Podcasts about rugo

Dr. Hope Rugo and Dr. Vivek Subbiah discuss innovative trial designs to enable robust studies for smaller patient populations, as well as the promise of precision medicine, novel therapeutic approaches, and global partnerships to advance rare cancer research and improve patient outcomes. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello and welcome to By the Book, a podcast series from ASCO that features engaging conversations between editors and authors of the ASCO Educational Book. I am your host, Dr. Hope Rugo. I am the director of the Women's Cancers Program and division chief of breast medical oncology at the City of Hope Cancer Center [in Los Angeles]. The field of rare cancer research is rapidly transforming thanks to progress in clinical trials and treatment strategies, as well as improvements in precision medicine and next-generation sequencing that enable biomarker identification. According to the National Cancer Institute, rare cancers occur in fewer than 150 cases per million each year, but collectively, they represent a significant portion of all cancer diagnoses. And we struggle with the appropriate treatment for these rare cancers in clinical practice. Today, I am delighted to be joined by Dr. Vivek Subbiah, a medical oncologist and the chief of early-phase drug development at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee. Dr. Subbiah is the lead author of a paper in the ASCO Educational Book titled "Designing Clinical Trials for Patients with Rare Cancers: Connecting the Zebras," a great title for this topic. He will be telling us about innovative trial designs to enable robust studies for small patient populations, the promise of precision medicine, and novel therapeutic approaches to improve outcomes, and how we can leverage AI now to enroll more patients with rare cancers in clinical trials. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. Subbiah, it is great to have you on the podcast today. Thanks so much for being here. Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Thank you so much, Dr. Rugo, and it is an honor and pleasure being here. And thank you for doing this podcast for rare cancers. Dr. Hope Rugo: Absolutely. We are excited to talk to you. And congratulations on this fantastic paper. It is such a great resource for our community to better understand what is new in the field of rare cancer research. Of course, rare cancers are complex and multifaceted diseases. And this is a huge challenge for clinical oncologists. You know, our clinics, of course, cannot be designed as we are being very uni-cancer focused to just be for one cancer that is very rare. So, oncologists have to be a jack of all trades in this area. Your paper notes that there are approximately 200 distinct types of rare and ultra-rare cancers. And, by definition, all pediatric cancers are rare cancers. Of course, clinical trials are essential for developing new treatment strategies and improving patient outcomes, and in your paper, you highlight some unique challenges in conducting trials in this rare cancer space. Can you tell us about the challenges and how really innovative trial designs, I think a key issue, are being tailored to the specific needs of patients with rare cancer and, importantly, for these trials? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Rare cancers present a perfect storm of challenges. First, the patient populations are very small, which makes it really hard to recruit enough participants for traditional type trials. Second, these patients are often geographically dispersed across multiple cities, across multiple states, across multiple countries, across multiple zip codes. So, logistics become complicated. Third, there is often limited awareness among clinicians, which delays referrals and diagnosis. Add to that regulatory hurdles, funding constraints, and you can see why rare cancer trials are so tough to execute. To overcome these barriers, we are seeing some really creative novel trial designs. And there are four different types of trial designs that are helping with enrolling patients with rare cancers. The first one is the basket trial. So let us talk about what basket studies are. Basket studies group patients based on shared genetic biomarkers or shared genetic mutations rather than tumor type. So instead of running separate 20 to 30 to 40 trials, you can study one therapy across multiple cancers. The second type of trial is the umbrella trial. The umbrella trials flip that concept of basket studies. They focus on one cancer type but test multiple targeted therapies within it. The third category of innovative trials are the platform studies. Platform trials are another exciting innovation. They allow new treatment arms to be added or removed as the data matures and as the data evolves, making trials more adaptive and efficient. The final category are decentralized tools in traditional trials, which are helping patients participate closer to where they are so that they can sleep in their own bed, which is, I think, a game changer for accessibility.  These designs maximize efficiency and feasibility for rare cancer research and rare cancer clinical trials. Dr. Hope Rugo: I love the idea of the platform trials that are decentralized. And I know that there is a trial being worked on with ARPA-H (Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health) funding in triple-negative breast cancer as well as in lung cancer, I think, and others with this idea of a platform trial. But it is challenged, I think, by precision medicine and next-generation sequencing where some patients do not have targetable markers, or there isn't a drug to target the marker. I think those are almost the same thing. We have really seen that these precision medicine ideas and NGS have moved the needle in helping to identify genetic alterations. This helps us to be more personalized. It actually helps with platform studies to customize trial enrollment. And we hope that this will result in better outcomes. It also allows us, I think, to study drugs even in the early stage setting more effectively. How can these advances be best applied to the future of rare cancers, as well as the challenges of not finding a marker or not having a drug? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Thank you so much for that question. I think precision medicine and next-gen sequencing, or NGS, are truly the backbone of modern precision oncology. They have transformed how we think about cancer treatment. Instead of treating based on where the tumor originated or where the tumor started, we now look at the genetic blueprint of cancer. The NGS or next-gen sequencing allows us to sequence millions of DNA fragments quickly. Twenty, 30 years ago, they said we cannot sequence a human genome. Then it took almost a decade to sequence the first human genome. Right now, we have academic centers and commercial sequencing companies that are really democratizing NGS across all sites, not just in academic centers, across all the community sites, so that NGS is now accessible. This means that we can identify these actionable alterations like picking needles in haystacks, like NTRK fusions, RET fusions, or BRAF V600E alterations, high tumor mutational burden. This might occur across not one tumor type, across several different tumor types. So for rare cancers, this is critical because some of these mutations often define the best treatment option. Here is why this matters. Personalized therapy, right? Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, we can tailor treatment to the patient's unique molecular profile. For trial enrollment, this can definitely help because patients can join biomarker-driven trials even if their cancer type is rare or ultra-rare. NGS technology has also helped us in designing rational studies. Many times monotherapy does not work in these cancers. So we are thinking about rational combination strategies. So NGS technology is helping us. Looking ahead, I see NGS becoming routine in clinical practice, not just at major niche academic centers, but everywhere. We will see more tumor-agnostic approvals, more molecular tumor boards guiding treatment decisions in real time. And I think we are seeing an expanded biomarker setup. Previously, we used to have only a few drugs and a handful of mutations. Now with homologous recombination defects, BRCA1/2 mutation, and expanding the HRD and also immunohistochemistry, we are expanding the biomarker portfolio. So again, I personally believe that the future is precision. What I mean by precision is delivering the right drug to the right patient at the right time. And for rare cancers, this isn't just progress. It is survival. And it is maybe the only way that they can have access to these cutting-edge precision medicines. Dr. Hope Rugo: That is so important. You mentioned an important area we will get to in a moment, the tumor-agnostic therapies. But as part of talking about that, do you think that the trials should also include just standard therapies? You know, who do you give an ADC to and when with these rare cancers? Because some of them do not have biomarkers to target and it is so disappointing for patients and providers where you are trying to screen a patient for a trial or a platform trial where you have one arm with this mutation, one arm with that, and they do not qualify because they only have a p53 loss, you know? They just do not have the marker that helps them. But we see this in breast cancer all the time. And it is tough because we don't have good information on the sequencing. So I wonder, you know, just because for some of these rare cancers it is not even clear what to use when with standard treatments. And then that kind of gets into this idea of the tumor-agnostic therapies that you mentioned. There are a lot of new treatments that are being evaluated. We have seen approval of some treatments in the last few years that are tumor-agnostic and based on a biomarker. Is that the best approach as we go forward for rare cancers? And what new treatment options are most exciting to you right now? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Tumor-agnostic therapies, really close to my heart, are real breakthrough therapies and represent a major paradigm shift in oncology. Traditionally, for the broad listeners here, we are used to thinking about designing clinical trials and therapy like where the cancer originated, breast cancer, kidney cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer. A tumor-agnostic therapy flips that model. Instead of focusing on the organ, they target the specific genetic alteration or biomarker that drives cancer growth regardless of where the tumor started, regardless of the location of the tumor, regardless of the zip code of the tumor. So why is this so important for rare cancers? Because many rare cancers share molecular features with more common cancers. For instance, NTRK fusion might occur in pediatric sarcoma, a salivary gland tumor, or a thyroid cancer. Historically, each of these would require separate trials, which is nearly impossible, unfeasible to conduct in these ultra-rare cancers like salivary gland cancer or pediatric sarcomas. Tumor-agnostic therapies allow us to treat all those cancers with the same targeted drug if they share that biomarker. Again, we are in 2025. The first tissue-agnostic approval, the historic precedent, was in fact an immunotherapy. Pembrolizumab was approved in 2017, May 2017, as the first immunotherapy to be approved in a tumor-agnostic way for a genomic biomarker, for MSI-High and dMMR cancers. Then came the NTRK inhibitors. So today we have not one, not two, but three different NTRK inhibitors: larotrectinib, entrectinib, and repotrectinib, which show response rates of nearly more than 60 to 75% across a handful of dozens and dozens of cancer types. Then, of course, we have RET inhibitors like selpercatinib, which is approved tissue-agnostic, and pralsetinib, which also shows tissue-agnostic activity across multiple cancers. And more recently, combination therapy with a BRAF and MEK combination, dabrafenib and trametinib, received tumor-agnostic approval for all BRAF V600E tumors with the exception of colorectal cancer. And even recently, you mentioned about antibody drug conjugates. Again, I think we live in an era of antibody drug conjugates. And Enhertu, trastuzumab deruxtecan, which was used first in breast cancer, now it is approved in a histology-agnostic manner for all HER2-positive tumors defined by immunohistochemistry 3+. So again, beyond NGS, now immunohistochemistry for HER2 is also becoming a biomarker. So again, for the broad listeners here, in addition to comprehensive NGS that may allow patients to find treatment options for these rare cancers for NTRK, RET, and BRAF, immunohistochemistry for HER2 positivity is also emerging as a biomarker given that we have a new FDA approval for this. So I would say personally that these therapies are game changers because they open doors for patients who previously had no options. Instead of waiting for years for a trial in their specific cancer type, they can access a treatment based on their molecular profile. I think it is precision medicine at its finest and best. Looking ahead, the third question you asked me is what is exciting going on? I think we will see more of these approvals. My hope is that today, I think we have nine to ten approvals. My hope is that within the next 25 to 50 years, we will have at least 50 to 100 drugs approved in this space based on a biomarker, not based on a location of the tumor type. Drug targeting rare alterations like FGFR2 fusions, FGFR amplifications, ALK fusions, and even complex signatures like high tumor mutational burden. I think we will be seeing hopefully more and more drugs approved. And as sequencing becomes routine, we will identify more patients for these therapies. I think for rare cancers, this is not just innovative approach. This is essential for them to access these novel precision medicines. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, that is such a good point. I do think it is critical. Interestingly in breast cancer, it hasn't been, you know, there is always like two patients in these tumor-agnostic trials, or if that. You know, I think I have seen one NTRK fusion ever. I think that highlights the importance for rare cancers. And you know, I am hoping that that will translate into some new directions for some of our rarer and impossible-to-treat subtypes of breast cancer. It is this kind of research that is really going to make a difference. But what about those people who do not have biomarkers? What if you do not fit into that? Do you think there is a possibility of trying to do treatments for rare cancers in some prospective way that would help with that? You know, it is really a huge challenge. Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Absolutely. I think, you know, you're right, usually many of these rare cancers are driven by specific biomarkers. And again, some of the pediatric salivary gland tumors or pediatric sarcomas like fibrosarcomas, they are pathognomonic with NTRK fusions. And again, given that we have a tumor-agnostic approval, now these patients have access to these therapies. And I do not think that we would have had a trial just for pediatric fibrosarcomas with NTRK fusions. So that is one way. Another way is SWOG, right? The SWOG DART [1609] had this combination dual checkpoint, it was called the DART study dual combination chemotherapy with ipi/nivo. Now here the rare cancer subtype itself becomes a biomarker and they showed activity across multiple rare cancer subtypes. They didn't require a biomarker. As long as it was a rare or ultra-rare cancer, these patients were enrolled into the SWOG DART trial and multiple arms have read out. Angiosarcoma, Kaposi sarcoma, even gestational trophoblastic disease. Again, they have shown responses in these ultra-rare, rare cancers. Sometimes they might be seeing one or two cases a whole year. And I think this SWOG effort, this cooperative group effort, really highlighted the need for such studies without biomarkers as well. Dr. Hope Rugo: That is such a fantastic example of how to try and treat patients in a collaborative way. And in the paper, you also emphasize the need for collaborative research efforts, you know, uniting resource expertise across different ways of doing research. So cooperative groups, advocacy organizations that can really help advance rare cancer research, improve access to new therapies, and I think importantly influence policy changes. I think this already happened with the agnostic approvals. Could you tell us more about that? How can we move forward with this most effectively? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Personally, I believe that collaboration is absolutely critical and essential for rare cancer research. No single institution, no single individual, or no single state or entity can tackle these challenges alone. The patient populations are small and dispersed. So pooling resources is the only way to run these meaningful trials. Again, it is not like singing, it is like putting a huge, huge, I would say, an opera piece together. It is not a solo, vocal therapy, but rather putting a huge opera piece like Turandot. You know, you mentioned cooperative groups. Cooperative groups, as I mentioned earlier, the SWOG DART program, the ASCO [TAPUR study]. ASCO is doing a phenomenal work of the TAPUR study. Again, this ASCO TAPUR program has enrolled so many patients with rare cancers who otherwise would not have treatment options. NCI-MATCH, the global effort, right? NCI-MATCH and the ComboMATCH are great examples. They bring together hundreds of sites, thousands of clinicians to run large-scale trials that would be impossible for any individual center or institution. These trials have already changed practice. For instance, the DART demonstrated the power of immunotherapy in rare cancers and influenced NCCN guidelines. One of the arms of the NCI-MATCH study from the BRAF V600E arm contributed towards the BRAF V600E tissue-agnostic approval. So, the BRAF V600E tissue-agnostic approval was by a pooled analysis of several studies. The ROAR study, the Rare Oncology Agnostic Research study, the NCI-MATCH dataset of tumor-agnostic cohort, and another pediatric trial, and also evidence from literature and evidence of case reports. And all this pooled analysis contributed to the tissue-agnostic approval of BRAF V600E across multiple rare cancers. There are several patient advocacy organizations which are the real unsung heroes here. Groups like, for instance, we mentioned in the paper, Target Cancer Foundation, don't just raise awareness for rare cancer research, they actively connect patients to trials providing financial, emotional support, and even run their own studies like the TRACK trial. They also influence policy to make access easier. On a global scale, initiatives like DRUP in the Netherlands, the ROME study in Italy, the PCM4EU in Europe are expanding precision medicine across these borders. These collaborations accelerate research, improve trial enrollment, and ensure patients everywhere can have access to these cutting-edge therapies. Again, it is truly a team effort, right? It is a multi-stakeholder approach. Researchers, clinicians, investigators, industry, regulators, academia, patients, patient advocates, and their caregivers all working together. And it takes a village. Dr. Hope Rugo: Absolutely. I mean, what a nice response to that. And I think really exciting and it is great to see your passion about this as well. But it helps all of us, I think, getting discouraged in treating these cancers to understand what is happening moving forward. And I think it is also a fabulous opportunity for our junior colleagues as they rise up in academics to be involved in these international collaborative efforts which are further expanding. One of the things that comes up for clinical trials for patients, and I think it is highlighted with rare cancers because, as you mentioned, people are all over the place, you know, they are so rare. They are all far away. Our patients are always saying to us, "Should I go here for a phase 1 trial?" Can you talk a little bit about how we can overcome these financial and geographic burdens for the patients? You talked about having trials locally, but it is a big financial and just social burden for patients. Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Great point. Financial cost is a major barrier in rare cancer clinical trials. It is a major barrier not just in rare cancer clinical trials, but in clinical trials in general. The economics of rare cancer research are one of the toughest challenges we face. Developing a new drug is already expensive, often billions of dollars. On an average, it takes 2 billion dollars or 2.8 billion dollars according to some data from drug discovery to approval. For rare cancers, the market is tiny, which means the pharmaceutical companies have really little financial incentive to invest. That is why initiatives like the Orphan Drug Act were created to provide tax credits, grants, and market exclusivity to encourage development for rare diseases. Clinical trials themselves are expensive because the small patient populations mean longer recruitment times and higher per-patient costs. Geographic dispersion, as you mentioned, for the patients adds travel, coordination. That is why we need to think out of the box about decentralized trial infrastructure so that we can mitigate some of these expenses. Complex trial designs like basket or platform trials sometimes require sophisticated data systems and regulatory oversight. That is a challenge. And I think some of the pragmatic studies like ASCO TAPUR have overcome those challenges. Advanced technologies like next-gen sequencing and molecular profiling also add significant upfront cost to this. Funding is also limited because rare cancers receive less attention compared to common cancers. Public funding and cooperative group trials help a lot, but I think they cannot cover everything. Patient advocacy organizations sometimes step in to bridge these gaps, but sustainable financing remains a huge challenge. So, the bottom line is without financial incentives and collaborating funding models, many promising therapies for rare cancers would never make it to patients. That is why we need system-wide policy changes, global partnerships, and innovative, effective, seamless trial designs which are so critical so that they can help reduce the cost and make research feasible so that we can deliver the right drug to the right patient at the right time. Dr. Hope Rugo: There is a lot of excitement about the future integration of AI in screening. Just at the San Antonio Breast Cancer meetings, we have a number of different presentations about AI to find markers, even like HER2, and using AI where you would screen and then match patients to clinical trials. Do you have any guidance for the rare cancer community on how to leverage this technology in order to optimize patient enrollment and, I think, identification of the best treatment matches? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: I think artificial intelligence, AI, is a game-changer in the making. Right now, clinical trial is clunky. Matching patients to trial is often manual, time consuming, laborious. You need a lot of personnel to do that. AI can automate this process by analyzing genomic data, medical records, and trial eligibility criteria to find the best matches quickly, accurately, and effectively. For the community, the key is to invest in data standardization and interoperability because AI needs clean, structured data to work effectively. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you so much, Dr. Subbiah, for sharing these fantastic insights with us on the podcast today and for your excellent article. Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Thank you so much. Dr. Hope Rugo: We thank you, our listeners, for joining us today. You will find a link to Dr. Subbiah's Educational Book article in the transcript of this episode. And please join us again next month on By the Book for more insightful views on key issues and innovations that are shaping modern oncology.  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. Hope Rugo   @hoperugo   Dr. Vivek Subbiah @VivekSubbiah Follow ASCO on social media:        ASCO on X  ASCO on Bluesky       ASCO on Facebook        ASCO on LinkedIn        Disclosures:       Dr. Hope Rugo:    Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma   Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer   Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx   Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Consulting/Advisory Role: Loxo/Lilly, Illumina, AADI, Foundation Medicine, Relay Therapeutics, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Incyte, Novartis, Pheon Therapeutics, Abbvie Research Funding (Inst.): Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, NanoCarrier, Northwest Biotherapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Berg Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Fujifilm, PharmaMar, D3 Oncology Solutions, Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Mutlivir, Blueprint Medicines, Loxo, Vegenics, Takeda, Alfasigma, Agensys, Idera, Boston Biomedical, Inhibrx, Exelixis, Amgen, Turningpoint Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics Other Relationship: Medscape, Clinical Care Options

