Podcasts about recist

With more than two decades of experience at the intersection of biostatistics and biomedical imaging, Bracken Senior Partner Dr. David Raunig has been a driving force in biomarker development, validation, and regulatory strategy. From leading FDA biomarker qualification review teams to co-inventing imaging advancements and setting industry-wide standards through QIBA, David has played a pivotal role in defining how we measure—and trust—biological data in clinical trials.In this episode of Fractals: Life Science Conversations, David and host Colin Miller explore:What truly defines a biomarker—and how clinical outcome assessments differ from biological markers.Why the FDA's "context of use" is key to biomarker qualification and how to demonstrate that a biomarker measures what it's meant to.How the evolution of imaging—from WHO criteria to RECIST to AI-assisted reads—could transform how we assess tumor burden and therapeutic response.Statistical strategies for trial design and endpoint validation, and why QIBA's standardized imaging protocols are essential tools for trial sponsors.Tune in to Fractals on your favorite podcast platform, and connect with Bracken to learn how David and our experts can support your clinical trial strategy from biomarker planning to regulatory approval.

Listen to ASCO's JCO Oncology Practice, Art of Oncology Practice article, "An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last” by Dr. David Johnson, who is a clinical oncologist at University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. The article is followed by an interview with Johnson and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Through humor and irony, Johnson critiques how overspecialization and poor presentation practices have eroded what was once internal medicine's premier educational forum. Transcript Narrator: An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last, by David H. Johnson, MD, MACP, FASCO   Over the past five decades, I have attended hundreds of medical conferences—some insightful and illuminating, others tedious and forgettable. Among these countless gatherings, Medical Grand Rounds (MGRs) has always held a special place. Originally conceived as a forum for discussing complex clinical cases, emerging research, and best practices in patient care, MGRs served as a unifying platform for clinicians across all specialties, along with medical students, residents, and other health care professionals. Expert speakers—whether esteemed faculty or distinguished guests—would discuss challenging cases, using them as a springboard to explore the latest advances in diagnosis and treatment. During my early years as a medical student, resident, and junior faculty member, Grand Rounds consistently attracted large, engaged audiences. However, as medicine became increasingly subspecialized, attendance began to wane. Lectures grew more technically intricate, often straying from broad clinical relevance. The patient-centered discussions that once brought together diverse medical professionals gradually gave way to hyperspecialized presentations. Subspecialists, once eager to share their insights with the wider medical community, increasingly withdrew to their own specialty-specific conferences, further fragmenting the exchange of knowledge across disciplines. As a former Chair of Internal Medicine and a veteran of numerous MGRs, I observed firsthand how these sessions shifted from dynamic educational exchanges to highly specialized, often impenetrable discussions. One of the most striking trends in recent years has been the decline in presentation quality at MGR—even among local and visiting world-renowned experts. While these speakers are often brilliant clinicians and investigators, they can also be remarkably poor lecturers, delivering some of the most uninspiring talks I have encountered. Their presentations are so consistently lackluster that one might suspect an underlying strategy at play—an unspoken method to ensure that they are never invited back. Having observed this pattern repeatedly, I am convinced that these speakers must be adhering to a set of unwritten rules to avoid future MGR presentations. To assist those unfamiliar with this apparent strategy, I have distilled the key principles that, when followed correctly, all but guarantee that a presenter will not be asked to give another MGR lecture—thus sparing them the burden of preparing one in the future. Drawing on my experience as an oncologist, I illustrate these principles using an oncology-based example although I suspect similar rules apply across other subspecialties. It will be up to my colleagues in cardiology, endocrinology, rheumatology, and beyond to identify and document their own versions—tasks for which I claim no expertise. What follows are the seven “Rules for Presenting a Bad Medical Oncology Medical Grand Rounds.” 1.  Microscopic Mayhem: Always begin with an excruciatingly detailed breakdown of the tumor's histology and molecular markers, emphasizing how these have evolved over the years (eg, PAP v prostate-specific antigen)—except, of course, when they have not (eg, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, etc). These nuances, while of limited relevance to general internists or most subspecialists (aside from oncologists), are guaranteed to induce eye-glazing boredom and quiet despair among your audience. 2. TNM Torture: Next, cover every nuance of the newest staging system … this is always a real crowd pleaser. For illustrative purposes, show a TNM chart in the smallest possible font. It is particularly helpful if you provide a lengthy review of previous versions of the staging system and painstakingly cover each and every change in the system. Importantly, this activity will allow you to disavow the relevance of all previous literature studies to which you will subsequently refer during the course of your presentation … to wit—“these data are based on the OLD staging system and therefore may not pertain …” This phrase is pure gold—use it often if you can. NB: You will know you have “captured” your audience if you observe audience members “shifting in their seats” … it occurs almost every time … but if you have failed to “move” the audience … by all means, continue reading … there is more! 3. Mechanism of Action Meltdown: Discuss in detail every drug ever used to treat the cancer under discussion; this works best if you also give a detailed description of each drug's mechanism of action (MOA). General internists and subspecialists just LOVE hearing a detailed discussion of the drug's MOA … especially if it is not at all relevant to the objectives of your talk. At this point, if you observe a wave of slack-jawed faces slowly slumping toward their desktops, you will know you are on your way to successfully crushing your audience's collective spirit. Keep going—you are almost there. 4. Dosage Deadlock: One must discuss “dose response” … there is absolutely nothing like a dose response presentation to a group of internists to induce cries of anguish. A wonderful example of how one might weave this into a lecture to generalists or a mixed audience of subspecialists is to discuss details that ONLY an oncologist would care about—such as the need to dose escalate imatinib in GIST patients with exon 9 mutations as compared with those with exon 11 mutations. This is a definite winner! 5. Criteria Catatonia: Do not forget to discuss the newest computed tomography or positron emission tomography criteria for determining response … especially if you plan to discuss an obscure malignancy that even oncologists rarely encounter (eg, esthesioneuroblastoma). Should you plan to discuss a common disease you can ensure ennui only if you will spend extra time discussing RECIST criteria. Now if you do this well, some audience members may begin fashioning their breakfast burritos into projectiles—each one aimed squarely at YOU. Be brave … soldier on! 6. Kaplan-Meier Killer: Make sure to discuss the arcane details of multiple negative phase II and III trials pertaining to the cancer under discussion. It is best to show several inconsequential and hard-to-read Kaplan-Meier plots. To make sure that you do a bad job, divide this portion of your presentation into two sections … one focused on adjuvant treatment; the second part should consist of a long boring soliloquy on the management of metastatic disease. Provide detailed information of little interest even to the most ardent fan of the disease you are discussing. This alone will almost certainly ensure that you will never, ever be asked to give Medicine Grand Rounds again. 7. Lymph Node Lobotomy: For the coup de grâce, be sure to include an exhaustive discussion of the latest surgical techniques, down to the precise number of lymph nodes required for an “adequate dissection.” To be fair, such details can be invaluable in specialized settings like a tumor board, where they send subspecialists into rapturous delight. But in the context of MGR—where the audience spans multiple disciplines—it will almost certainly induce a stultifying torpor. If dullness were an art, this would be its masterpiece—capable of lulling even the most caffeinated minds into a stupor. If you have carefully followed the above set of rules, at this point, some members of the audience should be banging their heads against the nearest hard surface. If you then hear a loud THUD … and you're still standing … you will know you have succeeded in giving the world's worst Medical Grand Rounds!   Final Thoughts I hope that these rules shed light on what makes for a truly dreadful oncology MGR presentation—which, by inverse reasoning, might just serve as a blueprint for an excellent one. At its best, an outstanding lecture defies expectations. One of the most memorable MGRs I have attended, for instance, was on prostaglandin function—not a subject typically associated with edge-of-your-seat suspense. Given by a biochemist and physician from another subspecialty, it could have easily devolved into a labyrinth of enzymatic pathways and chemical structures. Instead, the speaker took a different approach: rather than focusing on biochemical minutiae, he illustrated how prostaglandins influence nearly every major physiologic system—modulating inflammation, regulating cardiovascular function, protecting the gut, aiding reproduction, supporting renal function, and even influencing the nervous system—without a single slide depicting the prostaglandin structure. The result? A room full of clinicians—not biochemists—walked away with a far richer understanding of how prostaglandins affect their daily practice. What is even more remarkable is that the talk's clarity did not just inform—it sparked new collaborations that shaped years of NIH-funded research. Now that was an MGR masterpiece. At its core, effective scientific communication boils down to three deceptively simple principles: understanding your audience, focusing on relevance, and making complex information accessible.2 The best MGRs do not drown the audience in details, but rather illuminate why those details matter. A great lecture is not about showing how much you know, but about ensuring your audience leaves knowing something they didn't before. For those who prefer the structured wisdom of a written guide over the ramblings of a curmudgeon, an excellent review of these principles—complete with a handy checklist—is available.2 But fair warning: if you follow these principles, you may find yourself invited back to present another stellar MGRs. Perish the thought! Dr. Mikkael SekeresHello and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the oncology field. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami.  What a pleasure it is today to be joined by Dr. David Johnson, clinical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. In this episode, we will be discussing his Art of Oncology Practice article, "An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last."  Our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript.  David, welcome to our podcast and thanks so much for joining us. Dr. David JohnsonGreat to be here, Mikkael. Thanks for inviting me. Dr. Mikkael SekeresI was wondering if we could start with just- give us a sense about you. Can you tell us about yourself? Where are you from? And walk us through your career. Dr. David JohnsonSure. I grew up in a small rural community in Northwest Georgia about 30 miles south of Chattanooga, Tennessee, in the Appalachian Mountains. I met my wife in kindergarten. Dr. Mikkael SekeresOh my. Dr. David JohnsonThere are laws in Georgia. We didn't get married till the third grade. But we dated in high school and got married after college. And so we've literally been with one another my entire life, our entire lives. Dr. Mikkael SekeresMy word. Dr. David JohnsonI went to medical school in Georgia. I did my training in multiple sites, including my oncology training at Vanderbilt, where I completed my training. I spent the next 30 years there, where I had a wonderful career. Got an opportunity to be a Division Chief and a Deputy Director of, and the founder of, a cancer center there. And in 2010, I was recruited to UT Southwestern as the Chairman of Medicine. Not a position I had particularly aspired to, but I was interested in taking on that challenge, and it proved to be quite a challenge for me. I had to relearn internal medicine, and really all the subspecialties of medicine really became quite challenging to me. So my career has spanned sort of the entire spectrum, I suppose, as a clinical investigator, as an administrator, and now as a near end-of-my-career guy who writes ridiculous articles about grand rounds. Dr. Mikkael SekeresNot ridiculous at all. It was terrific. What was that like, having to retool? And this is a theme you cover a little bit in your essay, also, from something that's super specialized. I mean, you have had this storied career with the focus on lung cancer, and then having to expand not only to all of hematology oncology, but all of medicine. Dr. David JohnsonIt was a challenge, but it was also incredibly fun. My first few days in the chair's office, I met with a number of individuals, but perhaps the most important individuals I met with were the incoming chief residents who were, and are, brilliant men and women. And we made a pact. I promised to teach them as much as I could about oncology if they would teach me as much as they could about internal medicine. And so I spent that first year literally trying to relearn medicine. And I had great teachers. Several of those chiefs are now on the faculty here or elsewhere. And that continued on for the next several years. Every group of chief residents imparted their wisdom to me, and I gave them what little bit I could provide back to them in the oncology world. It was a lot of fun. And I have to say, I don't necessarily recommend everybody go into administration. It's not necessarily the most fun thing in the world to do. But the opportunity to deal one-on-one closely with really brilliant men and women like the chief residents was probably the highlight of my time as Chair of Medicine. Dr. Mikkael SekeresThat sounds incredible. I can imagine, just reflecting over the two decades that I've been in hematology oncology and thinking about the changes in how we diagnose and care for people over that time period, I can only imagine what the changes had been in internal medicine since I was last immersed in that, which would be my residency. Dr. David JohnsonWell, I trained in the 70s in internal medicine, and what transpired in the 70s was kind of ‘monkey see, monkey do'. We didn't really have a lot of understanding of pathophysiology except at the most basic level. Things have changed enormously, as you well know, certainly in the field of oncology and hematology, but in all the other fields as well. And so I came in with what I thought was a pretty good foundation of knowledge, and I realized it was completely worthless, what I had learned as an intern and resident. And when I say I had to relearn medicine, I mean, I had to relearn medicine. It was like being an intern. Actually, it was like being a medical student all over again. Dr. Mikkael SekeresOh, wow. Dr. David JohnsonSo it's quite challenging.  Dr. Mikkael SekeresWell, and it's just so interesting. You're so deliberate in your writing and thinking through something like grand rounds. It's not a surprise, David, that you were also deliberate in how you were going to approach relearning medicine. So I wonder if we could pivot to talking about grand rounds, because part of being a Chair of Medicine, of course, is having Department of Medicine grand rounds. And whether those are in a cancer center or a department of medicine, it's an honor to be invited to give a grand rounds talk. How do you think grand rounds have changed over the past few decades? Can you give an example of what grand rounds looked like in the 1990s compared to what they look like now? Dr. David JohnsonWell, I should all go back to the 70s and and talk about grand rounds in the 70s. And I referenced an article in my essay written by Dr. Ingelfinger, who many people remember Dr. Ingelfinger as the Ingelfinger Rule, which the New England Journal used to apply. You couldn't publish in the New England Journal if you had published or publicly presented your data prior to its presentation in the New England Journal. Anyway, Dr. Ingelfinger wrote an article which, as I say, I referenced in my essay, about the graying of grand rounds, when he talked about what grand rounds used to be like. It was a very almost sacred event where patients were presented, and then experts in the field would discuss the case and impart to the audience their wisdom and knowledge garnered over years of caring for patients with that particular problem, might- a disease like AML, or lung cancer, or adrenal insufficiency, and talk about it not just from a pathophysiologic standpoint, but from a clinician standpoint. How do these patients present? What do you do? How do you go about diagnosing and what can you do to take care of those kinds of patients? It was very patient-centric. And often times the patient, him or herself, was presented at the grand rounds. And then experts sitting in the front row would often query the speaker and put him or her under a lot of stress to answer very specific questions about the case or about the disease itself.  Over time, that evolved, and some would say devolved, but evolved into more specialized and nuanced presentations, generally without a patient present, or maybe even not even referred to, but very specifically about the molecular biology of disease, which is marvelous and wonderful to talk about, but not necessarily in a grand round setting where you've got cardiologists sitting next to endocrinologists, seated next to nephrologists, seated next to primary care physicians and, you know, an MS1 and an MS2 and et cetera. So it was very evident to me that what I had witnessed in my early years in medicine had really become more and more subspecialized. As a result, grand rounds, which used to be packed and standing room only, became echo chambers. It was like a C-SPAN presentation, you know, where local representative got up and gave a talk and the chambers were completely empty. And so we had to go to do things like force people to attend grand rounds like a Soviet Union-style rally or something, you know. You have to pay them to go. But it was really that observation that got me to thinking about it.  And by the way, I love oncology and I'm, I think there's so much exciting progress that's being made that I want the presentations to be exciting to everybody, not just to the oncologist or the hematologist, for example. And what I was witnessing was kind of a formula that, almost like a pancake formula, that everybody followed the same rules. You know, “This disease is the third most common cancer and it presents in this way and that way.” And it was very, very formulaic. It wasn't energizing and exciting as it had been when we were discussing individual patients. So, you know, it just is what it is. I mean, progress is progress and you can't stop it. And I'm not trying to make America great again, you know, by going back to the 70s, but I do think sometimes we overthink what medical grand rounds ought to be as compared to a presentation at ASH or ASCO where you're talking to subspecialists who understand the nuances and you don't have to explain the abbreviations, you know, that type of thing. Dr. Mikkael SekeresSo I wonder, you talk about the echo chamber of the grand rounds nowadays, right? It's not as well attended. It used to be a packed event, and it used to be almost a who's who of, of who's in the department. You'd see some very famous people who would attend every grand rounds and some up-and-comers, and it was a chance for the chief residents to shine as well. How do you think COVID and the use of Zoom has changed the personality and energy of grand rounds? Is it better because, frankly, more people attend—they just attend virtually. Last time I attended, I mean, I attend our Department of Medicine grand rounds weekly, and I'll often see 150, 200 people on the Zoom. Or is it worse because the interaction's limited? Dr. David JohnsonYeah, I don't want to be one of those old curmudgeons that says, you know, the way it used to be is always better. But there's no question that the convenience of Zoom or similar media, virtual events, is remarkable. I do like being able to sit in my office where I am right now and watch a conference across campus that I don't have to walk 30 minutes to get to. I like that, although I need the exercise. But at the same time, I think one of the most important aspects of coming together is lost with virtual meetings, and that's the casual conversation that takes place. I mentioned in my essay an example of the grand rounds that I attended given by someone in a different specialty who was both a physician and a PhD in biochemistry, and he was talking about prostaglandin metabolism. And talk about a yawner of a title; you almost have to prop your eyelids open with toothpicks. But it turned out to be one of the most fascinating, engaging conversations I've ever encountered. And moreover, it completely opened my eyes to an area of research that I had not been exposed to at all. And it became immediately obvious to me that it was relevant to the area of my interest, which was lung cancer. This individual happened to be just studying colon cancer. He's not an oncologist, but he was studying colon cancer. But it was really interesting what he was talking about. And he made it very relevant to every subspecialist and generalist in the audience because he talked about how prostaglandin has made a difference in various aspects of human physiology.  The other grand rounds which always sticks in my mind was presented by a long standing program director at my former institution of Vanderbilt. He's passed away many years ago, but he gave a fascinating grand rounds where he presented the case of a homeless person. I can't remember the title of his grand rounds exactly, but I think it was “Care of the Homeless” or something like that. So again, not something that necessarily had people rushing to the audience. What he did is he presented this case as a mysterious case, you know, “what is it?” And he slowly built up the presentation of this individual who repeatedly came to the emergency department for various and sundry complaints. And to make a long story short, he presented a case that turned out to be lead poisoning. Everybody was on the edge of their seat trying to figure out what it was. And he was challenging members of the audience and senior members of the audience, including the Cair, and saying, “What do you think?” And it turned out that the patient became intoxicated not by eating paint chips or drinking lead infused liquids. He was burning car batteries to stay alive and inhaling lead fumes, which itself was fascinating, you know, so it was a fabulous grand rounds. And I mean, everybody learned something about the disease that they might otherwise have ignored, you know, if it'd been a title “Lead Poisoning”, I'm not sure a lot of people would have shown up. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres That story, David, reminds me of Tracy Kidder, who's a master of the nonfiction narrative, will choose a subject and kind of just go into great depth about it, and that subject could be a person. And he wrote a book called Rough Sleepers about Jim O'Connell - and Jim O'Connell was one of my attendings when I did my residency at Mass General - and about his life and what he learned about the homeless. And it's this same kind of engaging, “Wow, I never thought about that.” And it takes you in a different direction.  And you know, in your essay, you make a really interesting comment. You reflect that subspecialists, once eager to share their insight with the wider medical community, increasingly withdraw to their own specialty specific conferences, further fragmenting the exchange of knowledge across disciplines. How do you think this affects their ability to gain new insights into their research when they hear from a broader audience and get questions that they usually don't face, as opposed to being sucked into the groupthink of other subspecialists who are similarly isolated? Dr. David Johnson That's one of the reasons I chose to illustrate that prostaglandin presentation, because again, that was not something that I specifically knew much about. And as I said, I went to the grand rounds more out of a sense of obligation than a sense of engagement. Moreover, our Chair at that institution forced us to go, so I was there, not by choice, but I'm so glad I was, because like you say, I got insight into an area that I had not really thought about and that cross pollination and fertilization is really a critical aspect. I think that you can gain at a broad conference like Medical Grand Rounds as opposed to a niche conference where you're talking about APL. You know, everybody's an APL expert, but they never thought about diabetes and how that might impact on their research. So it's not like there's an ‘aha' moment at every Grand Rounds, but I do think that those kinds of broad based audiences can sometimes bring a different perspective that even the speaker, him or herself had not thought of. Dr. Mikkael SekeresI think that's a great place to end and to thank David Johnson, who's a clinical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and just penned the essay in JCO Art of Oncology Practice entitled "An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last."  Until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of ASCO's shows at asco.org/podcasts.  David, once again, I want to thank you for joining me today. Dr. David JohnsonThank you very much for having me. 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.    Show notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review.  Guest Bio: Dr David Johnson is a clinical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School.

Host Dr. Davide Soldato and guest Dr. Harriet Kluger discuss the JCO article "Phase II Trial of Pembrolizumab in Combination With Bevacizumab for Untreated Melanoma Brain Metastases." Transcript The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Davide Soldato Hello and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors from some of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, Medical Oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by JCO author Dr. Harriet Kluger. Dr. Kluger is a professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine, Director of the Yale SPORE in Skin Cancer, and an internationally recognized expert in immuno-oncology for melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. She leads early-phase and translational trials that pair novel immunotherapies with predictive biomarkers to personalized care. Today, Dr. Kluger and I will be discussing the article titled "Phase 2 Trial of Pembrolizumab in Combination with Bevacizumab for Untreated Melanoma Brain Metastases." In this study, Dr. Kluger and colleagues evaluated four cycles of pembrolizumab plus the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab followed by pembrolizumab maintenance in patients with asymptomatic non-hemorrhagic melanoma brain metastases that had not previously received PD-1 therapy. Thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Kluger. Dr. Harriet Kluger Thank you for inviting me. The pleasure is really all mine. Dr. Davide Soldato So to kick off our podcast, I just wanted to ask if you could outline a little bit the biological and clinical rationale that led you to test this type of combination for patients with untreated brain metastases from metastatic melanoma. Dr. Harriet Kluger Back in approximately 2012, patients who had untreated brain metastases were excluded from all clinical trials. So by untreated, I mean brain metastases that had not received local therapy such as surgery or radiation. The reason for it was primarily because there was this fear that big molecules wouldn't penetrate brain lesions because they can't pass the blood-brain barrier. Turns out that the blood-brain barrier within a tumor is somewhat leaky and drugs sometimes can get in there. When PD-1 inhibitors were first identified as the next blockbuster class of drugs, we decided to conduct a phase 2 clinical trial of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with untreated brain metastases. We actually did it also in lung cancer, and we could talk about that later on. Responses were seen. The responses in the brain and the body were similar. They were concordant in melanoma patients. Now, at approximately that time, also another study was done by the Australian group by Dr. Georgina Long, where they did a randomized trial where patients who didn't require immediate steroid therapy received either nivolumab alone or nivolumab with ipilimumab, and the combination arm was substantially superior. Subsequently, also, Bristol Myers Squibb also conducted a large phase 2 multicenter trial of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with untreated brain metastases. And there, once again, they saw that the responses in the brain were similar to the responses in the body. Now, somewhere along the line there, we completed our anti-PD-1 monotherapy trial. And when we looked at our data, we still didn't have the data on ipilimumab and nivolumab. And our question was, “Well, how can we do better?” Just as we're always trying to do better. We saw two really big problems. One was that patients had a lot of perilesional edema. And the other one was that we were struggling with radiation necrosis in lesions that were previously Gamma Knifed. The instance of radiation necrosis was in excess of 30%. So the rationale behind this study was that if we added bevacizumab, maybe we could treat those patients who had some edema, not requiring steroids, but potentially get them on study, get that PD-1 inhibitor going, and also prevent subsequent radiation necrosis. And that was the main rationale behind the study. We had also done some preclinical work in mouse models of melanoma brain metastases and in an in vitro blood-brain barrier model where we showed that bevacizumab, or anti-VEGF, really tightens up those leaky basement membranes and therefore would be very likely to decrease the edema. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much for putting in context the combination. So this was a phase 2 trial, and you included patients who had at least one lesion, and you wanted lesions that were behind 5 and 20 millimeters. Patients could be included also if the brain metastasis was higher in dimension than 20 millimeters, but it had to be treated, and it was then excluded from the evaluation of the primary objective of the trial. So regarding, a little bit, these characteristics, do you think that this is very similar to what we see in clinical practice? And what does this mean in terms of applicability of these results in clinical practice? Dr. Harriet Kluger So that's an excellent question. The brain metastasis clinical research field has somewhat been struggling with this issue of inclusion/exclusion criteria. When we started this, we showed pretty clearly that 5 to 10 millimeter lesions, which are below the RECIST criteria for inclusion, are measurable if you use MRIs with slices that are 1 to 2 millimeters. Most institutions in the United States do use these high-resolution MRIs. I don't know how applicable that is on a worldwide scale, but we certainly lowered the threshold for inclusion so that patients who have a smattering of small brain metastases would be eligible. Now, patients with single large brain metastases, the reason that we excluded those from the trial was because we were afraid that if a patient didn't respond to the systemic therapy that we were going to give them, they could really then develop severe neurological symptoms. So, for patient safety, we used 20 millimeters as the upper level for inclusion. Some of the other trials that I mentioned earlier also excluded patients with very large lesions. Now, in practice, one certainly can do Gamma Knife therapy to the large lesions and leave the smaller ones untreated. So I think it actually is very applicable to clinical practice. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much for that insight, because I think that sometimes criteria for clinical trials, they have to be very restrictive. But then we know that in clinical practice, the applicability of these results is probably broader. So, going a little bit further in the results of the study, I just wanted a little bit of comment from you regarding what you saw in terms of intracranial response rate and duration of response among patients who obtained a response from the combination treatment. Dr. Harriet Kluger So we were actually surprised. When we first designed this study, as I said earlier, we weren't trying to beat out ipilimumab and nivolumab. We were really just trying to exclude those patients who wouldn't have otherwise been eligible for ipilimumab and nivolumab because of edema or possibly even previous radiation necrosis. So it was designed to differentiate between a response rate of 34%, and I believe the lower bound was somewhere in the 20s, because that's what we'd seen in the previous pembrolizumab study. What we saw in the first 20 patients that we enrolled was actually a response rate that far exceeded that. And so we enrolled another cohort to verify that result because we were concerned about premature publishing of a result that we might have achieved just by chance. The two cohorts were very similar in terms of the response rates. And certainly this still needs to be verified in a second study with additional institutions. We did include the Moffitt Cancer Center, and the response rate with Moffitt Cancer Center was very similar to the Yale Cancer Center response rate. Now, your other question was about duration of response. So the other thing that we started asking ourselves was whether this high response rate was really because the administration of the anti-VEGF will decrease the gadolinium enhancement and therefore we might actually just be seeing prettier scans but not tumor shrinkage. And the way to differentiate those two is by looking at the duration of the response. Median progression-free survival was 2.2 years. That's pretty long. The upper bound on the 95% confidence interval was not reached. I can't tell you that the duration is as good as the duration would be when you give ipilimumab. Perhaps it is less good. This was a fairly sick population of patients, and it included some who might not have been able to receive ipilimumab and nivolumab. So it provides an alternative. I do believe that we need to do a randomized trial where we compare it to ipilimumab and nivolumab, which is the current standard of care in this patient population. We do need to interpret these results with caution. I also want to point out regarding the progression-free survival that we only gave four doses of anti-VEGF. So one would think that even though anti-VEGF has a long half-life of three or four weeks, two years later, you no longer have anti-VEGF effect, presumably. So it does something when it's administered fairly early on in the course of the treatment. Dr. Davide Soldato So, in terms of clinical applicability, do you see this combination of pembrolizumab and bevacizumab - and of course, as we mentioned, this was a phase 2 trial. The number of patients included was not very high, but still you saw some very promising results when compared with the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab. So do you see this combination as something that should be given particularly to those patients who might not be able to receive ipilimumab and nivolumab? So, for example, patients who are very symptomatic from the start or require a high dose of steroids, or also to provide a quicker response in terms of patients who have neurological symptoms, or do you think that someday it could be potentially used for all patients? Dr. Harriet Kluger The third part of your question, whether it can be used someday for all patients: I think we need to be very careful when we interpret these results. The study was substantially smaller than the ipilimumab/nivolumab trial that was conducted by Bristol Myers Squibb. Also going to point out that was a different population of patients. Those were all frontline patients. Here we had a mix of patients who'd had previous anti-CTLA-4 and frontline patients. So I don't think that we can replace ipilimumab and nivolumab with these results. But certainly the steroid-sparing aspect of it is something that we really need to take into consideration. A lot of patients have lesions in locations where edema can be dangerous, and some of them have a hard time coming off the steroids. So this is certainly a good approach for those folks. Dr. Davide Soldato And coming back to something that you mentioned in the very introduction, when you said that there were two main problems, which was one, the problem of the edema, and the second one, the problem of the radionecrosis. In your trial, there was a fair percentage of patients who received some type of local treatment before the systemic one. So the combination of pembrolizumab and bevacizumab. And most of the patients received radiosurgery. So I just wanted a brief comment regarding the incidence of radionecrosis in the trial and whether that specific component of the combination with bevacizumab was reduced. And how do you think that this fares in terms of what we see in clinical practice in terms of radionecrosis? Dr. Harriet Kluger I'm not sure that we really reduced the incidence of radiation necrosis. We saw radiation necrosis here. We saw less of it than in the trial of pembrolizumab monotherapy, but these were also different patients, different time. We saw more than we thought that we were going to see. It was 27%, I believe, which is fairly high still. We only gave the four doses of bevacizumab. Maybe to really prevent radiation necrosis, you have to continue to give the bevacizumab. That, too, needs to be tested. The reason that we gave the four doses of bevacizumab was simply because of the cost of the bevacizumab at the time. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much for that comment on radionecrosis. And I really think that potentially this is a strategy, so continuing the bevacizumab, that really makes a lot of sense, especially considering that the tolerability of the regimen was really very, very good, and you didn't see any significant or serious adverse events related to bevacizumab. So just wondering if you could comment a little bit on the toxicities, whether you had anything unexpected. Dr. Harriet Kluger There was one patient who had a microperforation of a diverticulum, which was probably related to the bevacizumab. It was conservatively managed, and the patient did fine and actually remains alive now, many years later. We had one patient who had dehiscence of a previous wound. So there is some. We did not see any substantial hypertension, proteinuria, but we only gave the four doses. So it is possible that if you give it for longer, we would see some side effects. But still, relative to ipilimumab, it's very, very well tolerated. Dr. Davide Soldato Yeah, exactly. I think that the safety profile is really different when we compare the combination of ipilimumab/nivolumab with the pembrolizumab/bevacizumab. And as you said, this was a very small trial and probably we need additional results. But still, these results, in terms of tolerability and safety, I think they are very interesting. So one additional question that I think warrants a little bit of comment on your part is actually related to the presence of patients with BRAF mutation and, in general, to what you think would be the best course of treatment for these patients who present with the upfront brain metastases. So this, it's actually not completely related to the study, but I think that since patients with BRAF mutation were included, I think that this warrants a little bit of discussion on your part. Dr. Harriet Kluger So we really believe that long-term disease control, particularly in brain metastases, doesn't happen when you give BRAF/MEK inhibitors. You sometimes get long-term control if you've got oligometastatic disease in extracranial sites and if they've previously been treated with a lot of immune checkpoint inhibitors, which wasn't the case over here. So a patient who presents early in the course of the disease, regardless of their BRAF status, I do believe that between our studies and all the studies that have been done on immunotherapy earlier in the course of disease, we should withhold BRAF/MEK inhibitors unless they have overwhelming disease and we need immediate disease control, and then we switch them very quickly to immunotherapy. Can I also say something about the toxicity question from the bevacizumab? I have one more comment to make. I think it's important. We were very careful not to include patients who had overt hemorrhage from brain metastases. So melanoma brain metastases relative to other tumor types tend to bleed, and that was an exclusion criteria. We didn't see any bleeding that was attributable to the bevacizumab, but we don't know for sure that, if this is widely used, that that might not be a problem that's observed. So I would advise folks to use extreme caution and perhaps not use it outside of the setting of a clinical trial in patients with overt hemorrhage in the melanoma brain metastases. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much. I think that one aspect that is really interesting in the trial is actually related to the fact that you collected a series of biomarkers, both circulating ones, but also some that were collected actually from the tissue. So just wondering if you could explain a little bit which type of biomarkers you evaluated and whether you saw any significant results that could suggest higher or lower efficacy of the combination. Dr. Harriet Kluger Thank you for that. So yes, the biomarker studies are fairly exploratory, and I want to emphasize that we don't have anything that's remotely useful in clinical practice at this juncture. But we did see an association between vessel density in the tumors and improved response to this regimen. So possibly those lesions that are more vascular are more fed by or driven by VEGF, and that could be the reason that there was improved response. We also saw that when there was less of an increase in circulating angiopoietin-2 levels, patients were more likely to respond. Whether or not that pans out in larger cohorts of patients remains to be determined. Dr. Davide Soldato Still, do you envision validation of these biomarkers in a potentially additional trial that will evaluate, again, the combination? Because I think that the signals were quite interesting, and they really make sense from a biological point of view, considering the mechanism of action of bevacizumab. So I think that, yeah, you're right, they are exploratory. But still, I think that there is very strong biological rationale. So really I wanted to congratulate you on including that specific part and on reporting it. And so the question is, really, do you envision validation of these biomarkers in larger cohorts? Dr. Harriet Kluger I would hope to see that, just as I'd like to see validation of the clinical results as well. The circulating biomarkers are very easy to do. It's a simple ELISA test. And the vessel density on the tumor is essentially CD34 staining and units per area of tumor. Also very simple to do. So I'd love to see that happen. Dr. Davide Soldato Do you think that considering the quality of the MRI that we are using right now, it would be possible to completely bypass even the evaluation on the tissue? Like, are we going in a direction where we can, at a certain point, say the amount of vessels that we see in these metastases is higher versus lower just based on MRI results? Dr. Harriet Kluger You gave me an outstanding idea for a follow-up study. I don't know whether you can measure the intensity of gadolinium as a surrogate, but certainly something worth asking our neuroradiology colleagues. Excellent idea. Thank you. Dr. Davide Soldato You're welcome. So just moving a step further, we spoke a lot about the validation of these results and the combination. And just wanted your idea on what do you think it would be more interesting to do: if designing a clinical trial that really compares pembrolizumab/bevacizumab with ipilimumab and nivolumab or going directly for the triplet. So we know that there has been some type of exploration of triplet combination in metastatic melanoma. So just your clinical impression: What would you do as an investigator? Dr. Harriet Kluger So it's under some discussion, actually. It's very difficult to compare drugs from different companies in an investigator-initiated trial. Perhaps our European colleagues can do that trial for us. In the United States, it's much harder, but it can be done through the cooperative groups, and we are actually having some discussions about that. I don't have the answer for you. It would be lovely to have a trial that compared the three drugs to ipi/nivo and to pembrolizumab/bevacizumab. So a three-arm trial. But remember, these are frontline melanoma patients. There aren't that many of them anymore like there used to be. So accrual will be hard, and we have to be practical. Dr. Davide Soldato Yeah, you're right. And in the discussion of the manuscript, you actually mentioned some other trials that are ongoing, especially one that is investigating the combination of pembro and lenvatinib, another one that is investigating the combination of nivolumab and relatlimab. So just wondering, do you think that the molecule in terms of VEGF inhibition, so bevacizumab versus lenvatinib, can really make a difference or is going to be just a mechanism of action? Of course, we don't have the results from this trial but just wondering if you could give us a general comment or your opinion on the topic. Dr. Harriet Kluger So that's a really great question. The trial of pembrolizumab and lenvatinib was our answer to the fact that bevacizumab is not manufactured by the same company as pembrolizumab, and we're trying to give a practical answer to our next study that might enable us to take this approach further. But it does turn out from our preclinical studies that bevacizumab and VEGF receptor inhibition aren't actually the same thing in terms of the effects on the blood-brain barrier or the perilesional tumor microenvironment in the brain. And these studies were done in mice and in in vitro models. Very different effects. The lenvatinib has stronger effect on the tumors themselves, the tumor cells themselves, than the bevacizumab, which has no effect whatsoever. But the lenvatinib doesn't appear to tighten up that blood-brain barrier. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you. I think that's very interesting, and I think it's going to be interesting to see also results of these trials to actually improve and give more options to our patients in terms of different mechanism of action, different side effects. Because in the end, one thing that we discussed is that some combination may be useful in some specific clinical situation while others cannot be applicable, like, for example, an all immunotherapy-based combination. Just one final comment, because I think that we focused a lot on the intracranial response and progression-free survival. You briefly mentioned this but just wanted to reinforce the concept. Did you see any differences in terms of intracranial versus extracranial response for those patients who also had extracranial disease with the combination of pembro and bevacizumab? Dr. Harriet Kluger So the responses were almost always concordant. There were a couple of cases that might have had a body response and not an intracranial response and vice-versa, but the vast majority had concordant response or progression. We do believe that it's a biological phenomenon. The type of tumor that tends to go to the brain is going to be the type of tumor that will respond to whatever the regimen is that we're giving. In the previous trial also, we saw concordance of responses in the body and the brain. Dr. Davide Soldato Thank you very much. Just to highlight that really the combination is worth pursuing considering that there was not so much discordant responses, and the results, even in a phase 2 trial, were very, very promising. So thank you again, Dr. Kluger, for joining us today and giving us a little bit of insight into this very interesting trial. Dr. Harriet Kluger Thank you for having me. Dr. Davide Soldato So we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article titled "Phase 2 Trial of Pembrolizumab in Combination with Bevacizumab for Untreated Melanoma Brain Metastases," which gave us the opportunity to discuss current treatment landscape in metastatic melanoma and future direction in research for melanoma brain metastasis. If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and review and be sure to come back for another episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Dr. Shannon Westin and her guest, Dr. Breelyn Wilky, discuss the JCO article, "“Botensilimab (Fc-enhanced anti-cytotoxic lymphocyte-association protein-4 antibody) Plus Balstilimab (anti-PD-1 antibody) in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Metastatic Sarcomas." TRANSCRIPT  Shannon Westin: Hello, everyone, and welcome to another episode of JCO After Hours, the podcast where we get in depth on research that has been published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I am your host, Gynecologic Oncologist and Social Media Consultant Editor of the JCO, Shannon Westin. I serve here from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. And I am so excited to welcome Dr. Breelyn Wilky. She's an Associate Professor and the Director of Sarcoma Medical Oncology in the Department of Medicine Division of Medical Oncology, and the Cheryl Bennett & McNeilly family endowed chair in Sarcoma Research, the Deputy Associate Director of Clinical research at the University of Colorado Cancer Center. Welcome. Dr. Breelyn Wilky: Thank you so much. I'm delighted to be here. Shannon Westin: And with all those titles, I'm super impressed that she was able to complete the manuscript that we're going to discuss today, which is “Botensilimab (Fc-enhanced anti-cytotoxic lymphocyte-association protein-4 antibody) Plus Balstilimab (anti-PD-1 antibody) in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Metastatic Sarcomas.” And this was published in the JCO on January 27, 2025. And please note, our participants do not have any conflicts of interest. So this is exciting. Let's first level set. Can you review with us just the current state of sarcoma incidents, survival outcomes, that kind of thing so we all know where we're starting? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: Yes. So, you know, sarcomas are really, I like to call them the black box cancer type. And the big thing is that there's really more than a hundred different kinds of sarcomas, which collectively altogether make up only 1% of adult cancers. And so we talk about these as being bone and soft tissue tumors, but really, the heterogeneity is just incredible. You're talking maybe 10,000 to 12,000 new cases of soft tissue sarcoma per year, which is pretty rare in the grand scheme of things. And the trouble with these is that while you can cure sarcomas if you find them early and they're localized, when they metastasize and spread and are not resectable, we're looking at median overall survivals of really only 12 to 18 months, even, you know, with our best therapies that we have. So, really there's just a dire need for new treatments for this really tough group of diseases. Shannon Westin: Yeah, I agree. I'm a gynecologic oncologist, and we have our little subset of sarcomas that I know there's a little bit out of every one. So I'm really excited to pull this manuscript as one of our podcasts offerings because I think we're all seeing these patients in the clinic and certainly our listeners that have sarcoma or have family members with sarcoma, this is so good to have a real focus on a rare group of tumors that have been a little bit lumped together. Now, with that being said, I know this is such a heterogeneous population, but can you briefly overview a little bit around the standard of care for treatment of recurrent sarcomas? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: We have actually been using the same drugs really since about the 1970s, and up until very recently, nothing had really challenged doxorubicin, the old ‘red devil', like we used to call it. And this has been the mainstay of treatment for metastatic sarcomas and really used across the board. In the GYN literature, for uterine leiomyosarcoma, we did see some promising activity with the combination of doxorubicin and trabectedin coming out of the French group. But, except for that study, no combination therapy or new drug has been proven better in terms of overall survival compared to doxorubicin monotherapy, really over 40, 50 years. So it's definitely a tough situation. Now, we do have other drugs that we use, so most patients will wind up getting doxorubicin-based therapy. There's a couple of other regimens that we'll reach to, like gemcitabine docetaxel. And once you get into the specific subtypes, we have some approvals in liposarcomas and leiomyosarcomas for some other drugs. But really the median progression for survival for most of these regimens is somewhere four to six months. And response rates typically are somewhere like 10%, 15% for most of these. So it's really just a very tough field and a tough group of patients to try to make an impact for. Shannon Westin: So let's talk a little bit more kind of getting focused on what you've studied here. What's been the role of immunotherapy thus far in the treatment of sarcomas maybe prior to this particular study? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: Clearly, we all know that immune therapy has just changed cancer care forever over the last few years for so many different types of cancers and diseases like melanoma and renal cell and lung cancer have just been transformed by checkpoint inhibitors specifically directed against PD-1 or CTLA-4 or both. And so, of course, you know, sarcoma docs we're super excited to try to see if these might potentially have activity in our tumors as well. I never had seen myself in my career getting into immunotherapy until I was able to run an investigator-initiated study during my role in Miami, where we combined pembrolizumab, so PD-1 inhibitor, with axitinib which was a pan-VEGF inhibitor. And lo and behold, like I had patients that I was seeing responses when other treatments, all those chemotherapies I was just talking about had failed. And one of my first patients I treated was about a 60-year-old lady with something called cutaneous angiosarcoma. So this is a blood vessel sarcoma all over her face. And we had treated her with 10 different therapies, all the chemotherapy regimens, targeted therapies, clinical trials, and nothing was working. But I put her on a phase 1 trial with a baby dose of CTLA-4 and this woman had a complete response. And so for me, once I saw it work in even just those couple of patients, like that was nothing that we'd ever seen with our chemotherapy regimens. And so that sort of shifted my career towards really focusing on this, and this is about the time where some of the studies started to come out for sarcomas. And the take home with sarcoma is about 20% of sarcomas have this sort of immune hot physiology. So what that basically means is if you look at gene expression of immune related gene signatures, or you look for infiltrating T-cells, sort of the SWAT team of our immune system, like you can find those in the tumors. And it's sort of evidence that the immune system had some clue for that 20% of patients that this was a foreign tumor and that it should be attacking it and maybe just needed a little help. But globally, about 80% of sarcomas are these immune cold tumors, which means the immune system has no clue that these things are even a threat. And there's almost no immune activation, very, very few antigens. In other cancer types, high neoantigens or tumor antigens help the immune system work better. And so that basically goes with what we've seen with trials of PD-1 or CTLA-4 blockade. About 20% of sarcomas, with some exceptions, can respond. But really 80% across the board, you're stuck, you just can't get them to be recognized. And so that's where I think this data is so interesting is there's some signals of activity in these immune cold tumors which, at least historically with the trials we've done so far, we really haven't seen that with sort of the traditional checkpoints. Shannon Westin: So I think now this is a great time to maybe talk about the study design in general, the eligibility and just give us kind of a run through of that. Dr. Breelyn Wilky: So this trial was a phase 1 trial of a drug called botensilimab, which is a next generation CTLA-4 directed immune modulator. So what makes botensilimab different is that the CTLA-4 end is very similar to other CTLA-4 inhibitors that are out there, but it's been engineered on the back end of the molecule that binds to Fc gamma receptors to basically bind tighter with higher affinity. And what this translates to in laboratory models and increasingly now in patients is it does a better job of priming, of educating our T cells, our, again, these highly intelligent antigen specific cells, but also natural killer cells. It does a better job of sort of educating those. It helps to activate macrophages and other supporting actors in the immune response. And so the idea here is that there's evidence that botensilimab may do a better job at creating new responses in immune cold tumors. The study combined either botensilimab as monotherapy or in combination with a PD-1 inhibitor called balstilimab. And this was all comers, really a variety of tumor types. And to date I think we're close to about 500 patients with a variety of solid tumors that have been accrued to this study, this C-800-01 phase 1 trial. This paper reports on the sarcoma patients that were enrolled as part of this study. And so, again, given what I've told you about sarcomas being really immune cold, we were just so excited to have the opportunity to enroll on a next generation immune therapy for these tumors that really we were running into roadblocks trying to use immunotherapy previously. Shannon Westin: It's a very compelling idea and I'm so excited for you to tell people what you found. I think first things first, it was an early phase trial. So why don't we talk a little bit about the safety of the regimen. Was there anything that you didn't expect? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: Right. So similar to other checkpoint inhibitors, you know, the idea is that these drugs can cause immune mediated toxicities, right? So essentially you're revving up the immune system and it can sometimes get a bit confused and start attacking our normal cells, our normal organs, leading to essentially any number of toxicities of basically head to toe, something can get inflamed and you can develop a toxicity from that. So the key take homes with this particular drug with, botensilimab with balstilimab, we saw colitis was sort of the primary immune mediated toxicity and it was about a third of patients, give or take. It happens and it can be aggressive and needs to be managed aggressively. And you know, one of the things that we learned very quickly taking part in this study is how important it is that as soon as patients start to get diarrhea, immunosuppression gets on board. So steroids, early use of TNF alpha blockade, so infliximab for example, if we jumped on it quickly and we recognized it and we got the patients treated, it would resolve fairly quickly and even some patients could remain on treatment. So I think that was sort of the first take home is “Okay if you get colitis, you treat it fast, you treat it early and you can still have patients not only recover, which essentially everybody recovered from this colitis and then being able to continue on treatment and still have their anti-tumor responses.” So that's the first point. The second thing that was really interesting is part of the engineering of botensilimab on the back end of the molecule, it's been designed to decrease complement binding and it's thought that that triggers some of these other toxicities that we've seen with prior CTLA-4 inhibitors like pneumonitis or hypophysitis. We actually don't see that with botensilimab. So there's sort of this selective toxicity that may reflect the design of the molecule. But overall the treatment was, we didn't see any new safety signals that were outside of what we would expect in class. And colitis was sort of the dominant thing that we had to be ready for and ready to manage. Shannon Westin: We've been doing it for a while now, so we kind of know what to do and we can act quickly and really try to mitigate and avoid some of the major toxicities. So that's great that that was what was reflected in what you found. And then of course I think: What about the efficacy?” Right. This is what we care about as practitioners, as patients. Does it work and are there any subtypes that seem to benefit the most from this combination? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: Right. So for the sarcoma patients, we treated 64 patients and 52 of those patients were evaluable for efficacy. So a decent size group of patients in sarcomas, where, you know, typically our trials are pretty small, they're very rare, but we had 52 evaluable with at least one post baseline scan. So that was our criteria. And basically we saw across all of the patients, and keep in mind, these are heavily pre-treated patients, as you mentioned, so a median of 3 prior lines of therapy, so most of these patients had had chemotherapies and then about 20% had also had prior immunotherapy as well. So PD-1 treatments or so on. The overall response rate by RECIST was 19.2% for all of the evaluable patients. And then with iRECIST, which is sort of that immune adapted response criteria that allows for early pseudo progression, we actually had another patient who did have that. And so that response rate was 21.2%. Overall, we were really excited to see this in a heavily pre-treated group of patients. But what was really exciting to me was when we looked at the subset of patients that had angiosarcoma, that blood vessel tumor I was talking about earlier with my other patient. So angios come in two flavors. One is this sort of cutaneous type, or meaning involving the skin that has a UV signature, a UV damage signature, very similar to melanoma. So these tumors tend to have a high mutation burden. And oftentimes there is a track record that we've seen responses with immunotherapy in cutaneous angiosarcomas. But the other group that we deal with is called visceral angiosarcomas. And so these are totally different biologically. These are often driven by mutations in MYC or KDR amplification, and they arise in organs, so primary breast angiosarcoma, not associated with radiation, or they can arise in the liver or the spleen or an extremity. So these are very, very different tumors, and the visceral ones almost never historically have responded to checkpoint inhibitors. So we had 18 patients with angio split - 9 with cutaneous, 9 with visceral. And we were just blown away because the response rate for that group was 27.8%. And if you looked at the responses between the hot ones and the cold ones, it was almost equal and a little bit better in the visceral. So we had a 33% response rate in visceral angiosarcoma, which is crazy, historically speaking, and about 20% again in the cutaneous angios. So for a disease where visceral angio gets treated with chemotherapy, might respond initially, but then rapidly progresses - like these people go through multiple lines of therapy - to have a third of patients responding, and then some of those responses were durable. Our median duration of response for the study was 21.7 months, which is just nuts for sarcomas where we just don't see those sorts of long term benefits with the drugs that we have. So I think those are kind of the two main things. There were other subtypes that had clinical benefit and responses as well in d-diff liposarcoma, soft tissue leiomyosarcoma, which are again thought to be fairly cold immune subtypes. So just really exciting to kind of see responses we hadn't expected in a very challenging group of tumors. Shannon Westin: We see all these patients and we have patients that respond so well to immunotherapy with other histotypes. And so it's so exciting to see an option for these really hard to treat tumors that our patients struggle with. So this is so, so very exciting. I wanted to make mention, you know, I was really impressed with the amount of translational work you were able to do in this early phase study. So do you want to review just maybe a few of the key findings that you guys discovered? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: It's always great. I'm a translational researcher at heart and we do a lot of immune correlative work. And I think the reason I got so excited about this field to begin with was trying to learn why it works for some patients and why it doesn't work for other patients. So I'm a huge believer in learning from every patient that we can. So it's such a testament to the company, Agenus, who sponsored this trial to invest their time and resources into correlative studies at this phase. It's huge. So we learned a couple of things. IL-6 or interleukin 6 is a cytokine that basically has, in other tumor types, been associated with worse outcomes. And what we were interested in this group is we saw the same thing. And again, sarcomas have very, very little correlative biology that's done. We're really in infancy and understanding the microenvironment and how that milieu balances out in our tumors. So we were really excited to see again that lower peripheral interleukin 6 associated with improved overall survival. So again, kind of sorting out a group of patients that might be immunologically favorable when it comes to this type of therapy. The other thing that's important to know about sarcoma is so the other tumor types are lucky and have PD-L1 expression and the tumor is a biomarker, but we never have PD-L1 expression. We can find it in sarcomas and it can be loosely correlated with a chance of benefit with immunotherapy. But I've had patients respond that were PD-L1 negative, and I've had patients that were loaded with PD-L1 that didn't seem to make a difference. And that's not just in this study. So we saw in this trial a trend towards improved overall survival with PD-L1 expression that wasn't significant, but there was like this trend. And it's really interesting because, again, this is largely a CTLA-4 directed therapy. And so what we wondered is if PD-L1 expression is an index of sort of this underlying potential immunogenicity. And actually PD-1 works very late in the whole immune process. That's really at the very end where you've got the T cell that's facing the tumor cell and it's just activating that T cell that's already grown up and already educated and ready to go. Whereas CTLA-4 is really educating in early immune responses and expanding the T cells that have potential to kill. So I'm interested to look into this in more depth in the future to see if this is actually the biomarker for CTLA-4 directed therapy that we've been looking for, because we really don't have a great sense about that. And then the last piece just to note is that in this trial, like most others, very, very few sarcomas had high mutational burden. Everybody was very low, which reflects the population. And it's just really more encouragement than an immune cold tumor with very crappy neoantigens can still respond to immunotherapy if we get them the right agents. Shannon Westin: Yeah, I mean, I'm taking notes because we have such a struggle with this across the gynecologic tumors. I'm like, “Okay, maybe this is finally it.” So hopefully your work will go on to really inspire us across a number of solid tumors that have been traditionally cold. So, so very exciting. And I would just say for my last question, obviously, congratulations on this successful study. What do you think are the next steps for this combination in sarcomas? Dr. Breelyn Wilky: So, again, just to your point, this trial enrolled a bunch of different subtypes, and sarcomas are not the only immune cold tumor that this combo has looked really promising for, microsatellite stable colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer that was platinum refractory, non-small cell lungs. So I think the future is really bright for immune cold tumors kind of across the board. So, yes, lots of hope for not just sarcomas but in terms of our patients, I just have to be so grateful to Agenus for their interest in a rare disease. Sometimes it's hard to get that interest for a very challenging group of patients that are all heterogeneous, they are not all the same and our big clinical trials are a few hundred patients. It's just a very different environment. But they have been so supportive and involved in making sure that sarcomas are represented in their priorities. So there are ongoing discussions about what the optimal way to explore this further in sarcomas is going to be and I cannot wait to have the official plans in place. But my hope is this will not be the last that we see of these drugs for our patients. Shannon Westin: Well, I support that and my vote is on your side. So, thank you so much again, Dr. Wilky. This time just flew by. This was such a great discussion and I mean, I think it's, again, a testament to your exciting data. And thank you to all of our listeners. This has been JCO After Hours' discussion of “Botensilimab (Fc-enhanced anti-cytotoxic lymphocyte-association protein-4 antibody) Plus Balstilimab (anti-PD-1 antibody) in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Metastatic Sarcomas,” published in the JCO on January 27, 2025. So be sure to check out the full manuscript. And we hope that you enjoyed this podcast. And if you want to hear more about research published in the JCO, check this out on our ASCO JCO website or wherever you get your podcasts. Have an awesome day.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Dr. Wilky Disclosures  Consulting or Advisory Role: SpringWorks Therapeutics, Deciphera, Epizyme, Adcendo, Polaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, AADi, InhibRx Research Funding: Exelixis Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Agenus    

