Podcasts about neoadjuvant

In this podcast, Dr David Miller, MD, PhD, FAAD and Dr Vishal Patel, MD discuss the evolving treatment landscape and immunotherapeutic strategies for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) based on key data from pivotal studies that are reshaping standards of care, including:Trials of neoadjuvant immunotherapies demonstrating remarkable response rates with PD-(L)1 inhibitors such as cemiplimab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and nivolumab with or without ipilimumabOngoing investigational efforts, including the phase III CLEAR CSCC study of intralesional immunotherapy and radiation-immunotherapy sequencingPresenters:David M. Miller, MD, PhD, FAADDirector, Center for Merkel Cell CarcinomaCo-Director, NMSC Multi-Disciplinary ClinicMassachusetts General Cancer CenterAssistant Professor of Medicine and DermatologyHarvard Medical SchoolBoston, MassachusettsVishal Anil Patel, MDDirector of Cutaneous Oncology, GW Cancer CenterDirector of Dermatologic Surgery, GW Department of DermatologyAssociate Professor of Dermatology & of Medicine (Hematology/Oncology)George Washington University School of Medicine & Health SciencesWashington, DCLink to full program: https://bit.ly/3JbflO3 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Featuring an interview with Dr Aaron Lisberg, including the following topics: Efficacy and Safety of Datopotamab Deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) for Patients with Previously Treated EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): A Pooled Analysis of the TROPION-Lung01 and TROPION-Lung05 Trials (0:00) Ahn M-J et al. Efficacy and safety of datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) in patients (pts) with previously-treated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): A pooled analysis of TROPION-Lung01 and TROPION-Lung05. ESMO Asia 2024;Abstract LBA7 Ahn M-J et al. A pooled analysis of datopotamab deruxtecan in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC. J Thorac Oncol 2025;[Online ahead of print]. Abstract Sacituzumab Tirumotecan for Previously Treated Advanced EGFR-Mutated NSCLC: Results from the Randomized OptiTROP-Lung03 Study (7:08) Fang W et al. Sacituzumab tirumotecan versus docetaxel for previously treated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2025;389:e085680. Abstract Zhang L et al. Sacituzumab tirumotecan (sac-TMT) in patients (pts) with previously treated advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Results from the randomized OptiTROP-Lung03 study. ASCO 2025;Abstract 8507. Combination of Dato-DXd and Immunotherapy as First-Line Therapy for Patients with Advanced NSCLC (13:12) Cuppens K et al. First-line (1L) datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) + durvalumab ± carboplatin in advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (a/mNSCLC): Results from TROPION-Lung04 (cohorts 2 and 4). ESMO Targeted Anticancer Therapies Congress 2025;Abstract 8O. Okamoto I et al. TROPION-Lung07: Phase III study of Dato-DXd + pembrolizumab ± platinum-based chemotherapy as 1L therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Future Oncol 2024;20(37):2927-36. Abstract Levy BP et al. TROPION-Lung08: Phase III study of datopotamab deruxtecan plus pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for advanced NSCLC. Future Oncol 2023;19(21):1461-72. Abstract Aggarwal C et al. AVANZAR: Phase III study of datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) + durvalumab + carboplatin as 1L treatment of advanced/mNSCLC. World Conference on Lung Cancer (WCLC) 2023;Abstract P2.04-02. TROP2-Targeting Antibody-Drug Conjugates as Neoadjuvant and/or Adjuvant Therapy for Patients with Resectable NSCLC (19:08) A phase III, randomised, open-label, global study of adjuvant datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) in combination with rilvegostomig or rilvegostomig monotherapy versus standard of care, following complete tumour resection, in participants with Stage I adenocarcinoma non-small cell lung cancer who are ctDNA-positive or have high-risk pathological features (TROPION-Lung12). NCT06564844 Cascone T et al. Perioperative durvalumab plus chemotherapy plus new agents for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer: The platform phase 2 NeoCOAST-2 trial. Nat Med 2025;31(8):2788-96. Abstract CME information and select publications

Christof Vulsteke joins Brian and Tom to discuss his practice-changing data on neoadjuvant EVP in MIBC. More applause!!

Smriti Patodia, Senior Editor of The Lancet Oncology, is joined by Dr Andrea Necchi, Associate Professor at the Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, and the Director of Genitourinary Medical Oncology at the San Raffaele Hospital, in Milan, Italy, to discuss his SunRISe4-trial published in our October issue.Effective treatments are needed for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer scheduled for radical cystectomy who are ineligible for or decline to receive neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy. SunRISe-4 is a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial being conducted at 109 investigative centres in ten countries worldwide, and aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant TAR-200 plus cetrelimab (anti-PD-1) versus cetrelimab monotherapy in this disease setting.They discuss the unique features of the TAR-200 localised sustained delivery system for gemcitabine, the key findings from the SunRISe4-trial trial, and what the future implications of the findings are in terms of better treatment options for patients with bladder cancer.Read the full article:https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(25)00358-4/abstract?dgcid=buzzsprout_icw_podcast_September_25_lanoncTell us what you thought about this episodeContinue this conversation on social!Follow us today at...https://thelancet.bsky.social/https://instagram.com/thelancetgrouphttps://facebook.com/thelancetmedicaljournalhttps://linkedIn.com/company/the-lancethttps://youtube.com/thelancettv

Send us a text

LCC in Mandarin: Neoadjuvant and Perioperative Therapy for Locally Advanced NSCLC by IASLC

Interview with Jennifer M. Johnson, MD, PhD and Adam J. Luginbuhl, MD authors of A Pathologic Treatment Effect and Survival in HPV-Negative HNSCC Following Neoadjuvant Nivolumab. Hosted by Paul C. Bryson, MD MBA. Related Content: Pathologic Treatment Effect and Survival in HPV-Negative HNSCC Following Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Emerging Role of Pathologic Response in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Immunotherapy

Interview with Jennifer M. Johnson, MD, PhD and Adam J. Luginbuhl, MD authors of A Pathologic Treatment Effect and Survival in HPV-Negative HNSCC Following Neoadjuvant Nivolumab. Hosted by Paul C. Bryson, MD MBA. Related Content: Pathologic Treatment Effect and Survival in HPV-Negative HNSCC Following Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Emerging Role of Pathologic Response in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Immunotherapy

CME credits: 1.00 Valid until: 31-07-2026 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/clinical-implications-of-neoadjuvant-therapy-guideline-updates-in-resectable-melanoma/36323/ This online CME activity, presented in collaboration with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN®), focuses on translating oncology clinical practice guidelines into practical strategies for treating melanoma. Participants will learn how to integrate clinical trial data into guideline-concordant treatment plans in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic settings. The program highlights the importance of evidence-based approaches and the use of immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma. Attendees will also explore emerging data that could influence future treatment guidelines, patient case examples, and insights from international faculty to develop region-specific therapeutic tactics aligned with NCCN Guideline® recommendations. *This program was published on July 31st, 2025 and the information therein was up-to-date when created.

