targeting approach, EGFR and LDR-5, may bring something really important to the field that evolves it. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, what are the next steps for petosemtamab? You mentioned that the activity was interesting. Are we going to see a larger trial? Any thoughts on where things are going to go? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, based on the phase 2 data of petosemtamab alone, even without pembrolizumab, the molecule had already been given fast track designation by FDA, which means allowing for greater communication between the drug sponsor in the FDA and designing a seminal study design. One would assume that this trial will be rapidly expanded quite greatly, perhaps to 100 or 200 patients, to try to flush out what the real response rate is in a more meaningful number of patients. But I think these data will probably also trigger the design and probably near-term evaluation or expedited acceleration of a phase III clinical trial design that would potentially validate this against the current standard of care. So, I'm pretty excited. I think we'll see a lot more about this agent in the relatively near future. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, finally, we'll pivot to the last abstract that we're going to talk about, which is Abstract 2504. It's a relatively interesting target, CCR8 monoclonal antibody. But this is the efficacy and safety of LM-108, and LM-108 is an anti CCR8 monoclonal antibody that is being developed by LaNova Medicine. And the results that are described, actually a pool set of results of combinations of LM-108 with anti PD-1, two separate anti PD-1, in patients with gastric cancer, mostly done ex-U.S., which is interesting because of this patient population, and it's a pool result of several, 3 phase 1 and 2 studies. LM-108 is an Fc-optimized anti CCR8 monoclonal antibody that selectively depletes tumor infiltrating Tregs. The abstract reported a pooled analysis of three phase 1, 2 trials with 3 different NCT numbers that all evaluated the efficacy of LM-108 and anti PD-1 in patients with gastric cancer. So, let's start with the description of the cohort. Maybe, Jason, you can tell us a little bit about before you start, as you describe the cohort, sort of what we know, editorially speaking, about the difficulty with which Tregs depletion has been tried and obviously failed up until now in the tumor microenvironment. Dr. Jason Luke: Right. I think that's a really interesting comment. And so, for decades, in fact, targeting regulatory T-cell to alleviate immune exclusion in the tumor microenvironment has been of interest in immuno-oncology. And in preclinical mouse models, it seems quite clear that such an approach can deliver therapeutic efficacy. However, by contrast, in human clinical trials, various different Treg depleting strategies have been attempted, and there's really little to no evidence that depleting Tregs from human tumors actually can deliver therapeutic responses. And by that we're referring to CD-25 antibodies. The drug ipilimumab, the CTLA-4 antibody, was punitively described as a Tregs depleter preclinically, but that doesn't seem to be the case in patients. And so, in that background, this is quite an eye raiser that an anti CCR8 antibody could be driving this effect. Now, before we talk about the results of this trial, I will point out, however, that given the Fc-optimization, it's entirely possible that the Tregs are being depleted by this mechanism, but that more could also be going on. Because Fc gamma RII binding by this antibody that could be nonspecific also has the potential to trigger immune responses in the tumor microenvironment, probably mediated by myeloid cells. So I think more to come on this. If this turns out to be the first meaningful Tregs depletor that leads to therapeutic efficacy, that would be very interesting. But it's also possible this drug could have multiple mechanisms. So, having said all of that, in the clinical trial, which was a pooled analysis, like you mentioned, of LM-108 in combination with anti PD-1 of a couple different flavors, there were 48 patients treated either with LM-108, with pembrolizumab, or with toripalimab, which is another anti PD-1 antibody. On the drug combination was, generally speaking, pretty well tolerated, noting grade 3 treatment related adverse events in the range of 38%, which is somewhat expected given combination immunotherapy. We talked about nivolumab and ipilimumab before, which, of course, gives even higher rates of immune-related adverse events, with the most common toxicities being anemia, lipase elevations, rash, ALC decrease; albeit, quite manageable. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, what about the objective response rate? Can you contextualize the efficacy? And as you do that, maybe we'll think about what you'd expect in the context of, say, gastric cancer, especially in patients who've never really had a prior checkpoint inhibitor before. What do you think about the ORR? What do you think about the relative efficacy of this combination? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, so, in the study, they described overall response rate in the 36 patients as 36% and described immediate progression for survival of about 6.5 months. And so that was among patients who were treatment naive. And in second-line patients, they actually described an even higher response rate, although it was only 11 patients, but they're at 64%. And so, I think those data look to be somewhat interesting. When I was actually scrutinizing the actual data presented, it was of some interest to note that the quality of responses seemed to be about as good on the lower dose of LM-108, so 3 milligrams per kilogram as compared to 10 milligrams per kilogram. I think there's definitely more to learn here to try to optimize the dose and to fully understand what the overall efficacy of this treatment combination would be. I would emphasize that in this disease, I think novel treatment strategies are certainly warranted. While anti PD-1 with chemotherapy has moved the needle in terms of standard of care treatment, it's really only a minor subset of patients who derive durable long-term benefit like we normally associate with immune checkpoint blockade. I think these are preliminary data. They're very intriguing. You alluded to earlier that this population of patients was an Asian data set, and it is well known that the efficacy of chemotherapy and immunotherapy does appear to be somewhat enhanced in Asian populations, and that goes to distributions of metastasis and tumor microenvironment effects, etc. Very difficult to try to tease any of that out in this abstract, other than to look at these data and suggest that this is pretty interesting, both from a novel therapeutic approach, we talked about the Tregs consideration, but also straight up on the efficacy because I think if these data could hold up in a larger number of patients, and particularly in a western population of patients, I think it would be very intriguing. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Certainly, ASCO 2024 had a lot of interesting data, including data from targeted agents, the LAURA trial, ADCs. But just focusing on the immune therapy subset, we certainly saw a lot of great advances in patients who were treated with neoadjuvant as well as relapse refractory disease in the context of RP1 and then a couple of newer agents such as this petosemtamab as well as LM-108. And of course, we cannot forget to highlight the extended DMFS data from the pembro vaccine study from KEYNOTE-942. Jason, as always, thank you for taking a little bit of time out of your extremely busy schedule to come and give us insights as to how these agents are impacting the landscape. We really value your input and so thank you very much. Dr. Jason Luke: Thank you for the opportunity. Dr. Diwakar Davar: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find the links to all the abstracts that we discussed in the transcript of this episode. And finally, if you value the insights that you hear on this podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. So, thank you. 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. Follow today's speakers: Dr. Diwakar Davar @diwakardavar Dr. Jason Luke @jasonlukemd Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. Diwakar Davar: Honoraria: Merck, Tesaro, Array BioPharma, Immunocore, Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences Consulting or Advisory Role: Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences Consulting or Advisory Role (Immediate family member): Shionogi Research Funding: Merck, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CellSight Technologies, GSK, Merck, Arvus Biosciences, Arcus Biosciences Research Funding (Inst.): Zucero Therapeutics Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Application No.: 63/124,231 Title: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING CANCER Applicant: University of Pittsburgh–Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education Inventors: Diwakar Davar Filing Date: December 11, 2020 Country: United States MCC Reference: 10504-059PV1 Your Reference: 05545; and Application No.: 63/208,719 Enteric Microbiotype Signatures of Immune-related Adverse Events and Response in Relation to Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy Dr. Jason Luke: Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical, Pyxis, Alphamab Oncology, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch Oncology, Stipe, NeoTX Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, Alphamab Oncology, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius, Tesaro, Xilio, Xencor, Alnylam, Crown Bioscience, Flame Biosciences, Genentech, Kadmon, KSQ Therapeutics, Immunocore, Inzen, Pfizer, Silicon Therapeutics, TRex Bio, Bright Peak, Onc.AI, STipe, Codiak Biosciences, Day One Therapeutics, Endeavor, Gilead Sciences, Hotspot Therapeutics, SERVIER, STINGthera, Synthekine Research Funding (Inst.): Merck , Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma , EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring bank, Trishula, KAHR Medical, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena Oncology, Numab, Replimmune, Rubius Therapeutics, Synlogic, Takeda, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc., BioNTech AG, Scholar Rock, Next Cure Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), and Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof) Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio