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Hope Rugo discuss advances in antibody-drug conjugates for various breast cancer types as well as treatment strategies in the new era of oral SERDs for HR-positive breast cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I'm a medical oncologist and vice chair of academic affairs here at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles. Today, I'm thrilled to be joined by Dr. Hope Rugo, an internationally renowned breast medical oncologist and my colleague here at City of Hope, where she leads the Women's Cancers Program and serves as division chief of breast medical oncology. Dr. Rugo is going to share with us exciting advances in antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) that are expanding treatment options in various breast cancer types. She'll also address some of the complex questions arising in the new era of oral SERDs (selective estrogen receptor degraders) that are revolutionizing treatment in the hormone receptor-positive breast cancer space. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. Rugo, welcome, and thanks so much for being on the podcast today. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you. Pleasure to be here. Dr. Monty Pal: So, I'm going to switch to first names if you don't mind.  The first topic is actually a really exciting one, Hope, and this is antibody-drug conjugates. I don't know if I've ever shared this with you, but I actually started my training at UCLA, I was a med student and resident there, and it was in Dennis Slamon's lab. I worked very closely with Mark Pegram and a handful of others. This is right around the time I think a lot of HER2-directed therapies were really evolving initially in the clinics. Now we've got antibody-drug conjugates. Our audience is well-familiar with the mechanism there but tell us about how ADCs have really started to reshape therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, I mean, this is a really great place to start. I mean, we have had such major advances in breast cancer just this year, I think really changing the paradigm of treating patients. But HER2-positive disease, we've been used to having sequenced success of new agents. And I think the two biggest areas where we've made advances in HER2-positive disease, which were remarkably advanced this year in 2025, have been in antibody-drug conjugates with trastuzumab deruxtecan and with new oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that have less of a target on EGFR and more on HER2, so they have an overall more tolerable toxicity profile and therefore a potentially better efficacy in the clinic. At least that's what we're seeing with these new strategies that we couldn't really pursue in the past because of toxicities of the oral TKIs. So, although our topic is ADCs, I'm going to include the TKI because it's so important in our thinking about treating HER2-positive disease. In the metastatic setting, we've seen these remarkable improvements in progression-free and overall survival in the second-line setting with T-DXd, or trastuzumab deruxtecan, compared to T-DM1. And then sequencing ADCs with giving T-DXd after T-DM1 was better than an oral tyrosine kinase or a trastuzumab combination with standard chemotherapy. That was DESTINY-Breast03 and DESTINY-Breast02. So, then we've had other trials since then, and T-DXd has moved into the early-stage setting, which I'll talk about in just a moment. But the next big trial for T-DXd in HER2-positive disease was moving it to the first-line setting to supplant what has become an established treatment for now quite a long time: the so-called CLEOPATRA regimen, which used the combined antibodies trastuzumab, pertuzumab with a taxane as first-line therapy. And then we've proceeded on with maintenance with ongoing HP for patients with responding or stable disease. And we'd seen long-term data showing, you know, at 8 years there was a group of patients whose cancers had never progressed and continued improved overall survival. So, T-DXd was studied in DESTINY-Breast09, either alone or in combination with pertuzumab compared to THP. The patient population had received a little bit more prior treatment, but interestingly, not a lot compared to CLEOPATRA. And they designed the trial to be T-DXd continued until progression with or without pertuzumab versus THP, which would go for six cycles and then stop around six cycles, and then stop and continue HP. Patients who had hormone receptor-positive disease could use hormone therapy, and this is one of the issues with this dataset because, surprisingly in this dataset and one other I'll mention, very few patients took hormone therapy. And even in the maintenance trial, the HER2CLIMB-05, less than 50% took hormone therapy as maintenance. This is kind of shocking to me and highlights an area of really important education, that outcome is improved when you add endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive HER2-positive metastatic disease in the maintenance phase, and it's a really important part of treatment. But suffice it to say, you know, you're kind of studying continued chemo versus stopping chemo in maintenance. And T-DXd, as we all expected, in combination with pertuzumab was superior to THP in terms of progression-free survival, really remarkably improved. And you could stop the chemo with toxicity, but most people continued it with T-DXd. Again, not a lot of people got hormone therapy, which is an issue, and you stop the chemo in the control arm. So, this has brought up a lot of interest in trying to use T-DXd as an induction and then go to maintenance, much as we do with the CLEOPATRA regimen with hormone therapy. But it brings up another issue. So first, T-DXd is superior; it's a great treatment. Not everybody needs to have it because we don't know whether it's better to give T-DXd first or second with progression - that we need a little bit longer follow-up. But just earlier this week, interestingly, the third week of December, the U.S. FDA approved T-DXd in the DESTINY-Breast09 approach with pertuzumab. So as I mentioned earlier, there was a T-DXd-alone arm; that arm has not yet reported. So very interesting, we don't know if you need pertuzumab or not. So what about the maintenance? That's the other area where we've made a huge advance here. So, we all want to stop chemo and we want to stop T-DXd. You don't want somebody being nauseated for two years while they're on treatment, and also there's a small number of patients with mostly de novo metastatic HER2-positive disease who are cured of their disease. We'd like to expand that, and I think these new drugs give us the opportunity to improve the number of patients who might be cured from metastatic disease. So the first maintenance study we saw was adding palbociclib, the CDK4/6 inhibitor, to endocrine therapy and HP, essentially. There, we had a remarkable improvement in progression-free survival difference of 15.2 months: 29 to 44 months, really huge. At San Antonio this year, we saw data with this oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor tucatinib, already showed it was great in a triplet, but as maintenance in combination with HP, it showed also a remarkable improvement in progression-free survival. But the numbers were all shifted down. So in PATINA, the control arm was in the 24-month range; here it was the tucatinib-HP arm that was in the 25 months and 16 months for control. So there was a differential benefit in ER-negative and ER-positive disease. So I think we're all thinking that our ideal approach moving forward would be to give T-DXd to most patients, we see how they do, and treat to best response. And then, stop the T-DXd, start HP, trastuzumab, pertuzumab for ER-negative, with tucatinib for ER-positive with palbociclib. We also have early data that suggests that both approaches may reduce the development of brain metastases, an issue in HER2-positive disease, and delay time to progression of brain metastases as seen in HER2CLIMB-05 in very early data - small numbers, but still quite intriguing that you might delay progression of brain metastases with tucatinib that clearly has efficacy in the brain.  So, I think that this is a hugely exciting advance for our patients, and these approaches are quickly moving into the early stage setting. T-DXd compared to standard chemo, essentially followed by THP, so a sequenced approach resulted in more pathologic complete responses than a standard THP-AC-type neoadjuvant therapy. T-DXd alone for eight cycles wasn't better, and that's interesting. We still need the sequenced non-cross-resistant chemo. But I think even more importantly, the data from DESTINY-Breast05 looking at T-DXd versus T-DM1 in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant HER2-targeted therapy showed a remarkable improvement in invasive disease-free survival with T-DXd versus T-DM1, and quite early. It was a high-risk population, higher risk than the T-DM1 trial with KATHERINE, but earlier readout with a remarkable improvement in outcome. We expect to be FDA approved sometime in the first half of 2026. So then we'll get patients who've already had T-DXd who get metastatic disease. But my hope is that with T-DXd, maybe with tucatinib in the right group of patients or even sequenced in very high-risk disease, that we could cure many more patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer and cure a subset, a greater subset of patients with de novo metastatic disease. Dr. Monty Pal: That's brilliant. And you tackled so many questions that I was going to follow up with there: brain metastases, etc. That was sort of looming in my mind. I mean, general thoughts on an ADC versus a TKI in the context of brain mets? Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, it's an interesting question because T-DXd has shown quite good efficacy in this setting. And tucatinib, of course, had a trial where they took patients with new brain mets, so a larger population than we've seen yet for the T-DXd trials, and saw that not only did they delay progression of brain metastases and result in shrinkage of existing untreated brain mets, but that patients who develop a new brain met, they could stay on the same assigned treatment. They got stereotactic radiation, and then the patients who were on tucatinib with trastuzumab and capecitabine had a further delay in progression of brain mets compared to those on the placebo arm, even after treatment of a new one that developed on treatment. So, I think it's hard. I think most of us for a lot of brain mets might start with the tucatinib approach, but T-DXd is also a very important treatment. You know, you're kind of trading off a diarrhea, some liver enzyme elevations with tucatinib versus nausea, which you really have to work on managing because it can be long-delayed nausea, and this risk of ILD, interstitial lung disease, that's about 12%, with most but not all trials showing a mortality rate from interstitial lung disease of just under 1 percent. In the early-stage setting, it was really interesting to see that with T-DXd getting four cycles in the neoadjuvant setting, a lot less ILD noted than the patients who got up to 14 cycles, as I think they got a median of 10 cycles in the post-surgical setting, there was a little bit more ILD. But I think we're going to be better and better at finding this earlier and preventing mortality by just stopping drug and treating earlier with steroids. Dr. Monty Pal: And this ILD issue, it always seems to resurface. There are drugs that I use in my kidney cancer clinic, everolimus, common to perhaps the breast cancer clinic as well, pembrolizumab, where I think the pattern of pneumonitis is quite different, right? What is your strategy for recognizing pneumonitis early in this context? Dr. Hope Rugo: Well, it is, and you know, having done the very early studies in everolimus where we gave it in the neoadjuvant setting and we're like, "Hmm, the patient came in with a cough. What's going on?" You know, we didn't know. And you have mouth sores, you know, we were learning about the drug as we were giving it. What we don't do with everolimus and CDK4/6 inhibitors, for example, is grade 1 changes like radiation pneumonitis, we don't stop, we don't treat it. We only treat for symptoms. But because of the mortality associated with T-DXd, albeit small, we stop drug for grade 1 imaging-only asymptomatic pneumonitis, and some of us treat with a half dose of steroids just to try and hasten recovery. We've actually now published or presented a couple of datasets from trials, a pooled analysis and a real-world analysis, that have looked at patients who were retreated after grade 1 pneumonitis or ILD and tolerated drug very well and none of them died of interstitial lung disease, which was really great to see because you can retreat safely and some of these patients stayed on for almost a year benefiting from treatment. So, there's a differential toxicity profile with these drugs and there are risk factors which clearly have identified those at higher risk: prior ILD, for example. A French group said smoking; other people haven't found that, maybe because they smoked more in France, I don't know. And being of Japanese descent is quite interesting. The studies just captured that you were treated in Japan, but I think it's probably being of Japanese descent with many drugs that increases your risk of ILD. And, you know, older patients, people who have hypoxia, those are the patients. So, how do we do this? With everolimus, we don't have specific monitoring. But for T-DXd we do; we do every nine weeks to start with and then every 12 weeks CT scans because most of the events occur relatively early. Somebody who's older and at higher risk now get the first CT at six weeks. Dr. Monty Pal: This is super helpful. And I have to tell you, a lot of these drugs are permeating the bladder cancer space which, you know, is ultimately going to be a component of my practice, so thank you for all this. We could probably stay on this topic of HER2-positive disease forever. I'm super interested in that space still. But let me shift gears a little bit and talk about triple-negative breast cancer and this evolving space of HR-positive, HER2-low breast cancer. I mean, tell us about ADCs in that very sort of other broad area. Dr. Hope Rugo: So triple-negative disease is the absolute hardest subset of disease that we have to treat because if you don't have a great response in the early stage setting, the median survival is very short, you know, under two years for the majority of TNBCs, with the exception of the small percentage of low proliferative disease subsets. The co-question is what do we do for these patients and how do we improve outcome? And sacituzumab govitecan has been one strategy in the later line setting that was shown to improve progression-free and overall survival, the Trop-2 ADC. We had recently three trials presented with the two ADCs, sacituzumab govitecan and the other Trop-2 ADC that's approved for HR-positive disease, datopotamab deruxtecan. And they were studied in the first-line setting. Two trials with SG, sacituzumab govitecan, those trials, one was PD-L1 positive, ASCENT-04. That showed that SG with a checkpoint inhibitor was superior, so pembrolizumab was superior to the standard KEYNOTE-355 type of treatment with either a taxane or gemcitabine and carboplatin with pembrolizumab for patients who have a combined positive score for PD-L1, 10 or greater. So, these are patients who are eligible for a checkpoint inhibitor, and SG resulted in an improved progression-free survival.  The interesting thing about that dataset is that few patients had received adjuvant or neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitor, which is fascinating because we give it to everybody now. But access is an issue and timing of the study enrollment was an issue. The other thing which I think we've all really applauded Gilead for is that there was automatic crossover. So, you could get from the company, to try and overcome some of the enormous disparities worldwide in access to these life-saving drugs, you could get SG through the company for free once you had blinded independent central review confirmation of disease progression. Now, a lot of the people who got the SG got it through their insurance, they didn't bill the company, but 80 percent of patients in the control arm received SG in the second-line setting. So that impacts your ability to look at overall survival, but it's an incredibly important component of these trials. So then at ESMO, we saw the data from SG and Dato-DXd in the first-line metastatic setting for patients who either had PD-L1-negative disease or weren't eligible for an immunotherapy. For the Dato study, TROPION-Breast02, that was 10 percent of the patients who had PD-L1-positive disease but didn't get a checkpoint inhibitor, and for the ASCENT-03 trial population it was only 1 percent. Importantly, the trials allowed patients who relapsed within a year of receiving their treatment with curative intent, and the Dato study, TB-02, allowed patients who relapsed while on treatment or within the first six months, and that was 15 percent of the 20 percent of early relapsers. The ASCENT trial, ASCENT-03, had 20 percent who relapsed between 6 and 12 months. The drugs were better than standard of care chemotherapy, the ADCs in both trials, which is very nice. Different toxicity profiles, different dosing intervals, but better than standard of care chemotherapy in the disease that's hardest for us to treat. And importantly, when you looked at the subset of early relapsers, those patients also did better with the ADC versus chemotherapy, which is incredibly important. And we were really interested in that 15 percent of patients who had early relapse. I actually think that six months thing was totally contrived, invented, you know, categorization and doesn't make any sense, and we should drop it. But the early relapsers were 15 percent of TB-02 and Dato was superior to standard of care chemo. We like survival, but the ASCENT trial again allowed the crossover to an approved ADC that improved survival and 80 percent of patients crossed over. In the Dato trial, they did not allow crossover, they didn't provide Dato, which isn't approved for TNBC but is for HR-positive disease, and they didn't allow, of course, pay for SG. So very few patients actually crossed over in their post-treatment data and in that study, they were able to show a survival benefit. So actually, I think in the U.S. where we can use approved drugs already before there's a fixed FDA approval, that people are already switching to use SG or Dato in the first-line setting for metastatic TNBC that's both PD-L1 positive for SG and PD-L1 negative for both drugs. And I think understanding the toxicity profiles of the two drugs is really important as well as the dosing interval to try and figure out which drug to use. Dr. Monty Pal: Brilliant. Brilliant. Well, I'm going to shift gears a little bit. ADCs are a topic, again, just like HER2-positive disease we could stay on forever. Dr. Hope Rugo: Huge. Yes. Dr. Monty Pal: But we're going to shift gears to another massive topic, which is oral SERDs. In broad strokes, right, this utilization of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the context of HR-positive breast cancer is obviously, you know, a paradigm that's been well established at this point. Where do we sequence in oral SERDs? Where do they fit into this paradigm? Dr. Hope Rugo: Ha! This is a rapidly changing area; we keep changing what we're saying every other minute. And I think that there are three areas of great interest. So one is patients who develop ESR1 mutations that allow constitutive signaling through the estrogen receptor, even when there's not estrogen around, and that is a really important mutation that is subclonal; it develops under the pressure of treatment in about 40 percent of patients. And it doesn't happen when you first walk in the door. And what we've seen is that oral SERDs as single agents are better than standard single-agent endocrine therapy in that setting. The problem that we've had with that approach is that we're now really interested in giving targeted agents with our endocrine therapies, not just in the first-line setting where CDK4/6 inhibitors are our standard of care with survival benefit for ribociclib and, you know, survival benefit in subsets with other CDK4/6 inhibitors, and abemaciclib with a numeric improvement. So we give it first line. The question is, what do you do in the second-line setting? Because of the recent data, we now believe that oral SERDs should be really given with a targeted agent. And some datasets which were recently presented, which I think have helped us with that, have been EMBER-3 and then the most recently evERA BC, or evERA Breast Cancer, that looked at the oral SERD giredestrant with everolimus compared to standard of care endocrine therapy with everolimus, where 100 percent of patients received prior CDK4/6 inhibitor and showed a marked improvement in progression-free survival, including in the subsets of patients with a short response, 6-12 months of prior response to CDK4/6 inhibitor and in those who had a PIK3CA pathway mutation. The thing is that the benefit looks like it's much bigger in the ESR1 mutant population, although response was better, PFS wasn't better in the wild type. So, we're still trying to figure that out. We also saw EMBER-3 with imlunestrant and abemaciclib as a second line. Not everybody had had a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor; they compared it to imlunestrant alone, but still the data was quite striking and seemed to cross the need for ESR1 mutations. And then lastly, we saw data from the single arms of the ELEVATE trial looking at elacestrant with everolimus and abemaciclib and showed these really marked progression-free survival data, even though single-arm, that crossed the mutation status. At least for the everolimus combination, abemaciclib analysis is still to come in the mutated subgroups. But really remarkable PFS, much longer.  Single-agent fulvestrant after CDK4/6 inhibitor AI has a PFS in like the three-month range and in some studies, maybe close to five months. These are all at 10-plus months and really looking very good. And so those questions are, is it ESR1 mutation alone? Is it all comers? We'd like all comers, right? We believe in the combination approach and we're learning more about combinations with drugs like capivasertib and other drugs as we move forward. Everybody now wants to combine their targeted agent with an oral SERD because they're clearly here to stay with quite remarkable data. The other issue, so the second issue in the metastatic setting is, does it make a difference if we change to an oral SERD before radiographic imaging evidence of progression? And that was the question asked in the SERENA-6 trial where patients had serial monitoring for the presence of ESR1 mutations in ctDNA. And those who had them without progression on imaging could be randomized to switch to camizestrant with the same CDK4/6 inhibitor or stay on their same AI CDK4/6 inhibitor. And they showed a difference in progression-free survival that markedly favored camizestrant. But interestingly, the people who were on the standard control arm had an ESR1 mutation, we think AIs don't work, they stayed on for nine more months. The patients who were on the camizestrant stayed on for more than 16 months. And they presented some additional subset data which showed the same thing: follow-up PFS data, PFS2, all beneficial in SERENA-6 at the San Antonio [Breast Cancer Symposium]. So, we're still a little bit unclear about that. They did quality of life, and pain was markedly improved. They had a marked delayed time to progression of pain in the camizestrant arm. So this is all a work in progress, trying to understand who should we switch without progression to an oral SERD based on this development of this mutation that correlates with resistance. And, you know, it's interesting because the median time to having a mutation was 18 months and the median time to switch was almost 24 months. And then there were like more than 3,000 patients who hadn't gotten a mutation, hadn't switched, and were still okay. So screening everybody is the big question, and when you would start and who you would change on and how this affects outcome. Patients didn't have access to camizestrant in the control arm, something we can't fix but we have experimental drugs. We're actually planning a trial, I hope in collaboration with the French group Unicancer, and looking at this exact question. You know, if you switch and you change the CDK4/6 inhibitor and then you also allow crossover, what will we see? Dr. Monty Pal: We're coming right to the tail end of our time here, and I could probably go on for another couple of hours with you here. But if you could just give us maybe one or two big highlights from San Antonio, any thoughts to leave our audience with here based on this recent meeting? Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, I mean, I talked about a lot of those new data already from San Antonio, and the one that I'd really like to mention which I think was, you know, there were a lot of great presentations including personalized screening presented from the WISDOM trial by my colleague Laura Esserman, fascinating and really a big advance. But lidERA was the big highlight, I think, outside of the HER2CLIMB-05 which I talked about earlier in HER2-positive disease. And this study looked at giredestrant, the oral SERD versus standard of care endocrine therapy as treatment for medium and high-risk early-stage breast cancer. And what they showed, which I think was really remarkable with just about a three-year median follow-up, was an improvement in invasive disease-free survival with a hazard ratio of 0.7. I mean, really quite remarkable and so early. It looked as though this was all driven by the high-risk group, which makes sense, not the medium risk, it's too early. And also that there was a bigger benefit in patients who were on tamoxifen compared to giredestrant versus AI, but for both groups, the confidence intervals didn't cross 1. There's even a trend towards overall survival, even though it's way too early. I think that, you know, really well-tolerated oral drug that could improve outcome in early-stage disease, this is the first advance we've seen in over two decades in the treatment of early-stage hormone receptor-positive disease with just endocrine therapy. I think we think that we don't want to give up CDK4/6 inhibitors because we saw a survival benefit with abemaciclib and a trend with giving ribociclib in the NATALEE trial. So we're thinking that maybe one approach would be to give CDK4/6 inhibitors and then switch to an oral SERD or to have enough data to be able to give oral SERDs with these CDK4/6 inhibitors for early-stage disease. And that's all in the works, you know, lots of studies going on. We're going to see a lot of data with both switching 8,000 patients with an imlunestrant switching trial, an elacestrant trial going on, and safety data with giredestrant with abemaciclib and soon to come ribociclib. So, this is going to change everything for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer, and I hope cure more patients of the most common subset of the most common cancer diagnosed in women worldwide. Dr. Monty Pal: Super exciting. It's just remarkable to hear how this has evolved since 25 years ago, which is really the last time I sort of dabbled in breast cancer.  Thank you so much, Hope, for joining us today. These were fantastic insights. Appreciate you being on the ASCO Daily News Podcast and really want to thank you personally for your remarkable contribution to the field of breast cancer. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you very much, and thanks for talking with me today. Dr. Monty Pal: You got it. And thanks a lot to our listeners today as well. You'll find links to all the studies we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinion 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. Monty Pal @montypal Dr. Hope Rugo   @hoperugo Follow ASCO on social media:        ASCO on X  ASCO on Bluesky       ASCO on Facebook        ASCO on LinkedIn        Disclosures:     Dr. Monty Pal:    Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview   Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical   Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis   Dr. Hope Rugo:    Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma   Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer   Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx  