CME credits: 1.00 Valid until: 31-07-2026 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/data-driving-recent-guideline-updates-in-neoadjuvant-therapy-for-resectable-melanoma/36322/ This online CME activity, presented in collaboration with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN®), focuses on translating oncology clinical practice guidelines into practical strategies for treating melanoma. Participants will learn how to integrate clinical trial data into guideline-concordant treatment plans in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic settings. The program highlights the importance of evidence-based approaches and the use of immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma. Attendees will also explore emerging data that could influence future treatment guidelines, patient case examples, and insights from international faculty to develop region-specific therapeutic tactics aligned with NCCN Guideline® recommendations. *This program was published on July 31st, 2025 and the information therein was up-to-date when created.

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

Peter Schmid, FRCP, MD, PhD - Use of Neoadjuvant Chemoimmunotherapy Followed by Adjuvant Immunotherapy in Early-Stage TNBC: A Case-Based Discussion

A Masterclass in advanced kidney cancer today with the great Danny Heng (University of Calgary, Canada), and our own Lewis Au (Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne). Both popped into the GU Cast studio while Danny was in Australia doing some lectures and visiitng us at Peter Mac.We challenged Danny and Lewis to simplify three hot topics in kidney cancer, ideal if (like us) you find it difficult to keep up with this fast-moving area. The three areas are:1. What sort of patient is this? Risk stratification made easy (by Danny, Master of the universe of Risk Stratification in kidney cancer)2. Novel scans and biomarkers in kidney cancer - a bluffers guide 3. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies in kidney cancer - what the urologist needs to know Even better on our YouTube channel

JCO Editorial Fellow Dr. Ece Cali Daylan and JCO Associate Editor Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe discuss the ASCO 2025 Simultaneous Publication paper "Neoadjuvant Osimertinib for Resectable EGFR-Mutated Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer." Transcript The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Ece Cali: Hello, and welcome to our 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting series, where we cover some of the top JCO papers published simultaneously with their abstract presentation at this year's meeting. I'm your host, Dr. Ece Cali, JCO Editorial Fellow, and I am joined by JCO Associate Editor, Dr. Tom Stinchcombe. In this episode, we will discuss the Journal of Clinical Oncology article and abstract presentation "Neoadjuvant Osimertinib for Resectable EGFR-Mutated Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer.” NeoADAURA is a randomized global phase III study investigating the efficacy of neoadjuvant osimertinib-containing regimens in patients with resectable EGFR-mutated stage II to IIIB non–small-cell lung cancer. 358 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive osimertinib plus chemotherapy, osimertinib monotherapy, or placebo plus chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting. The primary endpoint was major pathological response. Osimertinib plus chemotherapy and osimertinib alone demonstrated MPR rates of 26% and 25%, respectively, compared to 2% in the chemotherapy plus placebo arm with a p-value of less than 0.001. Tom, can you please explain to our listeners how you interpret this data? Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe: Great question. Yeah, I think to give a little context, obviously, chemotherapy and immunotherapies preoperatively is becoming the standard of care. However, patients with EGFR-mutant lung cancer generally have not responded to immunotherapy, and many of the trials excluded patients with known EGFR mutation. There have been smaller phase II trials that had looked at EGFR TKIs preoperatively, but none of these were definitive. So I think that this trial is a big trial, and I think some of the strengths are that it has osimertinib alone and chemotherapy with osimertinib arms as compared to the standard of chemotherapy. I think it's going to be really interesting at the meeting to see how this is discussed by the discussant and also what the reaction is to its public presentation. And I think that's largely because there's an alternative paradigm now, surgical resection adjuvant osimertinib, that's available to patients. So I think this will be interesting to see what the reaction is to the induction therapy. For patients with known N2 disease, I've generally given some form of induction therapy prior to surgical resection. So I think that's the subgroup of patients that I'm most likely to employ this approach with based on the results. Dr. Ece Cali: So, in this trial, more than 90% of the patients on the osimertinib-containing regimens underwent curative-intent surgery. So, this speaks to the feasibility of the approach, and the higher MPR rate with osimertinib-containing regimens is encouraging. Event-free survival data is currently immature. You have already touched upon some of the strengths of the trial, but what are the weaknesses and the strengths of this trial? Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe: So, I mean, I think there are some weaknesses. A major pathological response was chosen as an endpoint, and there could be an argument that path CR is more of a prognostic marker. However, the rates of path CR are relatively low, so it would have been very hard to design a trial such as that. And then I think the trial started off as a preoperative trial but effectively became a perioperative trial with preoperative EGFR-TKI, postoperative osimertinib. And so I think it's going to be very hard to determine what the contribution of the components are. And then you've hit on another part that I think is very important when we interpret the data that the maturity on the event-free survival is only 15%, and most people are still on therapy. So the event-free survival, which is an important endpoint, is very immature right now. Dr. Ece Cali: And this trial was designed to compare the neoadjuvant approaches, hence the comparator arm here is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery. So, considering the ADAURA trial results with upfront surgery followed by osimertinib as adjuvant, so how do you see this trial's impact on the current clinical practice? Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe: Well, very good question, I think one that we're still struggling with as we kind of look at this data. I think, for me, stage II patients will most likely go to surgery and then get adjuvant osimertinib, and then maybe the N2 patients will get an osimertinib-containing regimen as an induction therapy. I think one of the questions is does it really matter when you get the osimertinib as long as you get it at some point? And I think that's going to be the critical interpretation of some of the data at this point. Dr. Ece Cali: And how do you think this trial shapes the future research for patients with resectable EGFR-mutated lung cancer? Dr. Thomas Stinchcombe: Well, I mean, I think it shows that chemotherapy was really modestly active with an MPR rate of 2%, no pathological responses. And then I think you're going to have to look at an osimertinib plus another targeted therapy component. I think, you know, when I looked at the osimertinib versus the chemo-osimertinib arm, I also was sort of surprised that the MPR rate and the path CR rate were very, very similar. So I think that the question is would a double targeted therapy approach or some other approach matter? And I think it also sets a safety standard. And you touched on this in your comments, that there was not a disparity in terms of the rate of going to surgery or R0/R1 resections. So patients were not having progressive disease events or toxicities that prevented surgery. So I think it does give us good safety data. Dr. Ece Cali: Tom, thank you so much for sharing your insights on the JCO article, "Neoadjuvant Osimertinib for Resectable EGFR-Mutated Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer." Join us again for the latest simultaneous publications from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, and please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to all ASCO podcast shows at asco.org/podcasts. Until then, enjoy the rest of ASCO 2025. 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.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/TFB865. CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until April 27, 2026.Unleashing Immunotherapy Against Resectable Melanoma: The Surgeon-Oncologist Alliance for Delivering Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Therapy In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/TFB865. CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until April 27, 2026.Unleashing Immunotherapy Against Resectable Melanoma: The Surgeon-Oncologist Alliance for Delivering Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Therapy In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/TFB865. CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until April 27, 2026.Unleashing Immunotherapy Against Resectable Melanoma: The Surgeon-Oncologist Alliance for Delivering Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Therapy In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/TFB865. CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until April 27, 2026.Unleashing Immunotherapy Against Resectable Melanoma: The Surgeon-Oncologist Alliance for Delivering Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Therapy In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported through educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