JCO PO authors Dr. Philippe Bedard (Staff Medical Oncologist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and Professor of Medicine at University of Toronto) and Dr. Alberto Hernando Calvo (Medical Oncologist at Vall d´Hebron University Hospital) share insights into their JCO PO article, “Combined Transcriptome and Circulating Tumor DNA Longitudinal Biomarker Analysis Associates With Clinical Outcomes in Advanced Solid Tumors Treated With Pembrolizumab,” one of the top downloaded articles of 2024. Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Drs. Bedard and Hernando Calvo discuss how combined transcriptome and ctDNA longitudinal analysis associates with pembrolizumab outcomes. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, podcast editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Assistant Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma.  Today we are excited to be joined by Dr. Philippe Bedard, Staff Medical Oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center and Professor of Medicine at the University of Toronto, as well as by Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo, Medical Oncologist at the Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, both authors of the JCO Precision Oncology article titled, “Combined Transcriptome and Circulating Tumor DNA Longitudinal Biomarker Analysis Associates With Clinical Outcomes in Advanced Solid Tumors Treated With Pembrolizumab.”  Thank you for joining us today. Phil and Alberto. Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: Thank you. Dr. Philippe Bedard: Great to be with you. Thanks for having us.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: One of the reasons we do this podcast, as some of the listeners who listen to this podcast regularly may know, is to bring in novel approaches and try to understand how the field is moving towards a space where we are understanding biomarkers better. So your manuscript that was published in JCO Precision Oncology fulfills many of those criteria. And interestingly enough, I was at a conference at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer last month earlier in November and a lot of excitement at SITC was revolving around novel transcriptomic biomarkers, proteomic biomarkers or imaging based biomarkers. So could you tell us a little bit about why you started looking at biomarkers? This is an extremely competitive field. Why did you think that looking at the transcriptome is somewhat different from or more interesting from tumor mutational burden PDL-1 than other biomarkers that we currently use? And that question is for you Alberto to start off.  Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: So I think gene expression profiles may have a predictive performance as compared to already existing biomarkers and this was one of the points that we describe in our manuscript. The gene expression signature that we developed back in 2019 at Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology was initially developed based on over 45 different tumor types and tested in over 1000 patients treated with antiPD-1 and anti PDL-1. And back then and in this manuscript, we proved that for instance the gene expression signature VIGex that we developed has a potential complementary role to other predictive biomarkers. In this case, we observe this predictive power with ctDNA dynamics and we then see a correlation with other existing biomarkers such as tumor mutational burden. So I don't think we need to use one or the other, but rather they may have additive predictive power. So we need to better individualize predictive biomarkers based on tumor types and select the best combination possible to improve the performance.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I completely agree that one size does not fit all, especially in the landscape of immunotherapy. From your perspective, when you developed the original signature, how did you choose what genes to look at? I looked at the manuscript, on the methodology side, some of the signatures are pro-inflammatory STING interferon gamma based, so how did you try to identify that these are the 7 to 10 or whatever number of signatures on the transcriptome side? And then why did you try to combine it with ctDNA based changes?  Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: Back in our initial manuscript, published in Med from Cell Press, we developed the VIGex gene expression signature, as I mentioned, with taking into consideration over 1000 tumor samples from FFPE that we can consider real world samples because they are from real patients coming from the clinic notes as part of real investigational protocol doing or performing biopsies on patients. We did observe after doing a VIGex research and doing different tests, we eventually collected these 12 different genes. Because there is a combination of both genes involved in the interferon gamma pathway, we have genes associated with Tregs as well as T cell memory cells. So it's not only looking at genes that are associated with T cell activation or CD8+ T cell infiltration, but also looking at genes that may be overactivated, overexpressed, an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. So it was both selecting genes, the minimum number of genes to do it more scalable and having the minimum dataset of genes and including in the signature genes that are already at targets for immune sequent inhibitors or are being tested in immunotherapy combinations.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you. And Phil, for the sake of our listeners, could you elaborate upon this aspect of using ctDNA? So this was tumor-informed ctDNA from what I understood in the manuscript. You guys basically try to use it to understand changes in the ctDNA with treatment and then try to combine it with the transcriptome signature. How did the idea come up initially and how did you plan on combining this with an RNA-based signature? Because I have seen manuscripts and other data where people are either using one or the other, but not necessarily both together. So how did you guys come up with that idea? Dr. Philippe Bedard: Well, we thought that this was a great opportunity to look at the combination of the transcriptome as well as the ctDNA dynamics because we had run an investigator-initiated phase 2 clinical trial called INSPIRE at our institution at Princess Margaret from 2016 to 2018, where patients across five different tumor groups received single agent pembrolizumab. And we really did a deep dive on these patients where there were tumor biopsies before and while on treatment. We did exome sequencing, we did RNA sequencing to capture the transcriptome. And in a prior analysis, we had partnered with Natera to look at their Signatera assay, which is a bespoke ctDNA assay, to look at ctDNA dynamics using this test and the association with response outcomes as well as survival outcomes. So we thought that this was a really unique data set to try and address the question of whether or not there was complementarity in terms of looking at the transcriptome and transcriptome signatures of IO benefit together with the ctDNA dynamics. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: From a patient treatment standpoint, it sounded like you mostly tried to include individuals who were treated with pembrolizumab. Did this not include individuals who were treated with chemoimmunotherapy or chemotherapy with pembrolizumab? Just pembrolizumab alone? And if that's the case, some of the tumor types there included, from what I remember, ovarian cancer and some other unusual cancers that don't necessarily have approvals for single agent pembrolizumab, but perhaps in the TMB-high setting. So can you elaborate on the patient selection there for the study?  Dr. Philippe Bedard: Yeah, that's a great question. So at the time that the study was designed in 2015, this was really the early days of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, so we didn't have the approvals that we have now in specific tumor types for immunotherapy and chemotherapy combinations. So when the study was designed as an investigator initiated clinical trial, the idea was really to capture patients across different tumor types - so head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, ovarian cancer, triple negative breast cancer, and a kind of mixed histology solid tumor cohort, where we knew that there were some patients who were going to be immunotherapy responsive, where there was already approvals or evidence of single agent activity, and others where the responses were more anecdotal, to try and understand in a phase 2 clinical trial with kind of a deep dive, which patients benefited from treatment and which didn't. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Interesting approach. Going to the results, Alberto, could you help us understand some of the important findings from these data? Because there's different sections of how you tried to look at the response rates, the survival, looking at the immune deconvolution, if you could explain that. Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: So the first thing that we tried was to further confirm the external validation of this immune gene expression signature, VIGex in the INSPIRE asset. So what we observed at VIGex-Hot, the category defined by VIGex-Hot tumor microenvironment, was associated with better progression free survival. After including that in a multivariable analysis adjusted by other biomarkers such as TMB, PDL-1 or tumor type, this was also confirmed for overall survival. So then the next step was to really try to hypothesize if the addition of ctDNA dynamics, taking into consideration the ctDNA quantification at baseline as compared to cycle three, if those dynamics could further improve the predictive performance of VIGex categories taken in the baseline samples. What we did observe was that, for instance, VIGex-Hot tumors in baseline tumor samples that were having a ctDNA decrease, as I mentioned before on cycle three assessment as compared to baseline, were having both better progression free survival and better prognosis overall. Another important finding was the evaluation of response rate across tumor types considering both biomarkers. I would say the most important finding is that when we were considering a cold tumor microenvironment in baseline samples before pembrolizumab initiation plus an increase in ctDNA values, what we observed is that those patients were having a 0% response rate. So this may help as a future strategy either for intensification of immunotherapy regimens in a more individualized way or for an early stop to immunotherapy and try to avoid financial toxicities as well as toxicities for our patients. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: From the data that you showed, it seems that there was a strong correlation, as you sort of mentioned, between individuals that had ctDNA clearance and baseline immune pro-inflammatory signatures. So do you really need the transcriptome signature or could the ctDNA just serve as an easy quick surrogate? Because from a cost standpoint, doing whole transcriptome sequencing or more RNA sequencing or tissue standpoint, where tissue is often limited, can become a big issue. So do you think that validation of this may perhaps more revolve around using ctDNA as an easier metric or surrogate? Or am I overestimating the utility of ctDNA? Dr. Philippe Bedard: I think it's a really good question. In our data set which was relatively small, there were 10 patients who had ctDNA clearance, meaning ctDNA that was positive at baseline was not detected. And so 9 out of those 10 patients, as you alluded to, were VIGex-Hot. So the question is a good one, could you do the same with just ctDNA clearance alone, particularly in identifying these patients who really do well, who have long term disease control on immunotherapy? I think it's a tough question to answer because the field is also changing in terms of sensitivity of detection of ctDNA tests. So we know now that there are newer generations of tests which can detect even at logs down in terms of allele variants in the circulation. So I think we need more data to address the question. I think it is important as to what is the best test, what is the endpoint that we should be using from a drug development point of view in terms of really trying to push and understand which treatment regimens are the most effective and have early readouts in terms of activity. Because we all recognize in the clinic that radiographic response doesn't tell the whole story, especially early radiographic assessments using RECIST or other criteria that we apply in clinical trials. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: From a clinical trial standpoint, we often talk about validation of these studies. You may have heard of other tests where, for example, the NCI iMatch, which is incorporating transcriptome sequencing based approach to stratify patients as an integral biomarker for treatment stratification. Is that something that you guys are thinking of using, this approach where individuals who are signature highly inflamed perhaps get lesser therapies or there's a de-intensification of some sort similar to what people are trying to do with ctDNA-based approaches? Dr. Philippe Bedard: I think that's a great question. I think it makes a lot of sense. And certainly, with the new wave antibody drug conjugates in terms of identifying patients who have expression of targets for antibody drug conjugates, that's very attractive as an approach because we don't necessarily have IHC markers for all of the different targets of antibody drug conjugates. We don't necessarily have IHC markers to completely understand different contributions to the tumor microenvironment and whether or not tumors are inflamed. But it's also a challenging approach too because RNA-seq currently is not a routine clinical test. Sometimes there are issues, particularly in patients who have stored specimens that are formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded in terms of the quality of the RNA for RNA sequencing. And it's not always feasible to get pre-treatment biopsies and turn them around in an approach. So I think it is an attractive approach for clinical trials, but it's a hypothesis that needs to be tested. It's not something that is ready for clinical prime time today in 2024. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: One of the other interesting observations that I came across in your manuscript was that tumor mutational burden, interestingly, did not correlate with signature high tumors. What is the explanation for that? Because generally you would expect a TMB high to perhaps also have an immune gene high signature. Could it have something to do with the tumor types because there was a heterogeneous mixture of tumor type? Or I'm not sure. What else could you possibly think of that you didn't see those correlations or just sample size limitations? Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: Yes. So our findings are consistent with prior data suggesting for instance T cell inflamed gene expression profile was also not correlated with tumor mutational burden and both biomarkers in a prior publication. So to have additive predictive performance for identifying patients most likely to benefit from anti PD-1 regimen, so we somehow were expecting this observation, the fact that both biomarkers are not very correlated. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: So given the proof of concept findings from your study, Phil, what is the next interesting step that you guys are thinking of to expand this? Would you think that a nivolumab-ipilimumab treated cohort would have similar findings? Or is this a treatment specific single agent immunotherapy specific correlation that you found versus something else that you may find in a nivo-ipi cohort or a doublet immune checkpoint cohort?  Dr. Philippe Bedard: The findings are really hypothesis generating. They require additional validation. And you're quite right, there may be nuances in terms of specific tumor types, combinations with other immunotherapy or combinations with chemotherapy or other agents. So I think it would be great if there are other data sets that are collecting this type of information that have ctDNA dynamics and also have transcriptome and potentially exome or genome analysis to look at these types of questions because the field is moving quickly and we really need more data sets in order to understand some of the nuances and greater numbers to validate the signals that we see. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: And one thing, as you said, the field is definitely moving very quickly. I was meeting with a company an hour back and they have an imaging-based approach using fresh tissue to look at pharmacodynamic biomarkers. And I used to work in the NCI with a group that was very interested and they developed an immuno-oncology pharmacodynamic panel that has been used and published in a few clinical trials where they did phosphorylation status. So the final theme that comes out of most of these research based studies that are being done is that one size does not fit all. But the question that comes to my mind is how many things do you necessarily need to combine to get to a predictive biomarker that is useful, that is patient centric, and that perhaps is able to identify the right therapy for the right patient. What is your take on that, Phil?  Dr. Philippe Bedard: Yeah, that's a great question too. The challenge is it depends on the context in terms of what degree of positive predictive value do you need as well as the negative predictive value to drive clinical decisions. So I think in certain situations where you don't have other approved treatment options and with a therapy that is potentially low toxicity and low financial toxicity, then I think the bar is very high in terms of being able to really confidently identify that patients aren't going to benefit. I think the nuance and the challenge becomes when you move into earlier lines of therapy, or when you talk about combinations of agents, or trying to understand within the context of other available options, particularly with treatments that have significant side effect profiles as well as financial risks, then it becomes a much more nuanced question and you really need comparative studies to understand how it fits versus the existing treatment paradigm. So I'm not really answering your question with a specific number because I think it's hard to give you a number. Some of that we also need input from patients in terms of what kind of level of validation do you need and what kind of level of discrimination do you need in order to drive decisions that are meaningful for them. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Definitely early days, as you pointed out. More and more work in this field will hopefully lead us in the direction that we all want to go in.  Now, going to a different aspect of this podcast, which is trying to understand the trajectories for both of you, Phil and Alberto. And as you mentioned, this project seemed to have started in 2015. So I'm guessing there's a history there between Princess Margaret and Vall d'Hebron. Could you highlight that a little bit? And then perhaps, Alberto, after that you could tell us a little bit about your career when you worked at Princess Margaret as a fellow and then now back at Vall d'Hebron. Phil, you as well. Dr. Philippe Bedard: So absolutely. We have a long history of collaborating with Vall d'Hebron in Barcelona. It's really a great cancer institution with a lot of like minded individuals. We have a formal partnership and we have a lot of informal links in terms of scientists and clinicians who we work with and who we collaborate with on early phase clinical trials, as well as through different investigator networks and other translational projects. So this was really how this collaboration came about and we were fortunate to have Alberto, who came to work with us for two years and brought this great idea of looking at this signature they had developed at Vall d'Hebron in their phase one group and applying it to a data set that we had through the INSPIRE clinical trial.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Sounds like a very successful academia-academic collaboration, which is very nice to see. So, Alberto, could you tell us a little bit about your career trajectory and how you ended up at Princess Margaret and then back at Vall d'Hebron and what you do currently? Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: Yes. So I did my oncology residency at Vall d'Hebron in Barcelona, Spain. Then I decided to further specialize in early drug development as well as head and neck cancer oncology. So I decided to pursue a clinical research fellowship under the supervision of Phil Bedard, among others. And so we decided to further validate the signature that we had developed both in the cancer genomic lab at Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology and the phase one unit at Vall d'Hebron, and apply the signature that have been originally tested in patients receiving anti PD-1 or anti PDL-1 combinations in early phase clinical trials. In the phase 2 clinical trial of INSPIRE, where we also had ctDNA dynamics and allowed us to test both biomarkers and see that additive predictive power when we were using both. That was one of my research topics under the mentorship of Dr. Bedard and my fellowship at Princess Margaret. And this was one of the manuscripts describing all the findings of this collaboration between Vall d'Hebron and Princess Margaret Cancer Center. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: And then, Phil, if you could highlight some of the things that you've done over the course of your career and perhaps some advice for early career junior investigators and trainees.  Dr. Philippe Bedard: I finished my oncology, medical oncology training at the University of Toronto in 2008. And then I did a breast cancer fellowship in Brussels at Breast International Group. At the time, I was really intrigued because it was really kind of the early days of microarray and RNA signatures in terms of expressing signatures were being used as part of a clinical trial that BIG was running called the MINDACT Study. And so when I finished my fellowship, I came back to Princess Margaret, started on staff. I've been here now for 15 years. I was fortunate to work with the phase 1 group and kind of my career has sort of morphed in terms of early drug development as well as genomics. I've been involved with the American Association for Cancer Research project GENIE, where I'm the current chair. This is really an international data sharing project with panel based sequencing, which both Princess Margaret and Vall d'Hebron have contributed to. And I've been fortunate to work with a number of really talented early career investigators like Alberto, who spend time with us in our drug development program and launched transitional research projects that leverage some existing data sets at their own institutions and also bring together with different research groups at our institution to lead to publications like this one. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much. This was very exciting. Phil and Albert, thanks for joining us today and thank you for allowing us to discuss your interesting manuscript and hopefully we'll see more of this biomarker work from you guys in the near future, perhaps published in JCO Precision Oncology.   And thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at 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.

In this JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights episode, Mitchell Elliot summarizes the article “Talazoparib in Patients With Solid Tumors With BRCA1/2 Mutation: Results From the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study” by Dr. Jordan Srkalovic et al.  published on June 12th, 2024. TRANSCRIPT Mitchell Elliott: Hello, welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights. I'm your host Mitchell Elliott, an ASCO Journals Editorial Fellow. Today I'll be providing a summary of the article titled, “Talazoparib in Patients With Solid Tumors With BRCA1/ 2 Mutation: Results From the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study,” by Dr. Jordan Srkalovic et al. The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study is a phase 2 basket trial evaluating the anti-tumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer and genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results of a cohort of patients with various solid tumors with germline or somatic BRCA1 and 2 mutations treated with talazoparib are reported. BRCA1 is involved in both non homologous end joining, and homologous recombination, while BRCA2 primarily facilitates homologous recombination. These mutations are present in a range of cancers including breast, ovarian and pancreatic cancers, making them key targets for therapies that inhibit poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase or PARP, a family of proteins critical for DNA repair. PARP inhibitors like talazoparib have shown promise in treating cancers with BRCA mutations as they prevent tumors from repairing DNA damage, thus promoting cell death. Many PARP inhibitors are standard of care in both early and advanced cancers. Talazoparib was previously FDA approved for BRCA related HER2 negative breast cancer and prostate cancer. The TAPUR study aims to investigate the effectiveness of talazoparib and other types of solid tumors with BRCA1 and 2 mutations to expand its potential therapeutic applications. Eligible patients had to meet both general and drug specific criteria for inclusion in the study. General eligibility required participants to have advanced or metastatic solid tumors measurable by the RECIST version 1.1 criteria, a performance status of 0 to 2 based on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Scale, and a genomic target identified through certified laboratory testing. Patients with germline or somatic BRCA1 or 2 mutations were eligible, but the genomic test did not always differentiate between these types of mutations. Additional criteria included being age 18 years or older, using effective contraception and avoiding sperm donation at the set period. Exclusion criteria included patients with HER2 negative breast cancer, prior PARP inhibitor treatments, or certain cardiovascular conditions. The study also excluded patients with recent major surgeries, coagulopathy and serious medical conditions, but there were no criteria related to prior platinum therapies. Patients received 1 milligram of talazoparib daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other reasons for discontinuation. The primary endpoint of the study was disease control which was defined by achieving either objective response or stable disease lasting at least 16 weeks as assessed by the RECIST criteria. Secondary endpoints included objective response, progression free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of stable disease, and safety. The study enrolled 28 eligible patients with 20 different solid tumors that had BRCA1/2 alterations between December 2019 and September 2021 across 19 clinical sites with most patients, about 89%, enrolled from community-based locations in the United States. The most common tumor type was non-small cell lung cancer accounting for 18% of cases. All patients were included in both the safety and efficacy analyses including three with HER2 negative breast cancer and somatic BRCA alterations. Of the 28 patients, nine had tumors with BRCA1 alterations, 16 had BRCA2 alterations and three had both BRCA1 and BRCA2 alterations. Additionally, 64% of patients had tumors with coalterations and at least one DNA damage repair gene. In the study, one patient achieved a complete response, nine patients had partial response and six patients had stable disease for at least 16 weeks. The overall disease control rate was 57% with an objective response of 36%. The study rejected the null hypothesis of a 15% disease control rate with high statistical significance with a p-value of less than 0.001. The median progression free survival was 24 weeks and median overall survival was 71 weeks. Interestingly, among the 19 patients who received prior platinum-based chemotherapy, 5, or about 26%, had a partial response and 4 had stable disease while on talazoparib. While platinum therapy exposure can be associated with BRCA reversion mutations, it is notable that these patients achieve stable disease with PARP inhibitor treatment. 46% of the 28 patients experienced grade 3 - 5 adverse events or serious adverse events that were possibly related to talazoparib. 14% of patients had possible drug related serious adverse events which included conditions such as anemia, neutropenia, leukopenia, nausea and vomiting. More severe grade 4 or 5 events included anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, hyponatremia, and increased level of the aspartate aminotransferase and bilirubin. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that talazoparib shows significant antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors carrying both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, even in cancers beyond those for which PARP inhibitors are currently FDA approved. The disease control and objective response rates indicate promising results in heavily pretreated patients who have no standard treatment options left. The findings suggest that PARP inhibitors like telazoparib could be effective in a broad range of cancers, including non-small cell lung cancer, mesothelioma and hepatocellular carcinoma where PARP inhibitors are not yet approved. This could pave the way for expanding the use of these drugs in precision oncology. While talazoparib showed efficacy, the study also reported a notable incidence of grade 3 to 5 adverse events, highlighting the need for careful management of side effects, particularly in heavily pretreated patients. The study calls for further research, particularly in randomized controlled trials to confirm the efficacy of talazoparib in other cancers beyond what is currently approved. It also suggests investigating the effect of DNA damage repair gene alterations and exploring combinations of PARP inhibitors with other targeted therapies. Additionally, further studies are needed to understand the potential differences in response between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Article Insights and please tune into the next topic. Don't forget to give us a rating and review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at www.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.      

Thank you so much for listening to the Bob Harden Show, celebrating over 13 years broadcasting on the internet. On Monday's show, we discuss current global events including developments in Israel, Austria, and Italy with Marc Schulman, the Founder and Publisher of HistoryCentral.com. We visit with the Senior Editor of the American Institute for Economic Research Jon Miltimore about Matt Walsh's new documentary, “Am I a Recist?” We also visit with author and former Barron's Washington Bureau Chief, Jim McTague, about developments in the November election. We have terrific guests for tomorrow's show including the President of the Florida State Senate Kathleen Passidomo, President of Less Government Seton Motley, CEI Senior Economist Ryan Young, and Linda Harden. Please access this or past shows at your convenience on my web site, social media platforms or podcast platforms.

In this JCO Article Insights episode, Subodh Selukar interviews author Dr. Robert Maki on "Combining Response and Toxicity Data to Implement Project Optimus" by Maki, et al published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology September 11, 2024. TRANSCRIPT Subodh Selukar: Welcome to this episode of JCO Article Insights. This is Subodh Selukar, JCO's editorial fellow. Today, I am interviewing Dr. Robert Maki on his recent editorial, “Combining Response and Toxicity Data to Implement Project Optimus.” At the time of this recording, our guest has disclosures that are available in the manuscript and will be linked in the transcript. Dr. Maki, welcome to our podcast. Dr. Robert Maki: Hi, Subodh. It's a pleasure to be able to take part. Subodh Selukar: Yeah, thank you. So, to start us off, would you give an overview of your article? Dr. Robert Maki: Yes. Well, it's not my article, but it's just an editorial which is a commentary on an article by authors Cheng and Associates. It's called, “Exposure-Response-Based Multiattribute Clinical Utility Score Framework to Facilitate Optimal Dose Selection for Oncology Drugs.” That's a very technical title and so forth, and yet it's a JCO article because we think that it makes an important point that in oncological trials, we talk a lot about primary endpoints, oftentimes of overall survival or progression free survival, sometimes even just response rates, but most of the time, we don't take into account the toxicity of an agent. So, you can imagine that if a drug is relatively nontoxic, then what you see is what you get. Progression free survival could be associated with what is called some sort of so-called clinical benefit. However, if a drug is really toxic and you're just laid up on the couch all day or bed bound, or need transfusions three days a week, where is that really beneficial for the patient? But, by the same token, there's no quality of life without life itself. You have to have some sort of evidence that someone is going to be around for a longer period of time as an indication of benefit. So, these are ideas that have been played out to some degree for the better part of a quarter of a century. There's a biostatistician at MD Anderson named Peter Thall, who's one of the first people to think about this idea of combining toxicity data and response data as some sort of a combination primary endpoint for a trial. And where this comes into play for Project Optimus, this FDA initiative to come up with not just necessarily one dose or one dose and schedule, but rather a range or multiple doses and schedules for a drug based on the toxicity that's seen, is that this new paper by Dr. Cheng and colleagues provides one mechanism for doing this, for combining not just traditional clinical outcomes data, but also toxicity data. Subodh Selukar: So, you mentioned Project Optimus is an important component of all of this. So, can you tell a little bit about what Project Optimus is and maybe a little bit potentially about how Project Optimus has affected you so far? Dr. Robert Maki: I'd say it's having an effect mostly in the earlier phases of drug development. I'm not certain, but I think it was an outgrowth of some of the toxicity that was seen in some of the studies that were done over the course of the last 10 to 15 years with kinase-targeted drugs. The overall goal from the FDA Project Optimus was to work with companies, with academia, groups like ASCO and regulatory authorities, as well as patients to try and come up with dosing for everyone basically based on patient characteristics that they're focusing not just on those outcomes, such as progression, pre survival, overall survival, but also looking for quality of life and adding that into the mix in terms of how you choose a dose. So that's an effort that's been going on for the last several years now. There's been some nice articles on that from FDA on that and perhaps we could provide some links to those as well for people who are interested in some of the more introductory core information about Project Optimus. Subodh Selukar: Yeah, for sure. And so, I mean you're on the editorial board at JCO and you've written this editorial, but has Project Optimus affected your clinical research yet? Dr. Robert Maki: It's just beginning to. So, in phase 1 and 2 clinical trials, especially in phase 1, the goal is not necessarily to look for activity, but just to come up with a recommended phase 2 dose and schedule of a drug. Well, Project Optimus says, “Okay. Well, maybe there's more than one dose and schedule that should arise.” And as I was alluding to earlier, this may have arisen out of what was seen previously where a number of the multi targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors were developed. But when you got to the phase 3 trial, it was necessary to have dose reductions in 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, even 70% of patients in some situations. So that to me represents a drug or a development pathway for that drug that was in essence incorrect. Yes, we talk about in traditional chemotherapy of trying to get the maximum dose we can, but is that always the best thing for the patient? And we recognize that there really is a plateau usually for systemic therapies we give, that there is a limit to dose escalation even within an individual patient to try and achieve that same benefit. At some point you're just going to add toxicity. The idea is to bring some element of toxicity into the decision making for a recommended phase 2 dose and schedule or schedules in that case. Subodh Selukar: And so, building on that, so I think one advantage of these different approaches is that they might identify a single optimal dose, or maybe they'll recommend this range of doses that maximize some maybe clinical utility score combining these different aspects. In the current paradigm, it seems like probably response and toxicity are just these separate concepts that aren't typically linked together. But we typically do have a single recommended dose. But like you said, they might in subsequent trials have a lot of dose reductions and stuff like that. So how do you think about the process now where this is a single recommended dose of, but there are deviations from that recommended dose in the research process. Like you said, in subsequent trials or within a trial, maybe patients are needing their own dose reductions as well. And then separately once a product is approved, what do you think about deviating from the recommended dose for your standard clinical practice? Dr. Robert Maki: Oftentimes a work in progress. So even after phase 1, maybe having only treated 30 to 50 patients, they may be relatively homogeneous and that they have to be healthier to qualify for phase 1 trial. Once the drug is released to the whole wide world, then it becomes a different scenario, and you may have patients with poor performance status to start with. Can they still get the same benefit as the patients who got the medication in the context of a clinical trial? And it may not be the case. And I think this is where Project Optimus and the idea of giving more than one dose or schedule may be useful and say, “Okay. Well, you can give 20% less,” and what's the trade off? Maybe the drug doesn't work as well, but it is less toxic. On average, do you really lose a whole lot as a matter of a few weeks of median progression free survival? Or does the response rate really drop off as you decrease the dose intensity of your drug? One concern about having more than one dose and schedule is could you potentially be underdosing patients by the same token? Since we usually have some amount of time, at least a few weeks, to work out what's tolerable for our patient, at least the parameters of having more than one dose and schedule to choose from can be useful. Subodh Selukar: So then thinking about potentially maybe we would have a range of doses to recommend, what do you think are going to be challenges once that starts to be incorporated into clinical practice? What kind of complications do you think might happen explaining this to a patient? Dr. Robert Maki: That's a really, really good question and something that we- I think, just have a difficult time with just the regular consent form. It used to be that maybe you had a couple of information sheets on a standard drug, or if it's a clinical trial, then you'll have a relatively modest consent form that's supposed to be at, whatever, 7th, 8th, 9th grade reading level. But now you start adding this form with complex text to a consent form for a clinical trial. What are people really signing up for? They get a 40-page document, and I don't think they really understand that. So, the idea that you're trying to relate to them, pushing as hard as you can, but by the same token watching out for that toxicity, I think really does speak to those endpoints of the program, that it really can be a patient-friendly idea. Are we going to necessarily get it right every time? No. As I was mentioning previously there, if you're only treating 30 to 50 patients, you may only have partial information and you come up with some sense of dose and schedule to give. And then you move that into phase 2 and phase 3, and you may have to, you see that maybe one dose and schedule is a lot more effective as you get into a randomized portion of a phase 2 trial before you move to phase 3, for example, or you see that the toxicity is much greater with no better evidence of progression free survival. So those two scenarios could certainly rise. You can't predict them in the early phases of development of a drug, but you have to be able to react or be able to react with a solid clinical trial design that allows you to have that flexibility to make those decisions later. This is where discussion with the regulators, obviously is very important to make sure that what you're doing really still fits these guardrails, as it were, of traditional clinical trial design, or these ideas of adding in the toxicity-based information from Project Optimus. Subodh Selukar: One of the challenges in early phase trials is, like you said, we might have 30 to 50 patients at the end of the study. I think in the editorial, you mentioned that some of these newer metrics might require more and more patients. Maybe we need 30 to 50 patients on a single dose in order to have reliable understanding of these clinical utility scores. Whereas right now a sample size at a single dose might be six patients, it might even be fewer. What are your thoughts on that aspect of it? Dr. Robert Maki: That's an important point, too. When you're doing, let's say, a quick and dirty, as you might say, 3+3 design, which has very large error bars in terms of the confidence intervals around a dose and schedule compared to some of the newer Bayesian-based designs, yes, you can get a phase 1 trial quote done, especially if it's a ‘me too' sort of drug, so say, another checkpoint inhibitor, you kind of know the characteristics of those over another inhibitor of a specific kinase, you know the toxicities to expect when you block, let's say, EGF receptor. So, if you have some idea, and therefore you're able to more rapidly get to that recommended phase 2 dose from a phase 1 trial, if it ends up being a new drug, then maybe 30 to 50 patients isn't enough. And you really do need to continue that assessment of both response and toxicity as the trials move forward into phase 2 and phase 3. So, it's kind of one of those ideas of continuous process improvement that if we are going to do this, we really do need to include it, not just in early phase trials, but especially for agents that are acting through a new mechanism of action, that we look at that holistically across the drug development spectrum. And now that trials are kind of being smashed together, phase 1 and 2, now phase 2 and 3, that really increases our need to also add in the assessment of toxicity, and maybe not just on the basis of our own evaluations or lab evaluations of toxicity, but patient reported outcomes, which is something that wasn't addressed in the Cheng article and really hasn't been well addressed in clinical trials in general, I would offer. There are precious few trials that incorporate patient reported outcome data as a means to determine what's too toxic for a patient, for example. So how do we do that? As you know, we do have patient reported CTCAE clinical toxicity criteria that are based on patient reported outcomes. And wouldn't it be interesting, at the very least, as an academic project, but even more importantly, later on, to use those as the key means to determine whether a dose is too toxic or not in the development of the drug. That, to me, would be really, really interesting and kind of turns the idea of some of the data that we collect on its head. I guess, yes, we do need to collect things like liver function tests and so forth. It is one metric of toxicity of a drug. But patients have a lot of fatigue, we really do a poor job of documenting that as clinicians, and not to mention the elements that go into what that fatigue is. To be able to capture that through PROs would be another noble effort that I think has been underutilized and underappreciated in oncology clinical trials overall. Subodh Selukar: And so, what do you think are barriers to doing it now? Dr. Robert Maki: We tend to, for lack of a better term, cut and paste from what we've done before, to develop new, let's say, by patient reported outcome score or metric or worksheet for a given diagnosis. That can be hard, that takes a lot in and of itself, and perhaps has been one of the barriers that we don't have enough disease specific PROs, at least for some diagnoses. For others we do. And the fact that we do have PRO-scored CTCAE sorts of score tables, now, certainly makes it easier to validate and use these tools in clinical trials. So, I would love to see more of that, even if it ends up being secondary tertiary endpoints on phase 1, 2, and 3 trials. It's a pretty easy thing to add, even if you're doing that for the first time. Get some experience with it, and it can only help patients get through a trial or even just assessing it as part of a standard of care that will help our patients in the longer run. Subodh Selukar: Yeah. And so, thinking about other metrics of success, you mentioned a couple in your article. These aren't necessarily patient reported outcome ones, but like RECIST and RANO. I was curious. I think the Cheng article, maybe I would think about it as a general framework for combining response and toxicity together, whereas some of these other metrics are a lot more disease specific, potentially, or agent and disease specific, maybe even. Do you think that clinical research will end up settling on these metrics that are kind of increasingly specific, or do you think that there's a possibility for general frameworks? Dr. Robert Maki: Yeah, that's a tough question. I'm just trying to think of some of those patients reported outcomes. They've got kind of the general assessment ones, and then you do have ones that are more disease specific, just like we do have response criteria that are different for, let's say, lymphoma versus brain tumors versus colorectal cancer. We do have different ways of measuring those outcomes, and we all complain that those are imperfect measures. You can always find circumstances where that patient was responding, but it was called progression or vice versa. So even from these more objective tools like RECIST and the like, it's a challenging field, that's for sure. We keep going around and trying to find ways of improving those sorts of systems. But let's say, for example, you used - this is part of the reason we moved from two dimensional measurements in WHO criteria versus one dimensional RECIST - if you have two dimensions, well, you have that much more variability in the measurements of the lesion. So, it turned out that we just didn't gain anything by having those bidimensional measurements. Now, since we have the ability to measure tumors better in three dimensions, should we be using volumetric assessments? Part of it depends on the size of the tumor. If you're dealing with a tumor that's 1 cm versus 8 cm, well, then the volumetric changes, you have a lot more variability, the small ones, than the big ones. Not to mention the fact that you have shapes that are not just an ovoid mass in a lot of cancers. There's just so many pitfalls in these sorts of data. What really matters at the end of the day, one thing that's underappreciated, and again is underscored by Project Optimus, is getting back to the patient. Subodh Selukar: Your editorial made me have this one thought, and so bear with me, it's like a multi-part question. One of the reasons that we're becoming more and more interested in these alternative approaches, these clinical utility scores and everything, is that these new agents are being proposed, where there's a hypothesis that there's more complicated relationships between dose, response and toxicity. And so, 50 years ago, researchers probably didn't hypothesize that these complicated relationships were happening. They probably thought that they were more straightforward. What do you think would have happened if we had had these conversations that we're having today if we'd had them 50 years ago, what do you think would be different? Do you think that maybe we would have different therapies that kind of ended up becoming standard today? Maybe would we interpret or run studies differently today? Dr. Robert Maki: I like that question as well. Now, if we go back to the Charles Moertel studies back from the 1970s, the whole reason that we have tumor measurements as a criterion are really based on his work, where he got a series of clinicians together and he put these masses underneath a piece of rubber sheeting, and they tried to determine how well they could determine the difference between a mass that they could palpate. And this is when we came up with the idea that a partial response was a 50% decrease in the cross-sectional area of a mass. That came from that very crude but important work from about 50 years ago. And of course, that was also a time when there really wasn't any imaging. Maybe the best you would have would be x-ray tomography to look at a lung nodule or something like that. It was a little bit of a different era. We didn't know how our drugs worked very well. We had at least some biochemical reason to use chemotherapy, and we tried to leverage that. But it was always the idea of more is better, finally disproved later on, in let's say the era of breast cancer, looking at the AC combination or doxorubicin as part of a treatment for breast cancer, that there was a ceiling to the benefit of doxorubicin in the adjuvant setting. Even then, it was clear that we needed to think about dose and schedule. We also didn't have the variety of drugs that we have now, or the different metrics that we have, circulating tumor DNA or something along those lines. Those sorts of things just never existed then either. So, we need metrics that are appropriate for their time, and we have more tools to work with. I suspect that we'll have more specialization in oncology along disease lines, or even molecularly characterized subsets of diagnoses as well. All the detailed classification that we now need for a lymphoma, for example, or different flavors of triple negative breast cancer, all of those things are impacting how we even put a person on a trial. Similarly, since these patients are also going to get different classes of drugs that are relatively unique to them, there are a lot of drugs now that are available that really are only approved for one diagnosis. Then you really have to drill down pretty deeply in order to be able to focus on that clinical scenario. But I think we have the means to do so. Nonetheless, the general idea of these frameworks, again, the idea of combining response and toxicity data that can apply across essentially any cancer or neoplasm that we want to study. Subodh Selukar: Okay. So, I want to move a little bit to aspirational, like where we want to move forward now. And so I think you've talked a little bit about this so far already, but would you tell me a little bit about when you're seeing a patient, interpreting results that have been given in clinical trials, are there results, metrics, summaries of trials that you wish you could communicate to them, metrics that actually already exist but don't really get implemented? You already mentioned quality of life is something that doesn't seem to be there but are there other things that maybe quality of life might not just be collected enough yet. But are there metrics on data that we have and we just don't really report them at all? Dr. Robert Maki: That may be the case, or maybe the data end up in a secondary and tertiary publication, so they don't really become part of the lingua franca of the oncologist. I think it really speaks to just having the experience as an oncologist that you try the FDA-approved dose for medication for somebody and you run into trouble if they're, let's say, in their 80s, whereas the study population was in their 40s and their 50s with better bone marrows or better renal function on average, and things like that. So, another untested waters are geriatric oncology. What are the maximum tolerated doses when they're 80 versus when they're 40 or 50? It's a real challenge. Probably they had the most experience of that with things like prostate cancer, where we do treat largely an older population of men compared to other diagnoses, potentially. I suspect we're going to see just more specialization, just like we do with the medications. We do need more specialized assessments for those adverse events and or quality of life that will be diagnosis specific. If you have GI cancer, abdominal pain is going to be a bigger issue or obstruction sorts of questions. And the symptoms that you may have from having a tumor within the abdomen versus, let's say, another diagnosis, which may tend to give you more, let's say, lung metastases. So those little subtleties can't come out. And the toxicities of the drugs that we use in those diagnoses are also going to differ as well. So those should be kept in mind as we come up with, let's say, disease specific toxicity metrics that we want to combine with those outcome data. So, I think we're going to see more and more specialization of that over time. You have to create the tool and you've got to validate it. So, all these things will take some time. But again, people have been interested in this for a long, long time. There are any number of careers that are built around quality of life and cancer, or for example, long term survivorship in pediatric cancer patients. And all of these things can be very useful and just require our attention, both as clinical investigators as well as clinicians, when we face our patient's day to day. Subodh Selukar: And so just one last question before we close. Is there anything that we haven't had a chance to talk about that you like to share with our listeners? Dr. Robert Maki: If it's anything it's that I'm really heartened as I get older with this very large influx of new clinicians and new investigators. Oncology continues to get more interesting and more sophisticated. We need more people- we still don't have enough oncologists, even for our population here in the United States. We'll have plenty to do for a very, very long time. So, I'm excited to see a new generation of young oncologists such as yourself and the trainees that I see here, the new fellows, junior faculty who are all beginning to answer these questions, thinking about them. And as me and some of my more senior friends can help promote this kind of idea and help together to answer some of these questions. We're still trying to figure it out and there are just so many variables and clinical scenarios that we need to chase down in terms of clinical research. It is going to be an ongoing discussion and hopefully this article is just one example towards the goal again of finding the right dose for our given patient. Subodh Selukar: Thank you so much for sharing and yeah, I'm very excited to be a part of this as well. This has been Subodh Selukar interviewing Dr. Robert Maki on his recent editorial, “Combining Response and Toxicity Data to Implement Project Optimus.” Thank you for listening and stay tuned for the next episode of JCO Article Insights.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    Dr. Robert Maki Disclosures: Consulting or Advisory Role: Deciphera, PEEL Therapeutics, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Boehringer Ingelheim Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences  Research Funding: Amgen, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, BioAtla, C4 Therapeutics, InhibRx, Regeneron, SARC: Sarcoma Alliance for Research though Collaboration, TRACON Pharma Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property, Uptodate Travel, Accommodations, Expenses Company name: Stand up to Cancer, Fondazione Enrico Pallazzo  