Dr. Hope Rugo and Dr. Kamaria Lee discuss the prevalence of financial toxicity in cancer care in the United States and globally, focusing on breast cancer, and highlight key interventions to mitigate financial hardship. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a podcast series from ASCO that features engaging conversations between editors and authors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm your host, Dr. Hope Rugo. I'm the director of the Women's Cancer Program and division chief of breast medical oncology at the City of Hope Cancer Center, and I'm also the editor-in-chief of the Educational Book. Rising healthcare costs are causing financial distress for patients and their families across the globe. Patients with cancer report financial toxicity as a major impediment to their quality of life, and its association with worse outcomes is well documented. Today, we'll be discussing how patients with breast cancer are uniquely at risk for financial toxicity. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Kamaria Lee, a fourth-year radiation oncology resident and health equity researcher at MD Anderson Cancer Center and a co-author of the recently published article titled, "Financial Toxicity in Breast Cancer: Why Does It Matter, Who Is at Risk, and How Do We Intervene?" Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. Lee, it's great to have you on this podcast. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Hey, Dr. Rugo. Thank you so much for having me. I'm excited to be here today. I also would like to recognize my co-authors, Dr. Alexandru Eniu, Dr. Christopher Booth, Molly MacDonald, and Dr. Fumiko Chino, who worked on this book chapter with me and did a fantastic presentation on the topic at ASCO this past year. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thanks very much. We'll now just jump into the questions. We know that rising medical costs contribute to a growing financial burden on patients, which has [GC1]  [JG2]  been documented to contribute to lower quality-of-life, compromised clinical care, and worse health outcomes. How are patients with breast cancer uniquely at risk for financial toxicity? How does the problem vary within the breast cancer population in terms of age, racial and ethnic groups, and those who have metastatic disease? Dr. Kamaria Lee: Breast cancer patients are uniquely at risk of financial toxicity for several reasons. Three key reasons are that breast cancer often requires multimodal treatment. So this means patients are receiving surgery, many receive systemic therapies, including hormonal therapies, as well as radiation. And so this requires care coordination and multiple visits that can increase costs. Secondly, another key reason that patients with breast cancer are uniquely at risk for financial toxicity is that there's often a long survivorship period that includes long-term care for toxicities and continued follow-ups, and patients might also be involved in activities regarding advocacy, but also physical therapy and mental health appointments during their prolonged survivorship, which can also add costs. And a third key reason that patients with breast cancer are uniquely at risk for financial toxicity is that the patient population is primarily women. And we know that women are more likely to have increased caregiver responsibilities while also potentially working and managing their treatments, and so this is another contributor. Within the breast cancer population, those who are younger and those who are from marginalized racial/ethnic groups and those with metastatic disease have been shown to be at an increased risk. Those who are younger may be more likely to need childcare during treatment if they have kids, or they're more likely to be employed and not yet retired, which can be disrupted while receiving treatment. And those who are racial/ethnic minorities may have increased financial toxicity due to reasons that exist even after controlling for socioeconomic factors. And some of these reasons have been shown to be increased risk of job or income loss or transportation barriers during treatment. And lastly, for those with metastatic breast cancer, there can be ongoing financial distress due to the long-term care that is needed for treatment, and this can include parking, transportation, and medications while managing their metastatic disease. Dr. Hope Rugo: I think it is really important to understand these issues as you just outlined. There has been a lot of focus on financial toxicity research in recent years, and that has led to novel approaches in screening for financial hardship. Can you tell us about the new screening tools and interventions and how you can easily apply that to clinical practice, keeping in mind that people aren't at MD Anderson with a bunch of support and information on this but are in clinical practice and seeing many, many patients a day with lots of different cancers? Dr. Kamaria Lee: You're exactly right that there is incredible nuance needed in understanding how to best screen for financial hardship in different types of practices. There are multiple financial toxicity tools. The most commonly used tool is the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity, also known as the COST tool. In its full form, it's an 11-item survey. There's also a summary question as well. And these questions look at objective and subjective financial burden, and it uses a five-point Likert scale. For example, one question on the full form is, "I know that I have enough money in savings, retirement, or assets to cover the cost of my treatment," and then patients are able to respond "not at all" to "very much" with a threshold score for financial toxicity risk. Of course, as you noted, one critique of having an 11-item survey is that there's limited time in patient encounters with their providers. And so recently, Thom et al validated an abbreviated two-question version of the COST tool. This validation was done in an urban comprehensive cancer center, and it was found to have a high predictive value to the full measure. We note which two questions are specifically pulled from the full measure within the book chapter. And this is one way that it can be easier for clinicians who are in a busier setting to still screen for financial toxicity with fewer questions. I also do recommend that clinicians who know their clinic's workflow the best, work with their team of nurses, financial navigators, and others to best integrate the tool into their workflow. For some, this may mean sending the two-item survey as a portal message so that patients can answer it before consults. Other times, it could mean having it on the tablet that can be done in the clinic waiting room. And so there are different ways that screening can be done, even in a busy setting, and acknowledging that different practices have different amounts of resources and time. Dr. Hope Rugo: And where would people access that easily? I recognize that that information is in your chapter, or your article that's on PubMed that will be linked to this podcast, but it is nice to just know where people could easily access that online. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yes, and so you should be able to Google ‘the COST measure', and then there is a website that also has the forms as well. So it's also beyond the book chapter, Googling ‘the COST measure', and then online they would be able to find access to the form. Dr. Hope Rugo: And how often would you do that screening? Dr. Kamaria Lee: So, I think it's definitely important that we are as proactive as possible. And so initially, I recommend that the screening happens at the time of diagnosis, and so if it's done through the portal, it can be sent before the initial consult, or again, however, is best in the workflow. So at the time of diagnosis and then at regular intervals, so throughout the treatment process, but then also into the follow-up period as well to best understand if there's still a financial burden even after the treatments have been completed. Dr. Hope Rugo: I wonder if in the metastatic setting, you could do it at the change of treatment, you know, a month after somebody's changed treatment, because people may not be as aware of the financial constraints when they first get prescribed a drug. It's more when you hear back from how much it's going to cost. And leading into that, I think it's, what do you do with this? So, you know, this cost conversation is really important. You're going to be talking to the patient about the cost considerations when you, for example, see that there are financial issues, you're prescribing treatments. How do we implement impactful structured cost conversations with our breast cancer patients, help identify financial issues, and intervene? How do we intervene? I mean, as physicians often we aren't really all that aware, or providers, of how to address the cost. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yes, I agree fully that another key time when to screen for financial toxicity is at that transition between treatments to best understand where they're at based off of what they've received previously for care, and then to anticipate needs when changing regimens, such as like you said in the metastatic setting. As we're collecting this information, you're right, we screen, we get this information, and what do we do? I do agree that there is a lack of knowledge among us clinicians of how do we manage this information. What is insurance? How do we manage insurance and help patients with insurance concerns? How do we help them navigate out-of-pocket costs or even the indirect costs of transportation? Those are a lot of things that are not covered in-depth in traditional medical training. And so it can be overwhelming for a lot of clinicians, not only due to time limitations in clinic, but also just having those conversations within their visit. And so what I would say, a key thing to note, is that this is another area for multidisciplinary care. So just as we're treating patients in a multidisciplinary way within oncology as we work with our medical oncology, surgical colleagues across the board, it's knowing that this is another area for multidisciplinary care. So the team members include all of the different oncologists, but it also includes team members such as financial counselors and navigators and social workers and even understanding nonprofit partners who we have who have money that can be set aside to help reduce costs for certain different aspects of treatment. Another thing I will note is that most patients with breast cancer often say they do want to have these conversations still with their clinicians. So they do still see a clinician as someone that can weigh in on the costs of their treatment or can weigh in on this other aspect of their care, even if it's not the actual medication or the radiation. And so patients do desire to hear from their clinicians about this topic, and so I think another way to make it feel less overwhelming for clinicians like ourselves is to know that even small conversations are helpful and then being knowledgeable about within your institution or, like I said, outside of it with nonprofits, being aware of who can I refer this patient to for continued follow-up and for more detailed information and resources. Dr. Hope Rugo: Are those the successful interventions? It's really referring to financial navigators? How do people identify? You know, in an academic center, we often will sort of punt this to social workers or our nurse navigators. What about in the community? What's a successful intervention example of mitigating financial toxicity? Dr. Kamaria Lee: I agree completely that the context at which people are practicing is important to note. So as you alluded to, in some bigger systems, we do have financial navigators and this has been seen to be successful in providing applications and assisting with applications for things such as pharmaceutical assistance, insurance applications, discount opportunities.  Another successful intervention are financial toxicity tumor boards, which I acknowledge might not be able to exist everywhere. But where this is possible, multidisciplinary tumor boards that include both doctors and nurses and social workers and any other members of the care team have been able to effectively decrease patients' personal spending on care costs and decrease co-pays through having a dedicated time to discuss concerns as they arise or even proactively. Otherwise, I think in the community, there are other interventions in regards to understanding different aspects of government programs that might be available for patients that are not, you know, limited to an institution, but that are more nationally available, and then again, also having the nonprofit, you know, partnerships to see other resources that patients can have access to.  And then I would also say that the indirect costs are a significant burden for many patients. So by that, I mean even parking costs, transportation, childcare. And so even though those aren't interventions necessarily with someone who is a financial navigator, I would recommend that even if it's a community practice, they discuss ways that they can help offset those indirect costs with patients with parking or if there are ways to help offset transportation costs or at least educate patients on other centers that may be closer to them or they can still receive wonderful care, and then also making sure that patients are able to even have appointments scheduled in ways that are easier for them financially.  So even if someone's receiving care out in the community where there's not a financial navigator, as clinicians or our scheduling teams, sometimes there are options to make sure if a patient wants, visits are more so on one day than throughout the week or many hours apart that can really cause loss of income due to missed work. And so there are also kind of more nuanced interventions that can happen even without a financial navigation system in place. Dr. Hope Rugo: I think that those are really good points and it is interesting when you think about financial toxicity. I mean, we worry a lot when patients can't take the drugs because they can't afford them, but there are obviously many other non-treatment, direct treatment-related issues that come up like the parking, childcare, tolls, you know, having a working car, all those kinds of things, and the unexpected things like school is out or something like that that really play a big role where they don't have alternatives. And I think that if we think about just drug costs, I think those are a big issue in the global setting. And your article did address financial toxicity in the global setting. International financial toxicity rates range from 25% of patients with breast cancer in high-income countries to nearly 80% in low- and middle-income countries or LMICs. You had cited a recent meta-analysis of the global burnout from cancer, and that article found that over half of patients faced catastrophic health expenditures. And of course, I travel internationally and have a lot of colleagues who are working in oncology in many countries, and it is really often kind of shocking from our perspective to see what people can get coverage for and how much they have to pay out-of-pocket and how much that changes, that causes a lot of disparity in access to healthcare options, even those that improve survival. Can you comment on the global impact of this problem? Dr. Kamaria Lee: I am glad that you brought this up for discussion as well. Financial toxicity is something that is a significant global issue. As you mentioned, as high as 80% of patients with breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries have had significant financial toxicity. And it's particularly notable that even when looking at breast cancer compared to other malignancies around the world, the burden appears to be worse. This has been seen even in countries with free universal healthcare. One example is Sri Lanka, where they saw high financial toxicity for their patients with breast cancer, even with this free universal healthcare. But there were also those travel costs and just additional out-of-hospital tests that were not covered. Also, literature in low- and middle-income countries shows that patients might also be borrowing money from their social networks, so from their family and their friends, to help cover their treatment costs, and in some cases, people are making daily food compromises to help offset the cost of their care. So there is a really large burden of financial toxicity generally for cancer globally, but also specifically in breast cancer, it warrants specific discussion. In the meta-analysis that you mentioned, they identified key risk factors of financial toxicity globally that included people who had a larger family size, a lower income, a lack of insurance, longer disease duration, so again, the accumulation of visits and costs and co-pay over time, and those who had multiple treatments. And so in the global setting, there is this significant burden, but then I will also note that there is a lack of literature in low-income countries on financial toxicity. So where we suspect that there is a higher burden and where we need to better understand how it's distributed and what interventions can be applied, especially culturally specific interventions for each country and community, there's less research on this topic. So there is definitely an increased need for research in financial toxicity, particularly in the global setting. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yes, and I think that goes on to how we hope that financial toxicity researchers will have approaches to large-scale multi-institutional interventions to improve financial toxicity. I think this is an enormous challenge, but one of the SWOG organizations has done some great work in this area, and a randomized trial addressing cancer-related financial hardship through the delivery of a proactive financial navigation intervention is one area that SWOG has focused on, which I think is really interesting. Of course, that's going to be US-based, which is how we might find our best paths starting. Do you think that's a good path forward, maybe that being able to provide something like that across institutions that are independent of being a cancer only academic center, or more general academic center, or a community practice? You know, is finding ways to help patients with breast cancer and their families understand and better manage financial aspects of cancer care on a national basis the next approach? Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yes, I agree that that is a good approach, and I think the proactive component is also key. We know that patients that are coming to us with any cancer, but including breast cancer, some of them have already experienced a financial burden or have recently had a job loss before even coming to us and having the added distress of our direct costs and our indirect costs. So I think being proactive when they come to us in regards to the additional burden that their cancer treatments may cause is key to try to get ahead of things as much as we can, knowing that even before they've seen us, there might be many financial concerns that they've been navigating.  I think at the national level, that allows us to try to understand things at what might be a higher level of evidence and make sure that we're able to address this for a diverse cohort of patients. I know that sometimes the enrollment can be challenging at the national level when looking at financial toxicity, as then we're involving many different types of financial navigation partners and programs, and so that can maybe make it more complex to understand the best approaches, but I think that it can be done and can really bring our understanding of important financial toxicity interventions to the next level. And then the benefit to families with the proactive component is just allowing them to feel more informed, which can help decrease anticipation, anxiety related to anticipation, and allow them to help plan things moving forward for themselves and for the whole family. Dr. Hope Rugo: Those are really good points and I wonder, I was just thinking as you were talking, that having some kind of a process where you could attach to the electronic health record, you could click on the financial toxicity survey questions that somebody filled out, and then there would be a drop-down menu for interventions or connecting you to people within your clinic or even more broadly that would be potential approaches to manage that toxicity issue so that it doesn't impact care, you know, that people aren't going to decide not to take their medication or not to come in or not to get their labs because of the cost or the transportation or the home care issues that often are a big problem, even parking, as you pointed out, at the cancer center. And actually, we had a philanthropic donor when I was at UCSF who donated a large sum of money for patient assistance, and it was interesting to then have these sequential meetings with all the stakeholders to try and decide how you would use that money. You need a big program, you need to have a way of assessing the things you can intervene with, which is really tough. In that general vein, you know, what are the governmental, institutional, and provider-level actions that are required to help clinicians do our best to do no financial harm, given the fact that we're prescribing really expensive drugs that require a lot of visits when caring for our patients with breast cancer in the curative and in the metastatic setting? Dr. Kamaria Lee: At the governmental level, there are patient assistant programs that do exist, and I think that those can continue and can become more robust. But I also think one element of those is oftentimes the programs that we have at the government level or even institutional levels might have a lot of paperwork or be harder for people with lower literacy levels to complete. And so I think the government can really try to make sure that the paperwork that is given, within reason, with all the information they need, but that the paperwork can be minimized and that there can be clear instructions, as well as increased health insurance options and, you know, medical debt forgiveness as more broad just overall interventions that are needed. I think additionally, institutions that have clinical trials can help ensure that enrollment can be at geographically diverse locations. Some trials do reimburse for travel costs, of course, but sometimes then patients need the reimbursement sooner than it comes. And so I think there's also those considerations of more so upfront funds for patients involved in clinical trials if they're going to have to travel far to be enrolled in that type of care or trying to, again, make clinical trials more available at diverse locations.  I would also say that it's important that those who design clinical trials use what is known as the “Common Sense Oncology” approach of making sure that they're designed in minimizing the use of outcomes that might have a smaller clinical benefit but may have a high financial toxicity. And that also goes to what providers can do, of understanding what's most important to a particular patient in front of them, what outcomes and what benefit, or you know, how many additional months of progression-free survival or things like that might be important to a particular patient and then also educating them and discussing what the associated financial burden is just so that they have the full picture as they make an informed decision. Dr. Hope Rugo: As much as we know. I mean, I think that that's one of the big challenges is that as we prescribe these expensive drugs and often require multiple visits, even, you know, really outside of the clinical trial setting, trying to balance the benefit versus the financial toxicity can be a huge challenge. And that's a big area, I think, that we still need help with, you know. As we have more drugs approved in the early-stage setting and treatments that could be expensive, oral medications, for example, in our Medicare population where the share of cost may be substantial upfront, you know, with an upfront cost, how do we balance the benefits versus the risk? And I think you make an important point that discussing this individually with patients after we found out what the cost is. I think warning patients about the potential for large out-of-pocket cost and asking them to contact us when they know is one way around this. You know, patients feeling like they're sort of out there with a prescription, a recommendation from their doctor, they're scared of their cancer, and they have this huge share of cost that we didn't know about. That's one challenge, and I don't know if there's any suggestions you have about how one should approach that communication with the patient. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yes, I think part of it is truly looking at each patient as an individual and asking how much they want to know, right? So we all know that patients, some who want more information, some want less, and so I think one way to approach that is asking them about how much information do they want to know, what is most helpful to them. And then also, knowing that if you're in a well-resourced setting that does have the social workers and financial navigators, also making sure it's integrated in the multidisciplinary setting and so that they know who they can go to for what, but also know that as a clinician, you're always happy for them to bring up their concerns and that if it's something that you're not aware of, that you will connect them to the correct multidisciplinary team members who can accurately provide that additional information. Dr. Hope Rugo: Do you have any other additional comments that you'd like to mention that we haven't covered? I think the idea of a financial toxicity screen with two questions that could be implemented at change of therapy or just periodically throughout the course of treatment would be a really great thing, but I think we do need as much information on potential interventions as possible because that's really what challenges people. It's like finding out information that you can't handle. Your article provides a lot of strategies there, which I think are great and can be discussed on a practice and institutional level and applied. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yeah, I would just like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss such an important topic within oncology and specifically for our patients with breast cancer. I agree that it can feel overwhelming, both for clinicians and patients, to navigate this topic that many of us are not as familiar with, but I would just say that the area of financial toxicity is continuing to evolve as we gather more information on most successful interventions and that our patients can often inform us on, you know, what interventions are most needed as we see them. And so you can have your thinking about it as you see individual patients of, "This person mentioned this could be more useful to them." And so I think also learning from our patients in this space that can seem overwhelming and that maybe we weren't all trained on in medical school to best understand how to approach it and how to give our patients the best care, not just medically, but also financially. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you, Dr. Lee, for sharing your insights with us today. Our listeners will find a link, as I mentioned earlier, to the Ed Book article we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. I think it's very useful, a useful resource, and not just for providers, but for clinic staff overall. I think this can be of great value and help open the discussion as well. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Thank you so much, Dr. Rugo. Dr. Hope Rugo: And thanks to our listeners for joining us today. Please join us again next month on By the Book for more insightful views on topics you'll be hearing at Education Sessions from ASCO meetings and our deep dives into new approaches that are shaping modern oncology. 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. Hope Rugo  @hope.rugo  Dr. Kamaria Lee @ lee_kamaria Follow ASCO on social media:       @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)       ASCO on Bluesky      ASCO on Facebook       ASCO on LinkedIn       Disclosures:      Dr. Hope Rugo:   Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma  Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer  Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx    Dr. Kamaria Lee: No relationships to disclose  