In this episode of the Onc Now Podcast, host Jonathan Sackier is joined by Janice Walshe, Consultant Medical Oncologist at St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. They explore the economic realities of cancer diagnostics, fertility preservation in patients with breast cancer, and the impact of international collaboration on the future of clinical trials.  Timestamps:    00:00 – Introduction  03:25 – Economic disparities and oncology care in Ireland  07:20 – Neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer  10:13 – Spotlight on invasive lobular carcinoma  12:36 – Fertility preservation in breast cancer  15:20 – Menopause after cancer  19:09 – The latest clinical trials in Ireland  21:50 – International trials and research projects  23:50 – Walshe's three wishes for healthcare 

Interview with Kevin J. Contrera, MD, MPH, author of Neoadjuvant Therapy for Mucosal Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Review From the American Head and Neck Society. Hosted by Paul C. Bryson, MD, MBA. Related Content: Neoadjuvant Therapy for Mucosal Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Interview with Kevin J. Contrera, MD, MPH, author of Neoadjuvant Therapy for Mucosal Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Review From the American Head and Neck Society. Hosted by Paul C. Bryson, MD, MBA. Related Content: Neoadjuvant Therapy for Mucosal Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Dr Charlie Andrews talks to Dr John Leeds. John Leeds is a Consultant Pancreaticobiliary Physician and Endoscopist based at the Freeman Hospital in Newcastle and an Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer based in the Population Health Sciences Institute at Newcastle University. He is involved in research in pancreaticobiliary disorders including benign and malignant conditions as well as outcomes from therapeutic/advanced endoscopy.John is a member of the British Society of Gastroenterology and Pancreatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. He serves on the endoscopy and Pancreas committees for BSG and is the website lead for PSGBI.He is also a founder member of the BSG Pancreas Clinical Research Group which is coordinating research for the society.Key Learnings from this episode:Challenges in Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer • Pancreatic cancer is often diagnosed at an advanced stage due to the deep location of the pancreas and the lack of early symptoms. • Tumors in the body and tail of the pancreas can grow significantly before causing symptoms, often invading major arteries or veins, making them inoperable. • Tumors in the head of the pancreas may present earlier due to bile duct obstruction, leading to jaundice, but even these are often detected late. Early Symptoms and Red Flags • Early symptoms are vague or absent, making early diagnosis difficult. • Possible early indicators include: • Weight loss (often a sign of advanced disease). • New-onset diabetes, particularly in individuals with a normal BMI or without typical risk factors for type 2 diabetes. • Jaundice, which is a significant red flag and often indicates a serious underlying condition. • Classic signs like painless jaundice and Courvoisier's sign (palpable gallbladder) are important but not always present. Limitations of Current Screening Methods • There is no reliable biomarker or screening test for pancreatic cancer: • CA19-9 is not suitable as a screening tool due to its lack of specificity (elevated in other conditions). • Imaging techniques like CT scans or MRIs are used but have limitations, including incidental findings that may lead to unnecessary anxiety (“scanxiety”) and over-investigation. • Screening is currently limited to high-risk groups, such as those with familial pancreatic cancer syndromes or hereditary pancreatitis. High-Risk Groups for Screening • Familial pancreatic cancer accounts for less than 10% of cases. Criteria for screening include: • Multiple family members with pancreatic cancer, especially diagnosed under age 50–60. • Genetic syndromes like BRCA mutations, familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), and Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. • Hereditary pancreatitis patients have an increased risk but are harder to screen due to pre-existing pancreatic abnormalities. Emerging Research and Future Directions • Studies are exploring potential biomarkers, such as microbiome signatures in the pancreas, which might help identify high-risk individuals in the future. • Trials like the EuroPAC study focus on surveillance protocols for high-risk individuals using imaging techniques like MRI or endoscopic ultrasound. • Research into new-onset diabetes as a potential marker for pancreatic cancer is ongoing but currently has a low yield due to the high prevalence of type 2 diabetes unrelated to malignancy. Considerations for Screening and Surveillance • Screening should be carefully targeted to avoid over-diagnosis and unnecessary investigations. • The psychological impact of screening (e.g., anxiety from incidental findings) must be considered. • Smoking cessation is emphasized as smoking is a significant risk factor for pancreatic cancer. Advances in Treatment Approaches • PET-CT scans are increasingly used to detect systemic disease that might not be evident on standard CT scans. • Neoadjuvant treatments (therapy before surgery) are being... Chapters (00:00:00) - Ingest(00:00:53) - Pancreatic Cancer(00:04:03) - New diabetes and pancreatic cancer(00:08:01) - Pancreatic Cancer: Screening(00:15:42) - Determining breast cancer early is hard(00:16:03) - Pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas(00:22:26) - Pancreatic cancer 20, Management(00:29:00) - Pancreatic cancer, management principles(00:33:48) - Primary Care Take Home: Pancreas, pain(00:40:29) - Primary Care: Pancreas Cancer Episode 2

Guest: Nasser Altorki, MD Nasser Altorki, MD, chief of thoracic surgery at NewYork-Presbyterian and Weill Cornell Medicine, shares the results of a first-of-its-kind study evaluating low-dose radiation combined with immunotherapy for neoadjuvant treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumors. The dual-therapy treatment of durvalumab in combination with stereotactic body radiation was almost twice as effective at tumor killing compared to durvalumab alone. © 2025 NewYork-Presbyterian

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy translates to chemotherapy for cancer before surgery, with a recent study demonstrating its benefit for people with esophagus cancer. Kimmel Cancer Center director William Nelson at Johns Hopkins says this strategy is time tested. Nelson: Neoadjuvant therapy is … Are there advantages to receiving chemotherapy for cancer before surgery? Elizabeth Tracey reports Read More »