Chris Burns, CEO of Amplia Therapeutics, shared promising updates with Steve Darling from Proactive regarding the company's ongoing Phase 2a clinical trial focused on treating advanced pancreatic cancer. Burns announced that a fifth patient enrolled in the trial has achieved a confirmed partial response, indicating a 30% or greater reduction in the overall size of tumor lesions, which has been maintained over a two-month period with no new tumor lesions appearing. Additionally, Burns reported that six other patients in the trial have shown stable disease at both their two-month and four-month assessment time points. According to RECIST 1.1 criteria, stable disease (SD) is noted when tumor lesions have either reduced in size by less than 30% or have shown minimal to no growth. The Phase 2a ACCENT trial is exploring the efficacy of Amplia Therapeutics' lead asset, narmafotinib, in treating advanced pancreatic cancer. The trial plans to enroll a total of 50 patients, with the first cohort consisting of 26 patients. Responses to the therapy are monitored every two months, and the recruitment of the second cohort of 24 patients will commence once a minimum of six patients have recorded a confirmed partial or complete response. #proactiveinvestors #ampliatherapeuticslimited #asx #atx #PancreaticCancer #CancerTreatment #ClinicalTrial #Biotech #HealthcareInnovation #Pharmaceuticals #Oncology #CancerResearch #MedicalBreakthrough#invest #investing #investment #investor #stockmarket #stocks #stock #stockmarketnews

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal and Dr. Rana McKay discuss promising studies in GU cancers featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting that highlighted improved outcomes in urothelial carcinoma, improved survival in renal cell carcinoma, and the role of ctDNA as a potential biomarker for predicting outcomes.   TRANSCRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I am the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program, a professor of medicine at the University of Utah's Huntsman Cancer Institute, and editor-in-chief of the ASCO Daily News.  I am delighted to welcome Dr. Rana McKay, a GU medical oncologist and associate professor at the University of California San Diego. Today, we'll be discussing some key GU abstracts featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Rana, we're thrilled to have you on the podcast today to share your insights on key advances in GU oncology from ASCO24. Dr. Rana McKay: Thank you so much, Neeraj; it's a pleasure to be here. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So, Rana, let's start with some bladder cancer abstracts. Could you tell us about Abstract 4503, titled “Impact of exposure on outcomes with enfortumab vedotin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer”? Dr. Rana McKay: Of course, I would be delighted to. First, I would like to remind our listeners that enfortumab vedotin (EV) was approved as a monotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer based on the results of EV-201 and EV-301 trials. In these pivotal studies, EV was initiated at a dose of 1.25 mg/kg, and dose modifications, such as reductions and interruptions, were used to manage adverse events. In the abstract presented at ASCO 2024, Dr. Daniel Petrylak and colleagues conducted a post-hoc exploratory analysis to evaluate the association between EV plasma exposure and outcomes. They used multiple pharmacokinetic samples collected during the first two cycles and pre-dose samples from 3 EV monotherapy studies, namely EV-101, EV-201, and EV-301, that were conducted in patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Dose reductions to 1 mg/kg were required in 42.1% and 35.1% of patients in the EV-201 and EV-301 trials, respectively, and reductions to 0.75 mg/kg were required in 13.6% and 11.1% in the EV-201 and EV-301 trials, respectively. Higher EV exposure during the first two cycles was associated with a higher objective response rate. The ORR was 21.4% for the dose of 0.75 mg/kg, while it was 18.5% for the dose of 1.0 mg/kg. Interestingly, increasing the dosage to 1.25 mg/kg improved the ORR, which ranged from 40 to 51.1% across various studies. In the EV-301 trial, when comparing the efficacy of EV to chemotherapy, EV improved PFS and OS across all dose quartiles, and there was no evidence that recommended dose modifications impacted long-term efficacy outcomes. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Rana, for this great summary. I would like to add that the meticulously conducted pharmacokinetic studies demonstrated that serum levels of EV correlated with responses. Importantly, patients who had to decrease the dose did not experience compromised outcomes as EV improved PFS and OS outcomes vs chemotherapy in across all exposure quartiles in the EV-301 trial where EV was compared with chemotherapy. These findings highlight the need to start at the recommended dose of 1.25 mg/kg and reduce it, if necessary, however, clinicians should not start at a lower dose.  Dr. Rana McKay: I totally agree with you, Neeraj. Now, moving on to a different setting in bladder cancer, what can you tell us about LBA4517, titled “Perioperative sacituzumab govitecan alone or in combination with pembrolizumab for patients with muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer: SURE-01/02 interim results”? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Of course! So, SURE was a multicohort, open-label, phase 2 study in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer assessing sacituzumab govitecan as a neoadjuvant therapy either alone in SURE-01 or as a combination with pembrolizumab followed by adjuvant pembro in SURE-02 in a flexible design allowing a bladder-sparing approach. In the abstract presented at ASCO 2024, Dr. Antonio Cigliola and colleagues report interim results of the SURE-01 study. Patients with cT2-4N0M0 urothelial carcinoma who were ineligible for or refused cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy were planned to receive 4 cycles of neoadjuvant sacituzumab govitecan at a dose of 10 mg/kg followed by radical cystectomy.  An extensive assessment was performed at baseline and after the 4 cycles for response assessment. Patients with clinical complete response defined with negative MRI, cystoscopy and ctDNA assays refusing radical cystectomy were offered redo transurethral resection of the bladder tumor or repeat TURBT followed by observation in the absence of viable high-grade tumor in the bladder. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response rate, while secondary endpoints included pathological downstaging rate and safety. After the first 8 patients were enrolled, the protocol was amended due to the occurrence of grade 3 and 4 neutropenia and diarrhea in 75% and 50% of patients, respectively, and 2 deaths – one of which was deemed to be treatment-related due to sepsis. Key protocol changes included the reduction of the dose of sacituzumab govitecan to 7.5 mg/kg, the introduction of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis, and the exclusion of patients at high risk of febrile neutropenia per ASCO guidelines.  Among 21 patients who received at least one cycle of sacituzumab govitecan and included in the intention-to-treat population, 47.6% had a complete pathological response, and 52.4% had pathological downstaging. 11 patients underwent radical cystectomy, while 7 received repeat-TURBT due to complete clinical response or patient preference. Regarding the safety profile, grade 3 or more adverse events occurred in 42.5% of patients. Treatment-related adverse events leading to dose interruptions or discontinuations were more common before the protocol amendment. It is noteworthy that 3 patients died after treatment discontinuation, with one deemed treatment-related, as previously mentioned. Dr. Rana McKay: Thank you, Neeraj, for a great summary. The pathological complete responses observed show promising activity for sacituzumab govitecan as a neo-adjuvant therapy and a window for bladder-sparing approaches, which is definitely exciting news for our patients! However, although the 3 deaths encountered in a neo-adjuvant setting could be concerning, the improvement of the safety profile after protocol amendments is reassuring and supports the continuation of the study. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Before wrapping up the bladder cancer section, would you like to share your insights with our listeners on Abstract 4518, titled “Quantitative circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assessment in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with pembrolizumab or platinum-based chemotherapy from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-361 trial”?  Dr. Rana McKay: Sure. So, the KEYNOTE-361 trial was a randomized phase 3 study with 3 arms that included pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, pembrolizumab monotherapy, or chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated advanced urothelial carcinoma. The results showed that neither the combination of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy nor pembrolizumab monotherapy improved survival outcomes compared to the chemotherapy arm. So, in this exploratory analysis presented at ASCO24, Dr. Tom Powles and colleagues sought to assess the role of ctDNA as a potential biomarker between the pembrolizumab monotherapy arm and the chemotherapy arm. Tumor tissue mutations were evaluated using whole exome sequencing, and plasma ctDNA was assessed with the Guardant 360 assay. Changes in ctDNA from pre-treatment cycle 1 to on-treatment cycle 2, so 3 weeks post-baseline assessment, were quantified by the maximum variant allele frequency of tumor tissue-specific mutations.  Results showed that lower baseline ctDNA levels were associated with improved clinical outcomes of response in the pembrolizumab arm but not in the chemotherapy arm. This improvement in the pembrolizumab arm was also robust to adjustment for tumor mutational burden and PD-L1. Additionally, chemotherapy led to a ctDNA clearance rate of 41% compared to 11% in the pembrolizumab arm. Patients who had a large ctDNA reduction with pembrolizumab had significantly improved outcomes compared to those achieving a large reduction with chemotherapy with a hazard ratio of 0.25. However, this did not replicate in patients who did not achieve a large reduction, as these patients had similar outcomes across both arms. Let's switch gears to kidney cancer and start with Abstract 4508, reporting the final OS analysis from the JAVELIN Renal-101 trial. Neeraj, what would you like to tell us about this abstract? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal:  Well, as a quick reminder, the JAVELIN Renal-101 was a randomized phase 3 trial where patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma were randomized to receive either the combination of avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib. In previous analyses, the combination of avelumab and axitinib significantly improved PFS compared to sunitinib and was subsequently approved by the FDA for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced RCC in 2019. This superiority in PFS was maintained across the different analyses; however, OS data remained immature. In the abstract presented at ASCO24 by Dr. Robert Motzer from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and colleagues, the authors reported OS results at a median follow-up of around 73 months and a minimum of 68 months for all patients, which is the longest follow-up for any ICI-TKI combination in RCC. The final analysis in the overall population favored the combination of avelumab plus axitinib with a median OS of 44.8 months compared to 38.9 months with sunitinib, however, this did not reach statistical significance with a hazard ratio of 0.88. The PFS results and safety profile were consistent with previous analyses.  Dr. Rana McKay: Thank you, Neeraj, for such a nice overview of this abstract. These new data could make this regimen less optimal than other ICI-TKI combinations in the first-line mRCC setting.   Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I concur, Rana. Moving on to perhaps one of the most exciting GU abstracts featured, Abstract 4506, titled “Circulating kidney injury molecule-1 biomarker analysis in IMmotion010: A randomized phase 3 study of adjuvant atezolizumab vs placebo in patients with renal cell carcinoma at increased risk of recurrence after resection.” Rana, what are your thoughts on this abstract? Dr. Rana McKay: Well, first, I would like to take a step back and remind our audience that in the IMmotion010 trial, patients with resected intermediate to high-risk RCC with clear cell and/or sarcomatoid component were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either atezolizumab or placebo. Investigator-assessed disease-free survival, which was the primary endpoint, favored the atezolizumab arm but did not reach statistical significance. In the abstract featured at ASCO24, Dr. Laurence Albiges and colleagues build on data previously reported in the ASSURE and CheckMate 914 trials and report provocative findings regarding a molecule known as kidney injury molecule 1 or KIM-1, which is a type 1 membrane glycoprotein that has been identified as a minimally invasive potential peripheral blood circulating biomarker. The KIM-1 level of 86 pg/ml was identified as the optimized threshold for defining post-nephrectomy KIM-1 high vs KIM-1 low subgroups in the IMmotion010 trial. KIM-1 levels were measured at baseline or pre-treatment, at cycle 4 day 1, and at disease recurrence or discontinuation without disease recurrence. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the KIM-1 high and KIM-1 low groups, except perhaps for a slightly higher pathological stage in the KIM-1 high subgroup.  I would like to highlight 3 key takeaways from this abstract. First, KIM-1 high level was associated with significantly worse DFS with a hazard ratio of 1.75. Second, patients in the KIM-1 high subgroup receiving atezolizumab had a 28% reduction in the risk of recurrence or death compared to those receiving placebo, while those in the KIM-1 low subgroup had comparable outcomes across both treatment arms. Third, patients in the KIM-1 high subgroup receiving atezolizumab were significantly less likely to experience an on-treatment increase in KIM-1 levels, which was associated with worse DFS in both high and low KIM-1 subgroups, regardless of treatment arm. Thus, these findings support the use of KIM-1 as both a predictive and prognostic biomarker in patients with RCC. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, Rana, this is amazing data! I would like to add that these results warrant larger and, ideally, prospective studies to validate the utility of KIM-1 as a noninvasive biomarker for identifying minimal residual disease after nephrectomy and for predicting outcomes to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Dr. Rana McKay: Also, in the field of biomarkers, 2 abstracts interrogating different biomarkers in a different setting, so in patients with advanced or metastatic RCC were presented. Neeraj, could you tell us more about these abstracts? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Of course! I think you are referring to Abstracts 4504 and 4505. In abstract 4504, Dr. Toni Choueiri and colleagues sought to assess the clinical implications of different biomarkers in the CLEAR trial, which was a randomized phase 3 trial that led to the approval of the combination of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib in the first-line mRCC setting. On the other hand, in abstract 4505, Dr. Brian Rini presented biomarker results in KEYNOTE-426, which was also a randomized phase 3 trial based on which the combination of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was approved in patients with mRCC. The authors in both trials sought to investigate the role of biomarkers in predicting treatment outcomes from 3 different angles. Starting with PD-L1 expression, the superiority of the combination arms over sunitinib was not impacted by PD-L1 status in both trials. Moving on to RCC driver gene mutations on whole exome sequencing, such as VHL, SETD2, PBRM1, and BAP1, ICI combination therapies improved outcomes regardless of mutation gene status, and this improvement was statistically significant with PBRM1 mutations in KEYNOTE-426 compared to wild-type PBRM1, but this did not replicate in the CLEAR trial. Finally, using transcriptomic signatures derived from RCC trials, especially the IMmotion 151 and JAVELIN Renal 101 trials, where 7 clusters or molecular subtypes were identified, the combination arms outperformed sunitinib in all clusters in both trials and the magnitude of this benefit differed across clusters.  Dr. Rana McKay: Thank you for this very interesting summary and comparison of the results of these 2 abstracts. These findings support the use of ICI-based combinations in all patients with mRCC as a first-line option. Although these abstracts could not identify specific biomarkers that could guide us clinicians in treatment selection, they provide very interesting biological insights on these molecular biomarkers that are, however, not yet clinically actionable. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Very interesting point, Rana. Moving on to prostate cancer, let's start with abstract LBA5000 titled, “Cabazitaxel with abiraterone versus abiraterone alone randomized trial for extensive disease following docetaxel: The CHAARTED2 trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (EA8153).” Rana, what is your takeaway on this abstract? Dr. Rana McKay: As a reminder to our audience, the CHAARTED2 trial was a randomized open-label phase 2 study that compared the combination of cabazitaxel and abiraterone to abiraterone alone in patients with mCRPC previously treated with ADT plus docetaxel in the hormone-sensitive setting. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. After a median follow-up of 47.3 months, Dr. Christos Kyriakopoulos and colleagues reported in LBA5000 that patients receiving the combination of cabazitaxel plus abiraterone had a 27% reduction in the risk of progression or death. However, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the two arms, with a median OS of 25 months in the cabazitaxel+abiraterone arm and 26.9 months in the abiraterone arm, although the study was underpowered for this endpoint. Regarding the toxicity profile, the combination of cabazitaxel and abiraterone was overall well tolerated with more cytopenias, as expected.  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Very nice summary of this abstract, Rana. I would like to add that the treatment landscape of patients with mHSPC has evolved since the design of the study and now includes combination therapies of ADT + ARPI with or without docetaxel, and ADT + docetaxel is no longer a standard of care, which limits the applicability of these results in clinical practice today.  Dr. Rana McKay: Excellent point, Neeraj. Let's discuss Abstract 5001, titled “CYCLONE 2: A phase 3 study of abemaciclib with abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer”. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure! In the abstract featured at ASCO24, Dr. Matthew Smith and colleagues report the primary results of the CYCLONE 2 trial, which was a randomized phase 2/3 study that investigated the combination of abemaciclib plus abiraterone versus abiraterone monotherapy in patients with mCRPC. Stratification factors included radiographic progression at study entry, presence of measurable disease, and prior docetaxel for mHSPC. Part 1 of the study established the recommended phase 2 dose of abemaciclib at 200 mg twice daily. In part 2, patients were randomized to placebo or abemaciclib, and an adaptive interim analysis using prespecified criteria was performed and recommended the expansion of the study to part 3. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed radiographic progression-free survival by RECIST 1.1 and PCWG3 criteria in the intention-to-treat population. At the time of the primary analysis, adding abemaciclib to abiraterone did not improve rPFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.83. The median rPFS was 22 months for the combination arm and 20.3 months for the abiraterone arm. The combination was well tolerated, and the safety profile was consistent with the known adverse events. Dr. Rana McKay: So, the addition of abemaciclib to abiraterone did not improve outcomes in patients with mCRPC. These findings suggest that no further investigation is warranted for abemaciclib or CDK4/6 inhibitors in biomarker-unselected patients with prostate cancer.  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Rana, what's your take-home message on Abstract 5006, titled “Health-related quality of life results from PRESTO (AFT-19), a phase 3 randomized trial of intensification of androgen blockade in patients with high-risk biochemically relapsed castration sensitive prostate cancer”? Dr. Rana McKay: So, as a reminder to our audience, the PRESTO trial was a randomized phase 3 study that assessed the effects of intensified androgen receptor blockade in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer following local therapies. Patients with a PSA doubling time of less than 9 months and no evidence of metastatic disease were randomized to receive either 52 weeks of ADT alone, ADT plus apalutamide, or ADT plus apalutamide plus abiraterone. In their paper published earlier this year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the authors showed that patients receiving ADT plus apalutamide with or without abiraterone had significantly longer PSA-progression-free survival than those receiving ADT alone. In the oral presentation featured at ASCO24, Dr. Ronald Chen and colleagues report health-related quality of life outcomes that were assessed using various questionnaires or scales at baseline, at cycle 7, which is around 6 months on treatment, and at the end of treatment. Results showed that this intensified approach with apalutamide did not significantly increase severe adverse events, did not lengthen the time to testosterone recovery, and did not meaningfully increase common treatment-related symptoms such as hormonal symptoms, sexual dysfunction, hot flash interference, and fatigue. Importantly, additional intensification with abiraterone did not further improve PSA-PFS but did increase the rate of serious adverse events, lengthened the time to testosterone recovery, and increased hot flash interference.  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So, in conclusion, the PRESTO trial supports using intensified androgen blockade with apalutamide to improve PSA-PFS in patients with high-risk biochemically recurrent prostate cancer without compromising health-related quality of life. However, adding abiraterone did not offer additional benefits and increased side effects.  Dr. Rana McKay: Let's move on to LBA5002 titled, “A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of metformin in reducing progression among men on expectant management for low-risk prostate cancer: The MAST (Metformin Active Surveillance Trial) study.” Would you like to share your insights on this abstract with our listeners? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Absolutely. MAST was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial that investigated the impact of metformin on the progression of low-risk localized prostate cancer in patients choosing to undergo active surveillance. Eligible patients had biopsy-proven, low-risk, localized prostate cancer diagnosed within the past 6 months, characterized by a Gleason score of less than 6 observed in less than one-third of the total cores, less than 50% positivity in any one core, a PSA level of less than 10 ng/ml, and a clinical-stage between T1c and T2a. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either metformin 850 mg twice daily or placebo for three years. All patients underwent repeat prostate biopsy at 18 and 36 months. The primary endpoint was time to progression, defined as the earliest occurrence of primary prostate cancer therapy, such as prostatectomy, radiation, hormonal therapy, or pathological progression on subsequent biopsies, which was defined as more than 1/3 of total cores involved, at least 50% of any one core involved, or Gleason pattern 4 or higher. The study included 407 patients, with 204 receiving metformin and 203 receiving a placebo. Results presented by Dr. Anthony Joshua showed no statistically significant difference in progression-free survival, including therapeutic and pathologic progression, with an unadjusted hazard ratio of 1.08.  Interestingly, there was a signal that patients with a BMI more than 30 had a detriment to taking metformin with a higher risk of progression compared to those receiving placebo with an unadjusted HR of 2.39 and a p-value of 0.01. Dr. Rana McKay: I would like to add that this study showed that metformin use does not prevent the progression of low-risk localized prostate cancer on active surveillance and could represent a potential detriment for patients with high BMI at study entry. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, Rana, I concur. Any final remarks before we conclude today's podcast? Dr. Rana McKay:  Thank you, Neeraj; it's been wonderful being here with you today and you having me on the podcast to highlight these important advances and the amazing work that many investigators are conducting and the patients who were involved in the context of these trials. It's really excellent to see these updated results.   Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Before we wrap up this podcast, I would like to say that we have reviewed a selection of abstracts addressing prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer, which are significantly impacting our medical practices now and in the near future. Rana, thank you for sharing your insights today. These updates are undoubtedly exciting for the entire GU oncology community, and we greatly appreciate your valuable contribution to the discussion. Many thanks. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today on the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Find out more about today's speakers:    Dr. Neeraj Agarwal   @neerajaiims   Dr. Rana McKay  @DrRanaMcKay     Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on Twitter      ASCO on Facebook      ASCO on LinkedIn         Disclosures:        Dr. Neeraj Agarwal:         Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, and Gilead Sciences     Research Funding (Institution): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Crispr Therapeutics, Arvinas      Dr. Rana McKay:   Consulting or Advisory Role: Janssen, Novartis, Tempus, Exelxis, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas Medivation, Dendreon, Bayer, Sanofi, Merck, Vividion, Calithera, AstraZeneca, Myovant, Caris Life Sciences, Sorrento Therapeutics, AVEO, Seattle Genetics, Telix, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Bayer, Tempus

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

BUFFALO, NY- June 19, 2024 – A new research paper was published in Oncotarget's Volume 15 on June 13, 2024, entitled, “Assessment of serum tumor markers CEA, CA-125, and CA19-9 as adjuncts in non-small cell lung cancer management.” Conventional tumor markers may serve as adjuncts in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) management. In this new study, researchers Scott Strum, Mark Vincent, Meghan Gipson, Eric McArthur, and Daniel Breadner from the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, London Health Sciences Centre, and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland analyzed whether three tumor markers (CEA, CA19-9, and CA-125) held associations with radiographic and clinical outcomes in NSCLC. “The aim of this retrospective study was to provide additional evidence for the clinical use of conventional serum tumor markers CEA, CA19-9, and CA-125 in NSCLC management.” It constituted a single-center study of NSCLC patients treated with systemic therapy at the London Regional Cancer Program. Serum tumor markers were analyzed for differences in radiographic responses (RECIST v1.1 or iRECIST), associations with clinical characteristics, and all-cause mortality. A total of 533 NSCLC patients were screened, of which 165 met inclusion criteria. A subset of 92 patients had paired tumor markers and radiographic scans. From the latter population, median (IQR) fold-change from nadir to progression was 2.13 (IQR 1.24–3.02; p < 0.001) for CEA, 1.46 (IQR 1.13–2.18; p < 0.001) for CA19-9, and 1.53 (IQR 0.96–2.12; p < 0.001) for CA-125. Median (IQR) fold-change from baseline to radiographic response was 0.50 (IQR 0.27, 0.95; p < 0.001) for CEA, 1.08 (IQR 0.74, 1.61; p = 0.99) for CA19-9, and 0.47 (IQR 0.18, 1.26; p = 0.008) for CA-125. “In conclusion, tumor markers are positioned to be used as adjunct tools in clinical decision making, especially for their associations with radiographic response (CEA/CA-125) or progression (CEA/CA-125/CA-19-9).” DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28566 Correspondence to - Daniel Breadner - daniel.breadner@lhsc.on.ca Video short - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LO-Hn0fbrg Sign up for free Altmetric alerts about this article - https://oncotarget.altmetric.com/details/email_updates?id=10.18632%2Foncotarget.28566 Subscribe for free publication alerts from Oncotarget - https://www.oncotarget.com/subscribe/ Keywords - cancer, tumor marker, biomarker, lung cancer; NSCLC, translational research 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

La Dra. Flavia Morales, oncóloga médica de la Ciudad de México, México, nos comenta sobre lo más destacado en tumores ginecológicos, presentado en el Congreso de ASCO 2024, resaltando los siguientes estudios: RUBY: análisis post hoc de la supervivencia libre de progresión (SLP) y la supervivencia global (SG) del estudio fase III, multicéntrico, aleatorizado, doble ciego, el cual aleatorizó a pacientes con cáncer de endometrio recurrente o primario avanzado con deficiencia en la reparación de desajustes/inestabilidad microsatelital de alto nivel (dMMR/MSI-H) para recibir dostarlimab o placebo más carboplatino-paclitaxel, seguido de dostarlimab o placebo como monoterapia durante un máximo de 3 años. BrUOG 354: resultados finales del estudio aleatorizado, fase II, de nivolumab con o sin ipilimumab para pacientes con carcinomas de células claras de ovario y otros carcinomas de células claras extrarrenales previamente tratadas con al menos una terapia (sin inmunoterapia). Se evaluó la tasa de respuesta global de cada grupo por separado en la etapa 1 utilizando los criterios RECIST e iRECIST. CARACO: estudio aleatorizado, fase III, que investigó la omisión de la linfadenectomía en pacientes con cáncer de ovario epitelial avanzado en estadios III-IV de la FIGO, tratadas con cirugía citorreductora primaria o intervalada tras quimioterapia neoadyuvante. Se incluyeron pacientes sin ganglios linfáticos sospechosos antes y durante la cirugía. El objetivo primario fue la SLP y los objetivos secundarios incluían la SG, la seguridad, el resultado quirúrgico y la calidad de vida. AGO-OVAR 2.29: resultados finales de SG y SLP del estudio fase III, aleatorizado y doble ciego, diseñado para evaluar la eficacia y seguridad de la combinación de bevacizumab y quimioterapia no basada en platino con o sin atezolizumab en pacientes con cáncer de ovario recurrente que experimentaron su primera o segunda recaída dentro de los 6 meses después de completar quimioterapia a base de platino, o una tercera recaída independientemente del intervalo libre de tratamiento. Los objetivos primarios fueron la SG y la SLP, evaluados después de alcanzar 391 muertes en la población de intención de tratar. Fecha de grabación: 11 de junio de 2024.                       Todos los comentarios emitidos por los participantes son a título personal y no reflejan la opinión de ScienceLink u otros. Se deberá revisar las indicaciones aprobadas en el país para cada uno de los tratamientos y medicamentos comentados. Las opiniones vertidas en este programa son responsabilidad de los participantes o entrevistados, ScienceLink las ha incluido con fines educativos. Este material está dirigido a profesionales de la salud exclusivamente.

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal and Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching discuss promising combination therapies and other compelling advances in genitourinary cancers in advance of the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program and a professor of medicine at the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, and editor-in-chief of the ASCO Daily News. I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching, a GU medical oncologist and the clinical program director of genitourinary cancers at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute in Virginia. Today, we will be discussing some key abstracts in GU oncology that will be featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Jeanny, it's great to have you on the podcast. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you so much, Dr. Agarwal. It's a pleasure to be here. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So, Jeanny, let's start with some bladder cancer abstracts. Could you tell us about the Abstract 4509 titled, “Characterization of Complete Responders to Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine Cisplatin versus Gemcitabine Cisplatin Alone in Patients with Lymph Node Only Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma from the CheckMate 901 Trial.”  Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Of course, Neeraj, I would be delighted to. First, I would like to remind our listeners that the CheckMate 901 trial was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study, in which this particular sub-study looked at cisplatin-eligible patients with previously untreated, unresectable, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who were assigned to receive the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin, followed by up to 2 years of nivolumab or placebo. Based on the data presented at ESMO 2023 and subsequently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which shows significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival in patients receiving the combination of gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nivolumab, this regimen was approved in March 2024 as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.  In the abstract that will be featured at ASCO this year, Dr. Matt Galsky and colleagues present a post-hoc analysis that aims to characterize a subset of patients with complete response as well as those with lymph node-only metastatic disease. In patients receiving the experimental treatment, 21.7% achieved a complete response, while 11.8% of the patients in the control arm achieved a complete response.  Among these complete responders, around 52% had lymph- node-only disease in both arms. Furthermore, when characterizing the subgroup of patients with lymph-node-only disease, those receiving the combination of gemcitabine-cisplatin plus nivolumab had a 62% reduction in the risk of progression or death and a 42% reduction in the risk of death compared to those treated with gemcitabine-cisplatin alone.  The median overall survival in the experimental arm in this subgroup was around 46.3 months, while it was only 24.9 months in the control arm. The ORR in patients with lymph-node-only disease receiving gem-cis plus nivo was about 81.5% compared to 64.3% in those treated with gem-cis alone. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny, for the excellent summary of this abstract. We can say that nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin induced durable disease control and clinically meaningful improvements in OS and PFS compared to gem-cis alone in patients with lymph- node-only metastasis, and deserves to be considered as one of the options for these patients.  In a similar first-line metastatic urothelial carcinoma setting, Abstract 4502, also reported data on a recently approved combination of enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab. Can you tell us more about this abstract, Jeanny? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Sure, Neeraj. So, as quick reminder to our audience, this regimen was tested in the EV-302 phase 3 trial, where patients with previously untreated, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma were randomized to receive enfortumab vedotin, plus pembrolizumab or gemcitabine plus either cisplatin or carboplatin. These data were also first presented at ESMO 2023 and subsequently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. They showed that this immune based combination significantly improved both progression free survival and overall survival, which were the primary endpoints compared to chemotherapy. In this abstract, Dr. Shilpa Gupta from the Cleveland Clinic and colleagues present the results of patient reported outcomes based on quality-of-life questionnaires in this trial.  Time to pain progression and time to confirm deterioration were numerically longer in patients treated with EV plus pembro, and patients with moderate to severe pain at baseline receiving this combination had a meaningful improvement in the Brief Pain Inventory Short-Form worst pain from week 3 through 26. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. This means that patients treated with EV plus pembro did not only have improved survival compared with platinum-based chemotherapy, but also improvement in their quality-of-life and functioning, further supporting the value of this combination for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. This is terrific news for all of our patients.   Before we wrap up the bladder cancer section, would you like to tell our listeners about Abstract 4565, which provides the data on the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with bladder cancer? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yes, Neeraj; this is timely given the recent FDA approval, which we will talk about. The abstract is titled, “Efficacy and Safety of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Patients with HER2 Expressing Solid Tumors: Results from the Bladder Cohort of the DESTINY-PanTumor02 Study.” And as a quick reminder, the DESTINY-PanTumor02 was a phase 2 open-label study where trastuzumab deruxtecan, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting HER2 expression on cancer cells, was evaluated in patients with HER2-expressing locally advanced or metastatic disease who previously received systemic treatment or who had no other treatment options. The expression of HER2 was evaluated on immunohistochemistry by local or central testing.   The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate by investigator assessment. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, progression free survival, disease control rate, and safety. The primary analysis, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, showed an ORR of 37.1% and responses across all cohorts and the median duration of response was 11.3 months. Based on these results, fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki was just granted accelerated FDA approval for unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive solid tumors in April 2024.  So, back to this abstract; Dr. Wysocki and colleagues report the results of the bladder cancer cohort. This study included 41 patients with urothelial cancer and at a median follow up of around 12.6 months, the objective response rate among these patients was 39%, the median PFS was 7 months, and the duration of response median was 8.7 months. The disease control rate at 12 weeks was around 71%. Regarding the safety profile, 41.5% of patients experienced grade ≥3 drug related adverse events and interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis did occur in about 4 patients. Although there was no statistical comparison between different groups, the ORR was numerically highest among the HER2 3+ group with 56.3%.  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. So, these data support consideration of trastuzumab deruxtecan as a salvage therapy option for pre-treated patients with HER2 expressing urothelial cancers and show that we are extending our treatment options to include therapies with novel mechanisms of action. This is definitely exciting news for patients with bladder cancer. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yes, absolutely, Neeraj. Now, let's switch gears a bit to prostate cancer. Could you tell us about Abstract 5005 which is titled, “EMBARK Post Hoc Analysis of Impact of Treatment Suspension on Health Quality-of-Life?” Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Of course, I'd be happy to. So, enzalutamide was recently granted FDA approval for the treatment of patients with non-metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer with biochemical recurrence at high-risk of metastasis, based on the results of the EMBARK trial, which was a phase 3 study where patients with high-risk biochemical recurrence were randomized to receive either enzalutamide with leuprolide, enzalutamide monotherapy, or placebo plus leuprolide. The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival with secondary endpoints including overall survival and safety.  Results showed that patients receiving enzalutamide alone or enzalutamide plus leuprolide had significantly improved metastasis-free survival compared to those treated with leuprolide alone while preserving health-related quality-of-life.   One important aspect in the design of the trial was that patients who achieved undetectable PSA at week 37 underwent treatment suspension. The treatment was resumed if PSA rose to more than 2 ng/ml for patients who underwent radical proctectomy or when PSA rose to more than 5 ng/ml for those who did not undergo surgery.  In this abstract, Dr. Stephen Freedland and colleagues present a post-hoc analysis of health-related quality-of-life outcomes after treatment suspension between weeks 37 and 205. They found that treatment was suspended in 90.9% of patients receiving enzalutamide plus leuprolide, 85.9% of those receiving enzalutamide monotherapy, and 67.8% of those receiving leuprolide monotherapy. Among those patients who stayed on treatment suspension, a trend toward numerical improvement in health-related quality-of-life after week 37 was seen in all 3 arms and this reached clinically meaningful threshold at week 205 in pain questionnaires, physical well-being, urinary and bowel symptoms. For hormonal treatment side effects, all arms reached clinically meaningful improvement at the subsequent assessments of week 49 to week 97. However, patients slowly deteriorated, with clinically meaningful deterioration at week 205 relative to week 37 in patients receiving the combination of enzalutamide and leuprolide and those treated with leuprolide.    Concerning sexual activity, a clinically meaningful improvement was reported only in patients receiving enzalutamide plus leuprolide, possibly because sexual function was better preserved prior to suspension in the enzalutamide monotherapy arm and thus there was less opportunity for “improvement” while on suspension.  Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj, for this great summary. This analysis confirms that treatment suspension in good responders might lead to a clinically meaningful improvements in health-related quality-of-life.   Now, moving on to patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, what can you tell us, about Abstract 5008 titled, “Baseline ctDNA analyses and associations with outcomes in taxane-naive patients with mCRPC treated with 177Lu-PSMA-617 versus change of ARPI in PSMAfore”?  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure, Jeanny. The PSMAfore trial was a phase 3 study that compared the efficacy of 177Lu-PSMA-617 versus an ARPI switch in patients with mCRPC and prior progression on a first ARPI, and not previously exposed to docetaxel chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was rPFS and OS was an important secondary endpoint. The primary analysis presented at ESMO 2023 showed a significantly prolonged rPFS in patients receiving lutetium. In the abstract that will be featured at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, Dr. Johann De Bono and colleagues present an exploratory analysis regarding the associations between baseline circulating tumor DNA and outcomes.  ctDNA fraction was evaluated in all samples as well as alterations in key prostate cancer drivers prevalent in more than 10% of participants.  The investigators sought to interrogate the association of ctDNA fraction or alterations with rPFS, PSA response, and RECIST response at data cutoff. They showed that median rPFS was significantly shorter in patients with a ctDNA fraction >1% compared to those with a fraction < 1% regardless of the treatment arm. Furthermore, ctDNA fraction >1% was also associated with worst RECIST response and PSA50 response. Regarding prostate cancer drivers, median rPFS was significantly shorter in patients with alterations in the AR, TP53 or PTEN in both treatment arms. There was no significant association between ctDNA alterations and PSA or objective responses. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj. So, these results show that the presence of a ctDNA fraction >1% or alterations in AR, P53 and PTEN were all associated with worse outcomes regardless of treatment with lutetium or change in the ARPI. These data are definitely important for counseling and prognostication of patients in the clinic and may guide the design of future clinical trials. Let's move on to kidney cancer. Neeraj, do you have any updates for us?  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal:  Sure. In Abstract 4512 titled, “A Multi-institution Analysis of Outcomes with First-Line Therapy for 99 Patients with Metastatic Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma,” Dr. Sahil Doshi and colleagues present a retrospective, multi-institutional study comparing survival outcomes, including time-to-treatment failure and overall survival, between different first-line treatment options in patients with metastatic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma, where limited clinical trial data exists to guide systemic therapy. They categorized patients into 4 treatment groups: and immune checkpoint inhibitors + targeted therapy doublets (such as ICI VEGF TKI); pure immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy and doublets (such as ipilimumab plus nivolumab); targeted therapy doublets (such as lenvatinib plus everolimus), and targeted monotherapy (such as sunitinib).  They identified 99 patients, of whom 54 patients received targeted monotherapy, 17 received ICI VEGF-TKI, 14 received targeted doublet, and 14 patients received only ICI therapies. So the patients treated with any doublet containing a targeted agent had a 52% decrease in the risk of treatment failure and a 44% decrease in the risk of death compared to those treated with targeted monotherapy. The median time to treatment failure was 15 months with IO-targeted doublet, and the median overall survival was 56 months. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj. So, these results show that targeted doublet regimens resulted in a longer time to treatment failure and overall survival compared to any monotherapy in patients with chromophobe metastatic RCC and definitely provides valuable insights on treatment selection, albeit I would say there's still a small number of patients that were included in this retrospective analysis. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I completely agree this is a relatively small number of patients, but I decided to highlight the abstract given how rare the cancer is, and it is highly unlikely that we'll see large randomized clinical trials in patients with metastatic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.  So, before we wrap up the podcast, what would you like to tell us about Abstract 5009 which is titled, “A Phase II Trial of Pembrolizumab Platinum Based Chemotherapy as First Line Systemic Therapy in Advanced Penile Cancer: HERCULES (LACOG 0218) Trial.” Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: I'm glad you brought this up, Neeraj. As our listeners may know, advanced penile squamous cell carcinoma has a poor prognosis with limited treatment options. From this perspective, the results of the LACOG 0218 trial are very important. As you mentioned, this was a phase 2 single-arm study evaluating the addition of pembrolizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic or locally advanced penile squamous cell carcinoma not amenable to curative therapy. Patients enrolled received chemotherapy, namely 5-Fluorouracil with cisplatin or carboplatin and pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks for 6 cycles, followed by pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks up to 34 cycles. The primary endpoint was confirmed overall response rate by investigator assessment.  In the 33 patients eligible for the efficacy analysis, the confirmed ORR by investigator assessment was 39.4% and included one complete response and 12 partial responses. The confirmed ORR was 75% in patients with high TMB and 55.6% in patients positive for HPV16, making TMB and HPV16 potential predictive biomarkers for efficacy in this study. Concerning the toxicity profile, any grade treatment-related adverse events were reported in around 92% of patients, and grade 3 or more treatment-related adverse events occurred in 51% of patients. 10.8% of patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events.  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. I would like to add that HERCULES is the first trial to demonstrate the efficacy of an immune checkpoint inhibitor in advanced penile squamous cell carcinoma with a manageable safety profile. Thus, the combination of ICI with platinum-based chemotherapy is a promising treatment for advanced penile squamous cell carcinoma and warrants further investigation.  Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: I agree, Neeraj. Any final remarks before we conclude today's podcast? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Jeanny, I really want to thank you for your participation and valuable insights. Your contributions are always appreciated, and I sincerely thank you for taking the time to join us today. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj. It was a pleasure.  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal:  As we bring this podcast to an end, I would like to acknowledge the significant advances happening in the treatment of patients with genitourinary cancers. During our upcoming 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, there will be an array of different studies featuring practice-changing data presented by researchers and physicians from around the globe. I urge our listeners to not only participate in this event to celebrate these achievements, but to also play a role in sharing these cutting-edge data with healthcare professionals worldwide. Through our collective efforts, we can surely optimize the benefits of patients on a global scale.   And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today on the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Thank you very much.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Find out more about today's speakers:  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal  @neerajaiims  Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching    Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on Twitter     ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn       Disclosures:    Dr. Neeraj Agarwal:     Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, and Gilead Sciences    Research Funding (Institution): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Crispr Therapeutics, Arvinas     Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching:  Honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs Inc., Pfizer/EMD Serono  Consulting or Advisory Role: Algeta/Bayer, Dendreon, AstraZeneca, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi, EMD Serono, MedImmune, Bayer, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, Immunomedics, Amgen, AVEO, Pfizer/Myovant, Exelixis,   Speakers' Bureau: Astellas Pharma, Janssen-Ortho, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas/Seattle Genetics. 