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

Drs. Hope Rugo, Sheri Brenner, and Mikolaj Slawkowski-Rode discuss the struggle that health care professionals experience when terminally ill patients are suffering and approaches to help clinicians understand and respond to suffering in a more patient-centered and therapeutic way. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a monthly podcast series from ASCO that features engaging conversations between editors and authors of the ASCO Educational Book.  I'm your host, Dr. Hope Rugo. I'm director of the Women's Cancers Program and division chief of breast medical oncology at the City of Hope Cancer Center, and I'm also the editor-in-chief of the Educational Book. On today's episode, we'll be exploring the complexities of grief and oncology and the struggle we experience as healthcare professionals when terminally ill patients are suffering. Our guests will discuss approaches to help clinicians understand and respond to suffering in a more patient-centered and therapeutic way, as outlined in their recently published article titled, “Oncology and Suffering: Strategies on Coping With Grief for Healthcare Professionals.” I'm delighted today to welcome Dr. Keri Brenner, a clinical associate professor of medicine, palliative care attending, and psychiatrist at Stanford University, and Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode, a senior research fellow in philosophy in the Humanities Research Institute at the University of Buckingham, where he also serves as director of graduate research in p hilosophy. He is also a research fellow in philosophy at Blackfriars Hall at the University of Oxford and associate professor at the University of Warsaw.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Brenner and Dr. Sławkowski-Rode, thanks for being on the podcast today. Dr. Keri Brenner: Great to be here, Dr. Rugo. Thank you so much for that kind introduction. Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: Thank you very much, Dr. Rugo. It's a pleasure and an honor. Dr. Hope Rugo: So I'm going to start with some questions for both of you. I'll start with Dr. Brenner. You've spoken and written about the concept of suffering when there is no cure. For oncologists, what does it mean to attune to suffering, not just disease? And how might this impact the way they show up in difficult conversations with patients? Dr. Keri Brenner: Suffering is something that's so omnipresent in the work of clinical oncology, and I like to begin by just thinking about what is suffering, because it's a word that we use so commonly, and yet, it's important to know what we're talking about. I think about the definition of Eric Cassell, who was a beloved mentor of mine for decades, and he defined suffering as the state of severe distress that's associated with events that threaten the intactness of a person. And my colleague here at Stanford, Tyler Tate, has been working on a definition of suffering that encompasses the experience of a gap between how things are versus how things ought to be. Both of these definitions really touch upon suffering in a person-centered way that's relational about one's identity, meaning, autonomy, and connectedness with others. So these definitions alone remind us that suffering calls for a person-centered response, not the patient as a pathology, but the panoramic view of who the patient is as a person and their lived reality of illness. And in this light, the therapeutic alliance becomes one of our most active ingredients in care. The therapeutic alliance is that collaborative, trusting bond as persons that we have between clinician and patient, and it's actually one of the most powerful predictors of meaningful outcomes in our care, especially in oncologic care.  You know, I'll never forget my first day of internship at Massachusetts General Hospital. A faculty lecturer shared this really sage insight with us that left this indelible mark. She shared, “As physicians and healers, your very self is the primary instrument of healing. Our being is the median of the medicine.” So, our very selves as embodied, relationally grounded people, that's the median of the medicine and the first most enduring medicine that we offer. That has really borne fruit in the evidence that we see around the therapeutic alliance. And we see this in oncologic care, that in advanced cancer, a strong alliance with one's oncologist truly improves a patient's quality of life, treatment adherence, emotional well-being, and even surpasses structured interventions like psychotherapeutic interventions. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's just incredibly helpful information and actually terminology as well, and I think the concept of suffering differs so much. Suffering comes in many shapes and forms, and I think you really have highlighted that. But many oncologists struggle with knowing what to do when patients are suffering but can't be fixed, and I think a lot of times that has to do with oncologists when patients have pain or shortness of breath or issues like that. There are obviously many ways people suffer. But I think what's really challenging is how clinicians understand suffering and what the best approaches to respond to suffering are in the best patient-centered and therapeutic way. Dr. Keri Brenner: I get that question a lot from my trainees in palliative care, not knowing what to do. And my first response is, this is about how to be, not about knowing what to do, but how to be. In our medical training, we're trained often how to think and treat, but rarely how to be, how to accompany others. And I often have this image that I tell my trainees of, instead of this hierarchical approach of a fix-it mentality of all we're going to do, when it comes to elements of unavoidable loss, mortality, unavoidable sufferings, I imagine something more like accompaniment, a patient walking through some dark caverns, and I am accompanying them, trying to walk beside them, shining a light as a guide throughout that darkness. So it's a spirit of being and walking with. And it's so tempting in medicine to either avoid the suffering altogether or potentially overidentify with it, where the suffering just becomes so all-consuming like it's our own. And we're taught to instead strike a balance of authentic accompaniment through it. I often teach this key concept in my palli-psych work with my team about formulation. Formulation is a working hypothesis. It's taking a step back and asking, “Why? Why is this patient behaving in this manner? What might the patient's core inner struggle be?” Because asking that “why” and understanding the nuanced dimensions of a patient's core inner struggle will really help guide our therapeutic interactions and guide the way that we accompany them and where we choose to shine that light as we're walking with them. And oftentimes people think, “Well Keri, that sounds so sappy or oversentimental,” and it's not. You know, I'm just thinking about a case that I had a couple months ago, and it was a 28-year-old man with gastric cancer, metastatic disease, and that 28-year-old man, he was actually a college Division I athlete, and his dad was an acclaimed Division I coach. And our typical open-ended palliative care questions, that approach, infuriated them. They needed to know that I was showing up confident, competent, and that I was ready, on my A-game, with a real plan for them to follow through. And so my formulation about them was they needed somebody to show up with that confidence and competence, like the Division I athletes that they were, to really meet them and accompany them where they were on how they were going to walk through that experience of illness. Dr. Hope Rugo: These kinds of insights are so helpful to think about how we manage something that we face every day in oncology care. And I think that there are many ways to manage this.  Maybe I'll ask Dr. Sławkowski-Rode one question just that I think sequences nicely with what you're talking about.  A lot of our patients are trying to think about sort of the bigger picture and how that might help clinicians understand and support patients. So, the whole concept of spirituality, you know, how can we really use that as oncology clinicians to better understand and support patients with advanced illness, and how can that help patients themselves? And we'll talk about that in two different ways, but we'll just start with this broader question. Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: I think spirituality, and here, I usually refer to spirituality in terms of religious belief. Most people in the world are religious believers, and it is very intuitive and natural that religious beliefs would be a resource that people who help patients with a terminal diagnosis and healthcare professionals who work with those patients appeal to when they try to help them deal with the trauma and the stress of these situations.  Now, I think that the interesting thing there is that very often the benefit of appealing to a religious belief is misunderstood in terms of what it delivers. And there are many, many studies on how religious belief can be used to support therapy and to support patients in getting through the experience of suffering and defeating cancer or facing a terminal diagnosis. There's a wealth of literature on this. But most of the literature focuses on this idea that by appealing to religious belief, we help patients and healthcare practitioners who are working with them get over the fact and that there's a terminal diagnosis determining the course of someone's life and get on with our lives and engaging with whatever other pursuits we might have, with our job if we're healthcare practitioners, and with the other things that we might be passionate about in our lives. And the idea here is that this is what religion allows us to do because we sort of defer the need to worry about what's going to happen to us until the afterlife or some perspective beyond the horizon of our life here.  However, my view is – I have worked beyond philosophy also with theologians from many traditions, and my view here is that religion is something that does allow us to get on with our life but not because we're able to move on or move past the concerns that are being threatened by illness or death, but by forming stronger bonds with these things that we value in our life in a way and to have a sense of hope that these will be things that we will be able to keep an attachment to despite the threat to our life. So, in a sense, I think very many approaches in the field have the benefit of religion upside down, as it were, when it comes to helping patients and healthcare professionals who are engaged with their illness and treating it. Dr. Hope Rugo: You know, it's really interesting the points that you make, and I think really important, but, you know, sometimes the oncologists are really struggling with their own emotional reactions, how they are reacting to patients, and dealing with sort of taking on the burden, which, Dr. Brenner, you were mentioning earlier. How can oncologists be aware of their own emotional reactions? You know, they're struggling with this patient who they're very attached to who's dying or whatever the situation is, but you want to avoid burnout as an oncologist but also understand the patient's inner world and support them. Dr. Keri Brenner: I believe that these affective, emotional states, they're contagious. As we accompany patients through these tragic losses, it's very normal and expected that we ourselves will experience that full range of the human experience as we accompany the patients. And so the more that we can recognize that this is a normative dimension of our work, to have a nonjudgmental stance about the whole panoramic set of emotions that we'll experience as we accompany patients with curiosity and openness about that, the more sustainable the work will become. And I often think about the concept of countertransference given to us by Sigmund Freud over 100 years ago. Countertransference is the clinician's response to the patient, the thoughts, feelings, associations that come up within us, shaped by our own history, our own life events, those unconscious processes that come to the foreground as we are accompanying patients with illness. And that is a natural part of the human experience. Historically, countertransference was viewed as something negative, and now it's actually seen as a key that can unlock and enlighten the formulation about what might be going on within the patient themselves even. You know, I was with a patient a couple weeks ago, and I found myself feeling pretty helpless and hopeless in the encounter as I was trying to care for them. And I recognized that countertransference within myself that I was feeling demoralized. It was a prompt for me to take a step back, get on the balcony, and be curious about that because I normally don't feel helpless and hopeless caring for my patients. Well, ultimately, I discovered through processing it with my interdisciplinary team that the patient likely had demoralization as a clinical syndrome, and so it's natural many of us were feeling helpless and hopeless also accompanying them with their care. And it allowed us to have a greater interdisciplinary approach and a more therapeutic response and deeper empathy for the patient's plight. And we can really be curious about our countertransferences. You know, a few months ago, I was feeling bored and distracted in a family meeting, which is quite atypical for me when I'm sharing serious illness news. And it was actually a key that allowed me to recognize that the patient was trying to distract all of us talking about inconsequential facts and details rather than the gravitas of her illness.  Being curious about these affective states really allows us to have greater sustainability within our own practice because it normalizes that human spectrum of emotions and also allows us to reduce unconscious bias and have greater inclusivity with our practice because what Freud also said is that what we can't recognize and say within our own selves, if we don't have that self-reflective capacity, it will come out in what we do. So really recognizing and having the self-awareness and naming some of these emotions with trusted colleagues or even within our own selves allows us to ensure that it doesn't come out in aberrant behaviors like avoiding the patient, staving off that patient till the end of the day, or overtreating, offering more chemotherapy or not having the goals of care, doing everything possible when we know that that might result in medically ineffective care. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, I love the comments that you made, sort of weaving in Freud, but also, I think the importance of talking to colleagues and to sharing some of these issues because I do think that oncologists suffer from the fact that no one else in your life wants to hear about dying people. They don't really want to hear about the tragic cases either. So, I think that using your community, your oncology community and greater community within medicine, is an important part of being able to sort of process. Dr. Keri Brenner: Yes, and Dr. Rugo, this came up in our ASCO [Education] Session. I'd love to double click into some of those ways that we can do this that aren't too time consuming in our everyday practice. You know, within palliative care, we have interdisciplinary rounds where we process complex cases. Some of us do case supervision with a trusted mentor or colleague where we bring complex cases to them. My team and I offer process rounds virtually where we go through countertransference, formulation, and therapeutic responses on some tough cases.  You know, on a personal note, just last week when I left a family meeting feeling really depleted and stuck, I called one of my trusted colleagues and just for 3 minutes constructively, sort of cathartically vented what was coming up within me after that family meeting, which allowed me to have more of an enlightened stance on what to do next and how to be therapeutically helpful for the case. One of my colleagues calls this "friend-tors." They coined the phrase, and they actually wrote a paper about it. Who within your peer group of trusted colleagues can you utilize and phone in real time or have process opportunities with to get a pulse check on where what's coming up within us as we're doing this work? Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, and it's an interesting question about how one does that and, you know, maintaining that as you move institutions or change places or become more senior, it's really important.  One of the, I think, the challenges sometimes is that we come from different places from our patients, and that can be an issue, I think when our patients are very religious and the provider is not, or the reverse, patients who don't have religious beliefs and you're trying to sort of focus on the spirituality, but it doesn't really ring true. So, Dr. Sławkowski-Rode, what resources can patients and practitioners draw on when they're facing death and loss in the absence of, or just different religious beliefs that don't fit into the standard model? Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: You're absolutely right that this can be an extremely problematic situation to be in when there is that disconnect of religious belief or more generally spiritual engagement with the situation that we're in. But I just wanted to tie into what Dr. Brenner was saying just before. I couldn't agree more, and I think that a lot of healthcare practitioners, oncologists in particular who I've had the pleasure to talk to at ASCO and at other events as well, are very often quite skeptical about emotional engagement in their profession. They feel as though this is something to be managed, as it were, and something that gets in the way. And they can often be very critical of methods that help them understand the emotions and extend them towards patients because they feel that this will be an obstacle to doing their job and potentially an obstacle also to helping patients to their full ability if they focus on their own emotions or the burden that emotionally, spiritually, and in other ways the illness is for the patient. They feel that they should be focusing on the cancer rather than on the patient's emotions. And I think that a useful comparison, although, you know, perhaps slightly drastic, is that of combat experience of soldiers. They also need to be up and running and can't be too emotionally invested in the situation that they're in. But there's a crucial difference, which is that soldiers are usually engaged in very short bursts of activity with the time to go back and rethink, and they often have a lot of support for this in between. Whereas doctors are in a profession where their exposure to the emotions of patients and their own emotions, the emotions of families of patients is constant. And I think that there's a great danger in thinking that this is something to be avoided and something to compartmentalize in order to avoid burnout. I think, in a way, burnout is more sure to happen if your emotions and your attachment to your patients goes ignored for too long. So that's just following up on Keri's absolutely excellent points. As far as the disconnect is concerned, that's, in fact, an area in which I'm particularly interested in. That's where my research comes in. I'm interested in the kinds of connections that we have with other people, especially in terms of maintaining bonds when there is no spiritual belief, no spiritual backdrop to support this connection. In most religious traditions, we have the framework of the religious belief that tells us that the person who we've lost or the values that have become undermined in our life are something that hasn't been destroyed permanently but something that we can still believe we have a deep connection to despite its absence from our life. And how do you rebuild that sense of the existence of the things that you have perceivably lost without the appeal to some sort of transcendent realm which is defined by a given religion? And that is a hard question. That's a question, I think, that can be answered partly by psychology but also partly by philosophy in terms of looking at who we are as human beings and our nature as people who are essentially, or as entities that are essentially connected to one another. That connection, I believe, is more direct than the mediation of religion might at first suggest. I think that we essentially share the world not only physically, it's not just the case that we're all here, but more importantly, the world that we live in is not just the physical world but the world of meanings and values that helps us orient ourselves in society and amongst one another as friends and foes. And it is that shared sense of the world that we can appeal to when we're thinking about retaining the value or retaining the connection with the people who we have lost or the people who are helping through, go through an experience of facing death. And just to finish, there's a very interesting question, I think, something that we possibly don't have time to explore, about the degree of connection that we have with other people. So, what I've just been saying is something that rings more true or is more intuitive when we think about the connections that we have to our closest ones. We share a similar outlook onto the world, and our preferences and our moods and our emotions and our values are shaped by life with the other person. And so, appealing to these values can give us a sense of a continued presence. But what in those relationships where the connection isn't that close? For example, given the topic of this podcast, the connection that a patient has with their doctor and vice versa. In what sense can we talk about a shared world of experience? Well, I think, obviously, we should admit degrees to the kind of relationship that can sustain our connection with another person. But at the same time, I don't think there's a clear cutoff point. And I think part of emotional engagement in medical practice is finding yourself somewhere on that spectrum rather than thinking you're completely off of it. That's what I would say. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's very helpful and I think a very helpful way of thinking about how to manage this challenging situation for all of us.  One of the things that really, I think, is a big question for all of us throughout our careers, is when to address the dying process and how to do that. Dr. Brenner, you know, I still struggle with this – what to do when patients refuse to discuss end-of-life but they're very close to end of life? They don't want to talk about it. It's very stressful for all of us, even where you're going to be, how you're going to manage this. They're just absolutely opposed to that discussion. How should we approach those kinds of discussions? How do we manage that? How do you address the code discussion, which is so important? You know, these patients are not able to stay at home at end-of-life in general, so you really do need to have a code discussion before you're admitting them. It actually ends up being kind of a challenge and a mess all around. You know, I would love your advice about how to manage those situations. Dr. Keri Brenner: I think that's one of the most piercing and relevant inquiries we have within our clinical work and challenges. I often think of denial not as an all-or-nothing concept but rather as parts of self. There's a part of everyone's being where the unconscious believes it's immortal and will live on forever, and yet we all know intellectually that we all have mortality and finitude and transience, and that time will end. We often think of this work as more iterative and gradual and exposure based. There's potency to words. Saying, “You are dying within days,” is a lot higher potency of a phrase to share than, “This is serious illness. This illness is incurable. Time might be shorter than we hoped.” And so the earlier and more upstream we begin to have these conversations, even in small, subtle ways, it starts to begin to expose the patient to the concept so they can go from the head to the heart, not only knowing their prognosis intellectually but also affectively, to integrate it into who they are as a person because all patients are trying to live well while also we're gradually exposing them to this awareness of mortality within their own lived experience of illness. And that, ideally, happens gradually over time. Now, there are moments where the medical frame is very limited, and we might have short days, and we have to uptitrate those words and really accompany them more radically through those high-affective moments. And that's when we have to take a lot of more nuanced approaches, but I would say the more earlier and upstream the better. And then the second piece to that question as well is coping with our own mortality. The more we can be comfortable with our own transience and finitude and limitations, the more we will be able to accompany others through that. And even within my own life, I've had to integrate losses in a way where before I go in to talk to one of my own palliative care patients, one mantra I often say to myself is, “I'm just a few steps behind you. I don't know if it's going to be 30 days or 30 years, but I'm just a few steps behind you on this finite, transient road of life that is the human experience.” And that creates a stance of accompaniment that patients really can experience as they're traversing these tragedies. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's great. And I think those are really important points and actually some pearls, which I think we can take into the clinic. I think being really concrete when really the expected life expectancy is a few days to a couple of weeks can be very, very helpful. And making sure the patients hear you, but also continuing to let them know that, as oncologists, we're here for them. We're not abandoning them. I think that's a big worry for many, certainly of my patients, is that somehow when they would go to hospice or be a ‘no code', that we're not going to support them anymore or treat them anymore. That is a really important process of that as well. And of course, engaging the team makes a big difference because the whole oncology team can help to manage situations that are particularly challenging like that. And just as we close, I wanted to ask one last question of you, Dr. Brenner, that suffering, grief, and burnout, you've really made the point that these are not problems to fix but dimensions that we want to attend to and acknowledge as part of our lives, the dying process is part of all of our lives. It's just dealing with this in the unexpected and the, I think, unpredictability of life, you know, that people take on a lot of guilt and all sorts of things about, all sorts of emotions. And the question is now, people have listened to this podcast, what can they take back to their oncology teams to build a culture that supports clinicians and their team at large to engage with these realities in a meaningful and sustainable way? I really feel like if we could build the whole team approach where we're supporting each other and supporting the patients together, that that will help this process immeasurably. Dr. Keri Brenner: Yes, and I'm thinking about Dr. Sławkowski-Rode's observation about the combat analogy, and it made me recognize this distinction between suppression and repression. Repression is this unconscious process, and this is what we're taught to do in medical training all the time, to just involuntarily shove that tragedy under the rug, just forget about it and see the next patient and move on. And we know that if we keep unconsciously shoving things under the rug, that it will lead to burnout and lack of sustainability for our clinical teams. Suppression is a more conscious process. That deliberate effort to say, “This was a tragedy that I bore witness to. I know I need to put that in a box on the shelf for now because I have 10 other patients I have to see.” And yet, do I work in a culture where I can take that off the shelf during particular moments and process it with my interdisciplinary team, phone a friend, talk to a trusted colleague, have some trusted case supervision around it, or process rounds around it, talk to my social worker? And I think the more that we model this type of self-reflective capacity as attendings, folks who have been in the field for decades, the more we create that ethos and culture that is sustainable because clinician self-reflection is never a weakness, rather it's a silent strength. Clinician self-reflection is this portal for wisdom, connectedness, sustainability, and ultimately transformative growth within ourselves. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's such a great point, and I think this whole discussion has been so helpful for me and I hope for our audience that we really can take these points and bring them to our practice. I think, “Wow, this is such a great conversation. I'd like to have the team as a whole listen to this as ways to sort of strategize talking about the process, our patients, and being supportive as a team, understanding how we manage spirituality when it connects and when it doesn't.” All of these points, they're bringing in how we process these issues and the whole idea of suppressing versus sort of deciding that it never happened at all is, I think, very important because that's just a tool for managing our daily lives, our busy clinics, and everything we manage. Dr. Keri Brenner: And Dr. Rugo, it's reminding me at Stanford, you know, we have this weekly practice that's just a ritual where every Friday morning for 30 minutes, our social worker leads a process rounds with us as a team, where we talk about how the work that we're doing clinically is affecting us in our lives in ways that have joy and greater meaning and connectedness and other ways that might be depleting. And that kind of authentic vulnerability with one another allows us to show up more authentically for our patients. So those rituals, that small 30 minutes once a week, goes a long way. And it reminds me that sometimes slowing things down with those rituals can really get us to more meaningful, transformative places ultimately. Dr. Hope Rugo: It's a great idea, and I think, you know, making time for that in everybody's busy days where they just don't have any time anymore is important. And you don't have to do it weekly, you could even do something monthly. I think there's a lot of options, and that's a great suggestion. I want to thank you both for taking your time out for this enriching and incredibly helpful conversation. Our listeners will find a link to the Ed Book article we discussed today, which is excellent, in the transcript of this episode. I want to thank you again, Dr. Brenner and Dr. Sławkowski-Rode, for your time and for your excellent thoughts and advice and direction. Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: Thank you very much, Dr. Rugo. Dr. Keri Brenner: Thank you. Dr. Hope Rugo: And thanks to our listeners for joining us today. Please join us again next month on By the Book for more insightful views on topics you'll be hearing at the education sessions from ASCO meetings and our deep dives on new approaches that are shaping modern oncology. 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. Hope Rugo @hope.rugo Dr. Keri Brenner @keri_brenner Dr. Mikolaj Slawkowski-Rode @MikolajRode Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)      ASCO on Bluesky     ASCO on Facebook      ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:     Dr. Hope Rugo: Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx Dr. Keri Brenner: No relationships to disclose Dr. Mikolaj Slawkowski-Rode: No relationships to disclose    

Featuring perspectives from Dr Harold J Burstein, Dr Javier Cortés, Prof Rebecca A Dent, Dr Kevin Kalinsky, Dr Hope S Rugo and Dr Joyce O'Shaughnessy, moderated by Dr Rugo, including the following topics: Introduction (0:00) Optimizing the Management of HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer (mBC) — Dr Cortés (3:52) Individualized Selection of Up-Front Therapy for Patients with HR-Positive, HER2-Negative mBC — Dr Kalinsky (23:10) Available Therapies for Patients with HR-Positive, HER2-Negative Disease Progressing on CDK4/6 Inhibition — Dr Burstein (48:09) Current and Potential Future Role of HER2-Targeted Therapy for HER2-Low and HER2-Ultralow Disease — Dr O'Shaughnessy (1:04:00) Current and Future Strategies for Patients with Endocrine-Refractory HR-Positive mBC — Dr Rugo (1:22:28) Selection and Sequencing of Therapy for Patients with Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer — Prof Dent (1:42:51) CME information and select publications

At the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, Hope Rugo, MD, chaired a session on managing the side effects of new breast cancer treatments and also presented information on how to manage the side effects of hormonal therapy medicines, which are used to treat hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Listen to the episode to hear Dr. Rugo explain: ways to manage the side effects of tamoxifen and the aromatase inhibitors why talking to your doctor about side is crucial to managing them her advice for people who are having side effects from hormonal therapy medicines

Boostada oo daroogo badan laga helo. Rugo caafimaad oo cillado loo xiray. Kafeega oo qiimihii ugu sareeyey 50 sano gaaray.