In this episode of Oncology Unplugged, a podcast series from OncLive and MedNews Week, podcast host Chandler Park, MD, a medical oncologist at Norton Cancer Institute in Louisville, Kentucky, was joined by Petros Grivas, MD, PhD; and Ruben Raychaudhuri, MD, to talk about a pilot trial investigating neoadjuvant accelerated methotrexate, vinblastine,doxorubicin, and cisplatin (aMVAC) plus pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with non-urothelial muscle-invasive bladder cancer, findings from which were presented at the 2025 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. Dr Grivas is clinical director of the Genitourinary Cancers Program and a professor in the Clinical Research Division at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, as well as a professor in the Division of Hematology and Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle. Dr Raychaudhuri is an assistant professor in the Clinical Research Division at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, as well as an assistant professor in the Division of Hematology and Oncology at the University of Washington School of Medicine. In their exclusive conversation, Drs Park, Grivas, and Raychaudhuri discussed key efficacy and safety findings from this study; the need for conducting dedicated research in bladder cancer patient populations with variant histologies; and the potential of biomarkers, such as HER2 expression, to improve the bladder cancer treatment paradigm in the future.

In this JCO Article Insights episode, Peter Li summarizes “Neoadjuvant Modified Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin With or Without Radiation Versus Fluorouracil Plus Radiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Updated Results of the FOWARC Study After a Median Follow-Up of 10 Years,” by Dr. Jianwei Zhang et al. published on December 13, 2024. TRANSCRIPT Peter Li: Hello and welcome to the JCO Article Insights. I'm your host Peter Li and today we will be discussing the Journal of Clinical Oncology article, “Neoadjuvant Modified Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin With or Without Radiation Versus Fluorouracil Plus Radiation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Updated Results of the FOWARC Study After a Median Follow-Up of 10 Years,” by Dr. Jianwei Zhang et al.  For a reminder to the audience, the FOWARC study is a Chinese-based study that looked into the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancers with neoadjuvant chemotherapy based regimens with or without radiation. This study was first published back in 2019 where the three-year data showed no difference in three-year disease-free survival over survival between the three study arms. As a reminder of what those arms were, there were one historical control and two interventional arms. The control arm used 5-FU with radiation therapy with five cycles of 5-fluorouracil with radiation during cycles two to four followed by surgery and then seven cycles adjuvantly. Their first interventional arm was the same as the control arm with the addition of oxaliplatin on day 1of each cycle. And lastly, the third arm was FOLFOX only for four to six cycles followed by surgery and then six to eight cycles adjuvantly completing about a total of 12 weeks of chemotherapy.  They recruited about 495 patients with 165 patients randomized to each arm. They were relatively well balanced by age, clinical staging and distance from the anal verge. Median age was about mid-50s with a slight male predominance and patients were primarily stage 3 with 20% to 30% being stage 2. About 30% had clinical T4 disease and about 25% had clinical N2 disease. Median follow up time was 122.5 months or 10 years and their follow up endpoints were disease-free survival, overall survival and local recurrence, and they also performed subgroup analyses based on post surgical pathological staging. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method with a significant threshold of p being less than 0.05. About 451 patients actually underwent surgery, which is about 91% of patients. The main reason for not going through surgery was due to refusal but one was due to toxicity and two were due to disease progression in the control arm. Follow up loss rate was about 10% in each group. Now looking at their primary endpoints in their initial study, local recurrence was about 8.8% in the control arm versus 7.9% in the FOLFOX radiation group versus 9.2% in the FOLFOX only group. Distant metastasis was about 30% in each arm and the sites of metastases were primarily in the lung and liver.   Now, following up with 10 years, there were only three new events in the chemoradiation group with local recurrence happening at 10.8% in the control arm versus 8% in the FOLFOX RT group versus 9.6% in the chemo only group. These findings were not statistically significant. In their subgroup analysis by pathological staging, they found that pathological CR or complete response had a lower rate of local recurrence compared to those with increasing pathological staging coming in at 3% versus 4.3% versus 11.6% versus 15.8% in pCR versus Stage 1, 2, 3 respectively. And they found no difference in each stage with each interventional arm. Looking at long term survival their 10-year disease free survival showed 52.5% in the 5-FU radiation group versus 62.6% in the FOLFOX RT group versus 60.5% in the chemotherapy only group with no statistically significant difference between three groups. By pathological staging, they found improved 10-year disease survival in those who achieved pathological complete response versus those who did not with 84.3% in the pCR group versus 78.7% versus 56.8% versus 27.7% in the stage 1 versus 2 versus 3 group. And again they found no statistical significance difference between each arm.   Now looking at the 10-year overall survival rates between the three arms, in the control arm the 10-year overall survival was 65.9% versus 72.3% in the FOLFOX RT group versus 73.4% in the chemo only group. By pathological stage, again, they showed a statistically significant difference in those who achieved pCR versus those who had pathological stage 1 to 3 disease with overall survival being 92.4% in those who achieved pCR versus 84.9% versus 68.6% versus 48.8% in stage 1, 2, 3 respectively. Now in the discussion, authors mentioned that with a median follow up of 10 years, FOLFOX alone had similar disease-free survival, local recurrence and distant metastasis and overall survival compared to those who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation, justifying the omission of radiation without compromising results or outcomes for each patient. There were no differences in subgroup analysis for disease free survival local recurrence or overall survival based on pathological staging. There were only three new events compared to the last follow up, with local recurrence happening only in the chemo radiation groups. Local recurrence rates at 10 years was about 10%. Compared to other clinical trials such as CAO, ARO or AIO-94, the rate of local recurrence was similar to those historical trials.  The authors also compared their findings to the PROSPECT study which looks at the use of total neoadjuvant chemo radiation versus chemotherapy alone, which boasted only about a 2% local recurrence rate. But as a reminder, high risk locally advanced rectal cancers were excluded, mainly those with T4 or N2 disease, which may explain the difference in terms of local recurrence in the PROSPECT versus this study. Another finding is that pathological complete responses are also an important prognostic marker with lower 10-year local recurrence rate, disease-free survival and overall survival with worse outcomes with increased pathological staging. Distant metastasis rates were still at 30%, with the most common site being lung then liver then lymph nodes consistent with other historical studies. Chemotherapy seemed to be better at reducing liver mets than lung metastasis per their findings. In their post hoc analysis of their own study, chemo radiation was also associated with higher incidence of low anterior resection syndrome and persistent ostomy compared to chemotherapy alone, meaning that they had better quality of life with the chemotherapy only approach.  In conclusion, a chemotherapy only approach can be safe and a feasible treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer without compromising outcomes. Omission of radiation may reduce the risk of overtreatment and improve quality of life for some of these patients. However, this does not necessarily exclude the role of radiation as it may still play a role in a response escalation approach for those who do not respond to chemotherapy alone.   This wraps up today's episode. Thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit asco.org/podcasts.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Drs. Traina and Isaacs share how they determine which patients are appropriate for neoadjuvant therapies and how to address residual disease, as well as potential treatment toxicities.