Dr. Diwakar Davar and Dr. Jason Luke discuss key abstracts from the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting that explore triplet therapy in advanced melanoma, TIL cell therapy in immune checkpoint inhibitor–naive patients, and other novel approaches that could shape the future of immunotherapy in melanoma and beyond.  TRANSCRIPT Dr. Diwakar Davar: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am your guest host, Dr. Diwakar Davar. I'm an associate professor of medicine and the clinical director of the Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. I'm delighted to have my friend and colleague, Dr. Jason Luke, on the podcast today to discuss key abstracts in melanoma and immunotherapy that will be featured and highlighted at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Dr. Luke is an associate professor of medicine, the director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutic Center, as well as the associate director for clinical research at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center.  You will find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode.  Jason, as always, it's a pleasure to have you on this podcast to hear your key insights on trials in the immunotherapy space and melanoma development paradigm, and to have you back on this podcast to highlight some of this work.  Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks so much for the opportunity to participate. I always enjoy this heading into ASCO.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: We're going to go ahead and talk about three abstracts in the melanoma space, and we will be starting with Abstract 9504. Abstract 9504 essentially is the RELATIVITY-048 study. It describes the efficacy and safety of the triplet nivolumab, relatlimab, and ipilimumab regimen in advanced PD-1 naive melanoma. So in this abstract highlighted by Dr. Ascierto and colleagues, they report on the results of this phase 2 trial in this setting. By way of background, PD-1 inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors starting in PD-1 and CTLA-4, as well as PD-1 and LAG-3, are all FDA-approved on the basis of several pivotal phase 3 trials, including KEYNOTE-006, CheckMate-066, CheckMate-067, and most recently, RELATIVITY-047. Jason, can you briefly summarize for this audience what we know about each of these drugs, at least the two combinations that we have at this time?  Dr. Jason Luke: For sure. And of course, these anti PD-1 agents, became a backbone in oncology and in melanoma dating back to more than 10 years ago now, that response rates in the treatment-naive setting to anti PD-1 with either pembrolizumab or nivolumab are roughly in the range of mid-30s to high-40s. And we've seen clinical trials adding on second agents. You alluded to them with the seminal study being CheckMate-067, where we combined a PD-1 antibody and CTLA-4 antibody or nivo + ipi. And there the response rate was increased to approximately 56%. And more recently, we have data combining PD-1 inhibitors with anti-LAG-3. So that's nivolumab and relatlimab. Now, in that trial, RELATIVITY-047, the overall response rate was described as 43%. And so that sounds, on a first pass, like a lower number, of course, than what we heard for nivolumab and ipilimumab. We have to be cautious, however, that the cross-trial comparison between those studies is somewhat fraught due to different patient populations and different study design. So I think most of us think that the response rate or the long-term outcomes between PD-1, CTLA-4, and PD-1 LAG-3 are probably roughly similar, albeit that, of course, we have much better or much longer follow up for the nivo + ipi combo.  The one other caveat to this, of course then, is that the side effect profile of these two combinations is distinct, where the incidence of high-grade immune-related adverse events is going to be roughly half with nivolumab and relatlimab, a combination of what you would see with the nivolumab and ipilimumab. So that has caused a lot of us to try to think about where we would use these different combinations. But we do see that all of these treatments can land a durable long-term response in the subset of patients that do have an initial treatment benefit. The landmark, I think, for the field has been the 7-and-a-half-year median overall survival that we've seen with PD-1 plus CTLA-4, nivo + ipi; of course, we don't have such long-term follow up for PD-1 and LAG-3. But I think that's the setting for thinking about the rationale for combining a triplet regimen of PD-1, CTLA-4, and LAG-3. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, Jason, in your mind, given the difference in the disparity and durability of the responses for the 067 regimen of nivo-ipi, and the RELATIVITY-047 regiment of nivo-rela, what is the standard of care in the U.S., and how does it change in the rest of the world, knowing that nivo-rela is not necessarily approved in all jurisdictions? Dr. Jason Luke: So this is a major complication in our field, is that there is perhaps not complete agreement across the world in terms of what the frontline standard of care should be. I think most United States investigators, or those of us that really treat melanoma most of the time, would suggest that a combination regimen, given the enhanced response rate and longer-term outcomes, should be the consideration for the majority of patients. In fact, in my practice, it's hard to think of who I would treat with a monotherapy PD-1 approach in the PD-1 naive setting. So either nivo + ipi or nivo + rela. As you alluded to however, in other regulatory settings throughout the world, combinations might not actually even be approved at this point. So PD-1 monotherapy would be the backbone of that setting. It does set up some complications when you think about a comparator arm; say you were going to look at various combinations, probably PD-1 monotherapy would be the worldwide comparator. You have to understand though, in the United States, I think that that's a less attractive option. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So in RELATIVITY-047, Dr. Ascierto and his colleagues are looking at generating a triplet. And in this case, they looked at this in the context of frontline metastatic melanoma, 46 patients. Very interestingly, the dose of ipilimumab studied here was 1 mg/kg through 8 weeks, not the 3 mg/kg every three weeks times four doses using 067, or even the low dose ipilimumab regimen that you studied in the second line setting, which was 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses. So let's talk about the results and specifically the implications of potentially studying lower doses of ipi. Dr. Jason Luke: I appreciate you raising that point. I think it's really important as we think about this dataset because this triplet regimen is not by any means the only version of a triplet that could be developed using these agents. So just to give the high-level numbers from the abstract, we see from these data that the overall response rate is described as 59% and 78%, a disease control rate with patients having an unreached link. So duration of response of unreached, and then the progression-free survival at about 5 months. So those are really interesting data. But as was alluded to, it's not totally clear to me that that's the best that we could do with this regimen.   Now, you alluded to this low-dose ipilimumab schedule at 1 mg/kg every 8 weeks, and it's really important to note that we have no benchmark for that regimen in melanoma oncology. And in fact, the one study that used that regimen, which was the adjuvant study of nivolumab and ipilimumab, known as CheckMate915, is in fact the only immune checkpoint inhibitor study in melanoma oncology that was actually negative. That study noted no benefit to adding ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg every 8 weeks on top of nivolumab, again, the adjuvant setting. So it's a little bit curious to then understand what it means in this study to have that amount of ipilimumab added to the rela-nivo backbone. And that manifests in a few different ways. We see the response rate here at 59%. Again, if you compare that just against the standard nivo + ipi dosing schedule, it's about the same. So is that really an advantage to having the triplet as compared to just doing standard nivo + ipi?   We do see that it manifests in a slightly lower rate of grade 3/4 immune-related adverse events, at 39%. That's a little bit lower than what we'd expect for standard nivo + ipi. But again, I think that that emphasizes to me the possibility that some efficacy was left on the table by using this very low dose ipilimumab regimen. I think that's really a concern. It's not clear to me that these triplet data really differentiate from what we'd expect with the already approved regimen of nivo + ipi. Therefore, it makes it difficult to think about how would we really want to move this regimen forward, or should there be more work done about dose and schedule to optimize how we might want to do this?  Dr. Diwakar Davar: As far as triplet therapy in the context of frontline metastatic melanoma, meaning triplet immune therapy, because there are at least several targeted therapy triplets that are FDA-approved, [but] not necessarily widely utilized. How would you summarize the future for triplet therapy? Do you think it's potentially attractive? Do you think it's very attractive with some caveats? Dr. Jason Luke: Well, I think it's attractive, and we have 3 independently active agents. And so I do think it's a priority for the field to try to figure out how we could optimize the therapy. We've had such a revolution in melanoma oncology, talking about 7.5-year median survival from CheckMate-067, but that still implies that 7.5 years, half the patients have passed away. There's more to do here. And so I do think it should be a priority to sort this out. I guess I would be cautious, though, about advancing this regimen directly to a phase 3 trial because it doesn't seem clear to me that this is optimized in terms of what the outcome could be. If we're willing to tolerate higher rates of toxicity from other dose schedules of nivo-ipi alone, then I think we should do a little bit more here to potentially explore the space that might be possible to increase that overall response rate a little more without getting into a completely exaggerated toxicity profile that would be unacceptable. So, I do think it's exciting, but there's possibly more to do before really think about going big time with this. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Great. So now we'll switch gears and move from frontline metastatic melanoma to the second line and beyond looking at a new agent and contextualizing the effects of that actually in the frontline settings. So Abstract 9505 describes the efficacy and safety of lifileucel, which is essentially autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapies, also known as TIL, in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with ICI naive, so not necessarily pretreated, but ICI naive metastatic or unresectable melanoma. This is data from the IOV-COM-202 Cohort 1A oral abstract presented by Dr. Thomas and colleagues. In this abstract, Dr. Thomas and colleagues are presenting data from the 1A cohort, which is the phase 2 portion of the frontline trial that is evaluating autologous TIL with pembro in checkpoint inhibited naive metastatic melanoma.  By way of background, TIL is FDA approved on the basis of several cohorts from a phase 2 trial. The data has been presented multiple times now by Drs. Sarli, Chesney, and multiple colleagues of ours. And essentially autologous TIL, which is generated from a surgical procedure in which a patient undergoes a surgery to extract a tumor from which T cells are then grown after ex vivo expansion and rapid expansion protocol. The entire procedure was essentially pioneered by several colleagues at the NCI, primarily Dr. Steve Rosenberg, and this approach produces objective response rates of approximately 31% to 36%. And the most recent publication demonstrated that at median follow up of approximately 2 years, the median duration of response was not reached. The median OS was about 14 months and PFS was about 4 months or so. So, can you contextualize the results of the abstract in the frontline setting? And then we'll talk a little bit about where we think this is going to go. Dr. Jason Luke: So I think this is a timely study given the recent approval. And in the abstract presented here, we see an early data cut from the PD-1 naive study, as you alluded to. So here we had 22 patients and distributed across various states of advanced melanoma. Ten out of the 22 had M1C, but there also were smatterings of earlier M1A and M1B at 18.2% and 9.1%. So this is important, as we think who the treatment population is that's going to be optimized with a TIL procedure. The median sum of diameters, meaning how much tumor burden the patients have, was about 5.5cm, and I'll note that that's a relatively modest amount of tumor burden, albeit not that unusual for an early-stage trial. So of the patients that participated, 8 had BRAF mutations so that's 36%. That's not that high, but it's reasonable. And I think the important overlying number, the response rate so far in the study, with about 17 months of follow up, was 63.6%, and that includes 22% or 23% having complete response. So those are interesting data.  And another point that was made in the abstract, which we've all seen, is that responses to TIL, all of immunotherapy but especially TIL, do seem to mature over time, meaning they deepen over time. So it's possible the response rate could go up some extent as we watch this study advance. So I think these are exciting data on some level. Also, a 63.6% response rate sounds pretty impressive, but we do have to put that in the context of a double checkpoint blockade, which we just got done discussing, gives you almost a 60% response rate, 59% response rate. So then the question really is: Is it worth the amount of effort that we could go into generating a TIL product in a treatment naive patient, and put them through the lymphodepletion that is associated with TIL and the high dose interleukin 2 treatment that accompanies the reinfusion of the TIL, if you're going to get a response rate that's roughly the same as what you would get if you gave them off the shelf nivo plus ipilimumab?  At this point it's a little bit hard to know the answer to that question. I think it could be possible that the answer is yes, because we don't know exactly which populations or patients are most likely to benefit from each of these therapies. And if it could be teased out who's not going to benefit to nivo + ipi from the get-go, then of course, we would want to offer them a therapy that has that frontline potential, durable, long-term response. But I have to say, on a one-to-one with TIL therapy, you get a lot of toxicity initially with the treatment; with nivo + ipi on the back end, you get a fair amount of toxicity with the treatment. How are we going to judge those two things? And I think we probably need a larger dataset to really have a good handle on that.  So these are interesting early data, but it's not totally clear to me that even if this holds up all the way through the trial, and we're going to talk about the design of the registration trial here in a second, a 60% response rate on its own without further biomarker stratification is a little bit hard for me to see in clinical practice why we would want to do that, given we can already just go off the shelf and give checkpoint inhibitors. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So that brings us to TILVANCE-301. So TILVANCE is a phase 3 trial. It's a registration intent trial by our Iovance colleagues evaluating the pembro-TIL regimen versus pembrolizumab alone. So in this phase 3 trial, approximately 670 patients will be randomized to either arm A, which is lifileucel + pembro. And in this arm A, patients are going to be getting lifileucel with the tumor resection, non-myeloablative lymphoid depletion, the lifileucel and abbreviated course of high-dose IL-2, and thereafter, continued pembro for the study mandated duration versus arm B, where patients will be getting just pembrolizumab monotherapy per label. Arm B patients, per the design, may cross over to receive TIL monotherapy at the time of central-blinded, radiology-confirmed disease progression.   The study design otherwise is fairly routine and, per most of our registration trials these days, patients have actually been permitted to receive neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, including checkpoint inhibitors, as long as the receipt of the therapy was more than 6 months prior to the inclusion of the patient in that registration trial. The dual primary efficacy endpoints as stated are BICR-assessed objective response rate as well as PFS, and the key secondary endpoint is overall survival.   So Jason, what are your thoughts on the study design and potentially the regulatory implications, particularly given, one, the control arm of pembro monotherapy, and two, the role of TIL crossover to receive TIL monotherapy at the time of BICR mandated progression for arm B? Dr. Jason Luke: So this goes to a few points that we've touched on already in the discussion here. When we think about the primary endpoints for this study, with one of them being overall response rate, one has to assume that that's a given that they would get that. I feel like that's a low bar. And we go back to that cross-trial comparison. If their results end up being that the response rates are about 60%, I don't know that that differentiates necessarily from what's already available in the field with combination immune checkpoint blockade. For the purposes of the study that would mean it's a positive study, so I think that would probably be good. But again, the comparator to pembrolizumab monotherapy, I think some of us would argue, isn't really consistent with what we would do with a patient in our clinic. So it's not that it's bad per se, but I think there's going to be a whole lot of cross-trial comparison. So if the study is positive, that would be good for getting the drug available. It's still a bit hard though, based on the preliminary data that I've seen, to imagine how this would have uptake in terms of utilization as a frontline therapy.  You alluded to the crossover, and I think there, the assumption is that patients who get TIL therapy as a second line perhaps would have an attenuated benefit. But I'm not sure that's really true. It certainly looks from the data that we have, like the patients who benefit most from TIL are going to be those who didn't respond to anti PD-1 in the front line. So I'm not sure how much difference there's going to be between first- and second-line TIL therapy, but those data will kind of wait to be seen. So I think it's an important study. Of course, the accelerated approval of TIL as a later line therapy is dependent on this trial being positive. So there is some risk that if this trial ended up not being positive, that that could have regulatory implications on the utility or availability of TILs, a subsequent line therapy. But all of these, I guess we'll have to wait to see the results. We do hope for a positive trial here, although I think it'll be nuanced to sort of interpret those data given that pembrolizumab monotherapy control arm.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: Fantastic. So we've learned a lot about TIL, both its use in the second-line setting and this very exciting but potentially risky frontline trial that is ongoing at some centers in the United States and certainly a lot of ex-U.S. enrollment.   So we'll now pivot to a related product which actually belongs to a much larger class of agents that are antigen specific T-cell therapies in a variety of different formats. And that is Abstract 9507, which is the “Phase 1 safety and efficacy of IMC-F106C, a PRAME × CD3 ImmTAC bispecific, in post-checkpoint cutaneous melanoma (CM).” Now, in this abstract, Dr. Omid Hamid and colleagues reported the results of this phase 1 trial. As a disclosure, I'm an investigator and the last author on this manuscript. Jason, it would be important for our audience, for us to maybe firstly, outline the PRAME as a target, and then the ImmTAC as a platform prior to discussing these results. So let's start with the target PRAME, which I think is a target that you know well. So why don't you start with the target and we'll talk a little bit about that and then the platform? Dr. Jason Luke: Yeah, so I think for the audience, being aware of PRAME, or the Preferentially Expressed Antigen in Melanoma, is going to be quite important moving into the future. So PRAME as a therapeutic target is a cancer testis antigen that's overexpressed in tumor tissues. And of course the name has melanoma in it, but it's not uniquely present in melanoma. So the expression patterns of PRAME as a target are very high in melanoma. So in cutaneous disease, this is upwards of almost 100%, somewhere between 95% and 100%, in metastatic melanoma tissues. And PRAME has several different roles on a molecular level, although I don't think for our purposes here, it's so much important to be aware of them, but rather that this is a very highly expressed target, which then can make it attractive for using T cell receptor-based therapies. And so in the case we're talking about here on the ImmTAC platform, that's a CD3 PRAME×CD3 bispecific approach. But of course there are other approaches that can also be taken, such as TCR T cells that directly go after PRAME itself. Dr. Diwakar Davar: Let's now talk about the platform and how it differs from some of the other antigen targeting platforms that you have just alluded to. I think the Immtac platform is basically a fusion protein comprising engineered TCRs with a CD3 specific short chain variable fragment. And then the engineered TCR therefore binds antigens in an HLA dependent fashion. But you know quite a lot about some of these alternative platforms, and I think it'll be important to contextualize for the audience the difference between ImmTAC, which is a prototype drug that is already approved in the context of tebentafusp. But how does this differ from some of the other more nuanced platforms, such as the Immatics TCR or TCR platform and TScan TCRT nanoplasmonic platform.  Dr. Jason Luke: Right. So the ImmTAC platform as alluded to is already approved on the market with tebentafusp, which is the gp100-CD3 bispecific molecule. And the advantage of that approach is infusion off the shelf of a drug. The downside of it is that it is a weekly dosing strategy as it stands now. And there are some complicated disease kinetics associated with treatment response, which we'll come back to in the context of the PRAME bispecific. Those are, in contrast with T-cell receptor-transduced T cells, as an alternative strategy, which is a form of adopted cell transfer. So we just got done talking about TIL therapy, which of course, is trying to take lymphocytes out of the tumor and grow them up and then give them back. Here with TCR-transduced T cells, we're talking about taking leukopak from the blood and then using different transfection approaches to try to insert into the lymphocytes of the patient a T cell receptor that recognizes to a certain cancer antigen, in this case, PRAME.  So you alluded to a couple of different companies that have different platforms to do this. Immatics has a molecule called IMA 203, for which there have been data disclosed in the past year, again showing some very interesting responses in patients who have highly refractory melanoma. That process, though, again, does require lymphodepletion before you reinfuse the cells. Again, in contrast, the ImmTAC, which is an off the shelf revenue administer, there you have to make the product and then bring the patient back, lymphodeplete, and give the cells back. Immatics platform uses a viral transfection vector. The T scan approach that you alluded to before uses an approach of a mixed system on multiple HLA backgrounds to try to get past HLA-A*02:01 only, and in this case, uses a plasmid-based transfection syndrome that perhaps can be more broadly utilized given the lack of a lentiviral vector.   So this is a complicated area of technology that starts to get into immune engineering, and I think for the purposes of this discussion, we don't want to belabor it. But both of these technologies, talking about the CD3 bispecific with the off the shelf aspect of it and the adoptive cell transfer, each of these using a T cell receptor-based therapy to try to go after PRAME, I think have very high upsides, and I think we'll initially see it in melanoma over the next year or so. But this is likely to be relevant to multiple tumor types beyond melanoma.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: So let's discuss the results of this phase 1 trial. IMC-F106C, like all other ImmTAC, is administered intravenously and does require step-up dosing. You alluded to the fact that the tebentafusp was approved, and it's one of those drugs that is fortunately otherwise administered weekly, which can be difficult for the patient and requires at least the patient spend the first 3 doses overnight under some kind of monitoring, whether it's in the hospital or extended outpatient monitoring, for at least 23 hours. The efficacy of this agent and this platform appears to be surprising in that you tend to see a relatively low RECIST response rate. We'll have you comment a little bit on why that is the case and what may be the role of ctDNA, as opposed to conventional RECIST in assessing response.   At least in this trial, they mandated pre-testing, but did not require it for study enrollment. And pre-positivity was defined using immunohistochemistry with a relatively low H-score of 1%. And the molecular response definition was a 0.5 log or a 68% ctDNA reduction just prior to the first imaging assessment. So how do you contextualize the results? But maybe before you talk a little bit about the results, the ctDNA aspect, that was a recent publication by Drs. Rich Carvajal, Alex Shoushtari, and I think you are also involved in that.  Dr. Jason Luke: So, I think an interesting observation around tebentafusp has been that ctDNA may be a better predictor of long-term outcomes. And how you define ctDNA response is still something that the field is grappling with, albeit that I think is going to be an important consideration as we think about these novel therapies, these ImmTACs and other CD3 engagers moving into the future. But for the purposes of the abstract here, we see that in the population of patients treated, there were 46 patients with cutaneous melanoma. The majority got monotherapy with IMC-F106C, and that's the PRAME bispecific. So 40 patients that got monotherapy and six who got a combination with checkpoint inhibitor. All these patients had prior treatment with immunotherapy, and most of them had PD-1 and CTLA-4 antibody with a small spanner that also had BRAF inhibitors.  In terms of that PRAME testing that you alluded to, based on the immunohistochemistry H-score greater than 1%, 35 out of 40 patients were positive, so they defined 5 as negative. And we could come back if we have time, but there are other ways to do PRAME testing as well that I think may become unique for different agents, maybe an important biomarker. In the data, 31 out of the 46 patients were RECIST evaluable. The outcomes of those patients were to note that the response rate was 13%, which was four partial responses. But 35% of patients had tumor regression with a disease control rate at 65%. It was clear that there was an enrichment by PRAME positivity for both progression free and overall survival. So those patients who had obvious positivity essentially had a doubling of the PFS and more than the doubling of the OS, 2.1 to 4.1 months for TFS and landmark OS, 40% to 94%. So I think these are quite intriguing data.  It does suggest that for the vast majority of patients, we do see some induction of the antitumor effect, albeit that RECIST might undercall the effect. And so this may become another area where the ctDNA monitoring might be able to help us to understand who is likely to have really long-term benefit from this therapy. And given the number of emerging treatments that we have for melanoma, we might be able to really focus in on that group of patients in terms of optimizing how we would use this drug moving into the future. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So you talked about a response rate, and at first glance, this response rate is a little underwhelming. We're talking about 4 out of 31 RECIST evaluable patients, 13%. So it's in the double digits, but barely. So how enthusiastic are you about the results? How does it contrast with at least the publicly known data from other brain targeting approaches, such as the IMA203 agent, understanding that while they may be all targeting somewhat the same target, they are actually extraordinarily different platforms. One's off the shelf, one's highly customized. How do you contextualize the results? How would it contrast with other cellular approaches?  Dr. Jason Luke: I think it's important, again, to emphasize the point you made, which is that they're very different kinds of treatments. So even though they both target PRAME, they're going to be differently useful, and they could be quite useful for different groups of patients. And so here we see that there is a subfraction of patients who are deriving long-term benefit. And we commonly have an argument in our field about, is overall response rate really a useful monitor that describes a patient-centric outcome? While, of course, patients like to know their tumors are shrinking, what they want the most is for the tumors not to get worse and for them not to pass away from cancer. So I think I'm enthusiastic about these results, but emphasizing the point that we need to better understand who is going to benefit the most from this CD3 bispecific PRAME approach and how we're going to be able to harness that into long term benefit for patients because there's no doubt that an off the shelf therapy has a high degree of value relative to adoptive cell transfer, which sort of requires a big wind up.   So when you say, what does it contrast with? Well, the data for IMA203 has shown more than a 50% response rate in patients with more than 5 lines of therapy for metastatic disease. That really looks quite exciting. And several of those patients are now out for quite an extended period, meaning 2 years or more given only a single dose of IMA203. But again, the caveat being, you have to make the cell product for the patient, and that takes time. You lymphodeplete the patient, not all patients can tolerate that in the refractory disease setting, and then they have to be able to tolerate the reinfusion of the cells. And so this drug, IMC-F106C, looks very promising. Moving into the earlier phase trial that we'll talk about, I think the TCR T cell program has a lot of upsides for patients, especially with refractory disease. And so I think these two different approaches are really on parallel tracks. They both target PRAME, but I don't think they necessarily need to be compared one to one, as if they're going to go head-to-head with each other. Dr. Diwakar Davar: So now we'll talk a little bit about the frontline setting, because on the basis of some of these results, Immunocore is now exploring IMC-F106C frontline melanoma. This trial is actually being presented as a trial in progress at this meeting by Georgina Long and colleagues. Some of us are co-authors in that abstract. And in this study, HLA-A*02:01 positive patients with advanced unresectable melanoma will be randomized one to one to the combination of IMC-F106C, which actually, I think after this meeting will be known as bre-ni in combination with nivolumab versus nivolumab regimens, which will either be nivo or nivo-rela, investigators choice and likely dependent on region. So what do you think of the challenge of this trial? We talked about some of the challenges of the TILVANCE trial earlier. But what is going to be the challenge of this trial and in this setting, particularly given the response rates that we've seen so far? Dr. Jason Luke: Yeah, so, similar to comments we had before, thinking about what the optimal control arm is for a study like this is difficult, and so that'll be important as we think about interpreting the results. One has to assume for the purpose of this conversation that it is a positive trial, and that adding the PRAME bispecific theory does lead to an improvement in progression free survival relative to those in checkpoint alone approaches. And I think the magnitude of that difference is going to be of some relevance. And then I think importantly, also figure out who needs this treatment and who's going to benefit long term are going to be really important considerations.  We alluded to how this drug requires an intensive dosing period at the get go, and so telling patients that they need to come in weekly or bi-weekly initially for some number of weeks before they switch to a longer-term intermittent regimen, that comes with real world considerations for patients, their families, their finances, etc. So the benefit has to be clearly obvious that makes it worthwhile doing that, again, because a default could be giving drugs that we've had for 10 years with the nivolumab and ipilimumab. So there's going to be a lot of cross-trial comparison that is going to necessarily have to take place here to think about what these results really mean in the context of other available therapies.  I think the study is reasonable to do. I think this is a very active agent. There's no doubt there's a subset of patients who seem to benefit a lot from it. And I would just emphasize the point that that's probably going to be the most important thing to really drill down on is under the assumption there's a positive trial, we need to know who those people are so we could optimize giving this kind of a treatment to them. Dr. Diwakar Davar: I guess one important point to underscore what Jason said about potential predictive biomarkers, I think as part of the presentation, Dr. Hamid and colleagues will be talking about a candidate predictive biomarker of this agent, which is potentially class specific and not necessarily agent specific of a T cell signature that potentially could define patients who are more likely to benefit from this agent.  So, Jason, as always, thank you for sharing your expertise and insights with the team today. We certainly look forward to catching up again for our wrap up episode after the annual meeting where we'll talk about some of the data that we could not talk about, particularly the late breaking abstracts and other key advances that will shape the future of, certainly the field of immunotherapy and melanoma, potentially the field of cancer immunotherapy at large. Dr. Jason Luke: Oh, thanks very much for the opportunity. Dr. Diwakar Davar: And thank you to our listeners today. You'll find the links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And finally, if you value the insights that you hear on this podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. So thank you, and we'll see you soon.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Follow today's speakers:   Dr. Diwakar Davar   @diwakardavar   Dr. Jason Luke   @jasonlukemd      Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:       Dr. Diwakar Davar:     Honoraria: Merck, Tesaro, Array BioPharma, Immunocore, Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences    Consulting or Advisory Role: Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences    Consulting or Advisory Role (Immediate family member): Shionogi    Research Funding: Merck, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CellSight Technologies, GSK, Merck, Arvus Biosciences, Arcus Biosciences    Research Funding (Inst.): Zucero Therapeutics    Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Application No.: 63/124,231 Title: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING CANCER Applicant: University of Pittsburgh–Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education Inventors: Diwakar Davar Filing Date: December 11, 2020 Country: United States MCC Reference: 10504-059PV1 Your Reference: 05545; and Application No.: 63/208,719 Enteric Microbiotype Signatures of Immune-related Adverse Events and Response in Relation to Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy       Dr. Jason Luke:    Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical, Pyxis, Alphamab Oncology, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch Oncology, Stipe, NeoTX    Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, Alphamab Oncology, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius, Tesaro, Xilio, Xencor, Alnylam, Crown Bioscience, Flame Biosciences, Genentech, Kadmon, KSQ Therapeutics, Immunocore, Inzen, Pfizer, Silicon Therapeutics, TRex Bio, Bright Peak, Onc.AI, STipe, Codiak Biosciences, Day One Therapeutics, Endeavor, Gilead Sciences, Hotspot Therapeutics, SERVIER, STINGthera, Synthekine    Research Funding (Inst.): Merck , Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma , EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring bank, Trishula, KAHR Medical, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena Oncology, Numab, Replimmune, Rubius Therapeutics, Synlogic, Takeda, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc., BioNTech AG, Scholar Rock, Next Cure    Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), and Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof)    Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio      