university ai spring 3d asian pittsburgh os cd studies fda congratulations pfizer keynote patel werewolf relation franklin delano roosevelt pd bayer immune pcr abstract oncology merck 2b endeavor cps 3b janssen new england journal novartis dor melanoma alc royalties lag accommodations hsv cancer care immunotherapy tps gsk asco 4a lm genentech 3c ldr orr abbvie bristol myers squibb stipe takeda nct igg regeneron adcc egfr gilead sciences adverse events md anderson nektar rfs pdl onc adcs efs prognostic cancer immunotherapy braf esmo neoadjuvant plenary session eisai immuno oncology asco annual meeting treg pyxis nccn nadina rubius servier michael wong ctla rp1 incyte emd serono ezra cohen lgr alnylam genmab tregs mcla moderna therapeutics gm csf swog ignyte ctla4 rp2 recist tesaro jason luke transcript dr igg1 array biopharma synlogic

Getting to Grips with Atopic Hand and Foot Dermatitis: What Is It, and What Does It Mean for Patients?

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 6, 2024 17:50

Dr Linda Stein Gold and Dr Jonathan Silverberg discuss the epidemiology, clinical presentation, and classification of atopic dermatitis of the hand and feet as well the as quantifying the multidimensional burden it has on patients' quality of life in clinical practice. ADVENT is a medical education non-promotional resource for healthcare professionals organized by Sanofi and Regeneron. Learn more at ADVENTprogram.com. This podcast is intended for healthcare professionals only. Disclaimer: This program is non-promotional and is sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The speakers are being compensated and/or receiving an honorarium from Sanofi and Regeneron in connection with this program The content contained in this program was jointly developed by the speakers and Sanofi and Regeneron and is not eligible for continuing medical education (CME) credits Speaker disclosures: Dr Jonathan Silverberg: Honoraria as a consultant and/or advisory board member for AbbVie, Alamar, Aldena Therapeutics, Amgen, AOBiome, Apollo Pharma, Arcutis, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Asana, ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, Attovia, BiomX, Biosion, Bodewell, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Celgene, Connect Biopharma, CorEvitas, Dermavant, FIDE, Galderma, GSK, Incyte, Invea, Kiniksa, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Merck, MyOr Diagnostics, Nektar, Novartis, Optum, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Recludix, Regeneron, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, Shaperon, Target RWE, Teva, UNION, and UpToDate. Speaker for AbbVie, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Institution received grants from Galderma, Incyte, and Pfizer. Dr Linda Stein Gold: Investigator/advisor and/or speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. © 2024 Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. All Rights Reserved. MAT-GLB-2400314 - 1.0 - 06/2024 MAT-US-2405589 v1.0 - P Exp Date: 06/04/2026

speaker patients union advent foot pfizer institution asana merck novartis grips sanofi uptodate gsk amgen abbvie bristol myers squibb teva regeneron dermatitis boehringer ingelheim optum fide sandoz nektar galderma celgene atopic regeneron pharmaceuticals sanofi genzyme incyte alamar leo pharma arena pharmaceuticals castle biosciences aobiome

First-hand Experience: Practical Insights on the Diagnosis and Assessment of Atopic Dermatitis of the Hands and Feet

corporate delaware hb propose dispose incyte

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 6, 2024 10:51

Dr Linda Stein Gold and Dr Jonathan Silverberg discuss the challenges associated with diagnosis of atopic dermatitis of the hands and feet and how disease severity can be assessed in clinical practice. ADVENT is a medical education non-promotional resource for healthcare professionals organized by Sanofi and Regeneron. Learn more at ADVENTprogram.com. This podcast is intended for healthcare professionals only. Disclaimer: This program is non-promotional and is sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The speakers are being compensated and/or receiving an honorarium from Sanofi and Regeneron in connection with this program The content contained in this program was jointly developed by the speakers and Sanofi and Regeneron and is not eligible for continuing medical education (CME) credits Speaker disclosures: Dr Jonathan Silverberg: Honoraria as a consultant and/or advisory board member for AbbVie, Alamar, Aldena Therapeutics, Amgen, AOBiome, Apollo Pharma, Arcutis, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Asana, ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, Attovia, BiomX, Biosion, Bodewell, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Celgene, Connect Biopharma, CorEvitas, Dermavant, FIDE, Galderma, GSK, Incyte, Invea, Kiniksa, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Merck, MyOr Diagnostics, Nektar, Novartis, Optum, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Recludix, Regeneron, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, Shaperon, Target RWE, Teva, UNION, and UpToDate. Speaker for AbbVie, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Institution received grants from Galderma, Incyte, and Pfizer. Dr Linda Stein Gold: Investigator/advisor and/or speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. © 2024 Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. All Rights Reserved. MAT-GLB-2402602- 1.0 - 05/2024 MAT-US-2405594 v1.0 - P Exp Date: 06/04/2026

speaker hands union advent feet diagnosis pfizer institution asana merck novartis firsthand sanofi uptodate gsk amgen abbvie bristol myers squibb teva regeneron boehringer ingelheim optum fide sandoz nektar practical insights atopic dermatitis first hand experience galderma celgene regeneron pharmaceuticals sanofi genzyme incyte alamar leo pharma arena pharmaceuticals castle biosciences aobiome

E296 - They Propose, We Dispose (w/ John Kowalko)

Highlands Bunker

Play Episode Listen Later May 31, 2024 66:38

Corporate nonsense is once again dominating Delaware news, so we brought in Former State Representative John Kowalko to talk about Incyte and corporate incentives, the hospitals' fight against HB 350, and the new amendments to Delaware's corporate law. Show Notes:Massachusetts Millionaires TaxIncyte expansion and incentivesJordan Howell's two pieces on the corporate bill

ASCO24: The Future of Personalized Immunotherapy