In this episode of SurgOnc Today®, Dr. Rebecca Snyder, from the UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Dr. Akhil Chawla, from Northwestern University, both members of the HPB disease site working group, are joined by Dr. Cristina Ferrone, from Cedars Sinai Medical Center, and Dr. Steven Gallinger, from the University of Toronto. We will discuss the details, similarities, and differences of their respective clinical trials for neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, ALLIANCE A021806, and NeoPancONE.   References/Resources: ALLIANCE A021806 NeoPancONE

Xinan Sheng. M.D., Professor in the Department of Genitourinary Oncology at Peking University Cancer Hospital &institute in Beijing, China joins us to discuss the update of this trial and impressive pCR rates.

Featuring perspectives from Dr Anthony El-Khoueiry, Dr Richard S Finn, Dr Aiwu Ruth He and Dr Stacey Stein, moderated by Dr Stephen “Fred” Divers, including the following topics: Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) — Dr El-Khoueiry Introduction (0:00) Faculty Presentation (3:08) IMbrave050: Adjuvant systemic treatment for high-risk resected HCC — Robin K (Katie) Kelley, MD and Thomas A Abrams, MD (13:43) Neoadjuvant systemic therapy for patients with borderline resectable HCC — Dr Abrams (20:15) Case: A man in his early 70s with locally advanced HCC and tumor thrombus that extends into the right atrium — Ghassan Abou-Alfa, MD, MBA (24:34) Recent Developments in the Management of Intermediate-Stage HCC — Dr Finn  Faculty Presentation (31:18) EMERALD-1 and LEAP-012 trials of TACE with immunotherapy — Drs Abrams and Kelley (42:15) Systemic treatment for patients with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis and HCC — Dr Kelley (48:29) Use of immunotherapy for patients with autoimmune disorders: A man in his early 30s with active colitis and metastatic HCC receives first-line lenvatinib — Drs Abrams and Abou-Alfa (53:05) Current First-Line Therapy for Advanced HCC — Dr He Faculty Presentation (1:00:39) Selection of first-line treatment regimen for advanced HCC — Drs Abrams, Kelley and Abou-Alfa (1:12:00) Role of single-agent immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced HCC — Dr Kelley (1:18:22) Management of HCC in patients with discordant tumor markers or mixed tumor histology — Dr Abrams (1:23:03) Promising Investigational Front-Line Strategies for Advanced HCC; Selection and Sequencing of Therapy for Relapsed/Refractory HCC — Dr Stein  Faculty Presentation (1:29:42) Choice of tyrosine kinase inhibitor as second-line systemic treatment for HCC; prevention, monitoring and mitigation of lenvatinib-associated side effects — Dr Kelley (1:42:59) Case: A man in his early 70s with metastatic HCC that has rapidly progressed on atezolizumab/bevacizumab — Dr Abou-Alfa (1:49:27) Supportive care measures to manage ascites in patients with HCC — Dr Abrams (1:55:20) CME information and select publications

Speaking of SurgOnc® has a new home! New episodes can now be found under the Society of Surgical Oncology's podcast, SurgOnc Today®, available on all major podcast platforms. Subscribe today to receive updates on new episode releases.  In this new episode of Speaking of SurgOnc®, Dr. Rick Greene discusses with Dr. Mark Truty the prognosis, and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, of resected invasive intraductal papillary mucinous cystic neoplasms compared with de novo pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, as reported in their article, "Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Invasive Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm Compared with de Novo Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma."

Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard and Dr. Bill Tew share updates to the evidence-based guideline on neoadjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer. They highlight recommendations across ten clinical questions, addressing initial assessment, primary cytoreductive surgery, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), tests and/or procedures that should be completed before NACT, preferred chemotherapy regimens, timing of interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS), hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), post ICS-chemotherapy, maintenance therapy, and options for those without a clinical response to NACT. They highlight the evidence supporting these recommendations and emphasize the importance of this guideline for clinicians and patients. Read the full guideline update, “Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed, Advanced Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update” at www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines." TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools, and resources are available at http://www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey and today I'm interviewing Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard from Johns Hopkins University and Dr. Bill Tew from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, co-chairs on “Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed, Advanced Ovarian Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.” Thank you for being here today, Dr. Gaillard and Dr. Tew. Dr. Bill Tew: Thank you for having us. Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard: Yeah, thank you. It's great to be here. Brittany Harvey: Great. Then, before we discuss this guideline, I'd like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Gaillard and Dr. Tew, who have joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. So then to dive into the content here, first, Dr. Tew, could you describe what prompted this update to the neoadjuvant chemotherapy for ovarian cancer guideline? And what is the scope of this update? Dr. Bill Tew: Yeah. It's been almost a decade since ASCO first published its neoadjuvant chemotherapy guidelines for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, and over that 10-year period, there's really been a major shift in how oncologists treat patients in the U.S. If you look at the National Cancer Database, between 2010 and 2021, the proportion of patients with advanced ovarian cancer who underwent primary surgery fell from about 70% to about 37%. And there's been a doubling in the amount of neoadjuvant chemotherapy used. So we wanted to take a look at that and really both highlight the appropriate patient populations for primary surgery versus new adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as review any studies that have been published since then. There's been, I think, about 61 trials published, nine randomized trials alone in the last 10 years. And the scope of the guideline was really not only the neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical questions, but also to touch upon some new treatments that have come to the forefront in newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, including heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy or HIPEC, as well as the integration of maintenance therapy, particularly bevacizumab and PARP inhibitors. Brittany Harvey: Understood. That's a large amount of new evidence to review in this Update. Then, next, Dr. Gaillard, I'd like to review the key recommendations across the 10 clinical questions that the guideline addressed. So, starting with: What is recommended regarding initial assessment for patients with newly diagnosed pelvic masses and/or upper abdominal or peritoneal disease? Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard: Sure. So in talking about the first guidelines, the first one that we addressed was how to do the initial assessment for these patients. And first, and probably most critically, it's important to recognize that these patients really should be evaluated by a gynecologic oncologist prior to initiation of any therapy, whether that means a primary cytoreductive surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, because really, they are the best ones to determine the pathway that the patient should take. The initial assessment should involve a CA-125, a CT of the abdomen and pelvis with oral and IV contrast, if not contraindicated, and then also chest imaging, in which a CT is really the preferred modality. And that helps to evaluate the extent of disease and the feasibility of the surgical resection. Now, there may be some other tools that could be helpful to also refine this assessment. So, for example, a laparoscopy can really help to determine the feasibility of surgical resection as well as the extent of disease. Further imaging, such as diffusion-weighted MRI or FDG-PET scans can be helpful, as well as ultrasounds. And then also an endometrial biopsy. And that was newly added because there really has been a divergence of treatment for endometrial cancer versus ovarian cancer. And so it's really important to determine upfront where the source of the disease is coming from. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you describing those recommendations surrounding initial assessment. So following this assessment, Dr. Tew, which patients with newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer should be recommended primary cytoreductive surgery? Dr. Bill Tew: The key thing here is if the GYN oncology surgeon feels that they have a high likelihood of achieving a complete cytoreduction with acceptable morbidity, the panel overwhelmingly agrees that primary cytoreduction surgery should be recommended over chemotherapy. And we know that surgery is really the cornerstone to achieving clinical remission. And our concern is that neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be overused in this fit population. Sometimes it is challenging to determine truly if a patient has a high likelihood of complete cytoreduction or what is acceptable morbidity. But an evaluation with performance status, fitness, looking at age or frailty, nutritional status, as well as a review of imaging studies to plan and determine for who is the right patient for primary surgery is key. Brittany Harvey: And then the title of this guideline, Dr. Gaillard, for which patients is neoadjuvant chemotherapy recommended? Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard: Yeah. So there's really two patient populations that we think are best suited to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Those may be patients who are fit for a primary cytoreductive surgery, but they're unlikely to have a complete cytoreduction if they were to go to surgery directly. And so that's where neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be very helpful in terms of increasing the ability to obtain a complete cytoreduction. The second population is those who are newly diagnosed who have a high perioperative risk, and so they're not fit to go to surgery directly. And so it may be better to start with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and then do an interval cytoreductive surgery. Again, I just want to emphasize the importance of including a gynecologic oncologist when making these determinations for patients. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. So then the next clinical question. Dr. Tew, for those patients with newly diagnosed stage 3 to 4 epithelial ovarian cancer, what tests and or procedures are recommended before neoadjuvant chemotherapy is delivered? Dr. Bill Tew: The key test is to confirm the proper diagnosis, and that requires histological confirmation with a core biopsy. And this was a point the panel strongly emphasized, which is a core biopsy is a much better diagnostic tool compared to cytology alone. But there will be cases, exceptional cases, where a core biopsy cannot be performed. And in those settings, cytology combined with serum CA-125 and CEA is acceptable to exclude a non-gynecologic cancer. The other reason why cord biopsy is strongly preferred is because we already need to start thinking about germline and somatic testing for BRCA1 and 2. This information is important as we start to think about maintenance strategies for our patients. And so having that information early can help tailor the first-line chemotherapy regimen. Brittany Harvey: So then you've described who should be receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, but Dr. Gaillard, for those who are receiving neoadjuvant chemo, what is the preferred chemotherapy regimen? And then what does the expert panel recommend regarding timing of interval cytoreductive surgery? Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard: Sure. So for neoadjuvant chemotherapy, we generally recommend a platinum taxane doublet. This is especially important for patients with high grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancers, and that's really because this is what the studies had used in the neoadjuvant trials. We recognize, however, that sometimes there are individual patient factors, such as advanced age or frailty, or certain disease factors such as the stage or rare histology that may shift what is used in terms of chemotherapy, but the recommendation is to try to stick as much as possible to the platinum taxane doublet. And then in terms of the timing of interval cytoreductive surgery, this was something that the panel discussed quite a bit and really felt that it should be performed after four or fewer cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, especially in patients who've had a response to chemotherapy or stable disease. Sometimes alternative timing of surgery can be considered based on some patient centered factors, but those really haven't been prospectively evaluated. The studies that looked at neoadjuvant chemotherapy usually did the interval cytoreductive surgery after three or four cycles of chemotherapy. Brittany Harvey: For those patients who are receiving interval cytoreductive surgery, Dr. Tew, earlier in the podcast episode, you mentioned a new therapy. What is recommended regarding hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy? Dr. Bill Tew: Yeah, or simply HIPEC as everyone refers to it. You know, HIPEC isn't really a new therapy. HIPEC is a one-time perfusion of cisplatin, which is a chemotherapy that has been a standard treatment for ovarian cancer for decades. But the chemotherapy is heated and used as a wash during the interval cytoreductive surgery. And since our last guideline, there has been a publication of a randomized trial that looked at the use of HIPEC in this setting. And in that study there was improved disease-free and overall survival among the patients that underwent HIPEC versus those that did not. So we wanted to at least emphasize this data. But we also wanted to recognize that HIPEC may not be available at all sites. It's resource-intensive. It requires a patient to be medically fit for it, particularly renal function and performance status. And so it's something that could be discussed with the patient as an option in the interval cytoreductive surgery. One other point, the use of HIPEC during primary surgery or later lines of therapy still is unknown. And the other point is this HIPEC trial came prior to the introduction of maintenance PARP inhibitors. So there's still a lot of unknowns, but it is a reasonable option to discuss with appropriate patients. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you reviewing that data and what that updated recommendation is from the panel. So then, Dr. Gaillard, after patients have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery, what is the post ICS chemotherapy recommended? Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard: The panel recommends some post ICS chemotherapy, as you mentioned. This is typically to continue the same chemotherapy that was done as neoadjuvant chemotherapy and so preferably platinum and taxane. And typically we recommend a total of six cycles of treatment, although the exact number of cycles that is given post-surgery can be adjusted based on different patient factors and their response to treatment. Importantly, also, timing is a factor, and we recommend that postoperative chemotherapy begin within four to six weeks after surgery, if at all feasible. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Those timing recommendations are key as well. So then, Dr. Tew, you mentioned this briefly earlier, but what is the role of maintenance therapy? Dr. Bill Tew: Maintenance therapy could be a full podcast plus of discussion, and it's complicated, but we did want to include it in this guideline in part because the determination of whether to continue treatment after completion of surgery and platinum based therapy is key as one is delivering care in the upfront setting. So first off, when we say maintenance therapy, we are typically referring to PARP inhibitors or bevacizumab. And I would refer listeners to the “ASCO PARP Inhibitor Guideline” that was updated about two years ago, as well as look at the FDA-approved label indications. But in general, PARP inhibitors, whether it's olaparib or niraparib, single agent or olaparib with bevacizumab, are standard treatments as maintenance, particularly in those patients with a germline or somatic BRCA mutation or those with an HRD score positive. And so it's really important that we emphasize germline and somatic BRCA testing for all patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer so that one can prepare for the use of maintenance therapy or not. And the other point is, as far as bevacizumab, bevacizumab is typically initiated during the chemotherapy section of first-line treatment. And in the guidelines we gave specific recommendations as far as when to start bevacizumab and in what patient population. Brittany Harvey: Great. Yes. And the PARP inhibitors guideline you mentioned is available on the ASCO guidelines website and we can provide a link in the show notes for our listeners. So then, the last clinical question, Dr. Gaillard, what treatment options are available for patients without a clinical response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard: Yeah, this is a tough situation. And so it's important to remember that ovarian cancer typically does respond to chemotherapy initially. And so it's unusual to have progressive disease to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. So it's really important that if someone has progressive disease that we question whether we really have the right diagnosis. And so it's important to, I think at that point, obtain another biopsy and make sure that we know what we're really dealing with. In addition, this is where Dr. Tew mentioned getting the molecular profiling and genetic testing early in the course of disease. If that hasn't been done at this point in time, it's worth doing that in this setting so that that can also potentially help guide options for patients. And patients who are in those situations, really, the options are other chemotherapy regimens, clinical trials may be an option, or in some situations, if they have really rapidly progressing disease that isn't amenable to further therapy, then initiation of end-of-life care would be appropriate. Brittany Harvey: I appreciate you both for reviewing all of these recommendations and options for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. So then to wrap us up, in your view, what is both the importance of this guideline update and how will it impact clinicians and patients with advanced ovarian cancer? Dr. Bill Tew: Well, first off, I'm very proud of this guideline and the panel that I work with and Dr. Gaillard, my co-chair. The guideline really pulls together nicely all the evidence in a simple format for oncologists to generate a plan and determine what's the best step for patients. The treatment of ovarian cancer, newly diagnosed, is really a team approach - surgeons, medical oncologists, and sometimes even general gynecologists - and understanding the data is key, as well as the advances in maintenance therapy and HIPEC. Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard: For my part, I'd say we hope that the update really provides physicians with best practice recommendations as they navigate neoadjuvant chemotherapy decisions for their patients who are newly diagnosed with ovarian cancer. There is a lot of data out there and so we hope that we've synthesized it in a way that makes it easier to digest. And along that regard, I really wanted to give a special shout out to Christina Lacchetti, who just put in a tremendous effort in putting these guidelines together and in helping to coordinate the panel. And so we really owe a lot to her in this effort. Dr. Bill Tew: Indeed. And ASCO, as always, helps guide and build a great resource for the oncology community. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. Yes, we hope this is a useful tool for clinicians. And I want to thank you both for the large amount of work you put in to update this evidence-based guideline. And thank you for your time today, Dr. Gaillard and Dr. Tew. Dr. Stéphanie Gaillard: Thank you. Dr. Bill Tew: Thank you for having us. Brittany Harvey: And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/gynecologic-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app, which is available in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you've heard today, please rate and review the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Among patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases, the subgroup with a primary cancer in the rectum is especially challenging. Compared with colon cancer, most patients with stage IV rectal cancer will have locally advanced primary tumors at increased risk for obstructive and/or post-operative complications resulting in delays in systemic therapy. In this episode from the HPB team at Behind the Knife, listen in on the discussion about treatment sequencing for synchronous liver metastasis from rectal cancer Hosts Anish J. Jain MD (@anishjayjain) is a current PGY3 General Surgery Resident at Stanford University and a former T32 Research Fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Timothy E. Newhook MD, FACS (@timnewhook19) is an Assistant Professor within the Department of Surgical Oncology. He is also the associate program director of the HPB fellowship at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.  Jean-Nicolas Vauthey MD, FACS (@VautheyMD) is Professor of Surgery and Chief of the HPB Section, as well as the Dallas/Fort Worth Living Legend Chair of Cancer Research in the Department of Surgical Oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Learning Objectives ·      Develop an understanding of the three treatment sequences for resection of disease in patients with synchronous liver metastasis from a primary rectal cancer (reverse, combined, and classic approach) ·      Develop an understanding of the benefits, risks, and nuances of each of the three treatment sequences ·      Develop an understanding of which patient cases each treatment sequence is ideal for as well as which cases they are not suitable for. Papers Referenced (in the order they were mentioned in the episode): 1)    Conrad C, Vauthey JN, Masayuki O, et al. Individualized Treatment Sequencing Selection Contributes to Optimized Survival in Patients with Rectal Cancer and Synchronous Liver Metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Dec;24(13):3857-3864.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28929463/ 2)    Maki H, Ayabe RI, Nishioka Y, et al. Hepatectomy Before Primary Tumor Resection as Preferred Approach for Synchronous Liver Metastases from Rectal Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2023 Sep;30(9):5390-5400. doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-13656-4. Epub 2023 Jun 7. Erratum in: Ann Surg Oncol. 2023 Sep;30(9):5405. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37285096/ Additional Suggested Reading Mentha G, Majno PE, Andres A, Rubbia-Brandt L, Morel P, Roth AD. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and resection of advanced synchronous liver metastases before treatment of the colorectal primary. Br J Surg. 2006 Jul;93(7):872-8.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16671066/ Please visit https://behindtheknife.org to access other high-yield surgical education podcasts, videos and more.   If you liked this episode, check out our recent episodes here: https://app.behindtheknife.org/listen