Drs. Neeraj Agarwal and Todd Morgan discuss CONTACT-02, KEYNOTE-564, CheckMate-67T, and other notable studies featured at the 2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, as well as additional key abstracts in prostate, kidney, and bladder cancers that will significantly influence clinical practice. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program and professor of medicine at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, and editor-in-chief of ASCO Daily News. Today, we'll be discussing practice-changing abstracts and other key advances in GU oncology featured at the 2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Todd Morgan, the chair of this year's ASCO GU. Dr. Morgan is a urologic surgeon, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, and a professor of urology at the University of Michigan. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and the disclosures of all guests on the podcast can be found at asco.org/DNpod. Todd, thank you for joining us today. Dr. Todd Morgan: Thanks so much, Neeraj. It's an honor to be here and I'm just thrilled to be able to do this with you. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you. So, the GU meeting showcased significant advancements across the spectrum of GU malignancies. Can you tell us about the hot topics that captured the headlines this year? What did you find exciting this year at the ASCO GU Symposium? Dr. Todd Morgan: The theme of this year's meeting was "20 Years of Advancing Science and Transforming Patient Care," and this reflected ASCO GU's incredible milestone in GU cancer research over the last 2 decades. We were thrilled to welcome over 5,200 attendees from over 70 countries, and, believe it or not, there were more than 875 abstract submissions, compared to more than 300 in the meeting's first year. Most of the participants were present in person and that was fantastic. It enabled great networking opportunities and opportunities for experts, trainees, and mentees to exchange knowledge and ideas. Without a doubt, ASCO GU remains the annual meeting in our field, and it's amazing to hear the breadth and depth of the state-of-the-art science that's presented at this meeting, and so much of it impacts patient care the second that you return home. Additionally, the meeting's focus on diversity and interactivity, networking, multidisciplinary collaboration, and evidence-based care were absolutely phenomenal from my standpoint. We had a lunch session for women's networking that was a huge success—the first time we've done that. The keynote lecture by Dr. Cheryl Lee that talked about ensuring adequate representation in clinical trials was a huge hit, and we had tremendous positive feedback from that lecture. There were also multiple featured sessions on different diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in localized, recurrent, and advanced GU cancers. And, Neeraj, my personal favorite during the symposium is always the Trainee and Early-Career Networking Luncheon on the first day and then the additional networking luncheons on the 2 following days. I had great conversations with a ton of trainees and junior faculty, and I feel so fortunate for the opportunity to get to know the future superstars in our field. So I'd like to kick it back to you for a second because the first day started with a focus on prostate cancer and some of the key clinical trials. A great example is Abstract 17, which was the second oral presentation delivered, and really congratulations to you, Neeraj, on sharing the exciting data from the CONTACT-02 trial which we were eagerly awaiting. And I'd love to get your thoughts on the data that you presented. Could you tell us more about that trial? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, Todd, I agree with you. It was such an exciting conference overall, and thank you for your leadership of this conference. So let's talk about the CONTACT-02 trial. It was a phase 3 randomized trial assessing the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab versus a second NHT in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after progression on one NHT. This patient population had to have extrapelvic soft tissue metastases, which could be liver metastases, lung metastases, or lymph nodal metastases, and about up to a quarter of patients had liver metastases. And overall, this was a high-risk patient population which was randomized to, as I said, cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus a second line NHT. And these patients had received a prior NHT, mostly in the mCRPC setting.  The co- or dual primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS). And a unique thing was that PFS was assessed only by RECIST 1.1 because, as per our discussions with regulatory authorities, the trial was focused on soft tissue metastases because of questions in the past that cabozantinib can affect bone lesions in an artifactual fashion, possibly concerns. That's why the PCWG 3 criteria were not used as the primary endpoint, but, of course, indeed used as another key endpoint, so we have information on both. Anyway, coming back to the endpoint 1:1 randomization. The randomization was stratified by presence or absence of liver metastases, prior docetaxel chemotherapy, and the setting in which NHT was given (mCSPC or CRPC). The PFS or primary endpoint was significantly improved with a 35% reduction in risk of progression or death with the cabozantinib-atezolizumab combination versus second NHT. And there was a trend for overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 0.79 favoring the cabozantinib-atezolizumab combination. Interestingly, all subgroups benefitted, regardless of age, region, site of metastases, but we decided to choose three clinical subgroups of interest such as patients with liver metastases, patients with prior docetaxel chemotherapy in the castration-sensitive setting, and bone metastases, and all these subgroups seemed to be benefitting with the strongest signal in the liver metastasis subgroup, with a 57% reduction in risk of progression or death, which I would argue we have never seen with any combination or any regimen in the metastatic prostate cancer setting yet, barring some targeted therapies in very selected patients. But overall, across the non-biomarker-selected patients, we have never seen this kind of signal. Toxicity — no discussion is complete without discussing toxicity, so I would like to highlight that. Safety signal — there were no new safety signals. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension in 7%, anemia in 6%, which were similar in both arms, and, of course, diarrhea and fatigue in 4% each. And if we look at the secondary endpoints, such as time to chemotherapy and time to symptomatic skeletal events, they tended to favor the cabozantinib-atezolizumab. To sum it up, cabozantinib-atezolizumab showed a significant PFS benefit, with a 35% reduction in risk of progression or death, with a trend for overall survival in this patient population with an unmet need. So thank you so much, Todd, for allowing me to summarize the results of this trial. Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, wow. That's so impressive, and not surprising that you could so fluidly go right through all that data. Amazing. We heard some discussion of the NHT control arm in this trial. Could you discuss that for a bit? Because it obviously has implications on the similar control arm of other ongoing trials in this setting. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Absolutely. Pretty much all trials, every trial which has recently been reported or started in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer have a similar second NHT arm. Whether there were multiple immunotherapy trials which we have just reported, or new trials which are starting or just started enrolling patients. And the reason for that is no randomized trial has ever shown superiority of docetaxel chemotherapy over a second NHT after failure of prior NHT in the mCRPC setting. That's number one. If you look at NHT as a control, it is accepted by health authorities globally with multiple recent trials which are just starting also having NHDR and it would not have been possible without the approval of global regulatory authorities across the world.  Then, if you look at the recently reported trial in the mCRPC setting with prior treatment with an NHT, there is an indication that chemotherapy may not be superior to NHT. For example, in the KEYNOTE-641 trial in patients with mCRPC with prior NHT, randomizing patients to enzalutamide plus pembrolizumab versus enzalutamide, the median PFS with enzalutamide was 9 months. This is very similar with docetaxel in patients randomized to docetaxel plus pembrolizumab versus docetaxel; the median PFS with docetaxel is 8 months or 8.3 months. And lastly, if you really want to have a comparison of chemotherapy with NHT which has been done after progression on NHT and docetaxel chemotherapy, so later line of mCRPC setting, that is the CARD trial, as you can imagine, cabazitaxel versus NHT, especially in patients with visceral metastasis, which was the point of discussion. For example, people may not feel comfortable randomizing patients to NHT compared to taxane. The hazard ratio for PFS supporting cabazitaxel was 0.79, so almost a 0.80 PFS hazard ratio, which we have never seen turning out to be a clinically significant benefit. So, if you combine all these data together, I think it was absolutely acceptable to us as investigators to have a second NHT as the control arm. And of course, when we are consenting the patient, we have to keep alternatives in mind, and we do talk about those alternatives with the patients. And if alternatives seem more applicable, we should not be talking to patients about those clinical trials or a given clinical trial in the clinic. I'm glad you brought this up, Todd, because this control NHT arm is not an issue with this trial, but all trials which should be presented in GU ASCO in the future meetings in the coming years. So, thank you. Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, thank you. It's such an important topic and controversy at some level, but it's a difficult problem to think about and obviously highly relevant to all the trials that we're looking at. Congrats again on that trial, that's tremendous. There was another important randomized phase 3 trial and it covers radiotherapy in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. Can you give us your insights on that one? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yeah, Todd, I think you are referring to LBA259, titled "Long-term Results of Dose Escalation of Radiation Therapy from 70 Gy to 80 Gy Combined with Long-term Androgen Deprivation Therapy in High-risk Prostate Cancer: The GETUG-AFU 18 Randomized Trial." As you mentioned, in this randomized phase 3 trial, Dr. Christophe Hennequin and colleagues randomized patients with high-risk prostate cancer, which means they had to have either clinical stage T3 or T4 disease, or PSA ≥20 nanograms per milliliter, or a Gleason score between 8 and 10. These patients were randomized to receive ADT for 3 years combined with either dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiotherapy. So, I'd like to highlight, this was in the context of IMRT in the dose of 80 Gy or a conventional dose of 70 Gy. Now, you can argue that more people are using more than 70 Gy nowadays, but across the world, the conventional dose is still considered 70 Gy. So, 80 Gy versus 70 Gy were tested. Patients also had to have negative lymph node status on CT scans and MRI. The primary endpoint was biochemical progression-free survival or clinical progression-free survival at 5 years following the ASTRO Phoenix definition. Secondary endpoints – and these are quite important secondary endpoints – include overall survival, acute and late toxicity, and quality of life. The best part is that this trial met its primary endpoint with a 44% reduction in risk of biochemical or clinical progression or death in the dose-escalation radiotherapy arm compared with the conventional radiotherapy arm. Interestingly, a significant 52% improvement in prostate cancer-specific survival and a 39% improvement in overall survival was observed in the dose-escalated arm. So, 80 Gy continued to be superior to 70 Gy IMRT across the primary and secondary endpoints. Now, the best part is, regarding the toxicity profile, there was no significant difference between the 2 arms, with 78% of patients in the higher dose arm and 76% of patients in the conventional arm experiencing grade 2 or more toxicities. Dr. Todd Morgan: Great summary and really important, great news for our patients. Of course, it's a slightly different setting as it's high-risk localized prostate cancer. I checked in with our radiation oncologists at the University of Michigan after that [presentation] because I couldn't remember exactly where we are in terms of dose on these patients. And they were like, “Yeah, we've been doing 80 to 90 Gy for several years,” so it's great having this data to support that. And I think, as you said, the field at many centers has already moved that way. And again, the key takeaway from this abstract would be that IMRT, in combination with long-term androgen deprivation therapy, is effective and safe and increases not only the biochemical or clinical PFS rate, but also the cancer-specific survival and overall survival, again, in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients. And it does not appear to increase long-term toxicity. So really important. It'd be great to switch gears and discuss kidney cancer, if that's okay, and talk about some key abstracts in that field. What do you think? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: There were so many exciting data in all cancers, which is amazing. So, Todd, could tell us about the LBA359, which I thought was one of the most impactful abstract presentations in the ASCO GU this year. It was titled, “Overall Survival Results from the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-564 Study of Adjuvant Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo for Treatment of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ccRCC)."   Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, this was a really big moment in our field, complete with a mid-presentation round of applause that was well deserved. And so this abstract was presented by Dr. Toni Choueiri from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and it included patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma at intermediate high or high risk of recurrence, meaning that they had positive nodal disease or negative nodal disease with PT 2 and grade 4, or sarcomatoid features, or stage PT 3 or 4. These patients underwent nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy less than 12 weeks before randomization and had not received prior systemic therapy for clear cell RCC. Patients were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab 200 milligrams or placebo IV every three weeks for at least 17 cycles, or until disease recurrence, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Disease-free survival by investigator assessment was the primary endpoint, and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. In this abstract, Dr. Choueiri and colleagues report results of the third prespecified interim analysis with a median follow-up of around 57 months in 496 patients receiving pembrolizumab and 498 patients receiving placebo. So, just as a reminder to the audience here, the first interim analysis reported at a median follow-up of 24 months and showed a significant reduction of 32% in the risk to recurrence or death in patients in the pembrolizumab arm. Then subsequently in November of 2021, the FDA approved pembrolizumab for the adjuvant treatment of patients with RCC who are at intermediate high or high risk of recurrence following nephrectomy or following nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions. At that time, though, overall survival data were still immature. So, at the third prespecified interim analysis with a median follow-up of around 57 months, pembrolizumab showed, for the first time in an adjuvant RCC setting, improved overall survival with a 38% reduction in the risk of death. The estimated OS rate at 48 months was 91.2% with pembrolizumab and 86% with placebo. Furthermore, the OS benefit was observed across key subgroups, including patients with non-metastatic disease, patients with metastatic but no evidence of disease, patients with PDL-1 combined positive score less than or greater than or equal to one, and patients with presence or absence of sarcomatoid features. In each of these subgroups, the forest plot looks really impressive. And the DFS benefit was similar to previously reported interim analyses with a hazard ratio of 0.72. Also, no new safety signals with pembrolizumab were observed so just tremendous data. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Todd, for such a great summary of these very important results. So the key message from this abstract, as you said, is that after a median follow-up of around 57 months, which is a long follow-up, adjuvant pembrolizumab demonstrates a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival versus placebo in patients with RCC at high risk of disease recurrence after surgery. And this is, by the way, the first phase 3 study to show improved overall survival with any adjuvant therapy in RCC. Basically, this means we should continue to use adjuvant pembrolizumab or at least bring it up in our discussion with our patients who are in a similar situation with high-risk RCC after surgery. So this is great news overall. Todd, there was another kidney cancer abstract, LBA360, which compared, interestingly, subcutaneous nivolumab with intravenous nivolumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Could you please give us your insight about this abstract?   Dr. Todd Morgan: Sure. Really interesting study. Really interesting data that were presented. So as you mentioned, CheckMate 67T was a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase three study led by Dr. Saby George and colleagues that evaluated pharmacokinetics and objective response rate non-inferiority of subcutaneous nivolumab versus IV nivolumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC. So patients with measurable disease that progressed during or after 1 to 2 prior systemic regimens and who did not receive a prior immuno-oncology treatment were randomized 1-1 to receive either subcutaneous nivolumab 1200 milligrams every 4 weeks or IV nivolumab 3 milligrams per kilogram every two weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, completion of two years of treatment, or death. The coprimary pharmacokinetics endpoints for non-inferiority testing were time-average serum concentration over the first 28 days and minimum serum concentration at steady state determined by a population pharmacokinetics analysis. A key secondary endpoint was objective response rate by independent review. So in 248 patients receiving subcutaneous nivolumab and 247 patients receiving IV nivolumab, non-inferiority for the coprimary pharmacokinetics and key-powered secondary objective response rate endpoints were met. The relative risk ratio for objective response rate was 1.33. The median PFS by independent review was 7.23 months in the subcutaneous group and 5.65 months in the IV group. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 6.5% of patients in each group, and study drug toxicity led to 3 deaths in the subcutaneous group and 1 death in the IV group. These results could support using subcutaneous nivolumab as a new option to improve healthcare efficiency, especially since the average injection time with subcutaneous nivolumab was less than 5 minutes. I think we all know what issues are going on in infusion beds across the country, including, I'm sure, your center and mine. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, absolutely. I think this is great news for our patients, Todd. Thank you. This shows that we are not only improving therapeutic options and diagnostic tools, but maybe we're also on the right track towards more practical administration routes, assisting in addressing the treatment burden and improving the efficiencies of healthcare systems. We love to have this option available for our patients, especially those who are pressed for time. So, Todd, would you like to move on to bladder cancer now?  Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, Neeraj, that'll be fantastic. I'm sure listeners would love to hear more about LBA530. Could you tell us more about this one, Neeraj? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Of course. I think this abstract is titled "Enfortumab Vedotin in Combination with Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy in Previously Untreated, Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: Subgroup Analysis Results from EV-302," which was a global phase three study and was presented by Dr. Michiel Van Der Heijden. As our audience may recall, the EV-302 trial was presented at the ESMO 2023 meeting by Dr Tom Powles and the results were very exciting where, for the first time, a combination outperformed traditional gemcitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy. In this trial, patients with previously untreated with metastatic advanced urothelial carcinoma were randomized 1-1 to receive a 3-week cycle of a combination of enfortumab vedotin, which, as we know, is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting nectin-4 expressed on the cancer cells and pembrolizumab, which is a PD-1 inhibitor, versus gemcitabine and cisplatin or carboplatin, which were, until recently, the standard of care in this setting, and continue to be so in many countries in the world. The combination of enfortumab and pembrolizumab reduced the risk of progression or death by 55% and reduced the risk of death by 53% in the overall population. So consistent decrease in the hazard ratios for PFS and OS, and consistent improvement in overall survival and PFS in that previously reported presentation in the ESMO 2023. Now, based on these results, this combination was recently approved by the FDA in December 2023 for patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. So now the abstract, which was presented at the ASCO GU 2024 meeting, reported the results of a prespecified subgroup analysis. Select secondary endpoints included objective responses, duration of response, and safety. In 442 patients receiving the combination of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab, and a similar number of patients receiving chemotherapy both PFS and OS were higher for the combination of EV and pembro among prespecified subgroups such as race, platinum eligibility, PDL-1 expression, metastatic site, involvement of the liver or kidney function. Interestingly, the combination of EV and pembro reduced the risk of death by 53% in patients with visceral metastasis and 54% in patients with node-only metastasis. The improvement in PFS seems to be consistent regardless of the site of metastasis. In patients with moderate to severe renal function, the risk of death was reduced by 50% in patients receiving combination therapy. This is one of the best findings of these results because we always face challenges in treating patients with suboptimal kidney function and we cannot use cisplatin. Overall, EV plus pembro continues to show superior efficacy compared to platinum-based regimens across subgroups across the subgroups across the site of metastasis regardless of kidney function and so on. Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, just amazing data. I love hearing you spell it out like that. So, thank you again for the opportunity for me to sit here with you and listen to you talk about these data. It's impressive that we have been able to expand our therapeutic arsenal for urothelial carcinoma with an immune-targeting regimen that can spare our patients potential side effects of chemotherapy. What would your final takeaway on this abstract be? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I agree with you, Todd. I would add that the OS benefit was consistently observed across these select prespecified subgroups, including those historically associated with poor prognosis. The results of this new analysis support the finding of primary results, which indicate that EV plus pembro is a potentially new standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed, locally advanced, or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Before we wrap up the bladder cancer session and the podcast, Todd, could you please give us insights about LBA531? Dr. Todd Morgan: Yeah, absolutely. I loved getting to hear this abstract presented. This one is titled “Ambassador,” known as the AMBASSADOR trial aligns A031501, a phase 3 randomized adjuvant study of pembrolizumab in muscle-invasive and locally advanced urothelial carcinoma versus observation, that was presented by Dr. Andrea Apolo. It's an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial that included patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, upper tract, or urethra. Eligible patients had pathologic tumor stage T2 or greater and/or positive pathologic nodal disease or positive margins at surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or patients with pathologic tumor stage T3 or greater and/or positive pathologic nodal disease or positive margins at surgery without prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and who were cisplatin ineligible or declined adjuvant cisplatin-based therapy. These patients were randomized one to one to either receive pembrolizumab 200 milligrams every 3 weeks for 1 year or observation. The dual primary endpoints were disease-free survival and overall survival. Secondary objectives included evaluation of DFS and OS in PDL-1 positive and negative patients and assessing safety. A total of 354 patients were enrolled to receive pembrolizumab and 348 to the observation arm, and 21% of the patients in the observation arm received a subsequent immune checkpoint inhibitor. At a median follow-up of 22.3 months for DFS, the median disease-free survival in the pembrolizumab arm was 29 months, while it was only 14 months in the observation arm with a hazard ratio of 0.69. At the interim analysis, OS data showed only a trend toward better outcomes in the pembrolizumab arm, which did not, however, reach statistical significance, with a median of 50.9 months in the pembrolizumab arm and 55.8 months in the observation arm with a hazard ratio of 0.98. These results could nevertheless have been impacted by the subsequent treatment of patients in the observation arm with an immune checkpoint inhibitor, especially after the FDA approval of nivolumab in 2021 for patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma, based on results of the CheckMate 274 trial. In terms of the safety profile, grade three or more adverse events occurred in 48.4% of patients in the pembrolizumab arm and 31.8% of patients in the observation arm. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: That's great, Todd. This is such a great summary of this trial, and this is exciting news for our patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. I'm hoping that pembrolizumab will be another option for our patients when we are discussing adjuvant immunotherapy in the clinic, moving forward very soon. With that, we have covered several abstracts addressing prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer, significantly influencing our medical practices, at least at the current moment or in the near future. Todd, thank you for sharing your insights today. These are undoubtedly exciting updates for all members of the GU oncology community, and we are grateful for your valuable contribution to the discussion. Many thanks. Dr. Todd Morgan: Thanks, for having me, Neeraj; this was really fun. I'm just really proud and excited to still be part of this field, to be part of the GU oncology field, and it continues to be exciting for all the folks who are coming up. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Indeed. And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today on the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you very much.   Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Find out more about today's speakers:   Dr. Neeraj Agarwal @neerajaiims   Dr. Todd Morgan @wandering_gu   Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on Twitter     ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn       Disclosures:    Dr. Neeraj Agarwal:    Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, and Gilead Sciences    Research Funding (Institution): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Crispr Therapeutics, Arvinas   Dr. Todd Morgan: Consulting or Advisory Role: Myriad Genetics, MDxHealth, TerumoBCT Research Funding (Institution): Prostate Cancer Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Department of Defence, GenomeDX Biosciences, Myriad Genetics, MDxHealth  

Drs. Neeraj Agarwal and Jeanny Aragon-Ching discuss several key abstracts to be presented at the 2024 ASCO GU Cancers Symposium, including sequencing versus upfront combination therapies for mCRPC in the BRCAAway study, updates on the CheckMate-9ER and CheckMate-214 trials in ccRCC, and a compelling real-world retrospective study in mUC of patients with FGFR2 and FGFR3 mutations. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello, everyone, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, your guest host of the podcast today. I am the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program and a professor of medicine at the University of Utah's Huntsman Cancer Institute, and editor-in-chief of ASCO Daily News. I am delighted to welcome Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching, a genitourinary oncologist and the clinical program director of Genitourinary Cancers at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute in Virginia. Today, we will be discussing key posters and oral abstracts that will be featured at the 2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancer Symposium, which is celebrating 20 years of evolution in GU oncology this year.  You will find our full disclosures in the transcript of this podcast, and disclosures of all guests on the podcast at asco.org/DNpod.  Jeanny, it's great to have you on the podcast today to highlight some key abstracts for our listeners ahead of the GU meeting. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you so much, Neeraj. It's an honor to be here. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Jeanny, as you know, this year we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the ASCO GU Cancers Symposium, and judging from this year's abstracts, it's clear that this meeting continues to play a major role in advancing GU cancer research. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Indeed, Neeraj. This year's abstracts reflect the important strides we have made in GU cancers. So, let's start with the prostate cancer abstracts. What is your takeaway from Abstract 19 on BRCAAway, which will be presented by Dr. Maha Hussein, and of which you are a co-author? As our listeners know, several PARP inhibitor combinations with second-generation androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, or ARPIs, have recently been approved as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, or metastatic CRPC, and the question of sequencing PARP inhibitors and ARPIs instead of combining them has emerged. From that perspective, the results of the BRCAAway trial are very important. Can you tell us a little bit more about this abstract, Neeraj?  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I totally agree with you, Jeanny. The BRCAAway study attempts to answer the crucial questions regarding sequencing versus upfront combination of therapies in the mCRPC setting. It is a phase 2 trial of abiraterone versus olaparib versus abiraterone with olaparib in patients with mCRPC harboring homologous recombination repair mutations. Enrolled patients had mCRPC disease and no prior exposure to PARP inhibitors or ARPIs or chemotherapy in the mCRPC setting and had BRCA1 or BRCA2 or ATM mutations. As previously mentioned, these patients were randomized to 3 arms: abiraterone monotherapy at 1000 milligrams once daily, or olaparib monotherapy at 300 milligrams twice daily, or the combination of abiraterone and olaparib. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival per RECIST 1.1 or Prostate Cancer Working Group 3-based criteria or clinical assessment or death, so, whichever occurred first was deemed to be progression.   Secondary endpoints included measurable disease response rates, PSA response rate, and toxicity. This was a relatively small trial with 21 patients in the combination arm, 19 patients in the abiraterone monotherapy arm, and 21 patients in the olaparib monotherapy arm. It should be noted that 26% of patients had received docetaxel chemotherapy in the hormone-sensitive setting, and only 3% of patients had any prior exposure to an ARPI, and these were darolutamide or enzalutamide or in the non-metastatic CRPC setting.  The results are very interesting. The median progression-free survival was 39 months in the combination arm, while it was 8.4 months in the abiraterone arm and 14 months in the olaparib arm. An important finding that I would like to highlight is that crossover was also allowed in the monotherapy arms. Of the 19 patients receiving abiraterone, 8 crossed over to receive olaparib, and of the 21 patients receiving olaparib, 8 crossed over to the abiraterone arm. The median PFS from randomization was 16 months in both groups of patients who received abiraterone followed by olaparib or those who received olaparib followed by abiraterone. This is striking when compared to 39 months in patients who started therapy with the combination therapy of abiraterone with olaparib. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you so much for that wonderful summary, Neeraj. So the key message from this abstract is that combining olaparib and abiraterone upfront seems to be associated with improvement in PFS compared to just sequencing those agents. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Exactly, Jeanny. I would like to add that these results are even more important given that in real-world practice, only half of the patients with mCRPC receive a second-line treatment. Based on these results, upfront intensification with a combination of an ARPI plus a PARP inhibitor in the first-line mCRPC setting seems to have superior efficacy compared to sequencing of these agents. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you so much. Now, moving on to a different setting in prostate cancer, there were a couple of abstracts assessing transperineal biopsy compared to the conventional transrectal biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer. So let's start with Abstract 261. Neeraj, can you tell us a little bit more about this abstract? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure, Jeanny. So, in Abstract 261 titled "Randomized Trial of Transperineal versus Transrectal Prostate Biopsy to Prevent Infection Complications," Dr. Jim Hugh and colleagues led a multicenter randomized trial comparing these 2 approaches, so, transperineal biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis with transrectal biopsy with targeted prophylaxis in patients with suspected prostate cancer. The primary outcome was post-biopsy infection. Among the 567 participants included in the intention-to-treat analysis, no infection was reported with the transperineal approach, while 4 were detected with the transrectal approach, with a p-value of 0.059. The rates of other complications, such as urinary retention and significant bleeding, were very low and similar in both groups. The investigators also found that detection of clinically significant cancer was similar between the 2 techniques and concluded that the transperineal approach is more likely to reduce the risk of infection without antibiotic prophylaxis. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: So the key takeaway from this abstract sounds like office-based transperineal biopsy is well-tolerated and does not compromise cancer detection, along with better antibiotic stewardship and health care cost benefits.  Moving on to Abstract 273, also comparing these two approaches, what would be your key takeaway message, Neeraj?  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: In this Abstract 273, titled "Difference in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Detection between Transrectal and Transperineal Approaches," Dr. Semko and colleagues found that the transperineal biopsy based on MRI fusion techniques was also characterized by a higher possibility of detecting high-risk prostate cancer and other risk factors as well, such as perineural and lymphovascular invasion or the presence of cribriform pattern, compared to the conventional transrectal method. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj. So we can see that the transperineal approach is gaining more importance and could be associated with more benefits compared to the conventional methods.   Let's now switch gears to kidney cancer, Neeraj. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure, Jeanny. Let's start by highlighting Abstract 361, which discusses patient-reported outcomes of the LITESPARK-005 study. So what can you tell us about this abstract, Jeanny?  Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj. So as a reminder to our listeners, based on the LITESPARK-005 trial, it was a Phase 3 trial looking at belzutifan, which is an inhibitor of hypoxia inducible factor 2 alpha or I'll just call HIF-2 alpha for short, was very recently approved by the FDA as a second-line treatment option for patients with advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma after prior progression on immune checkpoint and antiangiogenic therapies. The title of Abstract 361 is "Belzutifan versus Everolimus in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced RCC: Patient-Reported Outcomes in the Phase 3 LITESPARK-005 Study," and this will be presented by Dr. Tom Pells at the meeting. At a median follow-up of 25.7 months, the median duration of treatment with belzutifan was 7.6 months, while it was only 3.9 months with everolimus. At the time of data cutoff date for the second interim analysis, 22.6% of patients remained on belzutifan while only 5% remained on everolimus. In the quality of life questionnaires, the time of deterioration to various quality of life scores, as assessed by standardized scales, was significantly longer in patients randomized to the belzutifan arm compared to those in the everolimus arm. Also, patients in the everolimus arm had worse physical functioning scores. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, Jeanny. In addition to the improved outcomes associated with belzutifan, patient-reported outcomes indicate better disease-specific symptoms and better quality of life among patients treated with belzutifan compared to everolimus. This is great news for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.  Now, Jeanny, can you please tell us about the two abstracts that reported longer follow-up of CheckMate 9ER and CheckMate 214 trials in untreated patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yes, Neeraj. So you are referring to Abstracts 362 and 363. Let's start with Abstract 362. This abstract reports the results after a median follow-up of 55 months in the CheckMate 9ER trial, comparing the combination of nivolumab and cabozantinib to sunitinib in patients with advanced RCC without any prior treatment, so first-line therapy. The primary endpoint was PFS per RECIST 1.1 as assessed by an independent central review. So there were key secondary outcomes including overall survival (OS), objective response rates, and safety. Consistent with prior analysis at a median follow-up time of 18.1 and 44 months, the combination of nivolumab and cabozantinib at a median follow up of 55.6 months continues to show a significant reduction in the risk of progression or death by 42% and in the risk of death by 23% compared to sunitinib.  Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: And Jeanny, what can you tell us about the efficacy results of this combination by IMDC risk categories? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Similar to prior results in patients with intermediate to poor risk IMDC risk category, the combination treatment maintained significant efficacy and reduced the risk of progression or death by 44% and the risk of death by 27%. To put it simply, the update now shows a 15-month improvement in overall survival with the cabozantinib-nivolumab combination compared to sunitinib, which is amazing. Also, in patients with favorable IMDC risk group, which represented truly a small number of patients in the trial, there was a strong trend for improvement of outcomes as well. I would like to point out that no new safety concerns were identified. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So, it looks like the key message from this abstract is that with longer follow-up, the combination of nivolumab and cabozantinib maintains a meaningful long-term efficacy benefit over sunitinib, supporting its use for newly diagnosed patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.   Let's move on to Abstract 363, which compares nivolumab with ipilimumab to sunitinib in first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma. What would you like to tell us about this abstract, Jeanny? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yes, Neeraj. The title of this abstract is "Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib for the First-Line Treatment of Advanced RCC: Long-Term Follow-Up Data from the Phase 3 CheckMate 214 Trial." In this abstract, Dr. Tannir and colleagues report outcomes with the longest median follow-up in first-line advanced RCC setting for any clinical trial. So the median follow-up now is about 18 months. The primary endpoints were OS, PFS, and objective response rates, as assessed by an independent review according to RECIST 1.1 criteria in the intermediate to poor risk IMDC risk group, which is the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, while secondary outcomes included the same outcomes in the ITT population of patients. Although the progression-free survival was similar in both arms, the combination of nivolumab-ipilimumab reduced the risk of death by 28% compared to sunitinib in the ITT population of patients. When stratifying the results by IMDC risk groups, the combination arm of nivolumab-ipilimumab showed significant improvement in the intermediate to poor risk group, but there was no difference in the favorable risk group. But in the study, no new safety signals were identified. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny, for such a comprehensive description of the results of these two studies. I'd like to add that the median overall survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the ITT population in the CheckMate 214 trial has now reached 53 months, which would have been unimaginable just a decade ago. This is wonderful news for our patients. So the key takeaway from these two abstracts would be that immune checkpoint inhibitor-based combinations remain the backbone of first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma treatment.  Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Absolutely, Neeraj. This is wonderful news for all of our patients, especially for those who are being treated for first-line therapy.  Now, let's move on to the bladder cancer abstracts. We have two exciting abstracts from the UNITE database. What are your insights on Abstract 537, titled "Outcomes in Patients with Advanced Urethral Carcinoma Treated with Enfortumab Vedotin After Switch-Maintenance of Avelumab in the UNITE Study"? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: As our listeners know, enfortumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate that binds to a protein called Nectin 4 expressed on bladder cancer cells. In this abstract, Dr. Amanda Nizam and colleagues describe outcomes in 49 patients receiving third-line enfortumab vedotin after prior progression on platinum-based therapy and maintenance avelumab. At a median follow-up of 8.5 months, the median progression-free survival was 7 months and the median overall survival was 13.3 months with enfortumab vedotin in this treatment-refractory setting, the objective response rates were 54%. The message of this study is that enfortumab vedotin is an effective salvage therapy regimen for those patients who have already progressed on earlier lines of therapies, including platinum-based and immunotherapy regimens. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj, for that comprehensive review.  I want to focus on another patient population in the UNITE database, which is the use of fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) alterations. Can you tell us more about the sequencing now of erdafitinib and enfortumab vedotin in these patients with metastatic urothelial cancer, as discussed in Abstract 616? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure, Jeanny. As a reminder, erdafitinib is a fibroblast growth factor receptor kinase inhibitor approved for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma harboring FGFR2 or FGFR3 alterations after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy. However, the optimal sequencing of therapies in these patients is unclear, especially with enfortumab vedotin being approved in the salvage therapy setting and now in the frontline therapy setting.  So in this retrospective study, all patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma had FGFR2 or FGFR3 alterations. Dr. Cindy Jiang and colleagues report outcomes in 24 patients receiving enfortumab vedotin after erdafitinib, 15 patients receiving erdafitinib after enfortumab vedotin, and 55 patients receiving enfortumab vedotin only. This is a multicenter national study. Interestingly, patients receiving both agents had a longer overall survival in a multivariate analysis, regardless of the treatment sequencing, than patients receiving enfortumab vedotin alone or only with a hazard ratio of 0.52. The objective response rate of enfortumab vedotin in the enfortumab vedotin monotherapy arm was 49%. When these agents were sequenced, the objective response with enfortumab vedotin was 32% after erdafitinib and 67% when used before erdafitinib. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you so much, Neeraj. I think these are important real-world data results, but I would like to point out that larger and prospective studies are still needed to confirm these findings, especially regarding the outcome of erdafitinib after enfortumab vedotin, particularly when the latter is used in the first-line setting. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I totally agree, Jeanny. Now, let's discuss some abstracts related to disparities in the management of patients with genitourinary cancers.  Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Sure, actually, I would like to discuss 2 abstracts related to disparities in patients with prostate cancer. So the first one, Abstract 265, titled "Patient-Provider Rurality and Outcomes in Older Men with Prostate Cancer." In this study, Dr. Stabellini, Dr. Guha and the team used a SEER Medicare-linked database that included more than 75,000 patients with prostate cancer. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, with secondary outcomes included prostate cancer-specific mortality. The investigators showed that the all-cause mortality risk was 44% higher in patients with prostate cancer from rural areas who had a provider from a non-metropolitan area compared to those who were in a metropolitan area and had a provider also from a metropolitan area. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Those are very important data and highlight the healthcare disparities among the rural population with prostate cancer that still exist.  So what is your key takeaway from Abstract 267, titled "Rural-Urban Disparities in Prostate Cancer Survival," which is a population-based study? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Of course. This abstract discusses, actually, a very similar issue regarding access to healthcare among rural versus urban patients. In this study, Dr. Hu and Hashibe and colleagues and team at the Huntsman Cancer Institute assessed all-cause death and prostate cancer-related death risk in a retrospective study in which patients with prostate cancer based on rural versus urban residencies looked at 18,000 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2017. 15% lived in rural counties. Similar to the prior abstract we talked about, patients living in rural areas had about a 19% higher risk of all-cause mortality and a 21% higher risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality in comparison to patients living in urban areas. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: So Jeanny, we can say that both of these abstracts, led by different groups of investigators, highlight that patients with prostate cancer living in rural areas have inferior survival outcomes compared to those living in urban areas, and it is time to focus on the disparities experienced by the rural population with prostate cancer.  Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, absolutely Neeraj. I concur with your thoughts.  So, any final thoughts before we wrap up the podcast today? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Yes, before concluding, Jeanny, I want to express my gratitude for your participation and the valuable insights you have shared today. Your contributions are always appreciated, and I sincerely thank you for taking the time to join us today.   As we bring this podcast to a close, I would like to highlight the significant advances happening in the treatment of patients with genitourinary cancers during our upcoming 2024 ASCO GU meeting. Many studies featuring practice-impacting data will be presented by investigators from around the globe. I encourage our listeners to not only participate at this event to celebrate these achievements, but to also play a role in disseminating these cutting-edge findings to practitioners worldwide. By doing so, we can collectively maximize the benefit for patients around the world.  And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you very much.  Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guest speakers express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  Find out more about today's speakers:     Dr. Neeraj Agarwal  @neerajaiims  Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching    Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter     ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn       Disclosures:      Dr. Neeraj Agarwal:       Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, and Gilead Sciences    Research Funding (Institution): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Crispr Therapeutics, Arvinas     Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching:    Honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs Inc., Pfizer/EMD Serono  Consulting or Advisory Role: Algeta/Bayer, Dendreon, AstraZeneca, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi, EMD Serono, MedImmune, Bayer, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, Immunomedics, Amgen, AVEO, Pfizer/Myovant, Exelixis,   Speakers' Bureau: Astellas Pharma, Janssen-Ortho, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas/Seattle Genetics. 

In this special podcast, UROONCO BCa chief editor Dr. Benjamin Pradere (FR) talks with Prof. Thomas Powles (GB) about the positive results of the EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 trial that were announced at ESMO 2023. Prof. Powles shares details on the rationale and design of the EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 study: an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study evaluating enfortumab vedotin in combination with pembrolizumab (EV+P) versus chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated locally advanced metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC).The dual endpoints of this trial are overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumours) v 1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Prof. Powles: "The topline results from the EV-302/KEYNOTE-A39 trial are encouraging for patients with advanced-stage urothelial cancer, which is aggressive and associated with devastating outcomes."For more details on this study, you can read the abstract on the UROONCO Bladder Cancer educational platform.

You read it in every solid tumor paper - RECIST - criteria. This Pod discusses some of the details of the Response Evaluation in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria along with the pros and cons of its use - including a modification of the criteria for use with immunotherapy.

Drs Sapna P. Patel and Kim A. Margolin sift through the data from studies presented at recent conferences, including the KEYNOTE-942 and RP1 IGNYTE studies. Relevant disclosures can be found with the episode show notes on Medscape (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/989036). The topics and discussions are planned, produced, and reviewed independently of advertisers. This podcast is intended only for US healthcare professionals. Resources An Efficacy Study of Adjuvant Treatment With the Personalized Cancer Vaccine mRNA-4157 and Pembrolizumab in Participants With High-Risk Melanoma (KEYNOTE-942) https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03897881?term=Keynote-942&draw=2&rank=1 A Personalized Cancer Vaccine, mRNA-4157, Combined With Pembrolizumab Versus Pembrolizumab in Patients With Resected High-Risk Melanoma: Efficacy and Safety Results From the Randomized, Open-Label Phase 2 mRNA-4157-P201/Keynote-942 Trial https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/10828/presentation/10243 Distant Metastasis-Free Survival Results From the Randomized, Phase 2 mRNA-4157-P201/KEYNOTE-942 Trial https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2023.41.17_suppl.LBA9503 Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant or Adjuvant-Only Pembrolizumab in Advanced Melanoma https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36856617/ Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo as Adjuvant Therapy in Stage IIB or IIC Melanoma: Final Analysis of Distant Metastasis-Free Survival in the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 Study https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2023.41.17_suppl.LBA9505 Study of RP1 Monotherapy and RP1 in Combination With Nivolumab (IGNYTE) https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03767348?term=Study%20of%20RP1%20Monotherapy%20and%20RP1%20in%20Combination%20With%20Nivolumab%20(IGNYTE)&rank=1 Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC): An Intralesional Cancer Immunotherapy for Advanced Melanoma https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33803762/ Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled, Global Phase III Trial of Talimogene Laherparepvec Combined With Pembrolizumab for Advanced Melanoma https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35998300/ Phase I Study of Fianlimab, a Human Lymphocyte Activation Gene-3 (LAG-3) Monoclonal Antibody, in Combination With Cemiplimab in Advanced Melanoma https://oncologypro.esmo.org/meeting-resources/esmo-congress/phase-i-study-of-fianlimab-a-human-lymphocyte-activation-gene-3-lag-3-monoclonal-antibody-in-combination-with-cemiplimab-in-advanced-melanoma Significant Durable Response With Fianlimab (Anti-LAG-3) and Cemiplimab (Anti-PD-1) in Advanced Melanoma: Post Adjuvant PD-1 Analysis https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.9501?af=R Relatlimab and Nivolumab Versus Nivolumab in Untreated Advanced Melanoma https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34986285/ BRAF and MEK Inhibition in Melanoma https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25648338/ Anti-PD-1 and Anti-CTLA-4 Therapies in Cancer: Mechanisms of Action, Efficacy, and Limitations https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29644214/ Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) Consensus Definitions for Resistance to Combinations of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36918224/ RECIST 1.1 – Update and Clarification: From the RECIST Committee https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27189322/ Histopathological Features of Complete Pathological Response Predict Recurrence-Free Survival Following Neoadjuvant Targeted Therapy for Metastatic Melanoma https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32739408/

Drs Sapna Patel and Matteo Carlino dive into the data and consider the current and future roles of adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy. Relevant disclosures can be found with the episode show notes on Medscape (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/989030). The topics and discussions are planned, produced, and reviewed independently of advertisers. This podcast is intended only for US healthcare professionals. Resources Malignant Melanoma https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/280245-overview Neoadjuvant-adjuvant or Adjuvant-only Pembrolizumab in Advanced Melanoma https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2211437 Malignant Melanoma Staging https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2007147-overview Pembrolizumab (Rx) https://reference.medscape.com/drug/keytruda-pembrolizumab-999962 Nivolumab (Rx) https://reference.medscape.com/drug/opdivo-nivolumab-999989 Five-year Analysis of Adjuvant Dabrafenib Plus Trametinib in Stage III Melanoma https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2005493 Effectiveness of Adjuvant Pembrolizumab vs High-dose Interferon or Ipilimumab for Quality-of-life Outcomes in Patients With Resected Melanoma: A Secondary Analysis of the SWOG S1404 Randomized Clinical Trial https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36416836/ TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours, 8th Edition https://www.wiley.com/en-gb/TNM+Classification+of+Malignant+Tumours%2C+8th+Edition-p-9781119263579 RECIST 1.1-Update and Clarification: From the RECIST Committee https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27189322/ Neoadjuvant Ipilimumab Plus Nivolumab Versus Standard Adjuvant Nivolumab in Macroscopic Stage III Melanoma (NADINA) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04949113 Ipilimumab (Rx) https://reference.medscape.com/drug/yervoy-ipilimumab-999636 An Efficacy Study of Adjuvant Treatment With the Personalized Cancer Vaccine mRNA-4157 and Pembrolizumab in Participants With High-risk Melanoma (KEYNOTE-942) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03897881 Adjuvant BRAF-MEK Inhibitors Versus Anti PD-1 Therapy in Stage III Melanoma: A Propensity-matched Outcome Analysis https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36672358/ Combination Dabrafenib and Trametinib Versus Combination Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Patients With Advanced BRAF-mutant Melanoma: The DREAMseq Trial-ECOG-ACRIN EA6134 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36166727/

El Dr. Homero Fuentes de la Peña, oncólogo médico, presidente de ProOncavi A.C. en Baja California, México, nos habla sobre lo más destacado en el Congreso Anual ASCO 2023 del día 4, resaltando los siguientes estudios:   Cáncer de próstata  La priorización y secuenciación del tratamiento para el cáncer de próstata avanzado se ha convertido en un tema de gran importancia debido a la amplia gama de terapias y estrategias disponibles actualmente. En los siguientes temas se explora la forma de establecer prioridades y determinar el orden de administración de estas opciones terapéuticas, con un enfoque especial en las enfermedades hormonosensibles y la terapia basada en biomarcadores:   Cuando más es más: Intensificación del tratamiento para el cáncer de próstata hormonosensible. Cuando menos es más: Reduciendo la exposición a la terapia sistémica para el cáncer de próstata hormonosensible. Momento de la inhibición de PARP para el cáncer de próstata con defectos en la reparación por recombinación homóloga. Cáncer de mama   SONIA: Estudio fase III, aleatorizado, que evaluó a pacientes pre y posmenopáusicas con cáncer de mama avanzado RH+/HER2- que no habían recibido tratamiento previo, para recibir terapia con un inhibidor de aromatasa no esteroideo (IANE) + iCDK4/6 seguido de fulvestrant (F) al progresar o IANE seguido de F + iCDK4/6 al progresar. La elección entre los iCDK4/6 disponibles (abemaciclib, palbociclib, ribociclib) fueron un factor de estratificación y quedó a discreción del médico tratante. El objetivo primario fue el tiempo desde la aleatorización hasta la segunda progresión objetiva de la enfermedad o la muerte. Los objetivos secundarios incluyeron la supervivencia global (SG), la seguridad, la calidad de vida y la rentabilidad. TROPiCS-02: Estudio fase III, aleatorizado, que evaluó el uso de sacituzumab govitecán vs. el tratamiento a elección del médico (capecitabina, eribulina, vinorelbina o gemcitabina) en pacientes con cáncer de mama irresecable, localmente avanzado o metastásico, RH+/HER2-con un estado funcional ECOG de 0 o 1, que fracasaron al menos dos regímenes de quimioterapia anteriores. El objetivo primario fue la supervivencia libre de progresión de acuerdo con los criterios RECIST v1.1 mediante una revisión central independiente ciega y el objetivo secundario fue la SG. Eficacia de trastuzumab deruxtecán (T-DXd) en una paciente con cáncer de mama HER2+ con hipertensión intracraneal aguda por metástasis cerebrales: Efecto clínicamente significativo de T-DXd para tratar la invasión sintomática del sistema nervioso central en una mujer de 47 años diagnosticada con carcinoma ductal invasivo cT2 en junio de 2019.     Fecha de grabación: 05 de junio de 2023.                                         Todos los comentarios emitidos por los participantes son a título personal y no reflejan la opinión de ScienceLink u otros. Se deberá revisar las indicaciones aprobadas en el país para cada uno de los tratamientos y medicamentos comentados. Las opiniones vertidas en este programa son responsabilidad de los participantes o entrevistados, ScienceLink las ha incluido con fines educativos. Este material está dirigido a profesionales de la salud exclusivamente.

In this JCO Article Insights episode, Emily Zabor interviews Dr. Gulam Manji from Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Dr. Manji provides insight into his editorial published in the April 10, 2023 JCO issue: "Adjuvant Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel Misses the Target in Pancreas Adenocarcinoma: Or Did an Effective Therapy Fall to the Definition of Recurrence?” (10.1200/JCO.23.00039). His editorial focuses on the JCO Original Report, “Adjuvant nab-Paclitaxel + Gemcitabine in Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Results From a Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial” by Tempero, et al on the APACT Trial. TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare.  Emily Zabor: Welcome to this JCO Article Insights episode for the April issue of JCO. This is Emily Zabor, one of JCO's editorial fellows. And today I am interviewing Dr. Manji from Columbia University on their editorial titled “Adjuvant Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel Misses the Target in Pancreas Adenocarcinoma: Or Did an Effective Therapy Fall to the Definition of Recurrence?” Dr. Manji, welcome to our podcast. You wrote this editorial to accompany the article, “Adjuvant Nab-Paclitaxel plus Gemcitabine in Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Results from a Randomized Open-label Phase III Trial by Dr. Margaret Tempero and Colleagues.” That trial, called the APACT Trial, investigated the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine compared to gemcitabine alone in patients who had undergone resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. So I wanted to ask if you could start by giving listeners a quick overview of the study design and the main findings from that trial. Dr. Gulam Manji: Yeah, sure, Emily. So, as you pointed out, it was a randomized phase III study in patients who had resected pancreatic carcinoma. The primary endpoint was independently assessed disease-free survival. Additional endpoints included investigator-assessed disease-free survival, overall survival, and safety. And we'll get back later on as far as the importance of investigator-assessed versus independently-assessed disease with survival because I think that that's the main point of discussion for today. The enrollment criteria were fairly stringent and included patients with macroscopic complete resection, ECOG performance status of either 0 or 1, and the peripheral tumor markers of CA 19-9 being less than 100. And patients were required to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy within 12 weeks. Patients received standard gemcitabine at 1000 milligrams per meter square, either with or without nab-paclitaxel of 125 milligrams per meter square once weekly for three weeks during every four-week cycle. Emily Zabor: Great. So I think that the main thing that we wanted to talk about today, and one of the main points you discuss in your editorial is the difference between the primary endpoint of independently assessed disease-free survival and the secondary endpoint of investigator-assessed disease-free survival. So can you describe the difference between those endpoints, how they were defined, and how they differed? Dr. Gulam Manji: Sure. So, independently-assessed DFS was determined by a radiologist who was blinded to treatment assignment, and new lesions followed RECIST 1.1 criteria. In contrast, the investigator-assessed recurrence was determined by the treating physicians using all available clinical information. So that could be abdominal pain, anorexia, probably elevation of peripheral tumor markers. And the other important aspect to the study is that the independent review was not performed in real-time to confirm investigator assessments. So patients who started subsequent therapy after recurrence by treating investigators were censured for the independently-assessed DFS analysis. So in this trial, 866 patients were randomized. And patients who are randomized to the experimental arm had a median independently assessed DFS of 19.4 months, while patients randomized to the control arm, which was gemcitabine alone, had a median DFS of 18.8 months. Now, when we compare that to the investigator-assessed DFS, the data looks quite different. Where the DFS was 16.6 months in the experimental arm compared to 13.7 months in the control arm. That is consistent with the five-year follow-up looking at the median overall survival, which was 41.8 months for the combination arm compared to 37.7 months for the gemcitabine alone arm. Emily Zabor: Okay, so there's some really interesting differences there. And I noticed that there were only 439 events according to the independently-assessed DFS versus 571 according to the investigator-assessed DFS. So that's a big difference in the number of events that I guess is coming from that additional censoring that was occurring due to the delay in the independently assessed endpoint. Is that right? Dr. Gulam Manji: Exactly. So you could envision a scenario where patients received chemotherapy and then on the investigator-assessed DFS, the investigators decided that the patient had recurred. However, that patient probably did not meet the RECIST or radiological criteria to determine that that patient had recurred. And hence, since it was not done in real-time, there was censoring that occurred for the independently-assessed DFS. So that's the reason why there was a difference in that number as you pointed out.  The decision to use independent DFS, disease-free survival, really was to remove investigator-associated bias and increase rigor to the study, which is commendable. However, unfortunately, that's not how we normally treat patients with aggressive cancer who have undergone surgical reception. And knowing that imaging modality is limited in identifying those patients, particularly in those that have peritoneal disease, or even more importantly, the patients who have recurrence within the surgical bed, I think is the issue.  Emily Zabor: Right. So the motivation behind selecting that endpoint was really good and well-motivated. Everybody wants to reduce bias and make sure we're taking out those kind of more subjective parts of identifying that. But it, unfortunately, missed some events as a result. Dr. Gulam Manji: Correct. I think that it delayed those events and that's what compromised the analysis because it was the limitations of the available modalities to determine when recurrence occurs. Emily Zabor: So how do these different definitions compare to other trials or previous trials? Dr. Gulam Manji: So previous trials that I'm aware of, it was the investigator-assessed DFS that had been used. And when you look at the data that was used in this trial, that concurs with what has historically been seen. And what I mean by that is that the original assumptions regarding DFS when this trial was being designed, used historical outcomes. Investigators see that DFS with adjuvant gemcitabine ranged anywhere from between 13.4 to 14.3 months. And the study had aimed to achieve a DFS improvement from 13.5 to 18.5 months. When you look at the investigator-assessed DFS, the ballpark of gemcitabine is very much in line with the previous historical data. So I think that the key discrepancy between the two DFS endpoints was likely a delay in accurately assessing disease recurrence when using the blinded radiological modality alone. And the second thing is, as you pointed out, a greater proportion of patients who were censored for independent assessments compared with those for investigator assessments was different. So that was between 40% versus 34%. So those two points, I think, were the key points that show the difference between independent versus investigator-assessed DFS and also that the independent-assessed DFS was not done in real-time. Emily Zabor: Yeah, that's really interesting and such a good point. And I think it really emphasizes how important it is to think carefully about these endpoint definitions in the design stage of these clinical trials and especially to think about when and why patients are getting censored and how that might impact the results.  So how do these results of this trial then, given the negative result of the primary endpoint, but that positive result on the secondary investigator-assessed endpoint, how do these fit in with other trials? And what do you think that means for patient treatment recommendations? Dr. Gulam Manji: Excellent point. So just to be clear, the APACT study did fail to meet its primary endpoint and hence gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel were not indicated for patients in the adjuvant setting. The current standard of care are either modified FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine combination with capecitabine. And those two regimens really remain a standard of care for patients. So what I do is for fit patients, I prefer modified FOLFIRINOX. However, in patients who are not as fit, gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine is the alternative.  Now, one could envision a scenario where gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel may become relevant. It is, but only when I'm really pushed to do so, where I feel like there is no other regimen available optimally for a patient. And one could envision a scenario where you could have a patient who does not have the performance status to tolerate modified FOLFIRINOX and then you start that patient on gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine. However, I have experienced that that combination results in significant myelosuppression in patients in the United States. And then we have to do significant dose reductions or interruptions.  Now, in that case, where I feel like I'm reducing the dose of capecitabine to a point where the patient may not be potentially benefiting from that regimen, it's impossible to determine what dose would be efficacious when you're doing those dose reductions. That is the only scenario where I may be able to be pushed to consider gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel, but only after also discussing with the patient the results of the current data and there being limited efficacy. Emily Zabor: That makes sense. So the treatment you would select would really depend on some patient characteristics and then how they do on the different treatments. Dr. Gulam Manji: Correct. Emily Zabor: So what do you think are the next steps for research in this area and in this disease?   Dr. Gulam Manji: I think that this clinical trial really demonstrated our inability to accurately pinpoint the time of disease recurrence using imaging modalities alone. And for patients who treat pancreas cancer, they would know that the recurrence patterns usually are either to the liver or to the peritoneum, or to the lung. However, in about 25% of the cases, the recurrence may be at the surgical site, and that's when things become tricky. After patients have undergone surgery, their scar tissue and the pancreas tumor is very dense, so it's difficult to determine that there's actually tumor growth. So that's where you really need help from other modalities. So should we get a PET scan? Is the patient symptomatic? Is a tumor marker going up in the absence of biliary obstruction? So all of those things need to be taken into account to truly pinpoint whether the patient has recurred or not. In peritoneal disease, you may need to ask the surgeons to help and have the patient undergo a laparoscopy to truly determine whether there is a peritoneal disease. And lastly, I think that incorporating ctDNA to better define whether there is a minimal residual disease will likely be a standard in the future. Emily Zabor: I see. Yeah, that makes sense. Incorporating some ctDNA biomarker information along with these really detailed clinical and possibly imaging assessments to determine recurrence seems like it would be really important in future trials to make sure you're capturing all of those recurrences accurately. Dr. Gulam Manji: Yeah, I think that that's critical before you can say that an adjuvant treatment is truly helping the patient. Emily Zabor: That's great. Well, I really learned a lot reading this article and speaking to you today. But before we end, is there anything else you'd like to share with our listeners?  Dr. Gulam Manji: Yeah, so I think we know that for a majority of patients who undergo curative resection, unfortunately, the disease recurs. And I think that that implies that, really, pancreas cancer is a systemic disease at the time of diagnosis. And despite aggressive adjuvant therapy, the median DFS, OS, and five-year survival rate show that we are impacting only a subset of patients with six additional months of chemotherapy. So I think that identifying predictive markers of response to systemic therapy, better selection of patients for surgery, perhaps using total upfront neoadjuvant therapy, an institution of maintenance therapy, and patients who are at high risk for recurrence, perhaps using ctDNA as a marker to determine who those high-risk patients are, all leads to help better design and identify patients who should really be treated systemically and patients who should undergo surgery. And lastly, with some glimmers of success from personalized vaccines may be on the horizon. And I'm hoping in the near future to treat minimal residual disease so that we can get the best outcome with minimal toxicity for our patients. Emily Zabor: That's great. That sounds like an exciting development for a disease that seems really tricky. Dr. Gulam Manji: Agreed. Emily Zabor: Well, thank you so much. It has been a pleasure speaking with you, Dr. Manji, and thank you so much for joining me today on this episode of JCO Article Insights.  This concludes the episode on the article “Adjuvant Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel Misses the Target in Pancreas Adenocarcinoma: Or Did an Effective Therapy Fall to the Definition of Recurrence?” Thank you for listening and please tune in for the next issue of JCO Article Insights.  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. Show Notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review.  Guest Bio: Dr. Gulam Manji, MD, PhD is a medical oncologist at the Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York.  Articles: Editorial: Adjuvant Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel Misses the Target in Pancreas Adenocarcinoma: Or Did an Effective Therapy Fall to the Definition of Recurrence? Original Report: Adjuvant nab-Paclitaxel + Gemcitabine in Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Results From a Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial Find more articles from the April 10 issue.  