Featuring a discussion on data from SABCS 2024 and the management of HER2-low breast cancer with Drs Bardia, Curigliano, Rugo and Wolff, moderated by Dr Neil Love. Produced by Research To Practice. CME information and select publications here (https://www.researchtopractice.com/SABCS2024/HER2LowBC)

Quand on évoque « les routes des esclaves » en RDC, on pense principalement au réseau nord qui partait de Kinshasa vers l'Angola en passant par le Congo central et le port de Moanda. Pourtant, il y a un autre réseau, celui du sud est utilisé essentiellement fin XVIIIe et début XIXe siècle par les Arabes, dont Mohamed Ahmed, connu sous le nom de Tipo Tip. Ses captifs, qui provenaient de la région du Maniema et des environs de Kalemie au sud est de la RDC, étaient ensuite exposés pour la vente au village Kasenga, à plus de 30 km, avant d'être embarqués vers l'île de Zanzibar en Tanzanie. Aujourd'hui, le Musée national à Kalemie tente de faire resurgir cette partie de l'histoire congolaise oubliée. Les Routes des esclaves est un site perdu entre des collines à près de 500 mètres du rivage du lac Tanganyika au nord de Kalemie, en RDC. Pour l'atteindre, il faut passer par le village Kasenga construit sur du sable fin de la plage. Portace Sungura, âgé de 79 ans, a vécu dans cette bourgade toute sa vie et raconte : « Ici était le marché des esclaves. Ils venaient de partout, et puis ils étaient embarqués vers d'autres pays. C'était le commerce des blancs et nous Congolais, on était vendu comme de la marchandise. »Le lieu qui servait justement de marché des esclaves est à environ 400 mètres. Ici, 22 manguiers vieux de plus d'un siècle forment deux rangées. La bande de Tipo Tip utilisait ces arbres pour attacher les esclaves avant l'échange. Mais, cet espace chargé d'histoire ne porte aucune inscription, regrette Kaskile, notre guide : « Ces arbres ne sont plus au nombre complet. Il y a celui-là qui est à côté, des jeunes l'avaient abattu pour produire du charbon. Et ce cet autre manguier du milieu, on l'avait coupé et déterré, espérant y trouver de l'or, mais il n'y avait rien… Et tout ça, c'est parce qu'il n'y a pas de plaque qui identifie le lieu. »La rivière Rugo sépare le site du village. Robert Sulubika, un jeune d'une vingtaine d'années, assure la traversée en pirogue des quelques rares visiteurs. « Les marchands d'esclaves passaient par cette voie. À l'époque, il n'y avait pas d'eau. Ils les conduisaient vers cette plage du lac Tanganyika qui est juste à côté, ensuite, ils les embarquaient pour la Tanzanie », explique-t-il.La Tanzanie, où vivent aujourd'hui les descendants de Naebeka, le grand-père d'Hubert Mbangwanguma, âgé de 89 ans, que nous avons rencontré un peu plus loin du site. Naeba était fait esclave par le groupe de Tipo Tip alors que la traite était déjà abolie, se souvient même en chanson son petit-fils Hubert : « Mon grand-père a été capturé et il est parti. Mais, il avait réussi à s'en fuir, car à ce moment-là, les Belges faisaient pression sur les Arabes. Et mon grand-père s'est installé à Iragana (en Tanzanie) où il est enterré. »Le site La Route des esclaves, au nord de Kalemie, est à ce jour menacé par les inondations. Certains manguiers ont séché. Le Musée national, antenne de Kalemie quant à lui, mène une campagne de promotion de cet espace afin de mobiliser des ressources pour le protéger.À écouter aussiSociété arabo-musulmane et esclavage

Featuring perspectives from Dr Aditya Bardia, Dr Harold J Burstein, Prof Giuseppe Curigliano, Dr Sara A Hurvitz, Dr Hope S Rugo and Dr Joyce O'Shaughnessy, moderated by Dr Rugo, including the following topics: Introduction (0:00) Optimizing the Management of HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer (mBC) — Dr Hurvitz (4:38) Individualized Selection of Up-Front Therapy for Patients with HR-Positive, HER2-Negative mBC — Dr Burstein (30:11) Selection and Sequencing of Treatment for Patients with HR-Positive, HER2-Negative mBC Who Experience Disease Progression on CDK4/6 Inhibition — Dr Rugo (48:15) Current and Future Role of HER2-Targeted Therapy for HER2-Low and HER2-Ultralow Disease — Prof Curigliano (1:07:24) Selection and Sequencing of Therapy for Patients with Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer — Dr O'Shaughnessy (1:22:11) Current and Future Strategies for the Care of Individuals with Endocrine-Refractory HR-Positive mBC — Dr Bardia (1:42:24) CME information and select publications

Drs Graff, Mahtani, McCann, and Rugo shared moments throughout their lives and careers that sparked their interest in oncology, setbacks they overcame when building their careers, obstacles they encounter as women in the field, and ways that gender bias can be confronted at both the individual and institutional levels.

It's not fair, really. If you think about it…It's one thing to be immensely talented at one creative endeavor, but nowadays, everyone's an overachiever. This is another installment of Drinking About Design, a journey into the less explored aspects of design, art and architecture. This installment is a fun one, for a litany of reasons, and not just because we're drinking, but that doesn't hurt. Just to reset the table for you. In the summer of 2020, the pandemic was in full effect. We were all locked in and trying to figure out what was going to happen next. You remember, you were doing the exact same thing. So, besides the day drinking and looking up old friends on Facebook, I was trying to learn new ways to be socially engaged. One of things I did during that time was binge watch Drunk History, Dinner for Five and Anthony Bourdain's Parts Unknown and No Reservations. Ground breaking shows that I never could find the time to watch before. I became enamored with the skill by which Anthony Bourdain found a complete language revolving around found and association to society, how Jon Favreau could take 4 celebrities and craft a vibrant tableau out of each of the stories shared around a table. How Derek Waters told stories through the honest interpretations of historical events through the drunken lens of comics woven together as a tapestry featuring some of the funniest people working in Hollywood. Then all of a sudden, it was over. Things opened up all at once and we all got busy. Really busy. I've been missing some of those evenings at the virtual bar, My virtual bar is called, Big D Energy. Big Design Energy for my Hip Hop loving friends. I wouldn't want you to get the wrong idea. Now, this installment is a fun one and features, Michael Imber, Ankie Barnes, Steve Rugo, Tom Kligerman and Douglas C. Wright. 5 architects, friends with a passion for whisky and a love for painting in watercolor.  Some are a bit better at it, I'm not going to say who…but they will. These five creatives are extremely accomplished in their chosen profession, they are extraordinarily talented artists, they are well traveled, and we talk about this and so much more.  Old Fashioned Ingredients - AllRecipes.com These are the ingredients you'll need to make this top-rated old fashioned recipe: Simple syrup: Use store-bought simple syrup or make your own at home. Water: A teaspoon of water helps bring out the flavor of the bourbon. Bitters: Use store-bought bitters or make your own at home. Ice: Traditional old fashioned cocktails are served over ice. Bourbon: Of course, you'll need bourbon! You can use rye whiskey instead, if you like. Garnishes: Garnish your old fashioned with an orange slice and a maraschino cherry. Welcome to the Big D Energy, a virtual pub at the sketchy outskirts of the internet. We're talking about art, architecture, travel, and having fun with a few pops among friends. Cozy up to the bar, grab a drink and enjoy this conversation with the Whiskey Watercolor Club. Thanks for listening to this installment of Drinking About Design featuring the Whiskey Watercolor Club. Thank you, Tom, Ankie, Michael, Douglas and Steve for sharing your stories and incredible talents. Thank you for doing this. For notes, drink recipe's and further links to the stories and work you heard about here, check the show notes. Thanks for listening. Cheers.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/AAPA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/GHA865. CME/MOC/AAPA credit will be available until January 6, 2025.Mastering the Art of Precision in the Treatment of HR+ Early and Metastatic Breast Cancer: Risk Assessment, Prognostic Testing, and Selection and Sequencing of Therapies In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, GRASP, and Living Beyond Breast Cancer. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Olema Pharmaceuticals.Disclosure PolicyAll relevant conflicts of interest have been mitigated prior to the commencement of the activity.Faculty/Planner DisclosuresChair/PlannerErika Hamilton, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for Arcus Biosciences, Inc.; Arvinas, Inc.; AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ellipses Pharma; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; Greenwich LifeSciences, Inc.; iTeos Therapeutics; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Lilly; Loxo Oncology; Mersana Therapeutics; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Orum Therapeutics; Pfizer; Relay Therapeutics; Seagen Inc.; and Verascity Science (all paid to institution).Grant/Research Support from AbbVie Inc.; Accutar Biotechnology Inc; Acerta Pharma; ADC Therapeutics SA; Akeso Biopharma Co., Ltd.; Amgen Inc.; Aravive; Artios Pharma; Arvinas, Inc.; AstraZeneca; AtlasMedx, Inc.; BeiGene, Inc.; Black Diamond Therapeutics, Inc.; Bliss Biopharmaceutical (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd.; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Cascadian Therapeutics; Clovis Oncology; Compugen; Cullinan Oncology, Inc.; Curis, Inc.; CytomX Therapeutics, Inc.; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Dantari; Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Duality Biologics; eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Inc.; Ellipses Pharma; Elucida Oncology, Inc.; EMD Serono, Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; FUJIFILM Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.; G1 Therapeutics, Inc.; H3 Biomedicine Inc.; Harpoon Therapeutics; HUTCHMED (China) Limited; ImmunoGen, Inc.; Immunomedics, Inc.; Incyte; Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; InvestisBio; Jacobio Pharmaceuticals Group Co., Ltd.; K-Group Beta, Inc.; Karyopharm; Lilly; Loxo Oncology; Lycera; MabSpace Biosciences Co., Ltd.; MacroGenics, Inc.; MedImmune, LLC; Mersana Therapeutics; Merus; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Molecular Templates, Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Nucana; Olema Oncology; OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Onconova Therapeutics; Oncothyreon; ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Orinove Inc.; Pfizer; PharmaMar; Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pionyr Immunotherapeutics; Plexxikon; Radius Health, Inc.; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Relay Therapeutics; Repertoire Immune Medicines; Rgenix Inc.; Seagen Inc.; Sermonix Pharmaceuticals; Shattuck Labs Inc.; Stemcentrx, Inc.; Sutro Biopharma, Inc.; Syndax; Syros Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Taiho Oncology, Inc.; TapImmune Inc; TESARO, Inc.; Tolmar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Torque Therapeutics, Inc.; Treadwell Therapeutics; Verastem, Inc.; Vincerx Pharma; zenithepigenetics; and Zymeworks Inc. (all paid to institution).Faculty/PlannerKomal Jhaveri, MD, FACP, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AbbVie Inc.; AstraZeneca; Blueprint Medicines; Bristol Myers Squibb; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Eisai Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; Jounce Therapeutics, Inc.; Lilly/Loxo Oncology; Menarini Group/Stemline Therapeutics; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Pfizer; Scorpion Therapeutics; Seattle Genetics, Inc. (Seagen Inc.); Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company; and Taiho Oncology, Inc.Grant/Research Support from ADC Therapeutics SA; AstraZeneca; Blueprint Medicines; Debiopharm; Genentech, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Lilly; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Novita Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pfizer; Puma Biotechnology, Inc.; Scorpion Therapeutics; and Zymeworks Inc.Faculty/PlannerHope S. Rugo, MD, FASCO, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Mylan/Viatris Inc.; Napo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Puma Biotechnology, Inc.Grant/Research Support from AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Lilly; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; OBI Pharma, Inc.; Pfizer; Pionyr Immunotherapeutics; Sermonix Pharmaceuticals; and Stemline Therapeutics.Faculty/PlannerPaolo Tarantino, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; and Lilly.Grant/Research Support from AstraZeneca.Planning Committee and Reviewer DisclosuresPlanners, independent reviewers, and staff of PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, do not have any relevant financial relationships related to this CE activity unless listed below.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/AAPA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/GHA865. CME/MOC/AAPA credit will be available until January 6, 2025.Mastering the Art of Precision in the Treatment of HR+ Early and Metastatic Breast Cancer: Risk Assessment, Prognostic Testing, and Selection and Sequencing of Therapies In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, GRASP, and Living Beyond Breast Cancer. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Olema Pharmaceuticals.Disclosure PolicyAll relevant conflicts of interest have been mitigated prior to the commencement of the activity.Faculty/Planner DisclosuresChair/PlannerErika Hamilton, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for Arcus Biosciences, Inc.; Arvinas, Inc.; AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ellipses Pharma; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; Greenwich LifeSciences, Inc.; iTeos Therapeutics; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Lilly; Loxo Oncology; Mersana Therapeutics; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Orum Therapeutics; Pfizer; Relay Therapeutics; Seagen Inc.; and Verascity Science (all paid to institution).Grant/Research Support from AbbVie Inc.; Accutar Biotechnology Inc; Acerta Pharma; ADC Therapeutics SA; Akeso Biopharma Co., Ltd.; Amgen Inc.; Aravive; Artios Pharma; Arvinas, Inc.; AstraZeneca; AtlasMedx, Inc.; BeiGene, Inc.; Black Diamond Therapeutics, Inc.; Bliss Biopharmaceutical (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd.; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Cascadian Therapeutics; Clovis Oncology; Compugen; Cullinan Oncology, Inc.; Curis, Inc.; CytomX Therapeutics, Inc.; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Dantari; Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Duality Biologics; eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Inc.; Ellipses Pharma; Elucida Oncology, Inc.; EMD Serono, Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; FUJIFILM Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.; G1 Therapeutics, Inc.; H3 Biomedicine Inc.; Harpoon Therapeutics; HUTCHMED (China) Limited; ImmunoGen, Inc.; Immunomedics, Inc.; Incyte; Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; InvestisBio; Jacobio Pharmaceuticals Group Co., Ltd.; K-Group Beta, Inc.; Karyopharm; Lilly; Loxo Oncology; Lycera; MabSpace Biosciences Co., Ltd.; MacroGenics, Inc.; MedImmune, LLC; Mersana Therapeutics; Merus; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Molecular Templates, Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Nucana; Olema Oncology; OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Onconova Therapeutics; Oncothyreon; ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Orinove Inc.; Pfizer; PharmaMar; Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pionyr Immunotherapeutics; Plexxikon; Radius Health, Inc.; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Relay Therapeutics; Repertoire Immune Medicines; Rgenix Inc.; Seagen Inc.; Sermonix Pharmaceuticals; Shattuck Labs Inc.; Stemcentrx, Inc.; Sutro Biopharma, Inc.; Syndax; Syros Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Taiho Oncology, Inc.; TapImmune Inc; TESARO, Inc.; Tolmar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Torque Therapeutics, Inc.; Treadwell Therapeutics; Verastem, Inc.; Vincerx Pharma; zenithepigenetics; and Zymeworks Inc. (all paid to institution).Faculty/PlannerKomal Jhaveri, MD, FACP, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AbbVie Inc.; AstraZeneca; Blueprint Medicines; Bristol Myers Squibb; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Eisai Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; Jounce Therapeutics, Inc.; Lilly/Loxo Oncology; Menarini Group/Stemline Therapeutics; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Pfizer; Scorpion Therapeutics; Seattle Genetics, Inc. (Seagen Inc.); Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company; and Taiho Oncology, Inc.Grant/Research Support from ADC Therapeutics SA; AstraZeneca; Blueprint Medicines; Debiopharm; Genentech, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Lilly; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Novita Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pfizer; Puma Biotechnology, Inc.; Scorpion Therapeutics; and Zymeworks Inc.Faculty/PlannerHope S. Rugo, MD, FASCO, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Mylan/Viatris Inc.; Napo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Puma Biotechnology, Inc.Grant/Research Support from AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Lilly; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; OBI Pharma, Inc.; Pfizer; Pionyr Immunotherapeutics; Sermonix Pharmaceuticals; and Stemline Therapeutics.Faculty/PlannerPaolo Tarantino, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; and Lilly.Grant/Research Support from AstraZeneca.Planning Committee and Reviewer DisclosuresPlanners, independent reviewers, and staff of PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, do not have any relevant financial relationships related to this CE activity unless listed below.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/AAPA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/GHA865. CME/MOC/AAPA credit will be available until January 6, 2025.Mastering the Art of Precision in the Treatment of HR+ Early and Metastatic Breast Cancer: Risk Assessment, Prognostic Testing, and Selection and Sequencing of Therapies In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, GRASP, and Living Beyond Breast Cancer. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Olema Pharmaceuticals.Disclosure PolicyAll relevant conflicts of interest have been mitigated prior to the commencement of the activity.Faculty/Planner DisclosuresChair/PlannerErika Hamilton, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for Arcus Biosciences, Inc.; Arvinas, Inc.; AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ellipses Pharma; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; Greenwich LifeSciences, Inc.; iTeos Therapeutics; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Lilly; Loxo Oncology; Mersana Therapeutics; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Orum Therapeutics; Pfizer; Relay Therapeutics; Seagen Inc.; and Verascity Science (all paid to institution).Grant/Research Support from AbbVie Inc.; Accutar Biotechnology Inc; Acerta Pharma; ADC Therapeutics SA; Akeso Biopharma Co., Ltd.; Amgen Inc.; Aravive; Artios Pharma; Arvinas, Inc.; AstraZeneca; AtlasMedx, Inc.; BeiGene, Inc.; Black Diamond Therapeutics, Inc.; Bliss Biopharmaceutical (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd.; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Cascadian Therapeutics; Clovis Oncology; Compugen; Cullinan Oncology, Inc.; Curis, Inc.; CytomX Therapeutics, Inc.; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Dantari; Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Duality Biologics; eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Inc.; Ellipses Pharma; Elucida Oncology, Inc.; EMD Serono, Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; FUJIFILM Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.; G1 Therapeutics, Inc.; H3 Biomedicine Inc.; Harpoon Therapeutics; HUTCHMED (China) Limited; ImmunoGen, Inc.; Immunomedics, Inc.; Incyte; Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; InvestisBio; Jacobio Pharmaceuticals Group Co., Ltd.; K-Group Beta, Inc.; Karyopharm; Lilly; Loxo Oncology; Lycera; MabSpace Biosciences Co., Ltd.; MacroGenics, Inc.; MedImmune, LLC; Mersana Therapeutics; Merus; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Molecular Templates, Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Nucana; Olema Oncology; OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Onconova Therapeutics; Oncothyreon; ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Orinove Inc.; Pfizer; PharmaMar; Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pionyr Immunotherapeutics; Plexxikon; Radius Health, Inc.; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Relay Therapeutics; Repertoire Immune Medicines; Rgenix Inc.; Seagen Inc.; Sermonix Pharmaceuticals; Shattuck Labs Inc.; Stemcentrx, Inc.; Sutro Biopharma, Inc.; Syndax; Syros Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Taiho Oncology, Inc.; TapImmune Inc; TESARO, Inc.; Tolmar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Torque Therapeutics, Inc.; Treadwell Therapeutics; Verastem, Inc.; Vincerx Pharma; zenithepigenetics; and Zymeworks Inc. (all paid to institution).Faculty/PlannerKomal Jhaveri, MD, FACP, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AbbVie Inc.; AstraZeneca; Blueprint Medicines; Bristol Myers Squibb; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Eisai Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; Jounce Therapeutics, Inc.; Lilly/Loxo Oncology; Menarini Group/Stemline Therapeutics; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Pfizer; Scorpion Therapeutics; Seattle Genetics, Inc. (Seagen Inc.); Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company; and Taiho Oncology, Inc.Grant/Research Support from ADC Therapeutics SA; AstraZeneca; Blueprint Medicines; Debiopharm; Genentech, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Lilly; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Novita Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pfizer; Puma Biotechnology, Inc.; Scorpion Therapeutics; and Zymeworks Inc.Faculty/PlannerHope S. Rugo, MD, FASCO, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Mylan/Viatris Inc.; Napo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Puma Biotechnology, Inc.Grant/Research Support from AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Lilly; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; OBI Pharma, Inc.; Pfizer; Pionyr Immunotherapeutics; Sermonix Pharmaceuticals; and Stemline Therapeutics.Faculty/PlannerPaolo Tarantino, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; and Lilly.Grant/Research Support from AstraZeneca.Planning Committee and Reviewer DisclosuresPlanners, independent reviewers, and staff of PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, do not have any relevant financial relationships related to this CE activity unless listed below.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/AAPA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/GHA865. CME/MOC/AAPA credit will be available until January 6, 2025.Mastering the Art of Precision in the Treatment of HR+ Early and Metastatic Breast Cancer: Risk Assessment, Prognostic Testing, and Selection and Sequencing of Therapies In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, GRASP, and Living Beyond Breast Cancer. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Olema Pharmaceuticals.Disclosure PolicyAll relevant conflicts of interest have been mitigated prior to the commencement of the activity.Faculty/Planner DisclosuresChair/PlannerErika Hamilton, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for Arcus Biosciences, Inc.; Arvinas, Inc.; AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ellipses Pharma; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; Greenwich LifeSciences, Inc.; iTeos Therapeutics; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Lilly; Loxo Oncology; Mersana Therapeutics; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Orum Therapeutics; Pfizer; Relay Therapeutics; Seagen Inc.; and Verascity Science (all paid to institution).Grant/Research Support from AbbVie Inc.; Accutar Biotechnology Inc; Acerta Pharma; ADC Therapeutics SA; Akeso Biopharma Co., Ltd.; Amgen Inc.; Aravive; Artios Pharma; Arvinas, Inc.; AstraZeneca; AtlasMedx, Inc.; BeiGene, Inc.; Black Diamond Therapeutics, Inc.; Bliss Biopharmaceutical (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd.; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Cascadian Therapeutics; Clovis Oncology; Compugen; Cullinan Oncology, Inc.; Curis, Inc.; CytomX Therapeutics, Inc.; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Dantari; Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Duality Biologics; eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Inc.; Ellipses Pharma; Elucida Oncology, Inc.; EMD Serono, Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; FUJIFILM Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.; G1 Therapeutics, Inc.; H3 Biomedicine Inc.; Harpoon Therapeutics; HUTCHMED (China) Limited; ImmunoGen, Inc.; Immunomedics, Inc.; Incyte; Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; InvestisBio; Jacobio Pharmaceuticals Group Co., Ltd.; K-Group Beta, Inc.; Karyopharm; Lilly; Loxo Oncology; Lycera; MabSpace Biosciences Co., Ltd.; MacroGenics, Inc.; MedImmune, LLC; Mersana Therapeutics; Merus; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Molecular Templates, Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Nucana; Olema Oncology; OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Onconova Therapeutics; Oncothyreon; ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Orinove Inc.; Pfizer; PharmaMar; Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pionyr Immunotherapeutics; Plexxikon; Radius Health, Inc.; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Relay Therapeutics; Repertoire Immune Medicines; Rgenix Inc.; Seagen Inc.; Sermonix Pharmaceuticals; Shattuck Labs Inc.; Stemcentrx, Inc.; Sutro Biopharma, Inc.; Syndax; Syros Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Taiho Oncology, Inc.; TapImmune Inc; TESARO, Inc.; Tolmar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Torque Therapeutics, Inc.; Treadwell Therapeutics; Verastem, Inc.; Vincerx Pharma; zenithepigenetics; and Zymeworks Inc. (all paid to institution).Faculty/PlannerKomal Jhaveri, MD, FACP, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AbbVie Inc.; AstraZeneca; Blueprint Medicines; Bristol Myers Squibb; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Eisai Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; Jounce Therapeutics, Inc.; Lilly/Loxo Oncology; Menarini Group/Stemline Therapeutics; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Pfizer; Scorpion Therapeutics; Seattle Genetics, Inc. (Seagen Inc.); Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company; and Taiho Oncology, Inc.Grant/Research Support from ADC Therapeutics SA; AstraZeneca; Blueprint Medicines; Debiopharm; Genentech, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Lilly; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Novita Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pfizer; Puma Biotechnology, Inc.; Scorpion Therapeutics; and Zymeworks Inc.Faculty/PlannerHope S. Rugo, MD, FASCO, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Mylan/Viatris Inc.; Napo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Puma Biotechnology, Inc.Grant/Research Support from AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Lilly; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; OBI Pharma, Inc.; Pfizer; Pionyr Immunotherapeutics; Sermonix Pharmaceuticals; and Stemline Therapeutics.Faculty/PlannerPaolo Tarantino, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; and Lilly.Grant/Research Support from AstraZeneca.Planning Committee and Reviewer DisclosuresPlanners, independent reviewers, and staff of PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, do not have any relevant financial relationships related to this CE activity unless listed below.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/AAPA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/GHA865. CME/MOC/AAPA credit will be available until January 6, 2025.Mastering the Art of Precision in the Treatment of HR+ Early and Metastatic Breast Cancer: Risk Assessment, Prognostic Testing, and Selection and Sequencing of Therapies In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, GRASP, and Living Beyond Breast Cancer. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Olema Pharmaceuticals.Disclosure PolicyAll relevant conflicts of interest have been mitigated prior to the commencement of the activity.Faculty/Planner DisclosuresChair/PlannerErika Hamilton, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for Arcus Biosciences, Inc.; Arvinas, Inc.; AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ellipses Pharma; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; Greenwich LifeSciences, Inc.; iTeos Therapeutics; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Lilly; Loxo Oncology; Mersana Therapeutics; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Orum Therapeutics; Pfizer; Relay Therapeutics; Seagen Inc.; and Verascity Science (all paid to institution).Grant/Research Support from AbbVie Inc.; Accutar Biotechnology Inc; Acerta Pharma; ADC Therapeutics SA; Akeso Biopharma Co., Ltd.; Amgen Inc.; Aravive; Artios Pharma; Arvinas, Inc.; AstraZeneca; AtlasMedx, Inc.; BeiGene, Inc.; Black Diamond Therapeutics, Inc.; Bliss Biopharmaceutical (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd.; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Cascadian Therapeutics; Clovis Oncology; Compugen; Cullinan Oncology, Inc.; Curis, Inc.; CytomX Therapeutics, Inc.; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Dantari; Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Duality Biologics; eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Inc.; Ellipses Pharma; Elucida Oncology, Inc.; EMD Serono, Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; FUJIFILM Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.; G1 Therapeutics, Inc.; H3 Biomedicine Inc.; Harpoon Therapeutics; HUTCHMED (China) Limited; ImmunoGen, Inc.; Immunomedics, Inc.; Incyte; Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; InvestisBio; Jacobio Pharmaceuticals Group Co., Ltd.; K-Group Beta, Inc.; Karyopharm; Lilly; Loxo Oncology; Lycera; MabSpace Biosciences Co., Ltd.; MacroGenics, Inc.; MedImmune, LLC; Mersana Therapeutics; Merus; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Molecular Templates, Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Nucana; Olema Oncology; OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Onconova Therapeutics; Oncothyreon; ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Orinove Inc.; Pfizer; PharmaMar; Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pionyr Immunotherapeutics; Plexxikon; Radius Health, Inc.; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Relay Therapeutics; Repertoire Immune Medicines; Rgenix Inc.; Seagen Inc.; Sermonix Pharmaceuticals; Shattuck Labs Inc.; Stemcentrx, Inc.; Sutro Biopharma, Inc.; Syndax; Syros Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Taiho Oncology, Inc.; TapImmune Inc; TESARO, Inc.; Tolmar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Torque Therapeutics, Inc.; Treadwell Therapeutics; Verastem, Inc.; Vincerx Pharma; zenithepigenetics; and Zymeworks Inc. (all paid to institution).Faculty/PlannerKomal Jhaveri, MD, FACP, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AbbVie Inc.; AstraZeneca; Blueprint Medicines; Bristol Myers Squibb; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Eisai Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; Jounce Therapeutics, Inc.; Lilly/Loxo Oncology; Menarini Group/Stemline Therapeutics; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Pfizer; Scorpion Therapeutics; Seattle Genetics, Inc. (Seagen Inc.); Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company; and Taiho Oncology, Inc.Grant/Research Support from ADC Therapeutics SA; AstraZeneca; Blueprint Medicines; Debiopharm; Genentech, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Lilly; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Novita Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pfizer; Puma Biotechnology, Inc.; Scorpion Therapeutics; and Zymeworks Inc.Faculty/PlannerHope S. Rugo, MD, FASCO, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Mylan/Viatris Inc.; Napo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Puma Biotechnology, Inc.Grant/Research Support from AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Lilly; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; OBI Pharma, Inc.; Pfizer; Pionyr Immunotherapeutics; Sermonix Pharmaceuticals; and Stemline Therapeutics.Faculty/PlannerPaolo Tarantino, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; and Lilly.Grant/Research Support from AstraZeneca.Planning Committee and Reviewer DisclosuresPlanners, independent reviewers, and staff of PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, do not have any relevant financial relationships related to this CE activity unless listed below.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/AAPA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/GHA865. CME/MOC/AAPA credit will be available until January 6, 2025.Mastering the Art of Precision in the Treatment of HR+ Early and Metastatic Breast Cancer: Risk Assessment, Prognostic Testing, and Selection and Sequencing of Therapies In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, GRASP, and Living Beyond Breast Cancer. PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Olema Pharmaceuticals.Disclosure PolicyAll relevant conflicts of interest have been mitigated prior to the commencement of the activity.Faculty/Planner DisclosuresChair/PlannerErika Hamilton, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for Arcus Biosciences, Inc.; Arvinas, Inc.; AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ellipses Pharma; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; Greenwich LifeSciences, Inc.; iTeos Therapeutics; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Lilly; Loxo Oncology; Mersana Therapeutics; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Orum Therapeutics; Pfizer; Relay Therapeutics; Seagen Inc.; and Verascity Science (all paid to institution).Grant/Research Support from AbbVie Inc.; Accutar Biotechnology Inc; Acerta Pharma; ADC Therapeutics SA; Akeso Biopharma Co., Ltd.; Amgen Inc.; Aravive; Artios Pharma; Arvinas, Inc.; AstraZeneca; AtlasMedx, Inc.; BeiGene, Inc.; Black Diamond Therapeutics, Inc.; Bliss Biopharmaceutical (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd.; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Cascadian Therapeutics; Clovis Oncology; Compugen; Cullinan Oncology, Inc.; Curis, Inc.; CytomX Therapeutics, Inc.; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Dantari; Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Duality Biologics; eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Inc.; Ellipses Pharma; Elucida Oncology, Inc.; EMD Serono, Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; FUJIFILM Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.; G1 Therapeutics, Inc.; H3 Biomedicine Inc.; Harpoon Therapeutics; HUTCHMED (China) Limited; ImmunoGen, Inc.; Immunomedics, Inc.; Incyte; Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; InvestisBio; Jacobio Pharmaceuticals Group Co., Ltd.; K-Group Beta, Inc.; Karyopharm; Lilly; Loxo Oncology; Lycera; MabSpace Biosciences Co., Ltd.; MacroGenics, Inc.; MedImmune, LLC; Mersana Therapeutics; Merus; Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Molecular Templates, Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Nucana; Olema Oncology; OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Onconova Therapeutics; Oncothyreon; ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Orinove Inc.; Pfizer; PharmaMar; Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pionyr Immunotherapeutics; Plexxikon; Radius Health, Inc.; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Relay Therapeutics; Repertoire Immune Medicines; Rgenix Inc.; Seagen Inc.; Sermonix Pharmaceuticals; Shattuck Labs Inc.; Stemcentrx, Inc.; Sutro Biopharma, Inc.; Syndax; Syros Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Taiho Oncology, Inc.; TapImmune Inc; TESARO, Inc.; Tolmar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Torque Therapeutics, Inc.; Treadwell Therapeutics; Verastem, Inc.; Vincerx Pharma; zenithepigenetics; and Zymeworks Inc. (all paid to institution).Faculty/PlannerKomal Jhaveri, MD, FACP, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AbbVie Inc.; AstraZeneca; Blueprint Medicines; Bristol Myers Squibb; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Eisai Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; Jounce Therapeutics, Inc.; Lilly/Loxo Oncology; Menarini Group/Stemline Therapeutics; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Pfizer; Scorpion Therapeutics; Seattle Genetics, Inc. (Seagen Inc.); Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company; and Taiho Oncology, Inc.Grant/Research Support from ADC Therapeutics SA; AstraZeneca; Blueprint Medicines; Debiopharm; Genentech, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Lilly; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Novita Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pfizer; Puma Biotechnology, Inc.; Scorpion Therapeutics; and Zymeworks Inc.Faculty/PlannerHope S. Rugo, MD, FASCO, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Mylan/Viatris Inc.; Napo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Puma Biotechnology, Inc.Grant/Research Support from AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Lilly; Merck & Co., Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; OBI Pharma, Inc.; Pfizer; Pionyr Immunotherapeutics; Sermonix Pharmaceuticals; and Stemline Therapeutics.Faculty/PlannerPaolo Tarantino, MD, has a financial interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of:Consultant and/or Advisor for AstraZeneca; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; and Lilly.Grant/Research Support from AstraZeneca.Planning Committee and Reviewer DisclosuresPlanners, independent reviewers, and staff of PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, do not have any relevant financial relationships related to this CE activity unless listed below.