CME credits: 1.25 Valid until: 30-12-2025 Claim your CME credit at https://reachmd.com/programs/cme/novel-neoadjuvant-and-adjuvant-immunotherapy-strategies-for-gi-malignancies-the-evidence/29854/ The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines are crucial tool in the treatment of cancer and provide detailed recommendations for treatment selection. The guidelines are regularly updated as new therapies are approved or as drugs received expanded indications. Moreover, data are constantly evolving regarding the role of biomarkers and treatment choice. This activity has been designed to provide an overview of the NCCN guidelines for gastric, colorectal, and hepatocellular cancers and the optimal application of these recommendations to clinical practice.

Triple-negative breast cancer accounts for around 15% of breast cancers. Zhi-Ming Shao, MD, of Fudon University, joins JAMA Oncology Editor in Chief and JAMA Deputy Editor Nora Disis, MD, to discuss "Camrelizumab vs Placebo in Combination With Chemotherapy as Neoadjuvant Treatment in Patients with Early or Locally Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: The CamRelief Randomized Clinical Trial." Related Content: Camrelizumab vs Placebo in Combination With Chemotherapy as Neoadjuvant Treatment in Patients With Early or Locally Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Lots of recent clinical trial updates to discuss: AQUILA: Daratumumab for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma Checkmate 8HW: Nivo/Ipi for MSI-high/MMRd metastatic colorectal cancer DESTINY-Breast06: T-DXd in HER2-low MBC after hormonal treatment, but without previous chemo for MBC ARMANI: Switch maintenance ramucirumab-paclitaxel in metastatic gastric/GEJ cancer HELEN-006: Neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab vs. TCHP in breast cancer SONIA: finally published!

In this episode of SurgOnc Today®'s Surgical Oncology Insight series, Dr. Shishir Maithel, Editor of Surgical Oncology Insight, discusses with Dr. Rita Mukhtar contemporary neoadjuvant therapy approaches to the treatment of breast cancer, with a focus on the interplay between imaging, systemic therapy, radiotherapy, and surgical management, as reported in her article, "The Neoadjuvant Approach to Treatment of Breast Cancer: Multidisciplinary Management to Improve Outcomes."

Oncotarget #published this #editorial on September 30, 2024, in Volume 15, entitled “Lessons from the ACDC-RP trial: Clinical trial design for radical prostatectomy neoadjuvant therapy trials” by Rashid K. Sayyid and Neil E. Fleshner from the Division of Urologic Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28648 Correspondence to - Rashid K. Sayyid - rksayyid@gmail.com Video short - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APkPoTlXBWY Sign up for free Altmetric alerts about this article - https://oncotarget.altmetric.com/details/email_updates?id=10.18632%2Foncotarget.28648 Subscribe for free publication alerts from Oncotarget - https://www.oncotarget.com/subscribe/ Keywords - cancer, clinical trial, prostatic neoplasms, neoadjuvant therapy, chemotherapy; androgen receptor agonist About Oncotarget Oncotarget (a primarily oncology-focused, peer-reviewed, open access journal) aims to maximize research impact through insightful peer-review; eliminate borders between specialties by linking different fields of oncology, cancer research and biomedical sciences; and foster application of basic and clinical science. Oncotarget is indexed and archived by PubMed/Medline, PubMed Central, Scopus, EMBASE, META (Chan Zuckerberg Initiative) (2018-2022), and Dimensions (Digital Science). To learn more about Oncotarget, please visit https://www.oncotarget.com and connect with us: Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/Oncotarget/ X - https://twitter.com/oncotarget Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/oncotargetjrnl/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@OncotargetJournal LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/oncotarget Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/oncotarget/ Reddit - https://www.reddit.com/user/Oncotarget/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0gRwT6BqYWJzxzmjPJwtVh MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM

Please visit answersincme.com/ZFZ860 to participate, download slides and supporting materials, complete the post test, and obtain credit. In this activity, an expert in oncology discusses the role of immunotherapy in neoadjuvant treatment of early breast cancer. Upon completion of this activity, participants should be better able to: Recognize the rationale for adding immunotherapy to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant treatment of early HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer; Identify the clinical implications of the latest data for neoadjuvant treatment with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy regimens in early HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer; Describe the role that neoadjuvant, immunotherapy-containing regimens might play in the future management of patients with early HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, including high risk patients

Did you miss the ESMO Congress 2024? Listen here: NEJM Editor-in-Chief Eric Rubin and NEJM Evidence Associate Editor Oladapo Yeku discuss research that was presented at the 2024 European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting. Visit NEJM.org to read the latest research.

Please visit answersincme.com/GWE860 to participate, download slides and supporting materials, complete the post test, and obtain credit. In this activity, an expert in head and neck surgery discusses optimizing the in-practice use of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in the treatment of resectable cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC). Upon completion of this activity, participants should be better able to: Describe clinical factors that should be considered when evaluating whether a patient with CSCC is a candidate for neoadjuvant immunotherapy; Review the clinical profiles of approved and emerging neoadjuvant immunotherapies for patients with resectable CSCC; and Outline practical considerations to optimize treatment outcomes for patients with resectable CSCC. This activity is intended for US healthcare professionals only.

Drs Armstrong and Tawagi discuss the NADINA trial of neoadjuvant nivolumab/ipilimumab vs adjuvant nivolumab in resectable, macroscopic, stage III melanoma.

This week's episode will be discussing updates from ASCO 2024 next with the practice changing NADINA trial presented on the Sunday of ASCO by Dr. Christian Blank during the plenary sessions:  A multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy of neoadjuvant ipilimumab plus nivolumab with standard adjuvant nivolumab in macroscopic resectable stage III melanoma. We discuss the staging and prior standard of treatment for locally advanced melanoma, key findings from NADINA, and how these data may impact clinical practice.

In this episode of SurgOnc Today®, Akhil Chawla, MD, from Northwestern University, and a member of the SSO HPB disease site working group, is joined by Bas Groot Koerkamp, MD, PhD, from Erasmus Medical Centre and Knut Jørgen Labori, MD, PhD, from Oslo University Hospital. They discuss the details, similarities, and differences of their respective clinical trials for neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, NORPACT-1 and PREOPANC2. References/Resources: NORPACT-1 results: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468125323004053?via%3Dihub NORPACT-1 editorial: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38604195/ PREOPANC-2 protocol: https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-021-08031-z PREOPANC-2 results : https://www.annalsofoncology.org/article/S0923-7534(23)04228-X/fulltext

Interview with Lee W. Jones, PhD, author of Neoadjuvant Exercise Therapy in Prostate Cancer: A Phase 1, Decentralized Nonrandomized Controlled Trial. Hosted by Vivek Subbiah, MD. Related Content: Neoadjuvant Exercise Therapy in Prostate Cancer

For malignant brain cancers, such as glioblastoma, treatment options have not significantly improved. The current standard of care involves surgery followed by radiation or chemotherapy.Dr. Kesari and his team are exploring a new approach. The PNI (Precision Immunotherapy in the Neoadjuvant setting) method uses targeted treatments based on the patient's tumor genetics before administering chemotherapy and radiation, when the immune system is stronger.The goal is to prime the body to recognize and target the cancer as a foreign entity, enabling the body's own immune system to combat the disease before it is weakened by chemotherapy and radiation.Learn more: 310-829-8265

Andrea Necchi gives us the lowdown of efficacy and toxicity of this combination.

Drs. Rosenberg and Morgans share their insights into neoadjuvant therapy in the management of patients with muscle invasive urothelial carcinoma, including patient‑ and treatment‑related factors that may influence decision making, bladder‑preservation, and the future of neoadjuvant therapy with immunotherapy and ADCs.