JCO PO author Dr. Mark Stewart, PhD, Vice President, Science Policy at Friends of Cancer Research, shares analysis on clinical trials and the association between CT-DNA and outcomes in lung cancer. Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Stewart discuss dataset metrics, identification of biomarkers, timepoints, and checkpoint inhibitors, development of new medicines, and novel technologies measuring CT-DNA. Click here to read the article!   TRANSCRIPT Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Welcome to ASCO's JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you highlights and overview of precision oncology. Episodes will feature engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant articles published in JCO Precision Oncology. These articles can be accessed at: ascopubs.org/journal/po. Hi, I'm Dr. Rafeh Naqash, Medical Oncologist, and Assistant Professor of Medicine at the OU Stephenson Cancer Center, and you're listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations podcast. Today, I am delighted to be talking with Dr. Mark Stewart, Vice President Science Policy at Friends of Cancer Research. We'll be talking about their group's recent paper in JCOPO, titled, 'Changes in Circulating Tumor DNA Reflect Clinical Benefit Across Multiple Studies of Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors'. At the time of this recording, my guest and I have no relevant disclosures. Welcome to the podcast, Mark. Dr. Mark Stewart: Thanks. Thanks so much for having me here. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I am excited to discuss this new publication that your group has come out with, and I see this is a significant effort involving both academia and industry, and also your organization. Could you tell us about what led to this work, and then we can go into finer details about what your findings were? Dr. Mark Stewart: Sure. I might start with just briefly describing our organization. We are a non-profit patient advocacy organization in Washington, DC. And our mission as an organization is really to help accelerate development and access to new medicines. And we do this by doing horizon scanning to see kind of what issues, or emerging technologies, are coming down the pipe that might have implications in oncology. And we bring together experts from universities, government, industry, patient advocacy, to help develop evidence-based policies that can pave the way for future discoveries, but also accelerate the pace of scientific progress. I think that's really embodied in the manuscript that we recently published, and that we'll be talking about today. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Awesome. And I have come across some of the other phenomenal work that your organization is doing, and this is definitely a step forward in developing more personalized therapies, and trying to identify relevant biomarkers so that we can treat patients and their cancers appropriately. Moving forward, could you tell us some of the main findings from this publication, and then we'll take a deeper dive in trying to understand the kind of data that you used and the kind of analysis that was done? But just as an overview for our listeners, could you briefly explain some of the major findings from this publication? Dr. Mark Stewart: Sure. Maybe in my last answer, I could have provided some rationale in terms of what led us to even initiate this project. So, I think if you look at trends in oncology drug development over the past decade, the use of precision medicines led to really incredible outcomes for patients. I think that's led to really transformative medicines. And with these therapies, if you look at the drug development paradigm, they've often used these expedited development programs at the agency, and that's largely driven by our improved understanding of the biology of the cancer, and the natural history of the disease, and the ability to use endpoints that can read out earlier, that provide us insights into whether a drug is working or not. And as we continue to improve the available treatments that patients have, we're seeing the shift where drugs are starting to be investigated in patients that have earlier disease. And because of that, the length of time it takes to understand whether a drug is working or not can often take much longer because of the follow-up time needed to read out endpoints like progression-free survival, or overall survival. And so, the ability to identify new novel biomarkers that can help us understand whether a drug is working or not sooner would certainly provide a lot of value to drug development, it could help expedite the development of new, innovative therapies for cancer patients. And I think like everyone else, when we first saw a lot of the emerging data coming out on the role of circulating tumor DNA and its potential role in clinical research and care, I think there was a lot of excitement around the potential. And when you look at all these exploratory studies, you see a lot of potential for using ctDNA changes to signal whether a drug is working. But a lot of these initial studies were conducted independently, using different methods, different technologies for measuring ctDNA, and this really left questions about the applicability of this from a more rigorous standpoint, and how this might be applied in a regulatory setting. And so, we brought together a diverse group of scientific leaders to really design a comprehensive plan that could leverage these prior studies, and then bring them together in an effective manner to where we can increase our power, strengthen our understanding of this association that we see between changes in ctDNA and outcomes. And so, this manuscript is really a first iteration of several data readouts we have planned over the next year. This first study included five different clinical trials of patients with lung cancer that were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. And I think one of the figures that I think is most interesting to see in this, is actually our FIG 1., where it's a swimmer plot, where it really shows the differences across all these different trials, and it also exemplifies some of the challenges that we had to overcome when we brought all these datasets together, but yet still arrive at some meaningful data to address our core question of whether changes in ctDNA can predict treatment outcomes. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: So, definitely an exciting endeavor that you guys have brought forward this aspect of ctDNA. So, in my other life I'm involved in a lot of early-phase clinical trials, and my patients often ask me, "How is it that you're going to assess our response? How long will we be on treatment?" And currently, as most of our listeners know, the standards are primarily using CT scans, or other imaging modalities to assess for responses, and with the innovation that's being made in the field of circulating tumor DNA, it's definitely transforming the world and innovations on the precision oncology side. For example, in GI cancers, there's been significant development, there are clinical trials in this setting. In the lung cancer setting, there are clinical trials trying to assess ctDNA-related changes, and treatment changes associated with those alterations, or decrease, or increase, in the ctDNA. So, based on what you describe here from the understanding that I have reading through this interesting paper, you used, as you mentioned, previously-conducted clinical trials. Could you tell us a little more about what kind of clinical trials were these, and for non-small cell lung cancer, and what kind of therapies patients were treated with in these clinical trials, and how did you determine which clinical trials you would use for this project? Dr. Mark Stewart: Sure. When we first launched this project, we basically put a call out to various drug developers, academic investigators, to see what types of data were even available. And at that time, maybe not a surprise to many, there was a lot of ongoing clinical trials that were measuring ctDNA in patients with lung cancer. And because of that, we found a number of clinical trials that kind of fit a general criteria that we felt could be brought together as part of this initial analysis. We tried to keep the criteria broad, we didn't want to be overly exclusive. So, we didn't limit the studies to having to have used a specific assay, for instance, and we thought that that was an important component here because we wanted to understand whether this phenomenon of changes in ctDNA being associated with outcomes isn't necessarily due to a specific technology. And I think the strength of this becoming a potential endpoint is that it is something that can be reproducible and repeated regardless of the kind of technology that was used. The clinical trials, it's also important that they had multiple timepoint collections while the patient was on treatment because there's still questions remaining around what's the right time to collect ctDNA, and which timepoints are most correlative to long term outcomes. And we thought those were important things to begin to investigate in our study. And so, it was really the availability of data that naturally led us to first starting in lung cancer. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Sure. Thank you for that explanation, Mark. And to the best of my understanding, when I read through some of the details in the manuscript, there's a mention that these were five clinical trials. Patients had been treated with either immunotherapy alone, or immunotherapy with chemotherapy, both being the standards of care, depending on some of the other biomarkers and disease burden. But from a ctDNA perspective, it seems that you were trying to include mostly patients that had at least two assessments done at baseline, no earlier than 14 days, and at least one within the first 70 days of treatment initiation. Is that a fair understanding from what has been described in the manuscript? Dr. Mark Stewart: Yes. And we didn't limit as well to a specific immune checkpoint inhibitor. Again, for us, our goal was to cast a broad net and try and include as many clinical trials as we could in this first analysis. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Right. And I guess, based on the data that you have used in this project, there's obviously heterogeneity with the trials, with the treatment, with probably different lines of therapies that the patients had been treated with, so, that is probably why you were trying to explore different metrics of this ctDNA change. And there's a couple of metrics, it seems, that you and your team have assessed here; one of the metrics that seemed to stand out was this metric where you used three different categories of patients that, depending on the change in the ctDNA, whether they had a decrease, an intermediate category, and a category that had an increase. So, Mark, based on the findings on the paper, it seems that you're using different ctDNA-based metrics to assess changes in responses and survival. Based on the methodology, what was the most appropriate, or the strongest one that you were able to identify that was associated with differences in survival, and responses as you've sort of explained in the manuscript? Could you describe that briefly for us? Dr. Mark Stewart: When initiating the study, there were a lot of unknowns in terms of how we would be able to bring together these different datasets, particularly knowing that they use different ctDNA assays that potentially included targeted panels, and whole genome sequencing, and also had different kind of readouts and metrics that were used. And so, early on we explored various metrics. And the one that rose to the top was a variant allele frequency, which is simply the number of mutant alleles divided by the total number of mutant and wall-type alleles. And there's different ways you can report that out -- it could be a mean, it could be a median, or a maximum. While we didn't necessarily see large differences between those, we did observe that consistently, maximum VAF correlated with overall survival and was one that we continued to use as a primary analysis in our manuscript. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: So, Mark, based on some of the analysis you've done here, was a landmark timepoint used to compare survival for the patients because there could be a difference in the number of timepoints of ctDNA assessment for different patients, which would, in turn, mean that some patients could have been treated longer versus some other patients? So, did you try to limit that heterogeneity by performing a landmark analysis on this cohort? Dr. Mark Stewart: Yes. That was one of the approaches we had to take, given the heterogeneity across the different studies that we included in this analysis. In FIG 2., again, you can see across the five different studies how there are different numbers of ctDNA timepoint collections, but also that they were collected at different timepoints. And so, to try and create a more equal playing field and informative analysis here, we did use a landmark of 70 days here and used ctDNA timepoints that were around that landmark when we were looking at the association between changes at that particular time to overall survival, or progression-free survival. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: So, Mark, based on what you've shown here as far as overall survival is concerned, could you tell us about how the specific ctDNA metric that you used was able to compartmentalize patient survival on checkpoint inhibitors? Dr. Mark Stewart: Sure. As I'd mentioned previously, in this analysis, we used a three-level variable to differentiate response to treatment using ctDNA. This three-level ctDNA metric represented patients that had a decrease in ctDNA from baseline, an intermediate change, or an increase. And so, for each of these three ctDNA metrics, we were able to bucket patients into these three categories based on the percent change and varying allele frequency. And so, those that had the 50% decrease in ctDNA were bucketed in the 'decrease' category, and those that had a 50% change in the positive direction were bucketed in the 'increase', and then all the patients that remained were placed into the 'intermediate' category. And as you can see from the Kaplan-Meier Curves, I think a quite robust differentiation between those three groups. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Right. And another interesting finding on one of the forest plots that you've shown is that patients who smoked had a better survival or better outcome with therapies. And I remember a couple of years back reading an interesting paper in Science, if I remember correctly, from a group at Sloan Kettering, showing the increased neoantigens and mutational burden related to smoking, that probably predicts better responses. Is there any other interesting aspect to this from a ctDNA standpoint that your group was able to identify, or is looking at, at least in this comparison of smokers versus never-smokers? Dr. Mark Stewart: Yeah. Actually, when we took into account all the different clinical variables that were included in these datasets, we actually saw an association between patients that were smokers or had smoked at one point, and the ctDNA levels that were present. Despite that smoking may impact the levels of ctDNA present, I think, the fact though, that we are trying to determine whether a treatment is working, or not, based on a change, or a delta, between a baseline and a subsequent timepoint, it shouldn't really matter necessarily what your baseline is, so long as you're still able to observe a decrease or an increase. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: From, I guess a futuristic perspective since this project primarily involved pooling of data from five different clinical trials, is there a plan to validate some of this in an independent cohort of patients in the next year to two years? Dr. Mark Stewart: Yes. As I mentioned, the CT Monitor project that we've developed into multiple different modules, and the modules have been broken up basically in terms of when data is available in different clinical trials. And so, we've continued to work with different drug sponsors and academic investigators to put together data use agreements, and I'm excited to say that we have three different modules that we plan to read out over the course of this next year. We have a module that includes patients with lung cancer that are treated with a TKI - Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor. We have a second module that is an additional analysis in patients with lung cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. I think a key thing to highlight there is that the studies that we'll include in this next round are all randomized clinical trials, and so, we'll be able to look at the ability to differentiate between two treatments using ctDNA, and understanding its kind of predictive nature as a potential endpoint. And then the third module is really kind of a catch-all that includes multiple different cancer types, and where patients have been treated with either a Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor or an immune checkpoint inhibitor. And across all of those studies, we have about 22 different clinical trials that'll be included in those analyses that represent over 3000 patients. And so, I do think we'll be able to validate the findings that we've been able to show in this latest publication, and also address some additional questions. Many of these studies are newer, so I think people have learned from some of the earlier clinical trials that included ctDNA. So, in these latest studies you see many more collection timepoints. You also see earlier collection timepoints even before the first RECIST measurement. So, I think we'll be able to understand, again, get greater granularity on, what are the optimal timepoints for collecting ctDNA; how early can ctDNA predict clinical outcomes; and finally, just to add to that body of evidence that can hopefully help provide confidence to the community that this is an objective and meaningful measure, and that could hopefully be used in a regulatory standpoint as a potential early endpoint that could serve as a basis for a drug approval. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Those are all awesome, phenomenal things that need to be accomplished, definitely, and your organization is leading these efforts in a one-of-a-kind public-private partnership. And I completely agree with you that this could be a very important biomarker metric for patients who are treated with novel therapies, including checkpoint therapies, Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors, or even potentially, on clinical trials. From a practical application standpoint, Mark, has your organization also made any efforts in terms of trying to see how we can try to get both FDA and insurance approval for patients who are treated on standard of care therapies but would benefit from having serial, you know, every four to six months ctDNAs done? Because I try to do that sometimes in my practice and do face occasional challenges from insurance companies where they're not willing to pay for repeated ctDNA assessment. And I try to space it out when I'm not getting CT scans, you know, alternate it with CT scans. But is there any kind of an effort in that direction where from a regulatory standpoint, in the next one to two years, we can make progress so that clinicians are able to order ctDNA on patients, whether they're treated on checkpoint therapies or other targeted therapies? Dr. Mark Stewart: That's a critical issue that you raise, and certainly a potential barrier that can prevent patients from benefiting from this novel technology. To date, our efforts have been mostly focused in kind of the use of ctDNA in the research space, but I think that they're not mutually exclusive. I think one important way to ultimately get coverage for these tests is to have that evidence base that really shows the utility that it is providing benefit to patients. I look at this as kind of a first step to getting there, and I think once you have this evidence, and also you have the right evidence that we know payers want to see, that hopefully, it can help address those potential concerns. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I could not agree with you more. And your work, definitely, is a step forward in the right direction, and I think will lead to a lot of exciting subsequent things, as you mentioned. I congratulate you and your group again, on this exciting project, and I appreciate that you chose JCO Precision Oncology as the final destination for this phenomenal work. Dr. Mark Stewart: Thank you for having me. And certainly I just want to extend gratitude to my fellow authors. I think we have around 34 authors on this manuscript, and I think it just, demonstrates the recognition that this truly does require collaboration across different stakeholders, and look forward to next steps. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much, Mark. Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. You can find all our shows, including this one, at: asco.org/podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. To stay up-to-date, be sure to follow and share JCOPO content on Twitter with the handle: @JCOPO_ASCO. All JCOPO articles and series can be found at: ascopubs.org/journal/po.   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.   Guest Bio Mark D. Stewart, PhD, is Vice President, Science Policy at Friends of Cancer Research in Washington, DC, an advocacy organization that drives collaboration among partners from every healthcare sector to power advances in science, policy, and regulation that speed life-saving treatments to patients.  

El Dr. Jerónimo Rodríguez Cid, oncólogo médico adscrito al Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias en la Ciudad de México, México, junto con la Dra. Florencia Cuadros, oncóloga clínica del Hospital Eva Perón en Rosario, Argentina, nos comentan algunos de los estudios más destacados sobre el tratamiento del melanoma presentados durante el Congreso Anual de ESMO 2022 en París, Francia. Enfermedad temprana SWOG S1801: Estudio fase II, que aleatorizó 1:1 a 313 pacientes con melanomas cutáneos, acrales y mucosos en estadio IIIB-IV (confirmados histológicamente, medibles, clínicamente detectables y resecables) sin metástasis cerebrales, para recibir pembrolizumab como terapia adyuvante (cirugía seguida de 18 dosis del anti-PD-1) o neoadyuvante (3 dosis preoperatorias seguida de cirugía y luego 15 dosis del anti-PD-1). Se permitió la radioterapia después de la cirugía. El objetivo primario fue la supervivencia libre de eventos. IMMUNED: Resultados informados de supervivencia global (SG) del estudio fase II, multicéntrico, aleatorizado 1:1:1, doble ciego, que evalúa el tratamiento de nivolumab adyuvante solo o en combinación con ipilimumab vs. placebo en pacientes ≥18 años con melanoma primario desconocido o cutáneo en estadio IV sin evidencia de enfermedad (los pacientes fueron estratificados por sitio del estudio, sitio de metástasis y estado de PD-L1). El objetivo primario fue supervivencia libre de recaídas en la población con intensión de tratar, el tiempo hasta la progresión, la SG y, como objetivo secundario, la seguridad. Enfermedad avanzada SECOMBIT: Resultados actualizados de SG y una evaluación preliminar de biomarcadores del estudio secuencial, fase II, que aleatorizó a 251 pacientes con melanoma metastásico BRAF V600 no tratado, a tres brazos paralelos: encorafenib + binimetinib como terapia dirigida (brazo A), ipilimumab + nivolumab como inmunoterapia (brazo B) y la estrategia de "sándwich" con la terapia dirigida primero, cambiando a la inmunoterapia después de 8 semanas y volviendo a la terapia dirigida después de la progresión (brazo C). La SG fue el objetivo primario y los secundarios incluyeron la supervivencia libre de progresión total, la tasa de supervivencia a 4 años y una evaluación preliminar de biomarcadores. PIVOT IO 001: Datos de eficacia y seguridad del estudio fase III, aleatorizado 1:1 y abierto que evaluó bempegaldesleukina + nivolumab vs. nivolumab en 783 pacientes con melanoma no tratado previamente, no resecable o metastásico. Los objetivos primarios fueron la tasa de respuesta objetiva, la supervivencia libre de progresión (SLP), ambos por revisión central independiente ciega según RECIST v1.1, y la SG. Abstract LBA40: Estudio fase II, abierto, que aleatorizó a pacientes con melanoma irresecable/metastásico, con mutación BRAF V600 o NRAS, previamente tratado, a recibir múltiples combinaciones del fármaco naporafenib (LXH254). Se exploró la combinación con LTT462 (inhibidor de ERK1/2), con trametinib (inhibidor de MEK1/2) o con ribociclib (inhibidor de CDK4/6). El objetivo primario fue evaluar la eficacia de las combinaciones de naporafenib en función de las tasas de respuesta globales y los objetivos secundarios fueron la seguridad y la tolerabilidad. Abstract LBA3: Estudio fase III, aleatorizado 1:1, multicéntrico y abierto, que evaluó el tratamiento con infiltrado de linfocitos tumorales (TIL, por sus siglas en inglés) vs. ipilimumab, en 168 pacientes con melanoma irresecable en estadio IIIC-IV (86% eran refractarios al tratamiento anti-PD-1). El objetivo primario fue la SLP según RECIST 1.1 y los objetivos secundarios fueron la tasa de respuesta general y completa, la SG y la seguridad. Fecha de grabación: 22 de

La Dra. Vanessa García Montes, oncóloga médica adscrita al Hospital Español, en la Ciudad de México, México, nos habla sobre los estudios de alto impacto presentados durante el Congreso Anual de ESMO 2022 en París, Francia. Cáncer de mama TROPiCS-02: Estudio global, multicéntrico, abierto, fase III, aleatorizado 1:1 que evaluó sacituzumab govitecan vs. quimioterapia (eribulina, capecitabina, gemcitabina o vinorelbina) en 543 pacientes con cáncer de mama metastásico RH+/HER2- tratadas previamente con terapia endocrina, inhibidores de CDK4/6 y de dos a cuatro líneas de quimioterapia para enfermedad metastásica. El objetivo primario fue la supervivencia libre de progresión según los criterios de evaluación de la respuesta en tumores sólidos (RECIST 1.1). Los objetivos secundarios incluyeron la supervivencia global, la tasa de respuesta objetiva, la tasa de beneficio clínico y la duración de la respuesta, así como la tolerabilidad, seguridad y la calidad de vida. Tumores gastrointestinales NICHE-2: Estudio que evaluó la terapia neoadyuvante con nivolumab + ipilimumab en 112 pacientes con cáncer de colon, con deficiencia en la reparación de errores de emparejamiento, no metastásico. Los pacientes, después de recibir la neoadyuvancia, se sometieron a cirugía ≤6 semanas después del registro. Los objetivos coprimarios del estudio fueron la seguridad y la supervivencia libre en enfermedad a 3 años; mientras que los objetivos secundarios incluyeron las tasas de respuesta patológica mayor y respuesta completa. Melanoma SWOG S1801: Estudio fase II, que aleatorizó 1:1 a 313 pacientes con melanomas cutáneos, acrales y mucosos en estadio IIIB-IV (confirmados histológicamente, medibles, clínicamente detectables y resecables) sin metástasis cerebrales, para recibir pembrolizumab como terapia adyuvante (cirugía seguida de 18 dosis del anti-PD-1) o neoadyuvante (3 dosis preoperatorias seguida de cirugía y luego 15 dosis del anti-PD-1). Se permitió la radioterapia después de la cirugía. El objetivo primario fue la supervivencia libre de eventos. Tumores genitourinarios COSMIC-313: Estudio fase III, global, doble ciego, que aleatorizó a pacientes con carcinoma de células renales avanzado no tratados previamente a recibir cabozantinib o placebo (ambos grupos recibieron nivolumab + ipilimumab durante 4 ciclos seguidos de nivolumab). El objetivo primario fue la supervivencia libre de progresión mediante una revisión radiológica según RECIST 1.1. Los objetivos secundarios fueron la supervivencia global en todos los pacientes aleatorizados, la tasa de respuesta objetiva y la seguridad. Fecha de grabación: 12 de septiembre de 2022. Todos los comentarios emitidos por los participantes son a título personal y no reflejan la opinión de ScienceLink u otros. Se deberá revisar las indicaciones aprobadas en el país para cada uno de los tratamientos y medicamentos comentados. Las opiniones vertidas en este programa son responsabilidad de los participantes o entrevistados, ScienceLink las ha incluido con fines educativos. Este material está dirigido a profesionales de la salud exclusivamente.

An interview with Dr. Pauline Funchain from Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, OH, author on "Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update." Dr. Funchain reviews recent evidence and updated recommendations from the ASCO Expert Panel for the use of tebentafusp in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. For more information, visit www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.   TRANSCRIPT Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast series brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the world of cancer care. You can find all the shows, including this one at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey and today I am interviewing Dr. Pauline Funchain from Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, author on Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline Rapid Recommendation Update. Thank you for being here, Dr. Funchain. Dr. Pauline Funchain: It's great to be here with you, Brittany. Thank you! Brittany Harvey: First, 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 full conflict of interest information for this guideline panel is available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Funchain, do you have any relevant disclosures that are directly related to this guideline topic? Dr. Pauline Funchain: I do not have relevant disclosures that relate to this guideline topic. Brittany Harvey: Great, thank you. Then getting into the rapid update, what prompted this rapid update to the Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline published in 2020? Dr. Pauline: So, earlier this year, on January 25th, the FDA approved tebentafusp for metastatic uveal melanoma. So, this is the first FDA approval for metastatic uveal melanoma. We felt it was really important to put out a rapid update to let both clinicians know about the therapy and also so that more patients can get access to it as quickly as possible. Brittany Harvey: Understood. So, then based on this new FDA approval, what are the updated recommendations for patients with uveal melanoma? Dr. Pauline Funchain: So, any patients who have a previously untreated metastatic uveal melanoma, and also who are HLA-A*02:01 positive, this group of patients should be offered tebentafusp as systemic therapy. This is the only systemic therapy that has been shown to prolong overall survival in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. And if you look at the kind of benefit that was seen, patients who were on tebentafusp had a median overall survival of 21.7 months versus 16 months in comparison to investigator's choice. In this case, that was either single agent pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, or dacarbazine. So, it is a pretty significant overall survival benefit. Brittany Harvey: Great! Thank you for reviewing those updated recommendations and the data behind them. So, what should clinicians know as they implement this updated recommendation? Dr. Pauline Funchain: So, they should know that there was a great overall survival benefit seen, but it doesn't correlate with the objective response rate that was seen in the trial. So, for patients who were treated with tebentafusp, the objective response rate was 9%. And for those patients who were treated with the investigator's choice, again, that was single agent pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, or dacarbazine, the response rate was 5%. So, that margin was not very different in terms of objective response rate when looking at RECIST-based criteria, so radiologic criteria for response, but the survival was clearly seen. And interestingly, even in those patients that had radiologic progression, there was an improved survival for those patients who were on tebentafusp versus investigator's choice. So, there is some kind of survival benefit that may not correlate with what is seen on imaging. So, clinicians should know that they may not see a dramatic response in terms of tumor size on imaging, but patients may still benefit from the therapy. Brittany Harvey: Understood. So, then you've just talked a little bit about responses in patients. So, how does this guideline update affect patients with melanoma? Dr. Pauline Funchain: So, despite a difference in response rate, long story short, there is an overall survival difference. So, really, this is the first overall survival difference that we have seen in metastatic uveal melanoma. It is really exciting. It is finally an approved drug for metastatic uveal melanoma, which did not have any approved or standard of care, systemic drugs. So, this is a really big win for a rare disease. I think, in terms of the general melanoma field and also the cancer field in general, this is really an exciting first-in-class drug on two different fronts. It is the first approved T-cell receptor therapy. It is also the first bispecific protein and it works differently than other immunotherapies we have seen. So, hopefully, this is something we see more of in other cancers. Brittany Harvey: Definitely, it's good to see that these patients finally have an option and we'll look forward to research in other cancers as well. So, then finally, Dr. Funchain, what are the outstanding questions regarding systemic therapy for melanoma? Dr. Pauline Funchain: Well, there are multiple questions that are outstanding. I think, for metastatic uveal melanoma, I think there are a lot of questions about the dissociation between the radiologic response and survival. I think there are questions about knowing when to stop tebentafusp if it's not working because we don't really have a good sense of what we should be using to know if this is not the right therapy for that patient. I think we would love to know what the biomarkers of response are, and we may need different ways of looking for how to judge if a patient is benefiting from tebentafusp and other systemic therapies. And I think that there's still a big question in uveal melanoma about whether we start with systemic therapy or local therapy. I don't think that's been answered. Now, in terms of the entire guideline, I think for melanoma in general, there are new data that are emerging and have been recently published and we will be looking forward to the next ASCO guideline in systemic therapy for melanoma because I think that there are a lot of emerging data that need to be addressed. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. We'll look forward to that new research in uveal melanoma and to reviewing the updated data with the guideline panel for the next edition of the systemic therapy for melanoma guideline. So, I want to thank you so much for your work to rapidly updating this guideline, and thank you for your time today, Dr. Funchain. Dr. Pauline Funchain: Thank you for having me. It is really meaningful to us to be able to offer education and get the word out about therapies that can help our patients. Brittany Harvey: Agreed. And thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines Podcast series. To read the full rapid recommendation update, go to www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines app available on iTunes 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.

El Dr. Homero Fuentes de la Peña, oncólogo médico, presidente en ProOncavi A.C. en Baja California, México, nos habla sobre lo más destacado en el Congreso Anual de la Sociedad Europea de Oncología Médica sobre cáncer de mama 2022, resaltando los siguientes estudios: RH+ Optimización del tratamiento adyuvante en pacientes con cáncer de mama temprano RH+/HER2- para comprender, mediante la expresión génica, qué pacientes se benefician más del uso de la quimioterapia después de la cirugía. HER2+ DESTINY-Breast03: Estudio fase III, multicéntrico, abierto, activo, que aleatorizó a pacientes con cáncer de mama irresecable y/o metastásico cuya enfermedad progresó durante o después de recibir trastuzumab y un taxano, para recibir trastuzumab deruxtecan vs. ado-trastuzumab emtansina. El objetivo primario fue la supervivencia libre de progresión basada en una revisión central independiente y los objetivos secundarios incluyeron la supervivencia global, la tasa de respuesta objetiva, la duración de la respuesta, supervivencia libre de progresión basada en la evaluación del investigador y la seguridad. Triple negativo ASCENT: Actualización del estudio fase III, internacional, multicéntrico, abierto, que aleatorizó a pacientes con cáncer de mama triple negativo no resecable o metastásico para recibir sacituzumab govitecan vs. el tratamiento elegido por el investigador (capecitabina, eribulina, vinorelbina o gemcitabina). Los pacientes con enfermedad HER2+ conocida no eran elegibles para la inscripción. El objetivo primario fue la supervivencia libre de progresión según RECIST 1.1 por revisión central. SASCIA: Estudio fase III, que evalúa sacituzumab govitecan vs. capecitabina o quimioterapia basada en platino en pacientes con cáncer de mama primario HER2- con alto riesgo de recaída después del tratamiento neoadyuvante. El objetivo fue la evaluación de los eventos adversos grado 1-4, grado 3-4 y el cumplimiento (reducciones de dosis, retrasos, interrupción) entre brazos. Análisis que evaluó la rentabilidad de pembrolizumab en combinación con quimioterapia como tratamiento neoadyuvante y como agente único como tratamiento adyuvante después de la cirugía en comparación con la quimioterapia neoadyuvante para pacientes con cáncer de mama triple negativo en etapa temprana de alto riesgo. Los datos de eficacia y seguridad se derivaron del ensayo clínico aleatorizado KEYNOTE-522. Fecha de grabación: 19 de mayo de 2022. Todos los comentarios emitidos por los participantes son a título personal y no reflejan la opinión de ScienceLink u otros. Se deberá revisar las indicaciones aprobadas en el país para cada uno de los tratamientos y medicamentos comentados. Las opiniones vertidas en este programa son responsabilidad de los participantes o entrevistados, ScienceLink las ha incluido con fines educativos. Este material está dirigido a profesionales de la salud exclusivamente.

Dr. Diwakar Davar and Dr. Jason Luke, both of the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center, share the latest news on immunotherapy trials KEYNOTE-A10, LIBRETTO-001, and other key IO studies across tumor types featured at the 2022 ASCO Annual Meeting.  Transcript Dr. Diwakar Davar: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am Dr. Diwakar Davar, and I'm an assistant professor of Medical Oncology in phase 1 therapeutics, at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center, and the guest host of today's podcast. I'm delighted to welcome Dr. Jason Luke to this podcast. He's the director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutic Center at the Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh, and a great colleague and friend.  Today we'll be discussing some key posters that highlight some advances in immunotherapy that will be featured and the 2022 ASCO Annual Meeting. You will find our collective disclosures in the show notes and the disclosures of all guests on the podcast are available on our transcripts at asco.org/podcasts.  So, Jason, thank you for coming on the podcast today.  Dr. Jason Luke: Well, thanks very much for the invitation. I always love doing these podcasts for ASCO, and never love anything more than hanging out with my friend Diwakar Davar.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: Well, thank you! Below are the abstracts we've selected. We will start with Abstract 2504. This is a phase 1 trial of the TIM-3 inhibitor cobolimab monotherapy, singly and in combination with the PD-1 inhibitors nivolumab or dostarlimab. Phase 1 data from the AMBER trial with the presenting author being Dr. Gerald Falchook. And this is a trial that initially started several years ago. And I know Jason, that you were involved with the inception of this agent, that TIM-3 inhibitor. So, walk us through, TIM-3. It's a third-generation checkpoint, we now have TIGIT LAG coming into the landscape. Definitely a first indication for LAG-3 melanoma with a positive trial, RELATIVITY 047. So, where are we with TIM-3? Why should we be excited about TIM in general, and this data in particular?  Dr. Jason Luke: It is quite exciting, especially building off the recent data that we saw for relatlimab or LAG-3 because it's becoming clearer that a number of these other immune checkpoints that we have been talking about for many years, actually really can be effective when used in the right setting.  So, this drug, this anti-TIM-3 antibody cobolimab monotherapy, as you mentioned, started out in a phase 1 clinical trial dating all the way back to I think about 2015. And that was at the time in immuno-oncology when everybody was so excited, [and] they thought everything was going to work immediately.  Subsequent to that, obviously, we've had some hurdles that we've had to come over. But we're coming back to some of these agents now, which are looking very exciting. So, just in the same way we think about blocking PD-1 or now blocking LAG-3 to reinvigorate T cells in the tumor microenvironment, there's a good chance and a high probability based on preclinical data that blocking TIM-3 could be just as effective as blocking LAG-3, so to say.  Now, one thing that I note in this abstract is really the safety finding and early PK analysis. And so, this is the important work we do early on to understand the drug. It's important to be aware that in a study like this, it's very hard to seek efficacy signals.  So, when you see this poster, really, you probably shouldn't be thinking, ‘Oh, this is a frontline phase 3 trial,' but rather that the efficacy is going to be a secondary consideration. Rather, what's quite important is looking at the properties of the drug and looking at the safety signals around that. And what we can see here is that TIM-3 appears to be quite safe when blocking it in conjunction with anti-PD-1 across several different tumor types. And that really sets the stage then to think about moving this into earlier lines of therapy across many different cancers.  And so, here we see advanced solid tumors but focused on lung cancer and melanoma and kind of the usual tumors we think about, and people can keep their eyes open because there are other posters of this molecule with PD-1 in some of the other sections outside of developmental therapeutics.  Now, one thing I would like to get your opinion on because your group has focused a lot on TIM-3, as I described it as this T cell centric mechanism to reinvigorate exhausted T cells. But it's possible that TIM-3 does other things as well. And I don't know if you want to comment on that or give any other feedback that you've had when thinking about this AMBER Trial.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: That was an excellent summary, Jason, of really what is a truncated 8-year track record of developing this agent all the way from 2015. But you bring up a very interesting point, which is: exactly what does this drug does in the non-T-cell compartment?  Some very interesting data from Brian Ruffell in a paper that was published about 3 years ago now suggested that TIM-3 was actually potentially a myeloid checkpoint, meaning that, in a tumor model in which Dr. Ruffell was studying this in the context of breast cancer, the drug primarily appeared to work on the effect of antigen-presenting cells and augment the presentation of antigen to T cells suggesting that it may be, in addition to being a chronicle T cell exhaustion marker, it may also be reinvigorating antigen-presenting cells. And the question of whether or not the role of TIM-3 on APCs as well as the role of TIM-3 on T cells, and which of these compartments are more important, and how these compartments segregate in any given cancer across many different lines of therapy will hopefully be something that we disengage, and understand a little bit better as we look at biomarkers of this drug across different settings.  And especially to that point, Jason, the biomarker question, you'll notice that very interestingly, that was a signal in which that drug had a certain response rate. Again, as you correctly point out, we cannot read too much into response rates in very small patient numbers. But very interestingly, there was a slightly higher response rate at the 300 milligrams, which is not the top dose level of the drug, and a slightly lower response rate at the ceiling dose of the drug that was tested, 900 milligrams, leading the investigators to conclude that the RP2D, was actually 300 milligrams every 3 weeks and not 900 milligrams.  What are your thoughts on dose in the context of immunotherapy (IO) drug development? And why might it be that 300 is the optimal dose as opposed to 900?  Dr. Jason Luke: That's a complicated question. I mean, when we think about checkpoint blockade, we classically think about it as only blocking on T cells. But to your point, if there are multiple mechanisms in play, sort of modulating other cell compartments actually may start to do different things at different doses that maybe weren't our primary intent as we went into the trial.  That's a little bit of hand waving, immunologic hand waving, but I think the data are the data and once we hit an effective dose level, there's really no need to really push the dose that much further. But that really emphasizes the importance of these kinds of early phase clinical trials.  So, I'm really looking forward to seeing this data. For disclosure, obviously, we have both been investigators on this trial. But we're very excited about the idea that there may be hope for a fourth checkpoint to come forward in the field beyond just PD-1 CTLA-4, and LAG-3, maybe now here with TIM-3.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, with that we'll go to the next abstract and that is Abstract 2516, “Phase I trial of adjuvant autogene cevumeran, an individualized mRNA neoantigen vaccine, for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.”  So, this is an mRNA vaccine from our good friend, BioNTech. And that's been essentially evaluated in the context of highly lethal cancer, pancreatic ductal cancer, and specifically in the context of adjuvant vaccines, specifically in the setting of patients who had followed definitive pancreatic cancer surgery.  So, Jason, you know a lot of neoantigen vaccines, you've led some of these trials, really, the neoantigen vaccine is really the primary reason we are actually having an in-person meeting this year, because if not for this company and others like this, really this pandemic would not be behind us.  What are your thoughts on the role of neoantigen vaccines in cancer therapeutics, and also, particularly this particular trial in the data, the immunological data, and the clinical data regarding the development of neoantigen-specific T cells in this setting, and what this means for you?  Dr. Jason Luke: Right. So, the idea of targeting neoantigens as cancer immunotherapy was really all the rage a few years back, and it was thought based on preclinical animal models that this was just going to be the secret sauce, and this would be the new targeted therapy for immunotherapy. And it isn't to say that that's not true, but the first generation of neoantigen, peptide-based vaccines for the most part, unfortunately, just kind of didn't end up moving the needle the way we had hoped.  The question then was raised: is that because targeting neoantigens isn't reasonable, or is that because the setting where we were trying to do it in the refractory disease area was not the optimal way to leverage this?  And so, a couple of different companies and trials now are coming forward looking at targeting neoantigen in a minimal residual disease setting where the idea could be that immunologic responses that you could generate wouldn't be hampered by all the immunosuppression associated with the tumor microenvironment.  And so, here we have this molecule, which you eloquently pronounced, ‘autogene cevumeran.' It's an RNA-lipoplex neoantigen vaccine. So, it's not a peptide. It's more like the COVID-19 vaccines actually. And it's being given after surgery, followed by anti-PD-L1 followed by chemotherapy.  So, it's a complicated regimen, but it's very intriguing these early data, which do show that the patients who got the vaccine seemed to have better and longer-term outcomes. But then as you emphasize, really, I think probably what's at the heart of this that really makes it exciting is their ability to immune monitor the patients, meaning to look for antigen-specific immune cells from the peripheral blood in these patients to be able to identify those immune responses as being specific to cancer. Because this kind of a clinical trial, it's still signal seeking and proof of concept kind of trial.  In order to actually establish that a vaccine approach in a post-surgical setting would have efficacy, we need to do a large randomized trial. And so, this is not that yet. But I think these data really point in the direction that that could be a reasonable thing to try. And when you think about pancreatic cancer, where we've made no success with immunotherapy, really in a meaningful way in terms of checkpoint blockade, at least, that's pretty exciting actually to think about.  I would actually marry this dataset with another that we actually saw at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) meeting that also looked at neoantigen targeting and antigen-specific responses in colorectal cancer, again, and in a similar setting with the minimal residual disease setting.  And so, I think this highlights that we may need to start thinking about using immunotherapy in different ways than we had before. Obviously, everybody knows about using PD-1 blockade in lots of different cancer types that are really for metastatic disease, or maybe even for adjuvant now in melanoma a little bit. But maybe there's this space, which is the minimal residual disease setting where you might be able to detect by ctDNA after surgery, the patients are still positive. And maybe you could treat that before there's visible cancer, and maybe certain immunotherapies could be more valuable in that setting than others. And that's where I think maybe some of these mRNA technologies really might find their sweet spot.  So, coming back to this abstract, I think really, the emphasis point here is the novelty of generating patient-specific neoantigen vaccines, and then being able to track linearly over time the immune response against those vaccines.  I think with that kind of technology and being able to leverage that, I think we're really headed towards a real shift in the way we think about managing cancer in a post-surgical setting, again, thinking about MRD, or minimal residual disease, maybe in a way that our leukemia colleagues have been thinking it about for a long time.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: That's an excellent summary of a very, very complicated, both setting, and in this case, a therapeutic landscape. So, well said, well summarized, and we'll now pivot to Abstract 2514. So, this is ‘Efficacy and safety of NT-I7, long-acting interleukin-7, plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors: Results from the phase 2a study' [and] the presenting author is Dr. Aung Naing from [The University of Texas] MD Anderson [Cancer Center].  So, Jason, you know, with checkpoints, we've got so many thoughts about checkpoints, particularly given the rather unfortunate failure of BEMPEG in the context of melanoma.  So, we've got lots of interesting cytokines that we think of as important in the context of immuno-oncology 2, certainly 12, 15. You've been very involved with IO-15. We've got a lot of clinical trials studying IL-12. And now we've got one studying IL-7. So, tell us what do you think of this IL-7 targeting approach in the context of cytokine-based therapeutics?  Dr. Jason Luke: I think it's really important to emphasize on first principles, for those that are listening, who don't think about immunology all the time that not all cytokines are the same thing.  So, interleukin 2 that many people have heard of is very different actually than interferon. And that's very different from many of the other cytokines, the ILs, and everything, right?  So, IL-7 is a very potent cytokine that's associated with the expansion of immune responses, and that can drive interferon gamma-dependent effects. And you should hear whenever I say interferon-gamma is sort of a link through to PD-1 responsiveness. Because we think the mechanism that underpins anti-PD-1 effectiveness in patients really is interferon gamma biology.  So, IL-7 has been a molecule, it's been of a lot of interest but really was too toxic to try to deliver. But now we have novel drug delivery sorts of approaches that are being developed to try to bring the drug in, in a way that doesn't cause such systemic toxicity.  So, in this clinical trial, this NT-I7 molecule is given intramuscularly, every 6 weeks in conjunction with pembrolizumab, and very interestingly, in a small number of patients, but there were resist responses observed across a series of tumors that you really wouldn't expect should be responsive in any way to pembrolizumab alone. And so, we're talking about microsatellite stable colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and some others as well.  And in conjunction with that, they were able to identify some of the biomarker effects we would think we would see with IL-7, such as expansion of peripheral immune compartments. And the toxicity profile was really consistent with what we've seen with fevers and chills, but manageable in a way that previous approaches really weren't.  So, I think this is really exciting because I think the idea here then is with this IL-7 approach, we might expand the kinds of cancers that we could go after, in conjunction with anti-PD-1 again, pancreas, colorectal cancer. I think that's really where the unmet need lies in oncology.  So, I really applaud these kinds of approaches and several of these cytokine approaches, and what we're going to talk about them, I think, have the potential to do that over the next couple of years.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: Excellent! Pivoting now to a different cytokine, but one that was alluded to before IL-12. So, Abstract 2518 is ‘Phase II evaluation of the combination of PDS0101, M9241, and bintrafusp alfa in patients with HPV 16+ malignancies,' and the presenting author here is Dr. Julius Strauss of the NCI Cancer Center and the Clinical Center of the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health.  So, what do you think, Jason, about the role of the HPV targeting vaccine, in this case, that was added to IL-12 immune-cytokine and bintrafusp alpha contextualizing the recent data that we have of bintra along with what is a very interesting result here?  Dr. Jason Luke: Yes, I think building on the last abstract where we talked about IL-7 as some novel biology now we move to IL-12, which again introduces other biology. So, interleukin-12 is a complicated cytokine, but one that's strongly associated with initial immune responses or immune priming, as well as enhancement of anti-tumor effects in the tumor microenvironment.  So, here we have sort of a 3-legged approach. So, the vaccination approach against HPV really can generate a strong immune response initially, and that can be supported with the IL-12. And then you come in with anti-PD-L1 and to whatever extent the TGF data is relevant here. And so, you have this cocktail where you're generating tumor-specific responses with a vaccine, you're supporting them with IL-12, and then blocking PD-L1.  And as we go back even a couple of abstracts we talked about, now we sort of have a cocktail right of approaches. And so, I think this is very exciting. It's unique in that, in these tumors, obviously, HPV is the driving force of cancer. So, developing a vaccine against that is fairly straightforward. But I really like this concept of bringing forward sort of a multi-dimensional immunotherapy approach. And we'll note they have previously presented data on this trial, I think last year at ASCO, actually. But what they see are pretty strong response rates, almost 30% range in PD-1 refractory tumors.  Again, that's our area of really high unmet need. It's hard to read through how useful a PD-1 naive treated patient here, although the response rates were high. But to me, it's really those patients who had progressed on PD-1 where they're getting these responses that tells me that this really could be something that's useful and potentially could be expanded beyond just say head neck cancer to any HPV relevant malignancy.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: Excellent! Now on to our last abstract. Abstract 2520, ‘Effect of intratumoral INT230-6 on tumor necrosis and promotion of a systemic immune response: Results from a multicenter phase 1/2 study of solid tumors with and without pembrolizumab (PEM) [Intensity IT-01; Merck KEYNOTE-A10].' The first author is Dr. Jacob Thomas.  Jason, we've seen a lot of interesting intratumoral therapies. You and I have both done a lot of studies in looking at intratumoral agents from toll-like receptor agonists, TLR-9, TLR 7-8, and more recently, oncolytic viruses.  So, contextualizing IT230-6 in the spectrum of intratumoral therapies, how do you feel about this drug, which is actually a very interesting novel drug. It's not just a TLR agonist, or for that matter, an OV, very interestingly, it's an intratumoral therapy that has actually got chemotherapy in it. So, how do you feel about this drug? How do you feel about the responses that we've seen? And particularly how do you feel about the setting in neoadjuvant breast cancer?  Dr. Jason Luke: Yeah. I would pick up where you said that this drug INT230-6 is just a really interesting concoction. So, it's cisplatin mixed with vinblastine, in a specific amphiphilic molecule that allows it to diffuse in through the cancer.  And so, if you had said that to me a few years ago, I would have looked at you and been like, ‘What are you talking about?' But I think the data that's been emerging for this is just really interesting because something about this chemotherapy cocktail actually drives immune responses. And really what the focus of this abstract is on is showing that you get an influx of CD foreign CDTa cells into the tumor microenvironment that's associated with a therapeutic benefit.  I think that's just really, really interesting to think about. It sort of makes one wonder when we're doing these intratumoral injections, how much of it is just the injection, and how much of it is the therapeutic agent, but I think it's a really novel therapy, and one that appears to be very well tolerated as well. And that's also the exciting part. When you hear cisplatin and vinblastine, you think, ‘Oh, well, that's not going to work.'  But apparently, it stays right in the tumor and generates these immune effects. I think it's very exciting. I think their approach here—going after what we usually call cold tumors, ones that don't respond to immunotherapy, you mentioned breast cancer—I think it's really interesting. I'm really looking forward to seeing the actual data from this abstract because, on first pass, it wouldn't have been what I thought about in terms of driving immune responses, but maybe it just goes to show that there's a lot more to understand there about immunogenic cell death and some of these other concepts that we bandy about. But I think this will be one of the most interesting abstracts actually to see the data for once it's available.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: Great! Taking a slight pivot from that. You've been involved in the development of novel response endpoints. One of the issues that we have with intratumoral therapies is that you're measuring a lesion that you inject, so now you inject something and it gets a little bigger. Is it getting bigger because it's growing? Is it getting bigger because the drug is working? We don't know. We have now itRECIST, which you have been working on.  What's very interesting is that whether you look at itRECIST, or RECIST, irRECIST, or imRECIST, when you have the monopoly of different response endpoints we have to deal with these days, these patients have monotherapy responses in non-injected tumors. How do you feel about that as a drug developer and somebody who's giving patients drugs like that? What is your impression of having shrinkage in the non-injected tumor?  Dr. Jason Luke: I think it's really exciting about this concept of the abscopal effect that we've bandied about for years. Despite being an investigator in this space, I'm really excited to actually see the data and to understand what these out of field responses are. If it's really true that this is robust, I mean, it could potentially be like a game-changer kind of thing. But I'll reserve judgment until I see the actual scans of the tumors that actually shrank that weren't injected.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: Fantastic insights, Jason. So, thank you for taking the time to join us on this podcast and to highlight these extraordinarily important advances in immunotherapy.  Dr. Jason Luke: I appreciate the opportunity to participate today.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, thank you, and thank you to our listeners for your time today, you will find the links to the abstracts that we discussed today in the transcript of the episode.  Finally, if you're enjoying the content on the ASCO Daily News podcast, please take a moment to rate review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.  So, thank you, Jason. And thank you to the team for putting this together.      Disclosures:   Dr. Diwakar Davar:   Honoraria: Merck, Tesaro, Array BioPharma, Immunocore, Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences  Consulting or Advisory Role: Instil Bio, Shionogi (Immediate Family Member), Vedanta Biosciences  Research Funding: Merck, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CellSight Technologies, Zucero Therapeutics (Inst), GSK, Merck, Arcus Biosciences  Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Application No.: 63/124,231, and Enteric Microbiotype Signatures of Immune-related Adverse Events and Response in Relation to Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy  Dr. Jason Luke:  Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical, Pyxis, Alphamab Oncology, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch Oncology, Stipe, NeoTX   Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, Alphamab Oncology, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius, Tesaro, Xilio, Xencor, Alnylam, Crown Bioscience, Flame Biosciences, Genentech, Kadmon, KSQ Therapeutics, Immunocore, Inzen, Pfizer, Silicon Therapeutics, TRex Bio, Bright Peak, Onc.AI, Stipe, Codiak Biosciences, Day One Therapeutics, Endeavor, Gilead Sciences , Hotspot Therapeutics, SERVIER , STINGthera, Synthekine  Research Funding (Inst): Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma, EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring bank, Trishula, KAHR Medical, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena Oncology, Numab, Replimmune, Rubius Therapeutics, Synlogic, Takeda, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc., BioNTech AG, Scholar Rock, Next Cure  Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), and Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof)  Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio  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. 