Asia Mattu is a dynamic voice actor with an eclectic mix of credits to her name, including Rocky in Super Monsters, Rugo in Gigantosaurus, Aurora in My Little Pony: Best Gift Ever, and Par-Nani in Deepa & Anoop, for which she was nominated for a Leo Award AND a UBCP/ACTRA Award. It's a stunning filmography for a kid from Ladner who grew up loving Robin Williams' performance in Disney's Aladdin and now gets to voice prehistoric animals, monsters, sea creatures, dinosaurs, grannies, and a veritable parade of fun characters. In this light-hearted and fascinating interview, Asia talks about her award-nominated role in Deepa & Anoop, the threat of AI, and what a lot of A-listers don't understand about voice acting. Episode sponsor: UBCP/ACTRA

Inside the Issue: Optimizing the Management of Metastatic BRCA-Negative, Triple-Negative Breast Cancer | Faculty Presentation 2: Current and Future Role of Nonbiomarker-Based Strategies for Patients with Metastatic BRCA-Negative TNBC — Hope S Rugo, MD CME information and select publications

Drs. Hope Rugo and Kristin Rojas discuss advances in the management of menopausal symptoms, fertility preservation, and bone health for women on endocrine therapy for breast cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello. I'm Dr. Hope Rugo, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a professor of medicine and director of breast oncology and clinical trials education at the University of California San Francisco's Comprehensive Cancer Center. And I'm also an associate editor of the ASCO Educational Book.   In patients with hormone receptor positive breast cancer, the most common subset of the most common cancer in women worldwide, adjuvant endocrine therapy significantly reduces the risk of recurrence and death. However, prolonged estrogen suppression associated with the use of endocrine therapy can cause life-altering menopausal symptoms, bone loss, and fertility concerns. These issues impact the use of endocrine therapy and potentially breast cancer outcome.    Today, we'll be discussing mitigation strategies to manage the side effects of endocrine therapy, which we hope will improve our patient's quality of life and adherence to treatment with Dr. Kristin Rojas, who addressed these issues in a recently published article in the 2023 ASCO Educational Book. Dr. Rojas is an assistant professor of surgery and a breast surgical oncologist and gynecologic surgeon at the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center.    Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the podcast can be found in our transcripts at asco.org/DNpod.    Dr. Rojas, thank you for being on the podcast today.   Dr. Kristin Rojas: Thanks, Dr. Rugo, thank you so much for having me. Thank you to ASCO as well. It's truly an honor to be here with you today.  Dr. Hope Rugo: Your excellent article provides an updated overview of the existing approaches and a little forward thinking for improving the quality of life of breast cancer patients who are receiving estrogen deprivation therapy, a really broad term we use for all the hormone therapy we use in ovarian function suppression in the treatment of breast cancer. And then you had a very nice session education session at the ASCO Annual Meeting discussing these issues. Can you briefly discuss the educational session, your speakers and topics, and then we'll get more into the details of this important topic?   Dr. Kristin Rojas: At our educational session at ASCO this year, I chaired the session and presented on managing the sexual side effects and menopausal symptoms of estrogen suppression. And I had two wonderful colleagues with me: Dr. Matteo Lambertini, who shared guidelines regarding bone-targeted agents and managing bone health during endocrine suppression. And then we also had Dr. Terri Woodard, who is a reproductive endocrinologist from MD Anderson, who spoke on managing fertility concerns, which is a very important topic right now.   Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, that's great. And it was such a fabulous session. Our listeners can view it online at asco.org if you missed this session. But let's talk a little bit about what was in your article and what was discussed. First, I think the physical and psychological effects of cancer care we know are critical components of survivorship care. Can you tell me a little bit more about that and how we need to understand that as oncologists?  Dr. Kristin Rojas: So, as you know, as treatment continues to improve, our cancer outcomes are improving and the population of survivors continues to grow. So, I think that for many breast cancer patients, or having the diagnosis of breast cancer, becomes more of a chronic illness and less a life-threatening issue for some. I think that the conversation is now changing from “Will you live?” to “How will you live?” And I was thrilled to see that other big organizations, along with ASCO, are prioritizing managing these important symptoms in survivorship. Because I think that, as most patients will be on some form of estrogen suppression, managing the toxicity of these therapies, as you pointed out, probably does influence treatment adherence, which directly translates to an oncologic improvement. So, it's not just managing these soft symptoms, it actually will have a direct influence on probably overall survival along with disease-free survival.  Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, I think that's incredibly important and it's not just about doing the exam and finding out symptoms that might signify recurrence, it's really trying to address the effects of the treatment patients have gotten of chemo and their ongoing treatment with endocrine therapy that's so incredibly important. And now, of course, in medical oncology, we're adding on more agents which add to symptoms. That'll be the topic of next year's ASCO educational session. What do you do with the CDK4/6 inhibitors and managing those. But in more than 80% of women who are on the antiestrogen or various, I'm going to call hormone therapies, for early-stage breast cancer, vasomotor symptoms are a big issue. They're typically more severe in younger patients because of course they have estrogen and we take it away. So, how do we mitigate this problem in patients that can result in poor sleep and impact many aspects of one's psychosocial status? And these issues, not sleeping, of course, you make everything worse.  Dr. Kristin Rojas: Yeah, that's a really important point. And you're right, this is a really common symptom experienced by the majority of patients on endocrine suppression. And not only those patients, but patients with triple negative disease who are put into menopause from chemotherapy, etc., along with women with cancer of other disease sites. And so, as the director of our program at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, the program is called MUSIC, which stands for Menopause Urogenital Sexual Health and Intimacy Clinic.    This is a very common symptom that patients often report. And one of the important things about this that I've realized is that hot flashes or vasomotor symptoms can actually have a pretty varied presentation. So, it's not just intense sweating. Sometimes these patients can present with palpitations, panic attacks, and they don't even realize that they're hot flashes. This is an effect of estrogen suppression and it's a central mechanism. So, it's probably related to hypothalamic dysregulation regarding how our body senses temperature changes, but it results in widespread flushing and sweating and those other aspects I told you about.   So, we've known for a long time that there are some behavioral modifications that can help with vasomotor symptoms or hot flashes. But now, we actually do have some pretty effective pharmacologic therapies for these patients as well, for whom behavioral modifications aren't completely helping the issue. Or, as you said, when patients are being woken up all night long with these hot flashes, it totally disrupts how their day goes and disrupts coping with their disease and all the other aspects of their treatment.   So, there's some effective treatments that we have. One of those being cognitive behavioral therapy has been shown to be helpful. The data on acupuncture is mixed, but I'm hopeful about this. And then the pharmacologic therapies we have. Traditionally or historically, clonidine, which is an alpha agonist, has been used along with gabapentin. But I think when choosing a medication to prescribe to a patient for hot flashes, you have to take into account the side effect profile. Clonidine does have some issues with blood pressure rebound, and gabapentin is really only effective in large doses, which can be very sedating for patients.    In the MUSIC Sexual Health After Cancer program, we typically stick to low dose SSRIs or SNRIs. I usually go with venlafaxine at a really low dose of 37.5 milligrams, and I can titrate up. I have patients take it at night in case they feel a little foggy when they first start it. But more recently, we've started using oxybutynin, which is an anticholinergic medication originally FDA approved for overactive bladder. I use the XL formulation, or you can do 2.5 or 5 milligrams BID. And this, in a study a few years ago, was shown to significantly reduce hot flashes and improve quality of life in a placebo-controlled trial.   So, important aspects of side effects of these medications with SSRIs or SNRIs working in the MUSIC Sexual Health After Cancer Program, sexual health concerns are often an issue, so those drugs can be libido zappers sometimes. But, the biggest side effect I've come across with oxybutynin for patients is dry mouth, and usually that resolves after a little while. So, we've had a lot of success in managing patients' hot flashes with these medications.  Dr. Hope Rugo: That's great and incredibly helpful. And I will say that as we're talking about these issues on this podcast, this is really important for all of our staff and our clinics because most of us don't have a fabulous clinic like the one you've started. But we are managing this with our staff, our APPs, and other areas that our patients are seeing. If everybody has this education, it will really help in the management of symptoms. And I just want to point out that venlafaxine was the first drug to be studied in this area really successful, but that we can use a whole host of different antidepressants. If people have side effects from one another, one may work really well, and generally low doses work well. The oxybutynin was such a very cool study. I think that's a great additional option.    In addition to hot flashes, we also see genitourinary syndrome of menopause, and that's part of what you deal with every day in your clinic, GSM. And this can be not just vaginal dryness, which is bad enough, but also increased infections, painful sex, recurrent bladder infections and also reduced libido, which is a really big issue, we just don't talk about very much. What's the most effective and safe treatment for GSM? And we use a lot of low dose vaginal estrogen and a variety of delivery mechanisms. What are the risk and benefits when patients really need something more?   Dr. Kristin Rojas: GSM, or genitourinary syndrome of menopause, is this newer umbrella term for what we used to call vaginal atrophy. And you're right, it encompasses not only dryness, but all the other changes that can happen to the vulvovaginal mucosa along with anatomic changes to the pelvic floor. This is critically important, I think, that we address these issues or these potential side effects at the time of endocrine therapy prescription because what we have found in our program is that while hot flashes might get better, these symptoms do not get better. And left untreated, they get worse.   And one of the surprising findings that we have presented earlier at another conference this year was that almost half of our patients, when they had their pelvic exam in the program, were also found to have vaginal stenosis. So narrowing and shortening of the vagina, making penetrative sex actually impossible. So it's really not just dryness, but a host of these other symptoms that go along with that. I like to break this down in a really simple way because I know that a lot of providers may be intimidated when patients might bring this up. But I think about it this way. Number 1, eliminate irritants. Number 2, moisturize. Number 3, lubricate. And 4, address the pelvic floor.   Oftentimes when patients present in the MUSIC program, they've been putting a lot of over the counter topical therapies on the vulva and the vagina using intravaginal washes. One of the biggest offenders of some of these symptoms is artificial fragrance, which we can actually develop an allergic reaction to, which manifests as burning and stinging. So these patients may also report burning and stinging in addition to dryness. These offenders can be in all kinds of products. So not only feminine washes, which I don't recommend in our program, but things like bath bombs, bubble bath, toilet paper. And so we kind of go through an inventory of everything that's touching the delicate tissues of the vulva and the vagina and try to back off those products.   The second thing is moisturization. It's important to talk to patients about the difference between moisturization, which I say is for maintenance, and lubricants, which are for PRN use sexual activity. But I tell patients, "lubricants for love." That's how I differentiate the use of these two different types of products because they have different properties. Usually after eliminating irritants, our first step is to start with a non-hormonal moisturizer because there's some really good high-tech non-hormonal moisturizers out there, specifically those containing hyaluronic acid, which pulls moisture from the environment and holds it on the skin. And by using this first—this is my personal opinion—but I think by improving the mucosa a little bit and kind of improving the dryness, maybe even the elasticity a little bit, I think that when patients do have persistent symptoms after using regularly these non-hormonal moisturizers at least three times a week, that adding in a low dose vaginal hormone at that time, instead of putting it on completely atrophic mucosa, you're putting it on kind of like a pretreated mucosa, which I think might decrease systemic absorption.   I'm so glad you brought up vaginal estrogen. I could give an entire talk just on that, so I'd be happy to do that next year for ASCO if anybody wants. But it is very controversial. Historically, there have not been studies showing an increased risk of recurrence with the use of local estrogen therapy, so estrogen in the vulva and the vagina. However, there was a recent study that came out this year that was a large analysis of breast cancer patients receiving different types of hormone therapy. And in a subset analysis of the group who got local vaginal estrogen, just in those patients on aromatase inhibitors, there was a slightly, but statistically significant–according to their analysis–increase in the risk of recurrence. I think there's some issues with this analysis because it was a large study and there's a lot of recall bias and measuring this in patients is really challenging. But I think it's still important to mention because a lot of patients are going to read about those things, these types of studies.   The way I approach it is to start with the lowest dose and I start with infrequent dosing. If patients have persistent symptoms, I start them with once a week or twice a week, which is different from the original pharmacokinetic studies of higher dose estrogens, which showed a bump in their serum estradiol when they used it every night for two weeks. So I actually do the opposite and taper them up. I'll do once a week to twice a week. And usually, patient symptoms are resolved at that point.   But I do want to point out, that's a great option for patients on tamoxifen because mechanistically, as you know, it probably doesn't matter if they have a little bump in their serum estrogen. But for the patients on aromatase inhibitors, we actually have a new kid on the block, a vaginal androgen called prasterone or DHEA. I dose this in the same way, titrate it up. But this can be really helpful for patients on aromatase inhibitors because the ALLIANCE trial showed that for those patients on AIs that their systemic estrogen levels do not increase. And so that's kind of how I manage that discussion. I do think it takes some multidisciplinary collaboration, so I always involve my medical oncology colleagues on this.    Lastly, lubricants. So, everyone seems to be really into using water-based lubricants, but I try to tell patients, unless you're depending on condoms for STD or contraception protection, silicone-based lubricants that are like preservative-free and don't have a lot of those gimmicks or additives, are great—they stay slippery for longer—and there's some really great brands out there. And then for patients who still have persistent pain with sex, we address the pelvic floor, which is either through the use of dilators, referring them to pelvic floor physical therapy, or other sexual devices that we use in the MUSIC program.  Dr. Hope Rugo: This is really helpful, and I think that for many of us in practice, we really want to get the specifics of what you use. I think this prasterone, the idea of DHEA is really very interesting and something that personally I haven't used, but we did use in the distant past before there was an FDA-approved version.   So I guess I have several questions just to ask about the details. So one is, when you prescribe this, do you find it's generally covered by insurance? And when you say low dose, do you mean just try it once a week? And then do you use the estrogen tablets, the brand names are often Yuvafem or Vagifem, we often use those twice a week. How often do you use them and do you use the estrogen ring also? What are the absolute specifics of what you're recommending to these women? And do you feel like sometimes in patients who are developing these symptoms that early use can help avoid the more severe symptoms and therefore reduce the exposure?   And lastly, just to say, that paper which was so interesting about the slightly increased risk of recurrence, I felt was so flawed in terms of what people were using and if they were taking their hormone therapy and risk of recurrence, the risk of the cancer itself, that I really felt like I couldn't make anything out of it in terms of the risk to patients. But I'm really interested in your specific recommendations.  Dr. Kristin Rojas: Thanks for asking about specifics. And I'm happy to give our treatment algorithms here, which we also discussed in our session and we listed in our EdBook manuscript. We do pelvic exams in the MUSIC program and I often find that there's very specific points in the vestibule or the opening of the vagina that are tender and have pain, specifically, what's known as the posterior fourchette, which is the kind of connection between the right and the left side towards the posterior aspect. So, I usually start with a 1% estradiol cream and have patients tap it to the outside and then bring in a dilator and have patients use not only a silicone lubricant, but put some of the estradiol cream on the dilator. And so that brings the product up to the top of the vagina for patients that have some of those anatomic changes that I discussed.   So this is 1 option, and we really don't have a lot of issues with insurance authorization for the cream, just every once in a while. We can also use a 4 microgram or a 10 microgram dose of estradiol, which is a tablet, which are newer options. This is in contrast to the old pharmacokinetic studies that use 25 micrograms. So this is much, much lower. I do run into some prior authorization issues with those because there tend to be newer versions of this. But as you mentioned, the estradiol ring, which I do think is a great option and when you calculate it out, releases a very low dose of estradiol every day. And it's good for patients who want a more low maintenance regimen. The only challenge I've had with that is it's a large rigid ring. And for patients who already have those anatomic changes, it can be really hard to place that in the vagina.   And so, just like you said, early prevention and treatment of these issues can prevent not only anatomic changes, but even potentially the need for exposure for larger doses of hormones. For all of those options, I tend to do it once or twice a week and then can move up. But we sometimes get kind of creative in how we use these options in terms of placing them on the dilator, placing them externally. For patients that have recurrent urinary tract infections, I also have them kind of tap some of the estradiol cream around the urethra as well to improve the urethral and potentially bladder microbiome and decrease risk of recurrent UTIs.  Dr. Hope Rugo: That's really interesting, and I think those specifics are incredibly helpful. We also will check, although I have to say there's no data to support it, the serum estradiol levels in patients who are using more than our minimal amount. We have plenty of studies that have shown that there really isn't systemic estrogen if people are using very low doses. But we will check sometimes, just sometimes people use these topical creams where they get premenopausal levels of estrogen, which of course we don't want. So, this is an incredibly helpful and useful discussion.    One of the other things that happens for these patients and our younger patients, which breast cancer is still increasing in small numbers in younger patients every year, and many of these patients have hormone receptor positive disease. And it just breaks your heart to see a 38-year-old who is planning to get pregnant next month with their new partner who develops a hormone receptor positive breast cancer. and we want to give people all the options they possibly can. We are strong proponents for harvesting eggs and either freezing eggs or embryos before you start treatment. And we figure we always have 2 weeks for breast cancer. We also use ovarian function suppression during chemo just for whatever help it might have.   But then after patients have finished their treatment and they're on hormone therapy, it's a really big issue for women about when they can have a child because we don't want to wait until they're 45. So, you had noted in your article that some women could take a break from endocrine therapy after 18 to 24 months to try and conceive. Can you tell me a little more about that?  Dr. Kristin Rojas: Sure. Well, this aspect of our discussion was very well presented by my colleague, Dr. Terri Woodard from MD Anderson, a reproductive endocrinologist, and she also put together the aspect of this for our manuscript. She talks about how fertility counseling and referral is probably underutilized, but definitely indicated for most of these patients who are of pregnancy age or premenopausal status. And observational data for a long time didn't show that pregnancy after treatment worsened oncologic outcomes. However, patients as well as many providers had reservations.   So, it's been very helpful that we now have a prospective, large, international trial known as the POSITIVE trial, the early results of which came out earlier this year, which showed that women, after 18 to 24 months, could interrupt endocrine therapy and did not have a worsened short-term oncologic outcome. And those are women with early-stage breast cancer. However, there is a concern that many patients do take longer to get pregnant in that age group or after treatment, potentially if they've received chemo. There is a concern about the duration of time that they're not on endocrine therapy afterwards, which might be further clarified in later analyses. So that's my takeaway from that study, which did show us that very helpful, reassuring information. But I think we're still waiting for the long-term data and it's definitely still a very important patient-centered discussion.   Dr. Hope Rugo: This is a really excellent point, and I think that one of the things of a trial like this, which is sort of a registry study, is that we're always going to speak with our feet to some degree. So, if patients have very, very high risk of recurrence and highly proliferative disease, we might not want them to stop at 18 months because their risks are so high early. So, it has to be a risk versus benefit discussion for individual patients, of course. But I think this data was incredibly reassuring.   It was interesting there were some patients who hadn't restarted their endocrine therapy. In the paper in the New England Journal, it told us that some of those patients were still trying to conceive. But one of the things that's going to be really important for these patients is to really make a big effort on the part of our clinical practices to get patients to restart their hormone therapy. It's very hard to do that, as you can imagine, in that setting.    Another area here is monitoring bone health. And I know that's not part of the MUSIC clinic per se because you're really focusing on GSM and other areas that we've just discussed, which are so incredibly important. And it's funny, bone health is silent, right? So, although some patients don't want to take aromatase inhibitors because they're worried about losing further bone density, they don't feel it. So that's, of course, a different kind of a toxicity. But we know that by suppressing ovarian function in young women, we cause a lot of bone loss, and in older women, already in menopause, that this continuous loss of bone increases the risk of fractures, which can be a huge impact on quality of life and even survival in some cases. So, we're really interested in trying to prevent bone demineralization and reducing the risk of fractures. I believe that Matteo Lambertini from Italy discussed this in your paper and that there's a lot of discussion about use of denosumab and zoledronate. I wonder if you could just comment a little bit on that in our last couple of minutes.  Dr. Kristin Rojas: Well, as you said, my colleague Dr. Lambertini put this aspect of our paper together, but he did put together a very nice summary of bisphosphonates and denosumab and separated their use by premenopausal and postmenopausal patients because the data surrounding those patient populations is slightly different or nuanced. But as you mentioned, it is important to monitor these patients' bone density. We have our standard recommendations such as a calcium-enriched diet, resistance and weight-bearing exercise, and vitamin D for patients, for those patients with a vitamin D deficiency or at risk of bone density loss. And so these pharmacologic agents can also help decrease bone mineral density loss and potentially decrease or likely decrease bone recurrences, which, as we know, influences survival. I think he provides a very nice summary of that, as you mentioned.  Dr. Hope Rugo: I think that's so incredibly important. And thank you for really emphasizing the weight-bearing exercise and checking vitamin D and making sure patients are taking vitamin D and at least some calcium. And then, of course, our institution, we work closely with our endocrinologists specializing in bone as well, when issues come up about risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw, and we require dental clearance for everybody starting medication just to make sure that we've reduced risk to the patient. And then when we're trying to think about stopping denosumab and should we bridge with zoledronate to reduce the risk of fracture, we also talk to our bone doc. So it's really important.   And in our last just 1 minute, I know you were thinking of saying something about measuring estrogen in the blood in patients who are using vaginal estrogens. Do you do that?   Dr. Kristin Rojas: Yeah, great question. I'm glad you brought that up. We actually don't routinely do this in the MUSIC program, but it is an important aspect to think about today, because I don't know about where you are, but here in South Florida we have a lot of patients who are receiving therapies outside of the FDA-approved space and these are typically marketed as bioidentical hormones, which is a marketing term. Oftentimes, they'll get either transdermal formulations or pelleted hormone therapy that can result in really high superphysiologic testosterone or estrogen levels. And so we typically, for those patients, do try to get them off those non FDA-approved therapies because the safety of those is unknown.   Dr. Hope Rugo: That's really interesting and so helpful. Yes, I know this whole idea of bioidentical hormones drives me crazy, but I think that's great that you brought that up, actually. We do measure it. Who knows? I think if you're really worried, measuring “Yeah, everybody's hot flashes went away,” it's probably worthwhile checking.   This was such a fabulous conversation. I learned so much. We really appreciate your contribution to the educational manuscript, to the educational program, and your fabulous insights with us today. Thank you so much for participating on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I think everyone will find this very helpful.   Dr. Kristin Rojas: Thank you so much for having me.   Dr. Hope Rugo: And thank you to you, our listeners, for joining us today. You'll find a link to Dr. Rojas and her colleagues' article in the transcript of this episode and in the 2023 ASCO Educational Book, which features practice-changing oncology research and a wide range of compelling studies on quality and equitable cancer care.    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. Thanks again.    Disclaimer:   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    Follow today's speakers:   Dr. Hope Rugo  @hoperugo  Dr. Kristin Rojas  @kristinrojasmd    Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:   Dr. Hope Rugo:  Honoraria: Puma Biotechnology, Mylan, Samsung Bioepis, Chugai Pharma, Blueprint MedicinesConsulting or Advisory Role: Napo PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Genentech, Merck, Odonate Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, Seattle Genetics, Macrogenics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Polyphor  Dr. Kristin Rojas:   Honoraria: Pacira Pharmaceuticals  Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche Diagnostics, Merck  Research Funding (Inst): Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation       

Featuring perspectives from Dr Komal Jhaveri, Dr Kevin Kalinsky, Dr Ian E Krop, Dr Joyce O'Shaughnessy, Dr Hope S Rugo and Prof Peter Schmid, including the following topics: Long-Term Management of HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Introduction (0:00) Management of CNS-only disease progression in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (2:27) Synergy between tucatinib and HER2-targeted antibody-drug conjugates (5:24) Management of trastuzumab deruxtecan–related adverse events (7:41) Patient selection for and practical implementation of postadjuvant neratinib (13:23) Faculty presentation: Dr Krop (16:26) Optimizing the Management of ER-Positive Localized Breast Cancer Ovarian function suppression to preserve fertility and prevent premature ovarian insufficiency; interrupting adjuvant hormonal therapy to attempt pregnancy (24:56) Selection of patients for adjuvant tamoxifen monotherapy (29:05) Utility of genomic assays in the neoadjuvant setting; management of node-positive disease in postmenopausal patients with low-risk Recurrence Scores® (33:35) Selection between abemaciclib and ribociclib in the adjuvant setting (36:45) Potential utility of circulating tumor DNA assessment in breast cancer (41:58) Faculty presentation: Dr Kalinsky (46:36) Considerations in the Care of Patients with ER-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Preference of CDK4/6 inhibitor in the metastatic setting (56:42) Sequencing of trastuzumab deruxtecan in ER-positive, HER2-low metastatic breast cancer (59:00) Faculty presentation: Dr Jhaveri (1:06:39) Novel and Emerging Strategies for ER-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Selection of therapy for ER-positive metastatic breast cancer progressing on a CDK4/6 inhibitor; future role of capivasertib (1:19:31) Faculty presentation: Dr Rugo (1:30:39) Evolving Clinical Decision-Making for Localized Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) Management of localized TNBC; selection of patients for adjuvant Olaparib (1:46:10) PARP inhibitor tolerability (1:51:55) Faculty presentation: Dr O'Shaughnessy (1:55:31) Recent Advances in the Treatment of Metastatic TNBC (mTNBC) Selection of therapy for triple-negative metastatic breast cancer; sequencing of trastuzumab deruxtecan in ER-negative, HER2-low disease (2:11:08) Faculty presentation: Prof Schmid (2:18:03) CME information and select publications

How should community oncologists best approach ESR1 mutations in breast cancer, given the latest findings? Recent data presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting and elsewhere have shed light on issues related to ESR1 testing and treatment selection. Bob Figlin, MD, the Steven Spielberg Family Chair in hematology oncology at Cedars-Sinai Cancer in Los Angeles, speaks with Hope Rugo, MD, professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology, department of medicine, and director of breast oncology and clinical trials education at the University of California San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, about how to put new findings into practice. Dr. Rugo provides key recommendations, as she explains that “It's really important that we don't just throw drugs together in clinical practice.”

Join indie booksellers Nicole Brinkley, J.T. Greathouse, Lily Rugo, Jean-Paul Garnier and Meg Wasmer for another FanFiAddict roundtable! During the discussion, these five passionate booksellers delve into the ins and outs of Indie Bookstores, exploring the essentials of brick and mortar bookstores/bookselling, being part of a local book community, recommending the right books to customers, developing relationships with publishers/individual authors and more. This is the fourth edition of our monthly ROUNDTABLE series, where we bring a handful of authors together to discuss a topic related to SF/F/H, writing craft, publishing and more. SUPPORT THE SHOW: - ⁠⁠Patreon⁠⁠ (for exclusive bonus episodes, author readings, book giveaways and more) - ⁠⁠Merch shop⁠⁠ (for a selection of tees, tote bags, mugs, notebooks and more) - Subscribe to the ⁠⁠FanFiAddict YouTube channel⁠⁠, where this and every other episode of the show is available in full video - Rate and review SFF Addicts on your platform of choice, and share us with your friends EMAIL US WITH YOUR QUESTIONS & COMMENTS: ⁠⁠sffaddictspod@gmail.com⁠⁠ ABOUT THE PANELISTS: Nicole Brinkley is a writer, podcaster and bookseller at Oblong Books in Rhinebeck, NY. Find Nicole on Instagram, her personal website or Oblong Books. J.T. Greathouse is the author of the Pact and Pattern fantasy series, as well as a bookseller at Auntie's Bookstore in Spokane, WA. Find J.T. on Twitter, Amazon, his personal website or Auntie's Bookstore. Lily Rugo is a bookseller at Harvard Book Store in Cambridge, MA, as well as podcaster and blogger. Find Lily on Twitter, her personal website or Harvard Book Store. Jean-Paul Garnier is a science fiction author/poet, producer of the Simultaneous Times podcast and owner of Space Cowboy Bookstore in Joshua Tree, CA. Find Jean-Paul on Twitter or Space Cowboy Bookstore. Meg Wasmer is the co-owner of Copper Dog Books in Beverly, MA. Find Meg on Instagram or Copper Dog Books. FOLLOW SFF ADDICTS: ⁠⁠FanFiAddict Book Blog⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠ MUSIC: Intro: "⁠⁠Into The Grid⁠⁠" by MellauSFX Outro: “⁠⁠Galactic Synthwave⁠⁠” by Divion --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/sff-addicts/message

In this episode of the Dekahedron RPG cast, Joe escorts you on a journey to "Bloodport Isle," a fantasy campaign that he created. You'll hear: 00:00 Introduction 01:28 King Rugo's Proclamation 03:59 Adowa's Lament 07:22 Setting overview "King Rugo's Proclamation" is Rugo's version of the rise of the powerful pirate-turned-king, the conquest of the Silver Scale tribe, and the establishment of Bloodport. "Adowa's Lament" is the High Priestess of the Dunya people recounting a time of harmony shattered by divine punishments, chaos, and the arrival of Rugo and the Golathu. Explore the struggles, sacrifices, and choices faced by the Dunya as they navigate a treacherous path of survival and resistance. Don't forget to leave your feedback by emailing feedback@dekahedron.com, or leaving a voice message at 562-RPG-CAST (⁠562-774-2278⁠), or by visiting ⁠sayhi.chat/dekahedron⁠ For more information visit ⁠dekahedron.com⁠. And be sure to check out Joe's RPG blog, the Vagabond GM⁠ for more great content. Music by ⁠Kevin MacLeod, and the logo was created by designKat.

Featuring perspectives from Drs Aditya Bardia, Matthew Goetz, Virginia Kaklamani, Kevin Kalinsky and Hope Rugo, including the following topics: Current Role of Genomic Assays for Hormone Receptor (HR)-Positive Localized Breast Cancer  Introduction (0:00) Case: A premenopausal woman in her early 40s with 9-mm, Grade III, ER/PR-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC) – 21-gene Recurrence Score® 22 — Alan B Astrow, MD (3:39) Case: A premenopausal woman in her mid 30s with 3.6-cm, ER/PR-positive, HER2-low (IHC 1+), sentinel node-positive (4/4) multifocal IDC after bilateral mastectomies, adjuvant AC-T and ovarian function suppression (OFS)/aromatase inhibitor, Ki67 50% — Laila Agrawal, MD (9:40) Dr Goetz presentation (19:43) Optimizing the Management of Localized ER-Positive Breast Cancer  Case: A woman in her early 40s with 5.5-cm, ER/PR-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive (20/21) IDC after bilateral mastectomies, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, adjuvant AC-T and initiation of letrozole/abemaciclib, Ki-67 3% — Susmitha Apuri, MD (32:22) Case: A woman in her mid 50s with de novo ER-positive, PR-negative, HER2-negative ulcerated breast cancer with pulmonary and extensive spinal metastases — Jennifer L Dallas, MD (40:45)  Dr Kaklamani presentation (45:32) Selection and Sequencing of Therapy for Patients with ER-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer (mBC)  Case: A woman in her early 50s with ER/PR-positive, HER2-low mBC with a PI3KCA mutation who experiences a dramatic response to rechallenge with fulvestrant and a CDK4/6i (abemaciclib); now with progression and cytopenias — Kapisthalam (KS) Kumar, MD (59:07) Dr Kalinsky presentation (1:09:53) Recent Appreciation of HER2 Low as a Unique Subset of HR-Positive Breast Cancer  Case: A premenopausal woman in her late 30s with ER/PR-positive, HER2-low (IHC 1+) IDC after adjuvant tamoxifen and OFS x 5 years, now with bone and liver metastases — Dr Agrawal (1:19:45) Dr Bardia presentation (1:24:29) Novel Strategies Under Investigation for Patients with HR-Positive mBC  Case: A woman in her early 90s with ER/PR-positive, HER2-low (IHC 1+) mBC and progressive disease on multiple lines of endocrine and chemotherapy receives T-DXd — Dr Astrow (1:38:44) Case: A woman in her mid 40s with ER/PR-positive, HER2-low (IHC 2+) mBC who has received fulvestrant/abemaciclib, now receiving exemestane/everolimus – ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations — Dr Dallas (1:44:15) Dr Rugo presentation (1:49:58) CME information and select publications

Dr Rugo discusses the second interim analysis of overall survival in the TROPiCS-02 trial, the implications of post-progression treatments after ribociclib and endocrine therapy in the phase 3 MONALEESA-2, MONALEESA-3, and MONALEESA-7 studies, and what the AMALEE trial indicates about optimal starting doses of first-line ribociclib in hormone receptor–positive breast cancer.