El Dr. Fernando Aldaco, oncólogo médico adscrito al CMN “20 de Noviembre” del ISSSTE en la Ciudad de México, México, entrevista al Dr. Ignacio Adame, médico radiólogo del Hospital Regional de León en Guanajuato, México para compartirnos sobre su experiencia en el uso del PET/CT en el ámbito oncológico. Los expertos comentan que existen diversos métodos para la evaluación de la enfermedad, por ejemplo, el RECIST, inmuno-RECIST, PERCIST y la volumetría, y abordan brevemente las características de algunos de ellos: RECIST: Limita la evaluación de la respuesta únicamente al tamaño del tumor con el uso de la tomografía o de la resonancia magnética. PERCIST: Combinan dos tecnologías, PET/CT, brindando no solamente la respuesta del tratamiento con la medición del tumor sino también con su metabolismo. Volumetría: Es un procedimiento sencillo de realizar con cualquier resonancia magnética o tomografía, pero su evaluación se limita a tumores sólidos medibles. Es recomendable tener los estudios basales y subsecuentes para hacer comparaciones. Otro aspecto importante que menciona el Dr. Aldaco es el criterio SUVmax, a lo que el Dr. Adame comenta que esta evaluación debe de tomarse con cautela ya que podría verse afectada por factores como el peso del paciente, la dosis otorgada, podría ser una lesión inflamatoria, pseudoprogresión, entre otros. Recomienda que se acerquen con el especialista que está evaluando el PET/CT para evitar la identificación errónea de lesiones. Con respecto a la pseudoprogresión para la evaluación de la inmunoterapia, si se realiza por tomografía, el Dr. Adame comparte que si hay sospecha se debe repetir el estudio en no más de 8 semanas para que se pueda realizar una comparativa. Por otro lado, si se lleva a cabo con PET/CT, cuando se compara con los resultados por tomografía, se pueden obtener datos que favorecen la toma de decisiones en el día a día. También se discute sobre la utilidad del PET/CT en la evaluación de ciertas neoplasias. Se comenta que en los tumores de bajo grado y en las neoplasias con algún componente mucinoso o quístico, éste no ha demostrado utilidad por la falta de avidez al radiofármaco; sin embargo, mencionan que es importante utilizar el radiofármaco correcto dependiendo del tipo de lesión. Los expertos comentan que a futuro podrían encontrarse con: la aprobación de nuevos radiofármacos que mejoren las evaluaciones, el uso de PET/resonancia para mejorar el diagnóstico en lesiones a nivel cerebral o en el hueco pélvico, la incorporación de la inteligencia artificial en la medicina nuclear, equipos que tengan una mejor resolución/respuesta para el procesamiento de imágenes, el uso de PET/CT en las biopsias, entre otros. Para finalizar, el Dr. Adame invita a trabajar con equipos multidisciplinarios para lograr agilizar la atención del paciente.

Dr. Pamela Kunz, associate professor of medicine and director of the Center for Gastrointestinal Cancers at the Yale School of Medicine, discusses promising advances in metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and HER2-positive metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer featured at the 2021 ASCO Annual Meeting.   Transcript:  ASCO Daily News: Welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Geraldine Carroll, a reporter for the ASCO Daily News. My guest today is Dr. Pamela Kunz, associate professor of medicine in the Division of Oncology at the Yale School of Medicine, where she also serves as the director of the Center for Gastrointestinal Cancers. Dr. Kunz will highlight promising advances in metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and HER2-positive metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal (GE) junction cancer featured at the 2021 ASCO Annual Meeting. Dr. Kunz has served in a consulting or advisory role for Acrotech Biopharma, Advanced Accelerator Applications, and Ipsen, among other organizations. Her full disclosures and those relating to all episodes of the podcast are available on our transcripts at ASCO.org/podcasts. Dr. Kunz, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Pamela Kunz: Thank you so much, my pleasure to be here. ASCO Daily News: Let's start with the KEYNOTE-811 study. That's Abstract 4013. This ongoing global study is assessing whether adding pembrolizumab to standard of care improves efficacy for HER2-positive metastatic gastric or GE junction cancer. There's very promising data in this study. What are your takeaways from KEYNOTE-811? Dr. Pamela Kunz: Thank you. I think this was an exciting interim analysis of this study. And as you said, it's really one of our first assessments of adding pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab in the first line setting for treatment of HER2-positive metastatic gastric or GE junction cancer, and I think that's why it's really exciting. We don't have an immuno-oncology (IO) agent approved in the first line setting for HER2-positive disease, so I think we are eagerly awaiting the final results. And Dr. Janjigian presented some early efficacy results of this study. So, just to review for our audience the design of the study, so we know exactly what interim data were presented. This is a study, it's a two-arm study, randomized 1 to 1 of patients with advanced gastric or GE junction adenocarcinoma, no prior therapy, and are HER2-positive. And patients are randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab and fluoropyrimidne or capecitabine/oxaliplatin versus placebo plus trastuzumab and the same chemotherapy backbone. And in this interim analysis, about 260 patients out of the planned a total of 692 were presented. And this was a planned analysis. It was really based on these 260 participants enrolling for about 8--and it was about 8 1/2 months of follow-up. And the authors presented objective response rate. We do not yet have overall survival or progression-free survival, but the objective response rate was quite promising. So in the pembrolizumab containing arm, there was a 74% objective response rate compared to 51% in the placebo arm. And this absolute difference was about 22%. This was statistically significant. And I think other key take-homes--but I know our audience does not have the visuals of the waterfall plot--but suffice it to say that in the pembrolizumab waterfall plot, we had deeper responses, so meaning higher level of objective responses. About 30% of this population had decreases of 80% or more by RECIST criteria. And the duration of response was longer in the pembrolizumab arm compared to the placebo arm, 10.6 months median duration of response compared to 9.5 months in placebo. I think that the adverse events were as one would expect with adding pembrolizumab to this arm--I'm sorry, to this regimen. So I think it's very promising. It did, in fact, lead to accelerated approval of this combination, but we are of course awaiting the primary endpoint. ASCO Daily News: Excellent. Well, let's turn our attention to the CheckMate-648 study. This is LBA 4001. This is the first global phase III study to evaluate both a chemoimmunotherapy combination and an immunotherapy combination in advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Can you tell us about potential new treatment options to emerge from this study? Dr. Pamela Kunz: Sure. I think this study, similarly, is really important because it's the first immunotherapy in the first line setting for squamous cell carcinoma. We had already nivolumab and pembrolizumab approved in the second line setting, but no IO agent in the first line setting. So, this study was a three-arm study to evaluate, as you'd mentioned before, first line squamous cell carcinoma that's advanced or metastatic. And the arms are as follows. So, it was nivolumab plus chemotherapy, versus nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus chemotherapy. And the chemotherapy was a fluorouracil plus cisplatin backbone. Over 900 patients were enrolled to this phase III study. The randomization was 1 to 1 to 1. And statistically, the comparison, the way the study team designed the study, was to compare nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. And so this was--the analysis was conducted in that manner. I think it's also important to note that PD-L1 status was collected and was balanced between the arms, as were other standard baseline characteristics. So, when we're looking at the data, I'll first just describe the nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. And perhaps, maybe, we'll just take a big kind of 30,000-foot view of what these results say. So really, what were the take-home is that both ipilimumab and nivolumab and nivolumab plus chemotherapy were better than chemotherapy alone. So, I think that what we will see is that--I'm hopeful--these are not U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved yet. But I think that in a large phase III study, we're hopeful to see these become available for the first-line treatment for advanced squamous cell carcinoma. So we saw an improvement in overall survival of nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. This was seen in both the PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% and all patients, regardless of PD-L1 status. And in terms of the overall survival (OS) difference, the median OS for nivolumab plus chemotherapy was 15.4 months versus 9.1 for chemotherapy alone. This was a hazard ratio of 0.54, so a very clinically significant difference. And we also saw a statistically significant and clinically significant difference for all randomized patients, regardless of their PD-L1 status. So that's overall survival with the nivolumab plus chemotherapy. We also saw a benefit in terms of progression-free survival for that same arm, so the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm. And then moving to the nivolumab plus ipilimumab arm.  And I want to just comment that I think it's really important for our patients to have a chemo-free option. Some of these patients are quite sick. The cytotoxic chemotherapy can have a different set of side effects compared to our immunotherapy agents. And I think it's important to be able to tailor these treatments to the patient that you see in front of you. So, some patients may better tolerate cytotoxic chemotherapy, and some may better tolerate IO. So, I think that that's important. So, this nivolumab plus ipilimumab also showed a statistically significant difference in median overall survival. So, the median OS for the nivolumab/ipilimumab arm was 13.7 months compared to chemotherapy alone of 9.1 months, with a hazard ratio of 0.64. And we also saw a difference for all randomly assigned patients, regardless of their PD-L1 status. So, the difference, really, for both of the IO containing arms was higher for the PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1%, but the benefit was maintained regardless of the PD-L1 status. Similarly, progression-free survival, we saw a benefit compared of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy alone. So, I think we are hopeful to see an ability to use this for our patients in the first line setting. I think what's really remarkable is that in the last, really, three to four months, we have seen an explosion of U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals and phase III results for esophageal, GE junction, and gastric cancers with IO. So, it's exciting. It's frankly hard to keep track of. ASCO Daily News: Absolutely. Dr. Kunz, thanks very much for joining us today to highlight these key abstracts in the gastrointestinal cancer field. Dr. Pamela Kunz: Thank you so much. ASCO Daily News: Well, before we go, I'd like to tell our listeners about an upcoming episode of the podcast that will feature another interesting discussion with Dr. Kunz. She'll tell us about an interesting session from the ASCO Annual Meeting that looked at ways to dismantle gender disparities in the global oncology workforce. Dr. Kunz will also tell us about a new study on sexual harassment of oncologists. And finally, thank you to our listeners for joining us today. If you enjoyed this episode, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Disclosures: Dr. Pamela Kunz Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Guardant Health Consulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Lexicon, SunPharma, Acrotech Biopharma, Novartis (Advanced Accelerator Applications) Research Funding (institution): Lexicon, Ipsen, Xencor, Brahms (Thermo Fisher Scientific), Novartis (Advanced Accelerator Applications) 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Dr. Hope Rugo, professor of medicine and director of Breast Oncology and Clinical Trials Education at the University of California, San Francisco Helen Diller Comprehensive Cancer Center, highlights key studies in breast cancer featured at the 2021 ASCO Annual Meeting.   Transcript: ASCO Daily News: Welcome to the ASCO Daily News podcast. I'm Geraldine Carroll, a reporter for the ASCO Daily News. My guest today is Dr. Hope Rugo. She is a professor of medicine and the director of Breast Oncology and Clinical Trials Education at the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Rugo joins me to discuss key advances in the breast cancer field featured at the 2021 ASCO Annual Meeting. Dr. Rugo has received research support for clinical trials through the University of California from Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, and other organizations. Her full disclosures are available on the transcript of this episode at asco.org/podcasts. Dr. Rugo, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Hope Rugo: Oh, it's great to be here. ASCO Daily News: There were many interesting studies in breast cancer featured at the Annual Meeting. Thank you for being here to highlight some of them. Let's start with the OlympiA trial. This is LBA1. This remarkable study found that adjuvant olaparib extends disease-free survival in BRCA-mutated early stage HER2-negative breast cancer. What can you tell us about this trial? Dr. Hope Rugo: Well, this is really such an amazing study, in terms of the results and its practice-changing impact. The study actually kind of interestingly was published in the New England Journal [of Medicine] 2 days before it was presented. And even though we had all seen the data, it was really such a, I think, moving presentation in terms of really changing the face of treatment for women and men with BRCA1 and BRCA2 associated breast cancer. Of course, olaparib and talazoparib are both PARP inhibitors that are approved to treat metastatic breast cancer associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. And in those randomized trials, they showed improvement in response and progression-free survival, but not clear differences in overall survival. So, of course, when we have an impact in the metastatic setting, the next step is to move into early-stage breast cancer. But that's quite a challenge given the fact that you have to test and find the mutation, which is challenging in some parts of the world. And then you have to decide which group of patients need more than standard therapy. So the OlympiA trial randomly assigned patients who had pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and HER2-negative, either hormone receptor-positive or triple negative breast cancer, to receive a year of olaparib or a placebo. And the patient eligibility was further defined. If you had triple negative breast cancer, you could have had any residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy, or you had to have a tumor greater than two centimeters or a positive node. If you have hormone receptor-positive disease keeping in mind the benefit of adjuvant endocrine therapy. If you didn't have a pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant therapy, you had to have a few other high-risk features using the CPS plus EG score. And if you received adjuvant therapy, you had to have four or more positive nodes, so stage III disease. All patients had to have received at least six cycles of chemotherapy, radiation as indicated, and of course, hormone therapy was given for hormone receptor-positive disease. There were over 1,800 patients randomly assigned, which was pretty, I think, impressive given the fact that everybody had to be tested. And the whole idea behind the trial is that you would enroll a group of patients who still had a high residual risk of recurrence, even though you got standard and reasonable adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy. It's important to keep in mind when you think about the results of this trial is that having a BRCA mutation, and in particular BRCA1, increases sensitivity to chemotherapy. So the pathologic complete response rates, for example, in the neoadjuvant setting for triple negative breast cancer with the BRCA1 gene mutation, are higher than in patients who don't have a germline mutation. And so you're really looking at a group of patients who have high-risk disease because they didn't have a pathologic complete response if it was the neoadjuvant setting. Now, of the patient population, a little over 70% had BRCA1 mutations. The rest had BRCA2 mutations. And for the triple negative group, that represented a large portion of the population, about 80%. Again, the rest, a little under 20%, had hormone receptor-positive disease. As you would expect, more than 50%, about 60%, were premenopausal. And about 50% received neoadjuvant therapy. There's always a question about whether or not treatment with prior platinum-based therapy, which is also effective when you have DNA repair deficiency, such as in the germline BRCA mutations, whether or not that would affect sensitivity. A little more than a quarter of the patients had received a platinum chemotherapy agents. And the invasive disease-free survival, the primary endpoint of this trial, was really remarkable. There was an 8.8% improvement in a 3-year invasive disease-free survival rate in patients taking olaparib versus placebo, a very big p-value, and a hazard ratio 0.58. This is really dramatic. The curves separated early, and they remained separated. So that it was the IDFS was 77% for patients on placebo and about 86% in patients who were receiving olaparib, just really very impressive. And one of the things you want to find out about is are you changing the rate of distant recurrence. And indeed, not only were there less distant recurrences, but if you look at distant excluding the brain, that's where you really saw the biggest difference. There was a small difference--hard to know if it really is significant--1.5% less brain recurrence is a big issue for patients, particularly with triple negative disease. It was a little less contralateral invasive disease, but it wasn't anything significant. So really, what you were preventing was the kind of recurrence we don't want to see, which is distant recurrence. And then if you looked at the distant disease-free survival, the absolute improvement for metastatic disease was 7.1%. Again, the curve separated early and stayed separated over time. Now, overall survival, of course, is the golden endpoint that you want to look at. There were numerically less deaths in the olaparib arm, 59 versus 86 in the placebo arm. Most of these deaths were due to breast cancer. And the hazard ratio is 0.68. Although the p-value was 0.024, that didn't meet the statistical plan, which was a p less than 0.01 in terms of how the statistics can be balanced in this trial. But the overall difference was 3.7%. And of course, there were subgroup analyses done, which showed that everybody benefited. It was impossible to see a difference. And again, only a small number of patients relatively receive platinum, so it's hard to know whether or not that changed the response. In terms of the side effects--you always want to think about side effects--it was exactly what you would have expected from what we [expect] in the metastatic setting. Not a lot of grade III or greater toxicities. Mainly anemia was the most common at 9%, and 5% neutropenia, a little bit increase of grade III fatigue, but only 2%. The rest of the toxicities were all grade I and II. And of note, olaparib does cause nausea, 57% of patients versus 23% reported nausea with olaparib versus placebo. But normally, you can manage this nausea and the anemia by actually dose reducing and first holding and then dose reducing. One of the big questions, of course, with PARP inhibitors is if you're inhibiting repair of DNA, are you causing leukemia--new primary cancers? And it was very encouraging. Again, it's 3 years, so we need to be followed a little bit longer, maybe 5, but it was 0.2% or 0.3%. There was no increase in myelodysplasia or myeloleukemias with the use of the PARP inhibitor, which is really important. And the global quality of life scores were identical. So even with these side effects, they could be managed and didn't impact global quality of life. And then in terms of the paper, the additional information the paper gave is that most of the people who required a transfusion received only one transfusion of red blood cells. So I think with the caveat that there are some additional side effects, they are generally able to be managed well. Quality of life is maintained. And there's a huge early difference in the most important endpoints that we look for in these trials--invasive disease-free survival and most importantly, distant disease-free survival. So definitely history in the making. ASCO Daily News: Excellent. Thank you for sharing these fantastic results from the OlympiA trial. The ECOG-ACRIN Research Group presented EA1131, a study of platinum-based chemotherapy or capecitabine in patients with residual triple negative basal-like breast cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Abstract 605). This interim analysis really highlighted the need for better therapies for this patient population. What are your thoughts on this trial? Dr. Hope Rugo: Well, this, I think, is an important trial. Ingrid Mayer from Vanderbilt designed the trial with ECOG and actually presented the data. There will be a lot more data coming from this study because they collected tumor tissue and are doing a lot of different analyses, which might help us understand the benefits of different treatments in different subgroups of patients with triple negative breast cancer. Now, this trial really focused on patients who have the highest risk disease after neoadjuvant therapy, clinical stage II or III triple negative breast cancer diagnosis. They received the standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy. And they had to have tumors that were greater than one centimeter in the breast at the time of surgery or any positive lymph nodes. So this is actually a group of patients who we already know have a high-risk of distant recurrence. They did do an analysis of the tissue using a PAM50 assay to understand which tumors were basal or non-basal like. And patients were randomly assigned to receive capecitabine by the CREATE-X trial, which showed an improvement in overall survival when capecitabine was given to patients with residual triple negative breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in Japan and Korea, versus carboplatin or cisplatin by treating physician discretion (DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1612645). The patients received four cycles every 3 weeks of carbo or cisplatin. Now, one thing that's important to keep in mind is in Japan where the CREATE-X trial was designed in Korea where it also participated, the capecitabine dose was the original U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved dose, where it was a little bit higher, 1,200 milligrams per meter squared twice a day, 2 weeks on, 1 week off. In the U.S., patients don't tolerate this very well. And there is a different metabolism in Asian patients, where they can tolerate a higher dose of 5FU and capecitabine with not as much toxicity due to pharmacogenomics. The patients in the ECOG-ACRIN trial received capecitabine at 1,000 milligrams per meter squared twice daily with the same schedule, which is really all that's tolerated. So the objective of this trial was to see whether or not you could do better or the same if you received a platinum versus capecitabine with the idea that DNA damaging agents work very well in basal-like triple negative breast cancer. So the patients were enrolled in this trial. 415 patients were randomly assigned. And then the data safety monitoring group who were following the results at the interim analysis ended up closing the trial because they found that based on the statistics so far that it was unlikely that the platinum arm would either be better or worse than the capecitabine arm. And they saw more toxicity in the platinum arm. So the trial was closed. And that's the data that was presented. So there was a total of 160 patients who received capecitabine, [and] 148 [patients] who received platinum. Most of the patients had basal-like disease. The age, it was about 52. It's all what you would have expected to see in this patient population. So I don't think we have any concerns about the patient population. The 3-year invasive disease-free survival in patients with basal-like triple negative breast cancer, the primary endpoint of the trial, was identical between the two arms. But actually, discouragingly, it wasn't great. So IDFS for capecitabine was 49% and platinum 42%. So this was actually very disappointing data. And I think it just highlights how we really need to provide better treatment for our patients who don't achieve pathologic complete responses to the best neoadjuvant therapy. It is true that the ECOG-ACRIN trial didn't require that patients receive anthracyclines, but 85% did. So I think that we feel really comfortable that they got good chemotherapy. They looked in the non-basal-like sub-type. And in the non-basal-like sub-type, which are cancers that are more likely to be responsive to capecitabine in the metastatic setting, actually, the outcome, although small numbers, looked better with capecitabine than with getting the platinum-type therapy. And if you looked at non-basal versus basal, regardless of therapy, the patients who had non-basal-like disease did much better than the patients who had basal-like disease, something that we would have guessed, but hasn't been shown before. So I think it was really important, [and] really helps us to identify the patients who need the most intervention. But even the basal group, the IDFS, the non-basal group, it was 55.5%. So better than basal at 46%, but still you got 45% of patients with invasive disease-free survival event over a 3-year medium follow-up. Overall survival at 3 years, also, was disappointing at about 66% for capecitabine and 58% for platinum. So I think that, really, this trial just identified, I think, in a very confirming way how we need to make progress in the treatment of these patients who have residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In terms of toxicity, the platinum-based therapy clearly was more toxic. Most of the toxicity that was seen was grade I and II, as you would expect, but there was more grade III toxicity even with the platinum-type therapy. Again, as you would expect. You get hand-foot syndrome with capecitabine and not with platinum. But there was more of the standard toxicities that you would expect with the platinum or bone marrow suppression, primarily some thrombocytopenia, et cetera. So when they looked overall at the trial population, I mentioned that most had basal sub-type by PAM50. It was 80%. So it is a group of patients where I think even going into neoadjuvant therapy about 80% have basal-like disease. So I think it makes us very interested in the results that we expect to see in the very near future from the KEYNOTE 522 trial, where we've seen an improvement in pathologic complete response, particularly in patients with node positive disease with the addition of pembrolizumab, to standard taxane platinum and anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910549).  But a very recent press release noted that they have reached their event-free survival endpoint. And that pembrolizumab improves event-free survival. And the importance of this data, which, of course, has not yet been shared, so we have to see what it looks like and what the differences are, is that they had shown earlier at the FDA's ODAC meeting in February of this year that possibly patients who don't achieve a PCR, who received pembrolizumab before and after surgery, had a better outcome than patients who did not receive pembrolizumab and received placebo. So how we incorporate capecitabine into the post-neoadjuvant treatment or other novel agents will very much be a subject of the next few years as we sort this out. But if the pembrolizumab data is indeed exciting--and we'll talk more about the durvalumab data in just a moment--then I think the question would be, what chemotherapy do you give? And based on this trial, there is absolutely no indication for platinum postoperatively in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy. Capecitabine should be given. But clearly, we need better options for therapy. And this is also being studied with some of the new antibody drug conjugates, like sacituzumab govitecan to see whether or not we can improve outcome in these patients. ASCO Daily News: Right. Well, let's look at Abstract 506. This is the phase II GeparNuevo study. The data presented by the German Breast Group showed that neoadjuvant durvalumab improves long-term outcomes for patients with triple negative breast cancer. What is your takeaway from this study? Dr. Hope Rugo: You know, this was really interesting, and I think unexpected results based on their original presentation. This was a phase II neoadjuvant trial in patients with triple negative breast cancer. And the data by the GBG and Sibylle Loibl, who runs the GBG, had already presented the data from the primary endpoint of this smaller neoadjuvant trial, which was pathologic complete response. And what they did in this trial was they treated patients with a nab-paclitaxel followed by epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. And the patients were randomly assigned to receive the checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab versus placebo. There were 174 patients stratified by a low, medium, or high TILs. And their main endpoint, as I mentioned, was PCR. So this is a secondary endpoint of invasive disease-free survival. A group of patients received 2 weeks of durvalumab as sort of a lead-in first. And they've looked at that group separately. But it's hard to know because it's such a small trial what that means. And nobody is using a lead-in right at the moment. So their primary endpoint, as I mentioned, has been published already in Annals of Oncology in 2019 (DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdz158). Although numerically there was a higher PCR rate in the durvalumab treated arm, this was not statistically significant. The p-value is in no way significant. And they looked at, in a forest plot, they showed that the patients who had the window seemed to have a higher PCR, but it was hard to justify exactly why that was the case in this group of patients. Now, it's important to keep in mind that the data that we have from KEYNOTE 522, the neoadjuvant trial with pembrolizumab, and IMpassion 31, the trial with the atezolizumab, showed the benefit, particularly in patients with node-positive disease. In this trial, about a third of the patients had stage zero or I breast cancer. So 61 out of the total of 174 patients did not have positive nodes. So we thought the PCR difference really wasn't seen because they had a low-risk population. But now, they're presenting their secondary endpoint of invasive disease-free survival in this group of patients. And what they saw, actually, at a median follow-up of about 44 months, they saw a 12 IDFS events in the durvalumab arm and 22 in the placebo arm. And actually, there were twice as many distant recurrences in the patients treated with placebo versus durvalumab. So 13 versus six events for distant recurrence. So I think that's actually a really important endpoint. And if you looked at the invasive disease-free survival at 3 years, it was 77% for placebo and almost 86%. So almost a 9% difference in favoring the patients who received durvalumab. Pretty dramatic, you know? A hazard ratio of 0.48. And they did have a p-value of 0.0398. So that was quite interesting. And they looked at distant disease-free survival. Numbers are small here, but I think it's a really important endpoint, and overall survival. Overall survival is early to see, but they could see--this is a long follow-up, but it's a small study rather than early--and they showed that overall survival difference was 83.5% in the placebo arm and 95.2% in the durvalumab arm. Again, secondary endpoints with a hazard ratio is 0.24 and, again, a p-value of 0.1. Distant disease-free survival, such an important endpoint, was a huge difference 78.4% versus 91.7%. Again, hazard ratio of 0.31. So pretty dramatic. And when you looked at subgroups of patients, and they looked at PD-L1 positive versus negative. Almost all of the patients had PD-L1 positive disease, so 138 versus 20 that were PD-L1 negative. So it's kind of hard to interpret any of that. And that trial was stratified by stromal TILs anyway. They did show that patients who had a PCR had a better outcome than patients who did not have a PCR. But among the patients who had a PCR, the patients who had durvalumab did better, again, with almost a 10% difference, favoring durvalumab versus placebo. Now, this is a phase II randomized trial, so it's small. And so this is really hypothesis generating. But given the fact that KEYNOTE 522 and IMpassion 31 (NCT03197935) gave the checkpoint inhibitor for a year, and in this situation patients received durvalumab only in the neoadjuvant setting, it suggests that they saw this impact in patients who had a PCR that was greater in patients receiving durvalumab placebo. So it suggests that even though the PCR improvement was not significant, that just the treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor changes long-term outcome. And we know that there's more toxicity by giving longer course checkpoint inhibitor therapy, so we expect that we might see approval of pembrolizumab based on the KEYNOTE 522 trial. And it will bring up the question of whether or not you need a whole year of treatment to improve outcome. And whether or not simply treatment preoperatively might be sufficient, particularly in the patient group who achieves a PCR. It will be, I think, very, very important to be able to evaluate this in order to reduce the toxicity, both the physical toxicity, as well as financial toxicity from use of checkpoint inhibitors in patients with triple negative breast cancer. Also, we know that a third of these patients had stage I disease. And I think we really need to look at the larger trials quite carefully to understand whether or not all patients need checkpoint inhibitors who have triple negative disease. Or whether or not we could more correctly focus on the patients who have higher risk disease, node-positive disease who've been shown to have less tumor infiltrating lymphocytes than patients who have less burdensome disease at diagnosis. ASCO Daily News: Right. So what about the subset analysis in Abstract 1011 that looked at outcomes in patients who are age 65 and older in the phase III ASCENT study of sacituzumab in metastatic triple negative breast cancer? Can you tell us about ASCENT and the toxicities associated with this antibody drug conjugate in this older patient population? Dr. Hope Rugo: Well, ASCENT, of course, is a practice-changing trial as well. It led to the final formal approval of sacituzumab govitecan for patients with metastatic triple negative breast cancer in the second line or greater earlier this year after accelerated approval was granted earlier in 2020. This antibody drug conjugate is given 2 weeks on, 1 week off. And the primary toxicity is neutropenia, and then to a lesser degree diarrhea. But overall, the drug is quite well-tolerated. In the overall parent ASCENT trial, as the listeners know, showed an improvement in progression-free and overall survival at the first analysis. Very impressive data with sacituzumab in these heavily pretreated triple negative breast cancer population, compared to treatment of physician choice with standard chemotherapy options, where about 50% of the patients received eribulin, which had already been shown to be better in terms of overall survival compared to other chemotherapy in the subset of patients treated in the past with eribulin who had triple negative disease. So at ASCO this year, Kevin Kalinsky presented on behalf of our authorship group a subset analysis looking at patients who were age 65 and older to better understand whether there was more toxicity and as much benefit in this group of patients. So important when we're looking at novel therapies. So overall, there were 44 patients treated with sacituzumab and 46 with treatment of physician choice who were age 65 or older. Most of the patients had received two to three lines of therapy. And about 40% had received greater than three lines of therapy. The median prior anticancer regimen was pretty similar to the overall group. Most of the patients had initially been diagnosed with triple negative disease, but really, interestingly, about a third of the patients had ER-positive or something else disease initially and were triple negative on biopsy in the metastatic setting. So an interesting subgroup of patients that were also looked at separately and appeared to benefit to the same degree as the triple negative patients. So we looked at progression-free survival in this group of patients looking at patients under age 65 and age 65 and older. A hazard ratio was even greater in the age 65 or older for--it's hard. These are subset comparisons, but the hazard ratio is 0.22 going from 2.4 months with standard therapy to 7.1 months with sacituzumab. The hazard ratio in the younger group was 0.46. But still a big difference in progression-free survival. And then in terms of overall survival in the age 65 and older group, it went from 8.2 to 15.3 months with a hazard ratio of 0.37. And so also really quite dramatic. And overall response was also significantly increased with, in fact, the only responses seen in the age 65 or older group seen in the sacituzumab group. There were no complete or partial responses in the treatment of physician choice group. Of course, really important to look at safety in our older patients because we know that generally there is more toxicity in that group of patients. But actually looking at grade III or greater toxicity, keeping in mind it was 49 [patients] in the older group versus 209 patients in the younger group, there was no difference in grade III or greater toxicities. There were more dose reductions. So 35% reduced their dose versus 19% older versus younger. But there was no difference in adverse events that led to discontinuation between the younger and older group. So that was really encouraging. We see this in almost all trials that older patients have more dose reductions and that was seen here as well. And we also looked at this very small subset of patients who are age 75 or older versus age 65 or older. And the rates of adverse events were similar, albeit smaller number of patients. There was, if you looked at specific treatment-related adverse events that led to dose reduction, it was a neutropenia, fatigue, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia in a small number, 6% versus zero in the treatment of physician choice and nausea. So it's helpful to know what those toxicities are when you're thinking about treating these patients in clinical practice. And in a patient who might be a little less strong, a little older, more comorbidities, so slightly more frail, I would consider starting potentially at a 3/4 of the dose and then going up if they tolerate it well, versus starting at the full dose and getting a lot of toxicity. But this was really encouraging data that showed that you can give the drug to patients who are older and even elderly at age 75 or greater. So that was good to see. And then Lisa Carey presented additional data looking at patients who were treated in the second line or greater because the formal approval by the FDA is in second or greater line. But most of the data looked at patients who were treated in the third or greater line. So you were supposed to have at least two chemotherapies for advanced disease, but you could have had one in the early stage setting if your progression occurred within 12 months. So there were 33 and 32 patients in the sacituzumab and treatment of physician arm, respectively, who had a recurrence within 12 months of neo or adjuvant chemotherapy. They got one line of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. And then they were randomly assigned on the ASCENT trial. And as you would expect, tiny numbers, right? 33 and 32 patients. But you get a lot of events in this patient population. The PFS was much greater in patients getting sacituzumab than treatment of physician choice. Hazard ratio of 0.41. And also, if you looked at overall survival, it was double. The hazard ratio is 0.51, even in the second line setting. I think it's really interesting to look to see what the toxicity is relative to the lines of therapy. But because the numbers are so small, it's really hard to look at this now. We'll see more data on toxicity when we see data in the first line, as well as the post-neoadjuvant setting in ongoing trials. And I think that will help us a lot to understand what I think we see in the current clinical trials and in practice, which is that patients who are treated in this second line setting have less hematologic toxicity as well as GI toxicity and need less growth factor intervention, et cetera. And I expect that we'll see that in the post-neoadjuvant setting as well. These numbers are too small to really look at any differences in toxicity. But all of this data I think was incredibly encouraging for us in terms of the use of sacituzumab in patients with metastatic triple negative disease, as well as the expansion to the first line and to post-neoadjuvant setting. ASCO Daily News: Excellent. Investigators of the phase III MINDACT trial, that's Abstract 500, evaluated the survival of patients with an ultra low risk 70 gene signature. How will MINDACT inform clinical practice? And do you think this study might guide more appropriate choices of chemotherapy in women with node-negative or one to three node-positive disease? Dr. Hope Rugo: Well, how MINDACT will inform clinical practice is a very big question. And it already has informed clinical practice identifying patients who are better candidates for chemotherapy and endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone who have stage I and II hormone receptor-positive early stage breast cancer based on their primary outcome results. This particular analysis was something different. So we think about using this 70 gene score and the recurrence score from the TAILORx trial (DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804710) and RxPONDER to try and identify which patients need more therapy versus less therapy. Now, we also know that these scores have some prognostic impact. Clinically, we mainly have used them to decide who should get chemotherapy in addition to endocrine therapy. This trial looked at a different way to use a gene expression scoring system. It's really to identify which patients need less. Given the fact that your middle of the line therapy is endocrine therapy, which patients do we know who will do very, very well with any endocrine therapy and don't need extended duration endocrine therapy? That's really the question here. So they looked at the patients who were in the MINDACT trial and used data published by my colleague, Laura Esserman who looked at a cohort of patients retrospectively and found that patients who had an ultra low score in MINDACT. And that's a score greater than 0.355 where plus 1 is the lowest end of low risk, and minus 1 is the highest end of high-risk, so greater than 0.355. She identified a group of patients who did well, regardless of whether they received tamoxifen or not apparently in this retrospective long-term outcome where there was 15-year follow-up. So they use that data to go into the MINDACT population and to try and understand which patients benefit. And the MINDACT is a much higher risk group of patients. So if you looked at that original trial that Laura Esserman published, these patients had screen detected cancers. And in fact, the 70 gene signature low and ultra low-risk tumors are, as you would expect, over-represented in screen detected cancers. So you've got this excellent survival regardless of treatment. So how did they apply to MINDACT? So in MINDACT, patients were randomly assigned, of course, who had clinical low, genomic high, or clinical high genomic low to receive chemotherapy or not. In this situation, you're really looking at the patients who have genomic ultra low disease. So most of those patients would not be getting chemotherapy because they would already have ultra low disease. So what they found actually when they looked at the overall population of MINDACT, 6,700 or so patients, they found 15% of patients or 1,000 patients fell into this ultra low category. And if then you looked at the patients who were high-risk, it was 36%. And patients who fell into the big low-risk group, it was about 49%, so about half of the population of patients. So they looked at the different metastasis-free interval rates in patients who had genomic low and ultra low-risk disease, regardless of the treatment the patients receive. They all receive endocrine therapy, remember? So they actually found that in patients who were ultra low versus low-risk, that the hazard ratio is 0.65, showing that patients who had ultra low-risk--remember, this was 1,000 patients at 8 years--there was only 36 events. So they had a 97% 8-year distant metastasis-free interval, compared to 94.5% for low-risk and 89.2 in high-risk disease. They looked at breast cancer-specific survival rates as well. And for ultra low-risk in 1,000 patients, there were exactly eight events. 99.6% 8-year breast cancer-specific survival. So really, quite remarkable. So clinical high-risk tumors tend to have larger size, higher grade, be node-positive. We already know that. For the 1,000 genomic ultra low-risk patients, about almost 70% were greater than 50 years. 80% were node negative. 81% had tumors that were T1, so up to two centimeters. And most of them, except for 4%, were grade I and II. 97% were hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative. Only 14% of patients who had ultra low-risk disease received chemotherapy in MINDACT. And most of the rest received endocrine therapy. Some actually didn't receive endocrine therapy. 16% had no adjuvant systemic treatment at all. So if you looked at the genomic ultra low-risk patients and divided them into clinical low-risk and clinical high-risk, there was really no difference in the events overall, a little bit less 8-year distant metastases-free survival, but not much of a difference. So really, a quite remarkable outcome. Now, what you want to know, of course, then is, does it make a difference if you get endocrine therapy at all? And they looked at the patients who had chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy. And as you would expect, it made no difference. Again, it was a tiny number of patients. But if you looked at endocrine therapy versus no endocrine therapy, it was hard to tell. Because, again, no adjuvant systemic therapy was only 157 patients. There were four events. And for the patients, 685 patients who got endocrine therapy, there were 23 events. So the 8-year metastasis-free interval was identical, but there just aren't enough patients in that no adjuvant systemic therapy group to really understand. So what we know is ultra low-risk defines a group of patients who have excellent outcomes. Does it tell us that they don't need adjuvant systemic therapy? No. Eight years really isn't enough time, unfortunately, in is group because 50% of recurrences occur after five years and out to 20 plus years. We have to keep in mind the Early Breast Cancer Trials Group data showing how many recurrences occurred after five years of endocrine therapy. But in this group of patients who have ultra low-risk disease, they clearly do not benefit from chemotherapy. And I think that's regardless of their clinical risk. And it's likely that 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy is absolutely all those patients would ever need. If you have a small cancer that's ultra low-risk, could you get by with less than 5 years of endocrine therapy in a patient with a lot of toxicity? Potentially. And I think that's a really important bit of information to take back into clinical practice when you're talking to patients about the duration of endocrine therapy. But a stage I tumor or stage II with ultra low-risk disease, in general, I would treat for 5 years. I think it's important to keep in mind that premenopausal women, even with ultra low-risk stage II disease, have an ongoing risk of recurrence. And I still think that those patients should be treated with a varying function suppression and aromatase inhibitor if tolerated and tamoxifen otherwise because our very young patients tend to have higher risk of recurrence over time. And it's very hard to separate them out in these studies. Interestingly, there are a few young women who have ultra low-risk disease. So I think this really helps us understand yet another impact of genomic tests, which is who needs less therapy, not just who needs more. ASCO Daily News: Great. That's good to hear. Well, finally, the theme of the Annual Meeting was equity. And in Abstract 1092, you and your colleagues at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) looked at decreased enrollment of patients with advanced lobular breast cancer compared to ductal breast cancer in interventional clinical trials. Can you tell us about this study? Dr. Hope Rugo: Yes, this was a really interesting evaluation. My colleague surgeon Rita Mukhtar at UCSF actually led this evaluation with a very good student who's working with us on some of our research trials. And the idea was that we had observed anecdotally, as have others, that patients with invasive lobular cancer tend to be less likely to meet criteria for clinical trials. So they don't have measurable disease as much. We tend to see sclerotic bone lesions, diffuse infiltration without measurable disease. And it can be much, much more difficult to meet the criteria for clinical trials. So actually, what my colleagues did in this trial is look at whether or not patients with lobular breast cancer are underrepresented in clinical trials. And so they looked at the proportion of interventional stage IV clinical trials that used RECIST in clinicaltrials.gov. And then actually looked at the patients who have RECIST measurable disease who have lobular cancer. And it's really interesting. I mean, we just have a lot less RECIST measurable disease. And in the UCSF cancer registry, patients who were enrolled in clinical trials, if you looked at invasive lobular cancer were markedly decreased if you compare it to patients with other sub-types of breast cancer. So we think that that's probably due to the requirement for measurable disease. And that what we should do in patients who have metastatic lobular cancer is develop trials that are specifically for lobular cancer that focus on the unique biology. And there's a lot of work going on now looking at that biology. And allow patients to enroll based on their disease control rates rather than response. So that we don't require RECIST measurable disease since that's hard to come by in invasive lobular cancer. So I think it's a really important area. It's about 15% of invasive breast cancers. We see a lot of lobular cancer in the metastatic setting. And I think it's unfortunate not to be able to enroll these patients in clinical trials. There is a lot of interest in the cooperative groups in the United States in Europe and in Asia, of course, in trying to do trials that are focused on addressing the needs of patients with lobular cancer, both in the early and late-stage setting. ASCO Daily News: Excellent. Thank you, Dr. Rugo. It's been great to have you on the podcast today. Thanks so much for sharing your valuable insight with us on the ASCO Daily News podcast. Dr. Hope Rugo: It was really a pleasure to participate and thank you for putting together these podcasts. ASCO Daily News: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. If you enjoyed this episode, please take a moment to rate and review us, wherever you get your podcasts.     Disclosures: Dr. Hope Rugo Honoraria: Puma Biotechnology, Mylan and Samsung Research Funding (Institution): Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Odonate, Daiichi, Seattle Genetics, Macrogenics, Sermonix, Boehringer Ingelheim, Polyphor, Astra Zeneca and Immunomedics. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Novartis, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Merck 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

We have a lot in store for you this week! We start off by evaluating two recently published studies: "Evaluation of Omics-Based Strategies for the Management of Advanced Lung Cancer" (published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology: Oncology Practice) and "The Effect of Advances in Lung-Cancer Treatment on Population Mortality" (published in the New England Journal of Medicine). We talk a bit about tracking down the validity of a reference. We sit down with Dr. Branden Tarlow to discuss his thoughts on PPIs and COVID-19 acquisition. Finally, we conclude the episode by interviewing Dr. Elizabeth Eisenhauer of Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada on her career in cancer medicine. Omics-Based Strategies: doi.org/10.1200/OP.20.00117 Population Mortality: doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1916623 Back us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/plenarysession Check out our YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/channel/UCUibd0E2kdF9N9e-EmIbUew

Kelly talks to Andrew Locchead. 

Summary: 1. Staging - know where to look (based on primary site but also pathology) 2. Restaging - know what to expect (based on type of treatment - XRT, chemo, immunotherapy) 3. Big picture - same, better, worse; critical lesions that may require treatment (impending fractures, spinal cord involvement) 4. Chose words carefully - careful about using “progression” unless you are going to calculate that this meets RECIST criteria - consider using “increased tumor burden” instead Host: Christopher Cerniglia, DO, ME, FAOCR. Associate Professor of Radiology, Division of Musculoskeletal Imaging & Intervention, UMMS Dept of Radiology. Guest: Lacey J McIntosh DO, MPH. Assistant Professor of Radiology, Divisions of Abdominal Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, UMMS Dept of Radiology. Resources: Wang, G. X., Kurra, V., Gainor, J. F., Sullivan, R. J., Flaherty, K. T., Lee, S. I., & Fintelmann, F. J. (2017). Immune checkpoint inhibitor cancer therapy: spectrum of imaging findings. Radiographics, 37(7), 2132-2144.

This podcast describes the results of the BLOOM study, evaluating the efficacy of osimertinib in EGFR-mutated lung cancer with leptomeningeal disease after failure of prior EGFR TKI therapy. TRANSCRIPT This JCO Podcast provides observations and commentary on the JCO article “Osimertinib In Patients With Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Leptomeningeal Metastases: The BLOOM Study” by Yang et al. My name is Jürgen Wolf and I am the medical director of the Center for Integrated Oncology at the University Hospital of Cologne in Germany. I am a medical oncologist with expertise in personalized lung cancer care.   About 10% of patients with advanced EGFR-mutated lung cancer suffer from leptomeningeal disease. While this disease manifestation in non-small-cell lung cancer is generally associated with a particularly poor prognosis, with survival times of only a few months, the question arises whether treatment with specific tyrosine kinase inhibitors might enable a better disease control. Most studies evaluating the efficacy of 1st and 2nd generation EGFR-TKIs in leptomeningeal disease were retrospective and difficult to interpret, given the heterogeneity of the disease as well as of the preceding treatment procedures. Small prospective studies with patient numbers below 20 tested standard dose erlotinib or afatinib as well as high-dose pulsatile EGFR TKI treatment and reported disappointing results with survival times of around 4 months only.   The 3rd generation EGFR TKI osimertinib initially was approved for T790M positive failure of 1st and 2nd generation EGFR TKIs and is now commonly regarded as 1st line standard treatment for EGFR-mutated lung cancer based on a superior progression-free survival, overall survival and toxicity profile. In studies with primates and healthy volunteers, osimertinib has been shown to exert a higher blood-brain barrier permeability and a higher brain exposure compared with other TKIs. In the AURA clinical development program for osimertinib, 22 patients with T790M-positive relapse after EGFR TKI treatment and leptomeningeal disease were retrospectively identified, and an impressive median overall survival of 18.8 months was reported. A small prospective Japanese trial evaluated osimertinib in 13 patients with T790M-positive leptomeningeal disease which, however, could be confirmed only in 5 patients. Responses were seen in some patients, and the median progression free survival for all patients was reported with 7.2 months.   The BLOOM study part B, which is discussed in this podcast, is a multicenter phase I study evaluating osimertinib in EGFR-mutated lung cancer patients with leptomeningeal metastases and failure of previous EGFR TKI treatment. Study objectives were the assessment of clinical parameters like response, overall survival neurological status, and safety but also pharmacokinetics in blood and cerebrospinal fluid. Main inclusion criteria included confirmed diagnosis of EGFR Exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation and confirmation of leptomeningeal disease by positive cytology of cerebrospinal fluid and at least one leptomeningeal site assessable by MRI. There were two sequential cohorts, one unselected for the T790M mutation and with stable non-CNS disease at enrollment, and one for T790M positive patients without the requirement for stable non-CNS disease. Osimertinib dose was 160 mg once daily, which is twice the approved dose. Besides investigator-based response assessment, according to RECIST, leptomeningeal disease was also assessed by a neuroradiological blinded central review according to the RANO-LM working group criteria, which integrates clinical examination, cerebrospinal fluid cytology and neuraxis MRI.   41 patients from South Korea and Taiwan were included, 20 in the unselected and 21 in the T790M-positive cohort. About 70% of the patients had co-existing brain mets and about 50% prior radiotherapy. For 4 patients, no response data from the independent review were available.   The confirmed overall response rate for leptomeningeal disease was impressive at 62% as assessed by blinded independent review and nearly identical between both cohorts.  By comparison, the overall response rate was only 27% by investigator assessment, which, in turn, revealed a higher stable disease rate. Prior brain radiotherapy had no influence on efficacy. Median duration of response was comparable between blinded independent review and investigator, with 15.2 and 18.9 months, respectively. In about one third of the evaluable patients confirmed CSF clearance could be observed. PK analysis indicated that plasma concentration of osimertinib and its active metabolites reached steady state by day 15; the ratio for osimertinib exposure in cerebrospinal fluid vs. plasma was around 16%.   Surprisingly, only half of the patients had an abnormal neurological baseline assessment, most of them with mild symptoms. Symptom stabilization occurred in 54% during treatment; only 5% showed regression of neurological functions.   Overall, median progression-free survival, as assessed by the investigators, was 8.6 months and median overall survival 11 months. Progression-free survival and overall survival differed markedly between both cohorts. For instance, overall survival was 16.6 months in the unselected and 8.1 months in the selected group. Possibly, the requirement for stable non-CNS disease in the unselected group was partly responsible for the better survival outcome in this subset . However, this has to be interpreted cautiously in view of small patient numbers and large confidence intervals.   Osimertinib 160mg was well tolerated in the majority of patients with the known osimertinib side-effect profile. However, 24% of the patients suffered from adverse events grade 3 or more—possibly related to osimertinib, according to the investigators’ assessment. Dose reduction had to be performed in 12% and discontinuation of treatment in 22% of the patients due to adverse events. 17% of the patients had fatal events that did not appear to be causally related to osimertinib.   What can we learn from this study? This is the largest prospective study so far in this setting and osimertinib clearly shows clinical efficacy. The study methodology was sound, with response assessment by blinded independent review and based on RECIST criteria as well as on the RANO criteria established in particular for leptomeningeal disease. The overall response rate of leptomeningeal disease of around 60% and the duration of response of around 15 months is clinically relevant in particular, as it is correlated with improvement or at least neurological stabilization in most patients. Although the toxicity of the treatment is substantially higher than reported in osimertinib trials so far, it is manageable, and the risk/benefit ratio appears to be favorable.   What are the limitations of the study? Patient numbers are small, and the patients are heterogeneous with respect to several important factors such as pretreatment whole-brain radiotherapy, occurrence of simultaneous CNS metastases and neurological symptoms. Thus, absolute values for efficacy have to be interpreted cautiously, and comparison with already published trials remains difficult. Also, unfortunately in view of the toxicity, the question remains open whether the 160mg dose, which is not approved, is actually necessary. Finally, since osimertinib increasingly becomes the first-line treatment standard in EGFR-mutated lung cancer, the number of patients with failure of 1st- or 2nd-generation EGFR TKI treatment will decrease.   Despite these limitations, the trial provides the most convincing data so far in this special patient population and, in my opinion, defines  an important new option to consider for patients with EGFR-mutated lung cancer and leptomeningeal disease after failure of previous EGFR TKI treatment.   This concludes this JCO Podcast. Thank you for listening.

Treatment-free survival is a novel endpoint in immunotherapy. TRANSCRIPT This JCO Podcast provides observations and commentary on the JCO article “Treatment-Free Survival: A Novel Outcome Measure of the Effects of Immune Checkpoint Inhibition—A Pooled Analysis of Patients With Advanced Melanoma” by Regan et al. My name is Adil Daud, and I am Professor of Medicine and Dermatology and Director of the Melanoma Program at the University of California, San Francisco. My oncologic specialty is medical oncology. Cancer therapy has achieved great success in the last 40-50 years. Where treatment with chemotherapy required inpatient hospitalization and gut-wrenching toxicity, therapy today can often be achieved with lower grade side effects and limited time in the hospital or outpatient infusion center. While these changes have brought enormous benefit to patients, many patients feel that the tug of ongoing therapy for metastatic or advanced cancer and long for a time where therapy is not continuing, and the word “cure” is not completely out of mind. Allied to these concerns is the rise and expansion of immunotherapy for cancer. The growth and spread of neoplasm often triggers the immune system, which mobilizes in response. While cancers can use a variety of adaptive mechanisms to evade the immune system, blocking these evasive mechanisms can produce lasting responses and, in some cases, durable tumor-free intervals. Cytokine therapy as exemplified by IL-2 offered this benefit since its approval in the 1990’s for renal cell cancer and for melanoma for approximately 10-20% of patients treated. The CTLA4 antibody, ipilimumab has had a similar long-term disease control rate with a better toxicity profile. However, it is the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies, used by themselves or with ipilimumab that have made treatment-free survival a tangible and achievable goal for many patients with cancer especially those with cutaneous melanoma. Measuring the effect of treatment is traditionally done with measures of disease control. These include tumor shrinkage as measured by an agreed upon method such as RECIST or irRECIST or by lengthening of time-either lifespan or time without progressive disease (progression-free survival). However, it is possible that a similar lifespan could be achieved in one of 2 different ways-either continuous treatment with a drug or a shorter-term treatment that stops within a few months and then the patient has no further treatment. Comparing these treatments that are profoundly different for a patient but similar in terms of standard time or disease control measures demands new measures that can help describe the benefit of one or the other treatment. In the JCO article that accompanies this podcast, Regan et al, in an analysis of 1077 patients across 2 different randomized trials, attempt to provide such a measure. They define treatment-free survival as interval between time to ICI cessation to the time to subsequent therapy or death.  With this measure, the shorter the therapy and the more delayed the need for subsequent therapy (or death) the longer this interval is. Combination immunotherapy is notoriously toxic and while treatment duration can be short, the side effect duration can be prolonged. Could TFS be contaminated with toxicity ? to answer this question, Regan et al introduce another endpoint, TFS with and without toxicity and partition this with persistent and late onset grade ≥3 toxicity. These endpoints are illustrated in Figure 1. Below the familiar Kaplan-Meier overall survival curve is a slice showing survival after subsequent therapy initiation (so factoring in progression). Below this is the TFS without toxicity. Below this slice is the TFS with toxicity and below this is the time on IO therapy. With this division, the familiar KM curve gives a lot more information and illustrates the difference between nivo-ipi combination therapy and nivolumab monotherapy. While the overall survival is not statistically different between these 2 treatments (as shown in previous publications) the TFS lets us see what is going on with patients. In Figure 4 we can see that in the combination nivo-ipi arm the TFS (mean) is 11.1 months vs 4.6 months for nivo alone and 8.7 months for ipi alone. These numbers indicate that TFS alone does not convey the full picture as ipi beats nivo in this measure due to the short duration of ipi treatment while extensive previous data including from keynote 006 show us that pd-1 therapy exceeds ctla4 therapy in virtually every other measure of health. If we look at TFS subtracting toxicity, again ipi nivo beats nivo handily with 10 months vs 4 months but again ipi with 8.5 months slots in the middle. Figures 5A, 5 B and 5C show us the TFS partitioned by grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events, grade ≥2 TRAEs or by the use of  immune suppressants. To summarize this interesting manuscript, overall survival can be subdivided into TFS and time on therapy and time following subsequent therapy. The TFS can be further subdivided into TFS with or without toxicity (≥2 or ≥3 TRAE or use of immune suppressants). These additional  measures give some granularity to the survival and let us see what exactly survival constitutes, time off treatment and toxicity or time on treatment and with side effects. These measures have several limitations: one of the important ones is introducing differences between treatment arms which by primary outcome measures have no difference by standard PFS or OS and by favoring short duration high toxicity treatments (such as ipi) over low toxicity, low intensity chronic treatments (such as nivo). These are value judgements which matter to many patients but need to be understood as such. In oncology, we need to make these value judgements explicit and make the tradeoffs clear. Ultimately though, the importance of TFS and similar outcome measures may be that they encourage this conversation and help our field open up to what matters. This concludes this JCO Podcast. Thank you for listening.

Cetuximabe e Bevacizumabe têm demonstrado aplicabilidade clínica no câncer colorretal. A maioria dos estudos no entanto utiliza a associação dessas drogas com esquemas contendo oxaliplatina. O FIRE-3 foi um estudo publicado na THE LANCET Oncology em 2014 que comparou o uso de ambas as terapias com FOLFIRI avaliando como endpoint primário taxa de resposta ao RECIST para pacientes EC IV KRAS wild-type. Não se preocupe com esses nomes esquisitos! Eu e Tiago explicaremos pra você! Esse é o primeiro de dois estudos que falaremos com o objetivo de tratar do tema “lateralidade em câncer colorretal”. Veja também como você deve se comportar diante de um estudo patrocinado. O que isso pode implicar em análise e divulgação de dados. Para saber mais sobre esse paper, acesse o link abaixo e tenha acesso grátis na íntegra! https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(14)70330-4/fulltext Siga-nos nas redes sociais e faça seus comentários! Sejam muito bem vindo a mais um episódio do Clinical Papers Podcast!

David A. Bluemke, MD, PhD, Editor of Radiology discusses four research articles from the July 2019 issue of Radiology. ARTICLES DISCUSSED –Summary of A Deep Learning Mammography-based Model for Improved Breast Cancer Risk Prediction. 2019;291:660–667. Summary of Physiologic Ovarian Cysts versus Ovarian and Adnexal Pathologic Changes in the Preadolescent and Adolescent Population. Radiology 2019; 292:172–178. Summary of Diffusion Tensor MRI of White Matter of Healthy Full-term Newborns: Relationship to Neurodevelopmental Outcomes. Radiology 2019; 292:179–187. Summary of Components of Radiologic Progression of Disease Defined by RECIST 1.1 in Patients with Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma. Radiology 2019; 292:103–109.

This podcast provides observations and commentary on the JCO article "Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase II Study of Regorafenib in Patients with Metastatic Osteosarcoma" by Davis et al. My name is Brian Van Tine, and I am an Associate Professor of Medicine in the Division of Oncology at Washington University School of Medicine. My oncologic specialty is sarcoma. Osteosarcoma (OS) is the most common type of primary malignant bone cancer, frequently occurring in children and adolescents. It can also be found in older adults around the age of 70, but unfortunately, though rare, can be found in patients of any age. Thus, Osteosarcoma is a disease that not only do pediatric oncologists need to know about, but also adult oncologists. Osteosarcoma occurs primarily at the metaphysis of the bone, in regions of rapid bone growth, in bone-forming cells called osteoblasts. Various risk factors for the development of osteosarcoma include underlying bone pathologies, such as Paget’s Disease, prior radiation treatment, and genetic predisposition due to mutations, such as Li-Fraumeni Syndrome, caused by mutations to TP53, or in retinoblastoma mutation patients. Currently, in the curative setting, OS is treated with chemotherapy with cisplatin, doxorubicin, and high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX), followed by surgical resection of the tumor.  Patients who relapse with metastatic disease have limited options, regiments such as ifosfamide with etoposide and gemcitabine with docetaxel are used with an expected 4-month PFS of only 12%, but the standard of care for osteosarcoma has not changed in 30 years. This is where the Sarcoma Alliance for Research and Collaboration, or SARC for short, comes in.  SARC is a non-profit organization dedicated to the development and support of research for the prevention, treatment and cure of sarcoma.  It is a collaborative group comprised of leading sarcoma physicians dedicated to performing clinical trials in rare diseases.  It is their 24th trial and is the subject of the JCO article that accompanies this podcast, where Dr. Lara Davis and colleagues report their findings of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase II Study of Regorafenib in Patients with Metastatic Osteosarcoma. This trial took place across 12 US centers between 2014 and 2018 and enrolled 42 patients between the ages of 18 and 76. Once again, the age distribution highlights that osteosarcoma is not just a pediatric disease, and that there is a dedication to rare disease researchers to accrue to rare disease clinical trials at SARC.   In this trial, patients were randomized one to one to either Regorafenib or placebo on a 28-day cycle and responses were assessed using RECIST version 1.1 every 8 weeks.  At the time of progression on placebo, patients were allowed to crossover to Regorafenib. Following the release of the European REGOBONE trial, a study of similar design that showed a significant benefit of regorafenib in osteosarcoma patients, an independent Data Safety and Monitoring Committee (DSMC) was convened by SARC due to concerns regarding continuing to enroll on a placebo-controlled study. The committee recommended closing the study after enrollment of 42 or the 48 planned patients.    Here is what they found.  At the time of analysis, they found a progression free survival of 3.6 months for Regorafenib and 1.7 months for placebo with a hazard ratio of = 0.42; a 95% confidence interval of 0.21-0.85, and a p=0.017.  Given the crossover design, there was no overall survival seen with a p-value of 0.62.   In addition, no new safety concerns with regorafenib treatment were identified during SARC024 and adverse events were generally manageable with dose reductions.  Notably, the median dose at the end of blind treatment was 120 mg. Taken together, this makes this the second trial to clearly show benefit for the use of single agent Regorafenib for the treatment of Osteosarcoma Highlighting the issues with using RECIST to evaluate tumors that make bone in their matrix, only 3 patients on Regorafenib achieved a partial response.  Whether this is a cytostatic response to Regorafenib or part of the bone biology of osteosarcoma will need to be determined in future work.  There are a number of meaningful observations that come from this trial.  First, and most obviously, Regorafenib is active for the treatment of osteosarcoma and it is oral.  While at this time, it is not listed in the NCCN guidelines, this publication makes the second randomized trial supporting its use.  I would hope the guidelines change to reflect these publications soon. Next, there was a very important paper published in JCO in 2016 by senior author Katy Janeway. It was a summary of seven negative phase II trials from the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) that established the natural history of unresectable osteosarcoma to have an event free survival (EFS) of 12% at 4 months.  They concluded that, “This evaluation provides a baseline for disease progression in a population of children and young adults with recurrent/refractory osteosarcoma that can be used as comparison for the design of future phase II trials in osteosarcoma.” In the current trial and the REGOBONE trial, the placebo arms of this trial and the REGOBONE study demonstrate similar rapid progression: 10% in 16-week PFS in SARC024 and 0% in 12-week PFS in REGOBONE. These become the 8th and 9th trials with a placebo arm that supports the data of the 2016 JCO publication that stated that the progression free survival of placebo for the treatment of osteosarcoma is well established. To be fair to the authors and to be clear, SARC24 was started two years before the Janeway publication, but are supportive of stopping placebo controls in phase II trials of osteosarcoma in future trial designs. Once again, the authors are to be congratulated on their findings, which I find practice changing.  Their dedication to rare cancer research is benefitting patients that agree to participate in clinical trials.  Working together they have identified an active agent for the treatment of osteosarcoma.  It will be interesting to see what the next steps are for the SARC team, as they have proposed combination studies based on Regorafenib in their discussion.  Finally, rare disease research and clinical trials in sarcoma are desperately needed to improve the outcomes of our patients.  Thank you to JCO for highlighting the work from Lara Davis and colleges and the Sarcoma Alliance for Research and Collaboration.  This national organization has sites across the country where sarcoma patients can enroll on clinical trials.  A list of adult and pediatric sarcoma referral centers and the clinical trials that are available in sarctrials.org.  This concludes this JCO podcast. Thank you for listening.

This week's host, Dr. Thomas Karasic, is an assistant professor at University of Pennsylvania specializing in the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies. In this episode, Dr. Karasic discusses the recent FDA approval of lenvantinib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. If you enjoyed this podcast, make sure to subscribe for more weekly education content from ASCO University. We truly value your feedback and suggestions, so please take a minute to leave a review. If you are an oncology professional and interested in contributing to the ASCO University Weekly Podcast, email ascou@asco.org for more information. TRANSCRIPT [MUSIC PLAYING] Welcome to the Recent Approvals episode of the ASCO University Weekly Podcast. My name is Thomas Karasic, I'm an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, specializing in the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies. Today, we will discuss the approval of lenvatinib for the treatment of patients with un-resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. As background to our discussion today, the only FDA approved therapy prior to 2017 for hepatocellular carcinoma was sorafenib. This is based on results of the SHARP trial published in the New England Journal in 2008, which demonstrated an overall survival benefit of 10.7 months in the sorafenib arm, versus 7.9 months in the placebo arm. In the 10 years after the approval of sorafenib, a number of phase III trials attempted to establish additional drugs or combination regiments in both the first line and the second line setting for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. But all trials failed to meet their primary endpoint, and no other treatments were approved. However, in 2017, two new drugs were approved for the second line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma-- regorafenib, a drug similar to sorafenib, as well as the PD-1 inhibitor, nivolumab. Lenvatinib is an anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets VEGF-1 3, FGFR 1 through 4, PDGFRA, KIT, and RET. On August 16, 2018, lenvatinib was FDA approved for the first line treatment of un-resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Two different doses were approved-- 12 milligrams for patients with actual body weight greater than or equal to 60 kilograms, and 8 milligrams for patients with actual body weight less than 60 kilograms. The approval of lenvatinib in the first line setting was based on the results of a non-inferiority study comparing lenvatinib to sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival. A total of 1,492 patients were recruited, and 954 patients were randomized one-to-one between lenvatinib or sorafenib. Lenvatinib was given at a dose of 12 milligrams daily for patients of at least 60 kilograms actual body weight, or 8 milligrams for those below 60 kilograms-- while sorafenib was given at the FDA approved dose of 400 milligrams twice daily. This trial met its primary endpoint of non-inferiority for overall survival. Overall survival was 13.6 months in the lenvatinib arm, and 12.3 months in the sorafenib arm. While it met its endpoint for non-inferiority, it did not establish superiority in terms of overall survival. The hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.92. Lenvatinib did demonstrate a statistically significant increase in time to progression-- 8.9 months in the lenvatinib arm, versus 3.7 months in the sorafenib arm. It also showed a statistically significant improvement in overall response rate. Using the study endpoint of modified RECIST criteria, the objective response rate with lenvatinib was 41% versus 12% with sorafenib. Using more standard RECIST 1.1 criteria, the overall response rate of lenvatinib was 19%, versus 7% with sorafenib. Adverse events were common in both arms of the study, with 57% of those treated with lenvatinib experiencing grade 3 or greater toxicity, compared to 49% of those treated with sorafenib. Toxicities that were more common with lenvatinib included hypertension, proteinuria, hypothyroidism, weight loss, anorexia, nausea, and vomiting-- while sorafenib more commonly had hand/foot syndrome and alopecia. Toxicities, such as fatigue and diarrhea, were similar between the two arms. The approval of lenvatinib marks the first positive front line study comparing an agent to sorafenib in the first line treatment for HCC. Lenvatinib demonstrated improvements in overall response rate, as well as progression-free survival, and a modest trend towards improved overall survival, although this was not statistically significant. The toxicities of sorafenib and lenvatinib were largely comparable, although some toxicities-- such as hand/foot syndrome are more common with sorafenib-- whereas hypertension and proteinuria are more common with lenvatinib. These study results established lenvatinib as a reasonable firstline option for the treatment of HCC, and choice of sorafenib versus lenvatinib can be made based on toxicity profile, as well as the symptoms of the patient that may dictate the need for an agent with a higher response. Pending results from the CheckMate 459 study, as well as other ongoing immunotherapy front line studies, may well change the sequence of immunotherapy and anti-angiogenic therapy for HCC. But for now, lenvatinib is a reasonable front line option. Thank you for listening to this week's episode of the ASCO University Weekly Podcast. For more information on lenvatinib and the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, visit the comprehensive e-learning center at university.asco.org. [MUSIC PLAYING] 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Ahead of Biotechnology Focus radio are some of the highlights of the week. ImmunoBiochem is haloed with angel investors after completing a new round of financing. Biotalent Canada provides subsidy to fund more “green jobs” for young graduates. eSight named one of the best inventions in 2017 by giving the gift of sight. Zymeworks presents results of ongoing completed dose escalation phase 1 oncology study. Welcome to another episode of Biotechnology Focus radio. I am your host, Michelle Currie, here to give you a run-down of the top stories of Canada’s biotech scene. +++++ Our first story this week takes us to the heart of Toronto with ImmunoBiochem Corporation as it completes a new round of financing led by angel investors and the company’s founding investor. The corporation has expanded its operations and is now located at Johnson & Johnson, JLABS, in the centre of Toronto. The company is focused on solving tumour heterogeneity by targeting a class of proteins in the tumour microenvironment with antibody drug conjugates (ADCs). This is an anticancer therapeutics class that combines the selectivity of targeted biologics with the potency of highly cytotoxic small-molecule drugs. One of the highest priorities of ImmunoBiochem is to transform the lives of patients who have triple-negative breast cancer – an extremely aggressive disease that has poor survival rates and does not respond well to major therapies. ImmunoBiochem in partnership with the Centre for the Commercialization of Antibodies and Biologics (CCAB) and the University of Toronto, has developed fully-human antibodies for the treatment of breast cancer and solid tumours. JLABS Toronto is a 40,000 square foot facility located in the MaRS Discovery District. The labs provide a flexible environment for start-up companies pursuing innovative technologies and research platforms for life sciences. Johnson & Johnson does not take an equity stake in the companies occupying their space or in developed products. ImmunoBiochem is a member of the Ontario Bioscience Innovation Organization and is partaking in the OBIO Capital Access Advisory Program. The company is also supported by MaRS Health and the Health Innovation Hub (H2i) accelerator at the University of Toronto. The company will be at the JPMorgan Healthcare week in California next month and is open to additional partnerships and investment. +++++   BioTalent Canada announces the extension of its wage-subsidy program aimed at helping new graduates across Canada gain access to “green jobs”. The federally funded program will provide $2.3 million in wage subsidies and create over 200 new placements over the next two years in biotech, environmental and likewise sectors. Career Focus Green Jobs is a wage subsidy initiate intended to alleviate youth unemployment. It has been funded in part by the Government of Canada’s Youth Employment Strategy. Wage subsidies have a positive record of jumpstarting careers, especially for biotech grads and aiding small to mid-sized enterprises acquire the funds to hire more talent. According to the BioTalent Canada’s 2017 labour market report on youth employment, almost 85 per cent of new graduates retain full-time employment after their wage subsidy ends. BioTalent Canada, a national non-profit HR association for Canada’s bio-economy, has a long track record of successful implementation of wage-subsidy programs and will disburse over $10.3 million in wage subsidies, to create 1,400 job placements over the next four years. The Green Jobs program will form an important component of those new placements. Eligible companies will be those with a sustainable development mission, or those with products or services that directly reduce carbon footprint, enhance recycling or reduce waste. Similarly, positions that are dedicated to those ends from other industries may also be eligible for the subsidy. Companies interested in applying are encouraged to visit biotalent.ca/wage-subsidies for more information. +++++   Time magazine has named eSight one of the best inventions in 2017. After years of challenging work, and millions of dollars, the company was able to develop electronic glasses that actually allowed the blind to see. Inspired by his two blind sisters, the founder had decided to use his engineering skills to find a solution they could live with. The organization believes that everyone deserves to see. This technology has the capability of changing millions of individual lives across the world. It will allow for mobility and freedom and for each person to experience those momentous moments when they can see their loved ones faces, their peers, and a whole new way to virtually see life. Dr. Brian Mech, president and CEO of eSight says that “For eSight to receive this recognition from Time is a wonderful affirmation of the breakthrough work we do on a daily basis to Make Blindness History. eSight’s world-class lab is the largest and most advanced, anywhere in the world, that specializes exclusively in developing clinically-validated medical devices that allow the legally blind to actually see and be independently mobile.” eSight will work on individuals with low vision, and who are legally blind. People who are legally blind have an acuity of 20/200 or poorer in their better eye. Low vision is another term often used, referring to people who have an acuity of 20/70 or poorer in their better eye. The eyes are very complex organs and there are many eye conditions that can cause blindness or low vision. There are many testimonials from legally blind individuals who have used this device can not express enough how much this technology has changed and enhanced their life. The company has seen tremendous amounts of interest from companies wishing to help their blind employees to schools wanting to give the gift of sight to students. Time magazine has aptly named eSight for being one of the best inventions in 2017. +++++   Lastly this week, Zymeworks Inc. presents the completed dose escalation portion of its phase I study of ZW25, a bispecific antibody targeting two distinct domains of the HER2 receptor. The HER2-mediated signaling pathway is perceived to contribute to tumour growth in several cancers. There have been 22 patients enrolled in the study – 11 with breast cancer, eight with gastric, gastroesophageal junction, or esophageal (GE), and three with other HER2-expressing cancers. Part one of the multi-part study was a standard dose escalation where patients received ZW25 either weekly or bi-weekly in cycles of four weeks each. The Study Highlights are: – Six Partial Responses (PR) were observed across all dosing groups. – Clinical benefit was observed in heavily pretreated HER2-high breast and GE cancer patients. – Breast cancer patients received a median of six prior HER2-targeted regimens for metastatic disease; partial response in 56 per cent (5/9) of breast cancer patients with measurable disease, with 89 per cent (8/9) experiencing a decrease in target lesions. – Three HER2-high GE cancer patients with measurable disease displayed shrinking tumours. – ZW25 was well-tolerated at all doses and schedules, with the most common adverse events being diarrhea, infusion reactions, or nausea. – The dose escalation portion of the phase I trial is complete and enrollment in the expansion cohorts is underway. There was a reduction in target lesions per RECIST criteria in 79 per cent of breast and GE cancer patients with measurable disease (11/14). The best overall response (BOR) in 17 patients that had at least one tumour restaging was six in breast and GE cancer patients’ PR (35 per cent), three with SD (18 per cent) and eight with progressive disease (47 per cent). Of the eleven breast cancer patients, all were HER2-high and had received a median of six prior HER2-targeted regimens for metastatic disease. Of the eight GE patients, six were evaluable for response, and had received a median of four prior systemic regimens. Three of five patients with measurable disease had a decrease in tumour size. +++++ Well that wraps up another episode of Biotechnology Radio. We hope you enjoyed it. If you have any feedback or story ideas, please reach out to us via press@promotivemedia.ca. From all of us here at Biotechnology Focus, have a wonderful week ahead. From my desk to yours – this is Michelle Currie.

This podcast reviews the accompanying article to provide the audience an understanding of the data and rationale to support updating the INRC primary site response criteria.

Die primär an der Tumorgröße orientierte RECIST- (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors)-Klassifikation beinhaltet Tumorherde in Zielläsionen und Nicht-Zielläsionen (Target- und Non-Target-Läsionen). RECIST 1.1 kategorisiert die international anerkannten Kriterien zur radiologischen Beurteilung des Erfolgs onkologischer Therapien bei soliden Tumoren. Neben einer Mindestgröße sind gute und reproduzierbare Messbarkeit sowie eine adäquate Repräsentation der Gesamttumorlast Anforderungen an Target-Läsionen. Die Kategorie der Non-Target-Läsionen fasst alle weiteren Tumormanifestationen zusammen, die die Kriterien einer Target-Läsion nicht erfüllen. Sowohl Target- als auch Non-Target-Läsionen entscheiden im Verlauf über den Therapieerfolg. Dabei sollten Bildgebung und Krankheitsverlauf prinzipiell im Einklang stehen.Funktionelle bildgebende Parameter werden derzeit in der RECIST-Klassifikation nicht berücksichtigt. Daher ist zusätzlich die Kenntnis solcher spezieller Klassifikationen unerlässlich. Solche neuen Einteilungen tragen modernen onkologischen Therapieansätzen unter Berücksichtigung aktueller tumorbiologischer Erkenntnisse zunehmend Rechnung. Die Cheson-Klassifikation oder IWG (International Working Group NHL) wird bei Lymphomen angewandt und bezieht PET (Positronenemissionstomografie) und klinische Parameter mit ein. Choi und mRECIST gelten für gastrointestinale Stromatumoren (GIST) bzw. hepatotzelluläre Karzinome (HCC) und versuchen, die Tumorneoangiogenese bzw. Tumorvitalität mit zu erfassen. PERCIST zielt auf eine reine PET-Einteilung des Therapieansprechens bei soliden Tumoren. Eine erneute Modifikation von RECIST (1.1) unter Berücksichtigung funktioneller bzw. molekularer Bildgebung ist für die radiologisch-onkologische Zukunft wünschenswert.

Die primär an der Tumorgröße orientierte RECIST- (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors)-Klassifikation beinhaltet Tumorherde in Zielläsionen und Nicht-Zielläsionen (Target- und Non-Target-Läsionen). RECIST 1.1 kategorisiert die international anerkannten Kriterien zur radiologischen Beurteilung des Erfolgs onkologischer Therapien bei soliden Tumoren. Neben einer Mindestgröße sind gute und reproduzierbare Messbarkeit sowie eine adäquate Repräsentation der Gesamttumorlast Anforderungen an Target-Läsionen. Die Kategorie der Non-Target-Läsionen fasst alle weiteren Tumormanifestationen zusammen, die die Kriterien einer Target-Läsion nicht erfüllen. Sowohl Target- als auch Non-Target-Läsionen entscheiden im Verlauf über den Therapieerfolg. Dabei sollten Bildgebung und Krankheitsverlauf prinzipiell im Einklang stehen.Funktionelle bildgebende Parameter werden derzeit in der RECIST-Klassifikation nicht berücksichtigt. Daher ist zusätzlich die Kenntnis solcher spezieller Klassifikationen unerlässlich. Solche neuen Einteilungen tragen modernen onkologischen Therapieansätzen unter Berücksichtigung aktueller tumorbiologischer Erkenntnisse zunehmend Rechnung. Die Cheson-Klassifikation oder IWG (International Working Group NHL) wird bei Lymphomen angewandt und bezieht PET (Positronenemissionstomografie) und klinische Parameter mit ein. Choi und mRECIST gelten für gastrointestinale Stromatumoren (GIST) bzw. hepatotzelluläre Karzinome (HCC) und versuchen, die Tumorneoangiogenese bzw. Tumorvitalität mit zu erfassen. PERCIST zielt auf eine reine PET-Einteilung des Therapieansprechens bei soliden Tumoren. Eine erneute Modifikation von RECIST (1.1) unter Berücksichtigung funktioneller bzw. molekularer Bildgebung ist für die radiologisch-onkologische Zukunft wünschenswert.

06/16/2008 | Tumor Volumetrics in Oncology: Beyond WHO and RECIST

Objective: To date, no standard regimen for salvage chemotherapy after gemcitabine (Gem) failure has been defined for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). Oral capecitabine (Cap) has shown promising activity in first-line chemotherapy trials in PC patients. Methods: Within a prospective single-center study, Cap was offered to patients who had already received at least 1 previous treatment regimen containing full-dose Gem (as a single agent, as part of a combination chemotherapy regimen or sequentially within a chemoradiotherapy protocol). Cap was administered orally at a dose of 1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily for 14 days followed by 7 days of rest. Study endpoints were objective tumor response rate by imaging criteria (according to RECIST), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) tumor marker response, time to progression, overall survival and toxicity. Results: A median of 3 treatment cycles (range 1-36) was given to 39 patients. After a median follow-up of 6.6 months, 27 patients were evaluable for response: no complete or partial responses were observed, but 15 patients (39%) had stable disease. A CA19-9 reduction of >20% after 2 cycles of Cap was documented in 6 patients (15%). Median time to progression was 2.3 months (range 0.5-45.1) and median overall survival (since start of Cap treatment) was 7.6 months (range 0.7-45.1). Predominant grade 2 and 3 toxicities (per patient analysis) were hand-foot syndrome 28% (13% grade 3); anemia 23%; leg edema 15%; diarrhea 13%; nausea/vomiting 10%, and leukocytopenia 10%. Conclusion: Single-agent Cap is a safe treatment option for Gem-pretreated patients with advanced PC. Further evaluation of Cap in controlled clinical trials of Gem-pretreated patients with advanced PC is recommended. Copyright (C) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.