While the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, which earned a standing ovation as a practice-changing study for treatment of HER2-low MBC garnered most of the headlines from the ASCO (America Society of Clinical Oncologists) annual meeting in June, it was not the only reason for optimism.  In this episode, the first of a two-part series, Our MBC Life's Victoria Goldberg and Lynda Weatherby continue to explore what the research shared at ASCO means for us, the patients living with MBC.  You'll hear from preeminent oncologists Stephanie Graff, Director of Breast Oncology at the Lifespan Cancer Institute at Brown University  and Hope Rugo (Professor, Department of Medicine (Hematology/Oncology) and Director, Breast Oncology and Clinical Trials Education, UCSF) in this deep dive into two critical studies: DESTINY-Breast04 and TROPICS-02. The latter examined a potential new line of treatment for heavily pre-treated HR-positive, HER2-negative MBC patients.  ENHERTU (trastuzumab deruxtecan) and TRODELVY (sacituzumab govitecan), the two drugs at the heart of these two trials, are both representatives of a relatively new class of drugs: Antibody Drug Conjugates—ADCs. ADCs are a class of drugs that links a potent chemotherapy drug with an antibody. Unlike traditional chemotherapy, ADCs are intended to target and kill tumor cells while sparing healthy cells. They are a kind of “smart bomb” for cancer treatment—and an extraordinarily promising development for patients.Our wide-ranging conversations with Dr. Graff and Dr. Rugo cover not only the results of these two trials, but their implications for treatment and the future of breast cancer research.More info about the show and past episodes is available on our website: www.ourmbclife.orgGot something to share? Feedback? Email: ourmbclife@sharecancersupport.orgFollow us on Facebook, Instagram, and twitter @ourmbclife

At the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2022, Dr. Rugo presented results from the TROPiCS-02 trial, which was looking to see if the targeted therapy Trodelvy could offer more benefits for people diagnosed with previously treated, metastatic, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer than chemotherapy. Currently, Trodelvy is approved to treat previously-treated, metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Listen to the episode to hear Dr. Rugo explain: the type of medicine Trodelvy is and how it works the results showing people diagnosed with previously treated, metastatic, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer lived longer when they received Trodelvy compared to chemotherapy how the results from TROPiCS-02 fit into current treatment options

Dr Hope Rugo is a Professor of Medicine in the Division of Hematology and Oncology at the University of California, San Francisco. Dr Rugo is a Principal Investigator of multiple clinical trials focusing on combining novel targeted therapeutics with standard treatment. We asked Dr Rugo to explain her research topic: New Options in HR+ Breast Cancer – TROPICS-02 and beyond.

A Rhode Island police officer accused of punching a woman at an abortion protest while he was off-duty has now been charged in connection with Friday's demonstration at the State House.  Twitter.com Hardtalkradio Live in 4k   Instagram Hardtalk79  Anchor.fm  https://anchor.fm/red-pill-man   https://cash.app/$HARDTRADIO Feel free to donate if you feel to do so and like the content.  If you have any current event stories or videos that you want me to cover hit me up at Redpillman1988@gmail.com --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/red-pill-man/support

En esta edición de Carrusel de las Artes recibimos en nuestros estudios a la artista de burlesque Teresa Rugo. Ella nos habló de este arte escénico poco conocido, pero con una larga historia. 

En este número de Carrusel de las Artes, recibimos en nuestros estudios a la artista de burlesque, Teresa Rugo. Elle nos habló de este arte escénico poco conocido pero con una larga historia. Teresa Rugo nació en Veracruz (México) pero vive y trabaja en París. Se dedica al cabaret burlesque, un tipo de arte escénico y dramático que nació en el siglo XIX en Europa, y que mezcla baile, canto, humor y sensualidad “El burlesque, para mí, es el arte de desnudarse, del erotismo”, declaró Teresa Rugo. Rugo tiene una formación de teatro, pero aprendió el burlesque de mano de otras artistas que conoció en México. Decidió viajar a Europa para formarse y ahora da clases de burlesque y desarrolla espectáculos en los que está muy presente la cultura mexicana y latinoamericana. Uno de los personajes que ha explorado con el burlesque es el de la Catrina, muy presente en la cultura mexicana. Pero asegura que sus espectáculos tienen también un mensaje potente, de emancipación femenina, y contra el racismo y los clichés sobre los latinoamericanos. Uno de sus espactáculos aborda el racismo durante el mandato del expresidente Donald Trump, show que ha suscitado mucho entusiasmo en los festivales donde lo ha presentado.

Birashika mu ngo hakaba uguhohoterwa haba ku mukenyezi canke ku mugabo. Hari igihe bikomera cane gushika aho haba n'uwicwa.  Ko Abarundi kenshi dukunda kuba ba ntirumveko, mwari muzi ko kudatabariza uwugeramiwe bihanwa n'amategeko ? #YagaPodcast #AgatekaKaZinaMuntu

How do anime and television inspire books? How do you use those comparisons to handsell books in bookstores? Should you watch Steins;Gate—and is Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood really as good as everybody says? In our second episode of season three, join Lily Rugo from The Harvard Book Store as she sits down in conversation with author Fonda Lee to talk about the sometimes visual nature of fantasy stories and how comparing them with media properties can sell books. SHOP HARVARD BOOK STORE: harvard.com BOOKS & BOBA EPISODE: booksandboba.com/2021/12/15/164-author-chat-w-fonda-lee/ FULL TRANSCRIPTIONS + SHOW NOTES: misshelved.nebrinkley.com SUPPORT US ON PATREON: patreon.com/nebrinkley LEARN MORE ABOUT BOOKS: tinyletter.com/misshelved MORE PLACES TO LISTEN: anchor.fm/misshelvedpod Edited by Rebecca Speas and Nicole Brinkley. Logo by Jean Michel. Music by Mark Shwedow.

Featuring perspectives from Dr Hope Rugo, including the following topics: Introduction: DESTINY-Breast03 Trial (0:00) Case: A woman in her mid-60s with ER/PR-negative, HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) — Raman Sood, MD (11:57) Case: A woman in her late 60s with ER/PR-negative, HER2-positive mBC — Rohit Gosain, MD (16:14) Case: A woman in her mid-50s with ER/PR-positive, HER2-positive mBC with brain metastases — Laila Agrawal, MD (22:59) Case: A woman in her early 30s with triple-positive mBC and possible mosaicism of TP53 mutation — Syed F Zafar, MD (30:06) Case: A woman in her late 30s with triple-positive, node-negative localized breast cancer — Namrata I Peswani, MD (45:43) Case: A woman in her early 60s with ER/PR-positive, HER2-positive, node-positive invasive ductal carcinoma — Shaachi Gupta, MD, MPH (49:32) Journal Club with Dr Rugo and SABCS® 2021 Preview (55:57) CME information and select publications

The podcast Road to a Cure team meets up with renowned hematologist oncologist, Dr. Hope Rugo of USCF's Carol Franc Buck Breast Care Center. Dr. Rugo is also co-director of UCSF's breast cancer clinical trials program. She is the principal investigator for several clinical trials of potential new therapies. She is also an investigator with the Bay Area's SPORE (Specialized Programs of Research Excellence) on breast cancer. Producer and Co-host, Victoria Goldberg, and Co-host Dr. Ellen Landsberger, take some time to unpack Dr. Rugo's view of what a "cure" looks like for metastatic cancers, the exciting leadership shown with dosing, and a very clear review of the latest treatments and upcoming clinical trials that could help those with both triple-negative and hormone-positive breast cancer. The Road to a Cure series continues each Monday covering interviews with leading oncologists around the country on the concept of a cure for Metastatic Breast Cancer until the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium in December.  Join us!  More info available on our website www.ourmbclife.org Got something to Share? Feedback?Email:  ourmbclife@sharecancersupport.org Send us a voice recording via email or through speakpipe on our website.Follow on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter @ourmbclife

Inyuma y'amezi arenga ane, kominote zo muri NSW na Victoria zashize imbere izo zizobanza gukora ubwa mbere zihuye inyuma y'amezi atari make kubera ingingo zo kurwanya ikiza. Menya bimwe muvyo bashize imbere kurusha ibindi.

Dr. Hope Rugo is professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of California San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, where she is also the director of breast oncology and clinical trials education. Dr. Rugo is also a member of the Breastcancer.org Professional Advisory Board. She is a principal investigator of a number of clinical trials looking at combining new targeted and immunotherapy medicines with standard treatments for both early-stage and advanced-stage breast cancer and has published hundreds of peer-reviewed papers. At the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2021, Dr. Rugo presented final results from the KEYNOTE-355 trial, which was looking to see if Keytruda (chemical name: pembrolizumab) and chemotherapy were better than chemotherapy alone as a first treatment for metastatic PD-L1-positive, triple-negative breast cancer. Earlier results found that adding Keytruda to chemotherapy improved progression-free survival — how long people lived before the cancer grew — for this type of breast cancer. These new results show that adding Keytruda improves overall survival — how long people live whether the breast cancer grows or not. Listen to the podcast to hear Dr. Rugo explain: what the KEYNOTE-355 aimed to do whether Keytruda offers benefits for PD-L1-negative disease why it's important for a medicine to improve overall survival as well as progression-free survival the differences in PD-L1 tests and what they mean for the effectiveness of breast cancer checkpoint inhibitor medicines Running time: 25:03

Abantu bishimiye ingingo ya reta yo gusubizaho ubuzima busanzwe muri Mildura (VIctoria), ariko igiporizi kikaba congereje kugira gicungere uwinjira mur'ico gisagara avuye ahandi.

Guma mu rugo ihuriye he n'ibihe wabayemo muri kahise? Delphine Yandamutso arahishura ingaruka zibonekeza iyo umuntu aguma agufatira ingingo na cane cane muri bino bihe vya guma mu rugo.

Abantu barasaba ko hobaho gushira amanga abantu bakicandagisha ngo ikiza coronavirus kibashe guhera vuba abantu basubire mu buzima busanzwe. Ng'uku uko vyashikirijwe nabo twavuganye.

Abavyeyi bategerezwa gufasha abana bariko barigira mu rugo ngo nabo COVID-19 yabateye kwumva bacitse intege no mu bikorwa vyabo bari basanzwe bakora umusi kuwundi. Umviriza uko bagiye kubitorera umuti.

Ibikorwa vya benshi vyaragizweko ingaruka kubera ikiza coronavirus. Abakorera mu rugo co kimwe n'abatakaje ubuzi. Ariko ngo "ntamvura idahita"

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.

UMUTUMIRWA --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/radio-rwanda/message

SPORTS, RADIO RWANDA BY Patty na MUGARAGU --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/radio-rwanda/message

Icyumweru kirashize hatangiye Guma mu rugo ya 2 Radio Rwanda Kigali --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/radio-rwanda/message

UBUGARARWA MU RUGO INKOMOKO (1) 22 Les déserts dans le mariage (les causes) Partie 1 Episode 22

UBUGARARWA MU RUGO INKOMOKO(2) 23 Les déserts dans le mariage (les causes) Partie 2 Episode 23

UBUGARARWA MU RUGO 21 Les déserts dans le mariage

KWIHANGANA MU RUGO (12) La patience dans le couple

KWIHANGANA MURUGO (13) La patience dans le couple(suite )

Questions-Réponses Accepter nos différences dans le couple

Jya ury' umuceri wo mu rugo!!! 2 by Madamu Samake

Jya ury'umuceri wo mu rugo!!!! by Madamu Samake

Go online to PeerView.com/BBG860 to view the activity, download slides and practice aids, and complete the post-test to earn credit. In this activity, a leading expert discusses key concepts in oncology and supportive care biosimilars, including how they are defined, the regulatory approval process for these agents, and an overview of data for biosimilars in the treatment and supportive care of cancer patients. Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to: Describe the biosimilar manufacturing process and differences between biosimilars and originator biologics used in the oncology setting, Discuss the concepts of biosimilar interchangeability, therapeutic equivalence, and safety in the context of the regulatory process, Cite efficacy evidence on the use of biosimilars in the management of solid tumors, including breast cancer, lung cancer, GI cancers, and others, Integrate biosimilars into oncology management plans in order to increase patient access to effective medications and improve health system efficiency.

Go online to PeerView.com/BBG860 to view the activity, download slides and practice aids, and complete the post-test to earn credit. In this activity, a leading expert discusses key concepts in oncology and supportive care biosimilars, including how they are defined, the regulatory approval process for these agents, and an overview of data for biosimilars in the treatment and supportive care of cancer patients. Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to: Describe the biosimilar manufacturing process and differences between biosimilars and originator biologics used in the oncology setting, Discuss the concepts of biosimilar interchangeability, therapeutic equivalence, and safety in the context of the regulatory process, Cite efficacy evidence on the use of biosimilars in the management of solid tumors, including breast cancer, lung cancer, GI cancers, and others, Integrate biosimilars into oncology management plans in order to increase patient access to effective medications and improve health system efficiency.

Go online to PeerView.com/BBG860 to view the activity, download slides and practice aids, and complete the post-test to earn credit. In this activity, a leading expert discusses key concepts in oncology and supportive care biosimilars, including how they are defined, the regulatory approval process for these agents, and an overview of data for biosimilars in the treatment and supportive care of cancer patients. Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to: Describe the biosimilar manufacturing process and differences between biosimilars and originator biologics used in the oncology setting, Discuss the concepts of biosimilar interchangeability, therapeutic equivalence, and safety in the context of the regulatory process, Cite efficacy evidence on the use of biosimilars in the management of solid tumors, including breast cancer, lung cancer, GI cancers, and others, Integrate biosimilars into oncology management plans in order to increase patient access to effective medications and improve health system efficiency.

Go online to PeerView.com/BBG860 to view the activity, download slides and practice aids, and complete the post-test to earn credit. In this activity, a leading expert discusses key concepts in oncology and supportive care biosimilars, including how they are defined, the regulatory approval process for these agents, and an overview of data for biosimilars in the treatment and supportive care of cancer patients. Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to: Describe the biosimilar manufacturing process and differences between biosimilars and originator biologics used in the oncology setting, Discuss the concepts of biosimilar interchangeability, therapeutic equivalence, and safety in the context of the regulatory process, Cite efficacy evidence on the use of biosimilars in the management of solid tumors, including breast cancer, lung cancer, GI cancers, and others, Integrate biosimilars into oncology management plans in order to increase patient access to effective medications and improve health system efficiency.

Go online to PeerView.com/BBG860 to view the activity, download slides and practice aids, and complete the post-test to earn credit. In this activity, a leading expert discusses key concepts in oncology and supportive care biosimilars, including how they are defined, the regulatory approval process for these agents, and an overview of data for biosimilars in the treatment and supportive care of cancer patients. Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to: Describe the biosimilar manufacturing process and differences between biosimilars and originator biologics used in the oncology setting, Discuss the concepts of biosimilar interchangeability, therapeutic equivalence, and safety in the context of the regulatory process, Cite efficacy evidence on the use of biosimilars in the management of solid tumors, including breast cancer, lung cancer, GI cancers, and others, Integrate biosimilars into oncology management plans in order to increase patient access to effective medications and improve health system efficiency.

Go online to PeerView.com/BBG860 to view the activity, download slides and practice aids, and complete the post-test to earn credit. In this activity, a leading expert discusses key concepts in oncology and supportive care biosimilars, including how they are defined, the regulatory approval process for these agents, and an overview of data for biosimilars in the treatment and supportive care of cancer patients. Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to: Describe the biosimilar manufacturing process and differences between biosimilars and originator biologics used in the oncology setting, Discuss the concepts of biosimilar interchangeability, therapeutic equivalence, and safety in the context of the regulatory process, Cite efficacy evidence on the use of biosimilars in the management of solid tumors, including breast cancer, lung cancer, GI cancers, and others, Integrate biosimilars into oncology management plans in order to increase patient access to effective medications and improve health system efficiency.

Go online to PeerView.com/BBG860 to view the activity, download slides and practice aids, and complete the post-test to earn credit. In this activity, a leading expert discusses key concepts in oncology and supportive care biosimilars, including how they are defined, the regulatory approval process for these agents, and an overview of data for biosimilars in the treatment and supportive care of cancer patients. Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to: Describe the biosimilar manufacturing process and differences between biosimilars and originator biologics used in the oncology setting, Discuss the concepts of biosimilar interchangeability, therapeutic equivalence, and safety in the context of the regulatory process, Cite efficacy evidence on the use of biosimilars in the management of solid tumors, including breast cancer, lung cancer, GI cancers, and others, Integrate biosimilars into oncology management plans in order to increase patient access to effective medications and improve health system efficiency.

Go online to PeerView.com/BBG860 to view the activity, download slides and practice aids, and complete the post-test to earn credit. In this activity, a leading expert discusses key concepts in oncology and supportive care biosimilars, including how they are defined, the regulatory approval process for these agents, and an overview of data for biosimilars in the treatment and supportive care of cancer patients. Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to: Describe the biosimilar manufacturing process and differences between biosimilars and originator biologics used in the oncology setting, Discuss the concepts of biosimilar interchangeability, therapeutic equivalence, and safety in the context of the regulatory process, Cite efficacy evidence on the use of biosimilars in the management of solid tumors, including breast cancer, lung cancer, GI cancers, and others, Integrate biosimilars into oncology management plans in order to increase patient access to effective medications and improve health system efficiency.

Go online to PeerView.com/BBG860 to view the activity, download slides and practice aids, and complete the post-test to earn credit. In this activity, a leading expert discusses key concepts in oncology and supportive care biosimilars, including how they are defined, the regulatory approval process for these agents, and an overview of data for biosimilars in the treatment and supportive care of cancer patients. Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to: Describe the biosimilar manufacturing process and differences between biosimilars and originator biologics used in the oncology setting, Discuss the concepts of biosimilar interchangeability, therapeutic equivalence, and safety in the context of the regulatory process, Cite efficacy evidence on the use of biosimilars in the management of solid tumors, including breast cancer, lung cancer, GI cancers, and others, Integrate biosimilars into oncology management plans in order to increase patient access to effective medications and improve health system efficiency.

Go online to PeerView.com/BBG860 to view the activity, download slides and practice aids, and complete the post-test to earn credit. In this activity, a leading expert discusses key concepts in oncology and supportive care biosimilars, including how they are defined, the regulatory approval process for these agents, and an overview of data for biosimilars in the treatment and supportive care of cancer patients. Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to: Describe the biosimilar manufacturing process and differences between biosimilars and originator biologics used in the oncology setting, Discuss the concepts of biosimilar interchangeability, therapeutic equivalence, and safety in the context of the regulatory process, Cite efficacy evidence on the use of biosimilars in the management of solid tumors, including breast cancer, lung cancer, GI cancers, and others, Integrate biosimilars into oncology management plans in order to increase patient access to effective medications and improve health system efficiency.

​Сегодня в эфире Resonance на MEGAPOLIS FM с нами Руслан Гордиков, он же музыкант RUGO из Вышгорода, это в десяти километрах от Киева. Записывать микстейпы, в дальнейшем экспериментировать и создавать собственные композиции Руслан начал больше 10 лет назад. В 2012-м дебютировал с синглом на петербургском лейбле monoclock, и ещё через год закончил первый альбом для лондонского apparel music. Дальше последовал перерыв, длившийся почти 6 лет, и мы особенно рады сообщить, что именно для Resonance Руслан RUGO прерывает длительное молчание — в сегодняшнем миксе мы услышим его новый звук, от техно и электро до дабстепа и классических композиций 90-х.

This month's episode is devoted to breast cancer awareness month. We talk to second-year medical student April Liang about her research project on breast mammography data and her goal to help improve breast cancer screening. We also interview Dr. Hope Rugo, a UCSF medical oncology and hematologist, who directs the UCSF Breast Oncology Clinical Trials program. Dr. Rugo gives perspectives on the latest advances in breast cancer research and patient care at UCSF. Music: Sneaker Chase by Podington Bear. Licensed under CC BY-NC 3.0.